This chapter explores the construction of the concept of physical wholeness and the way in which fears of physical loss were perpetuated. The chapter addresses nineteenth-century contexts such as changing understandings of the human condition, new models of work, and changes in legislation. It considers these factors alongside analyses of literary texts that stimulated anxiety regarding the neurological impact of body loss, including Frederick Marryat’s Jacob Faithful (1834) and Silas Weir Mitchell’s “The Case of George Dedlow” (1866). The chapter ends by investigating how the burgeoning prosthesis market reinforced preferences for physical normalcy in advertisements as it exploited them for capitalist ends.
I think you had better not go to look at him. He’s a dreadful object—the worst I’ve seen. They cut off his legs close to the trunk, his arms at the shoulders, the nose and ears. He was such a handsome fellow, too! But I tell you, sir, now he’s nothing better than a human bundle—a lump of breathing, useless flesh.
—Ernest G. Henham, “A Human Bundle,” Temple Bar 111, no. 438 (1897): 57–58.
Published in the metropolitan middle-class family magazine Temple Bar in 1897, Canadian-British author Ernest G. Henham’s short story “A Human Bundle” is a literary source that in hyperbolic terms perpetuates fears about physical loss, anxieties central to nineteenth-century Western bodily discourse.Footnote 1 The quotation above, from a horrified medical student who has witnessed the shocking amputation of an unfortunate young man’s legs, arms, nose, and ears, reveals what the loss of body parts meant ontologically in the nineteenth century. For the medical student, the patient is neither human nor useful but rather “nothing better than a human bundle.”Footnote 2 The student’s harsh assessment is partly justified by the egregious nature of the medical procedures undertaken, but such raises the question, how was bodily loss viewed more generally in the nineteenth century? If the patient’s body in this story is incomplete, then what did a whole body look like? What constituted a physical loss? If the losses that Henham’s character experience render him less than human and “useless,” then what did it mean to lose or not be born with a leg, an eye, or a head of hair in this period? What historical factors underpin a privileging of physical wholeness and a fear of incompleteness?
This chapter explores how, as the concept of physical normalcy became increasingly reinforced as culturally dominant (the Self), those who were seen as missing body parts were marginalized (i.e. rendered Other). Buttressed by a post-Enlightenment belief that medicine and the emerging sciences could fix the issue of bodily loss, prostheses came to the fore as devices that could supposedly standardize aberrant bodies, making them aesthetically acceptable and useful. However, because prostheses were and remain devices that undermine binaries of Self/Other, organic/artificial, real/fake, and disabled/nondisabled, such devices also complicated the hegemony of organic wholeness. Their very production was mandated by preferences for physical completeness, but their implementation shifted definitions of what it meant to be whole. The conceptual complexity of the prosthetic provided material to fiction writers who responded to the growing dominance of physical wholeness. As I argue in the chapters following this one, fictional representations of prostheses simultaneously reinforced and complicated the hegemony of physical completeness. Such stories perpetuated fears of physical disaggregation while also bringing into question the very impulse to prostheticize.
The history of human attitudes to physical difference has garnered increased interest in recent years as disability studies has infiltrated mainstream scholarship. Lennard J. Davis’s seminal book Enforcing Normalcy (1995) shows us how the concept of normalcy, against which disability is often understood, was constructed in the age of industrialization following the rise of bodily statistics and the corollary concept of the average man.Footnote 3 As I mention above, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, who draws from Davis’s influential work, coins the term “normate”: a word that “names the veiled subject position of cultural self, the figure outlined by the array of deviant others whose marked bodies shore up the normate’s boundaries.”Footnote 4 Though not a disability-studies scholar per se, Sander Gilman shows us that images of disease invoke a process of boundary construction between the “healthy” observer, physician, or layperson, and “diseased” patient. Such a process, according to Gilman, helps to “localize” and “domesticate” disease, dissipating the fears of “collapse” that illness threatens.Footnote 5 Binary logics and social-constructivist frameworks link these critics’ works. They show us that physical difference is not an inherent problem but is articulated as such in societies that construct, privilege, and perpetuate normalcy. The following contributes to debates surrounding the social-construction model of disability. I show that physical wholeness was a major constituent of normalcy articulated in ways that buttressed the power of the normate.
This chapter surveys the historical factors underpinning the rise of the normate. Beginning with an outline of various scientific theories that eroded Cartesian boundaries between body and mind, what follows parses legal and social changes, influential literary works, and prosthesis commerce. As I argue, each of these contexts contributed to the growth of physical normalcy and the denigration of difference.
The history of Western society’s privileging of physical normalcy over difference is a contested one. Critics including Davis and Katherine J. Kudlick argue that this is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon.Footnote 6 Davis, for instance, asserts, “disability was not an operative category before the eighteenth century.”Footnote 7 However, others, such as Quayson and Anolik contend that the privileging of normalcy is more longstanding. Anolik states, “The impulse of Western culture to define the human norm by the physical ideal and to construe the non-normative as dangerously close to the non-human actually predates the Enlightenment by millennia, as does the tendency to prioritize the norm and ignore the non-normative.”Footnote 8 Elsewhere, Quayson writes, “as can be shown from an examination of folktales from all over the world, the plot of physical and/or social deformation is actually one of the commonest starting points of most story plots.”Footnote 9 Given the recent work in this area, it seems probable that equivocal concepts to our modern notion of normalcy have existed for much longer than Davis acknowledges, but this does not diminish the value of his thesis. Indeed, what cannot be disputed is that the scientific, medical, and legal discourses of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries buttressed, and sought to legitimize, boundaries between the normate and the physically aberrant. In this respect, the period of Western industrialization was without doubt a seminal moment in terms of constructing our modern understandings of the typical and the different body.
Theories of Body and Mind
Disability studies has shown us that the concept of the normal body is a social construction. As Davis states, “the idea of a norm is less a condition of human nature than it is a feature of a certain kind of society.”Footnote 10 Among the most important and well-covered factors contributing to the rise of normalcy in the nineteenth century was the development of bodily statistics. Davis and Craton provide useful commentaries on this topic, but it is worth providing a summary here to illustrate how wholeness was constructed as a major constituent of the emerging discourse surrounding the “average” man.Footnote 11 Belgian mathematician, statistician, astronomer, and sociologist Lambert Adolphe Quetelet came up with the concept of “l’homme moyen,” or “the average man,” in his influential 1835 work A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties.Footnote 12 As Craton summarizes, “Quetelet calculated the mathematical norms for a range of physical and social categories[,] everything from head circumference to age of marriage to criminal tendency[,] in order to draw a detailed portrait of the human norm.”Footnote 13 For Quetelet, his average man constituted a kind of paradoxical ideal: “an individual who epitomized in himself … all the qualities of an average man, would represent at once all the greatness, beauty and goodness of that being.”Footnote 14 Quetelet’s notion of l’homme moyen became popular in England in the 1830s. It was well received by intellectuals and stimulated the development of the contemporary disciplines of social science.Footnote 15 The implications of Quetelet’s work on non-normative bodies are concisely noted by Davis: “When we think of bodies, in a society when the concept of the norm is operative, then people with disabilities will be thought of as deviants.”Footnote 16 Intellectually, Quetelet’s theories set the foundations for eugenics, a set of ideas that sought to eradicate physical and mental differences seen as negative.
While the concept of physical wholeness is not evoked directly in Quetelet’s concept of l’homme moyen, his average man has two eyes, two arms, two legs, two arms, and so on. In other words, he is physically complete. Associating health with the average and illness/deformity with those who deviate from it, Quetelet observes:
If the average man were completely determined, we might, as I have already observed, consider him as the type of perfection; and every thing differing from his proportions or condition, would constitute deformity and disease; everything found dissimilar, not only as regarded proportion and form, but as exceeding the observed limits, would constitute a monstrosity.Footnote 17
Such a view provides evidence for Bruce Haley’s observations that Victorian understandings of health centred on the concept of completeness. Haley suggests that “[n]o topic more occupied the Victorian mind than Health,” and that “wholeness,” along with functionality and vitality, was a key component of what constituted health.Footnote 18 As Haley states, “health is a state of functional and structural wholeness. In an organism the two are related, for a structure becomes functional when viewed as part of a living whole.”Footnote 19 An implication of such a view of health was that those who exhibited even the slightest degree of incompleteness were rendered unhealthy—a label with grave consequences.
Another significant context that contributed to the stigmatization of physical incompleteness, and deviance more widely—which intersected with Quetelet’s work in terms of the classification of physical difference—was the popularity of the science of physiognomy. The philosophy that one can ascertain the moral qualities of another by assessing her/his appearance, in particular her/his face, has existed since classical times.Footnote 20 But such a system was codified and popularized in the late eighteenth and early-to-mid nineteenth centuries by Swiss pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater, whose influential Essays on Physiognomy were first published in German between 1775 and 1778.Footnote 21 As a result of rapid population growth, urbanization, and changing social dynamics, physiognomy became an important tool in the nineteenth century: “physiognomy provided a new code for conformity as people became concerned not just with judging others, but with how others were judging them.”Footnote 22 Thomas Holcroft’s cheap English translation of Lavater’s Essays on Physiognomy was reissued eighteen times from the late 1780s through to the late 1860s alone, indicating the popularity of physiognomy in Victorian England.Footnote 23 John Graham notes that Lavater’s essays were published 156 times before 1940.Footnote 24
Regarding physical wholeness, Lavater’s writings and the subsequent works that drew upon his philosophies reinforced prejudices against physical loss and asymmetry developed in the Bible. For instance, in 1805 Richard Payne Knight, a reputed British arbiter of taste, commented on the peculiar but nonetheless “naturalized” prejudice against animals that have non-normative facial features: “if we were to meet with a beast with one eye … we should without inquiry, decide it to be a monster, and turn from it with abhorrence[.] … [T]he Creator having formed the one regular, and the other irregular, we habitually associate ideas of regularity to the perfection of the one, and ideas of irregularity to the perfection of the other.”Footnote 25 This passage recalls the biblical correlation between ocular aberrance and moral corruption. For instance, in the Old Testament it is asserted that to “the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock[,] … his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.”Footnote 26 Here the loss of an eye is seen as an apt punishment for or mark to distinguish negligent character. A similar sentiment is echoed in the New Testament gospel of Luke: “when thine eye is single [good, healthy, or clear], thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil [wicked, bad, or diseased] thy whole body also is full of darkness.”Footnote 27 The latter passage was quoted and reiterated by Lavater, who added, “[i]t is as physiognomonically [sic] true, also, that when nothing is oblique, sinister, dark, rough, incongruous, heterogeneous, in the body, then is all health and harmony, and every object bright.”Footnote 28 Despite Lavater’s use of this quote as support for his physiognomical treatise, such a stigmatized view of having one eye is not entirely consistent in the Bible. There is a famous verse in the Gospels where Christ exhorts his followers to gouge out an eye if it causes them to sin, concluding with “it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”Footnote 29 Here the verse aligns having one eye with purity or virtue, which is significant as Jesus is arguably overturning the injunction in Leviticus that prohibits the blind (and otherwise impaired) from entering the Temple.Footnote 30 Lavater aligned his view on eyes with George Daumer, who in 1702 claimed: “The eye appertains more to the soul than any other organ.”Footnote 31 It is suggested that to display two healthy eyes is to display good character. Though he ambiguously distances his readings of eyes with those quoted, Lavater also cites Paracelsus, who applied the following traits to “Small, and deep sunken eyes … bold in opposition”: “not discouraged, intriguing, and active in wickedness; capable of suffering much” (emphasis added).Footnote 32 For Lavater and his followers, those who deviated from the standard, conspicuously whole, body created by God manifested visibly an aberration that ran much deeper. Such views placed additional pressure on the notion of self-presentation. Those with physical deformities were forced to conceal their differences to avoid negatives physiognomic assessments. To use current terminology, they were encouraged to pass.Footnote 33
In a manner not dissimilar to the champions of Lavater and the proponents of the related science of phrenology, such as Franz Joseph Gall, who linked physical features (of the human cranium in particular) to behavioural traits, many scientists, philosophers, and physicians continued to controversially erode Cartesian boundaries between mind and body. The impact of this erosion further solidified the premium on physical completeness. From the 1830s onwards, a physiological model for understanding the human form emerged, which often emphasized the reciprocal rather than the previously assumed independent natures of the mind and the body. Studies of the body, the physiology of the brain, and the nervous system thereby took on increased significance. Stressing the importance of the body in 1835, popular English physician and sanitary reformer Thomas Southwood Smith demanded that physiology should be the basis of all study of humankind:
The mind is dependent on the body: hence an acquaintance with the physiology of the body should precede the study of the physiology of the mind. The constitution of the mind must be understood before its powers and affections can be properly developed and directed, hence a knowledge of the physiology of the mind is essential to a sound view of education and morals.Footnote 34
Alexander Bain’s The Senses and the Intellect (1855) revived attention in the link between mind and body.Footnote 35 As he suggested, “[a]lthough Subject and Object (Mind and Matter) are the most diametrically opposite facts of our experience … there is a concomitance or connection between mind and a material organism.”Footnote 36 He would later reaffirm:
Instead of supposing that mind is something indefinite, elastic, inexhaustible,—a sort of perpetual motion, or magician’s bottle, all expenditure, and no supply, we now find that every single throb of pleasure, every smart of pain, every purpose, thought, argument, imagination, must have its fixed quota of oxygen, carbon, and other materials, combined and transformed in certain physical organs.Footnote 37
Contemporaries who supported the links made between mind and body included evolutionary biologist Herbert Spencer, German physiologist and philosopher Wilhelm Wundt, the anatomist T. H. Huxley, and the mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford. Together, these figures contributed to a new tradition in the sciences that we might usefully call “psycho-physiology.” While, as Lorraine J. Daston, Rick Rylance, and Roger Smith have observed, all of these proponents trod a fine line between attempting to create a characteristically physiological discipline for analysing the mind and downplaying accusations of materialism, implicit in each account was an attempt to collapse Cartesian dualism.Footnote 38 William A. Cohen pays testament to the cultural influence of such work in his monograph Embodied (2008). Here he goes so far as to claim that “embodiment came to be the untranscendable horizon of the human.”Footnote 39
In terms of the relationship between physical difference and mental state, pre-eminent psychiatrist Henry Maudsley, another key figure in the psycho-physiology movement, bolstered the links between body and mind carved out by Lavater in his 1874 work Responsibility in Mental Disease:
There is not an organ in the body which is not in intimate relation with the brain by means of its paths of nervous communication, which has not, so to speak, a special correspondence with it through internuncial fibres, and which does not, therefore, affect more or less plainly and specially its function as an organ of mind. It is not merely that a palpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension, or a disordered liver gloomy feelings, but there are good reasons to believe that each organ has its specific influence on the constitution and function of mind[.]Footnote 40
For Maudsley, the brain was not the only physiological matter that could influence the mind; for him, other parts of the body could affect the temperament of a subject in many ways. Associating physical deviances with specific moods and behaviours, Maudsley implied that those who display physical difference are often mentally aberrant therefore legitimizing the work of Quetelet, who claimed that the normal body was the healthiest in all regards. Most severely, Maudsley asserts, “[m]ultitudes of individuals come into this world weighed with a destiny against which they have neither the will, nor the power to contend; they are the step-children of nature and groan under the worst of all tyrannies—the tyranny of a bad organisation.”Footnote 41 Endorsing a theory that suggested physical and mental degeneration are passed on by a process of atavism, Maudsley supports a deterministic understanding of the human condition that stigmatized physical difference.Footnote 42
Criminal anthropologist Cesare Lombroso “celebrated the penetration of a quantifying materialism.”Footnote 43 He buttressed the links forged by the psycho-physiologists between mind and body as he sought to demonstrate empirically a correlation between “monstrousness” and criminality. As David G. Horn explains:
For Lombroso, what truly distinguished the modern era from all that had come before was the triumph of “the number” over the “vague opinions, prejudices, and vain theories” that had circulated from the folk to the learned community and back again. Among these was the conviction—shared by the masses and the greatest physiologists and psychologists—that there was an “immeasurable abyss” between the world of “life and intelligence” and the world of “brute materiality.” But numbers, he observed in a volume on weather and mental illness, had been able to bridge the abyss, entering “with their marvellous power” even into the “mysterious world of life and the intellect.”Footnote 44
The influences of physiognomy and phrenology on Lombroso’s thinking are obvious and were recognized by the criminal anthropologist himself, but the impact of Quetelet’s use of social statistics was even more profound.Footnote 45 Given the influences of these three popular concepts, it is unsurprising that Lombroso’s work was so influential in the late nineteenth century even though his most famous book Criminal Man (1876) is still yet to be translated fully into English.Footnote 46 Britain and America were, after all, already primed for empirical investigation of the link between physical difference and criminal behaviour by both the popularity of sciences of physiognomy and phrenology and the prominence of physically aberrant criminal characters in literary works—as attested to in studies by David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder and by Quayson.Footnote 47 Neil Davie shows us that despite an explicit resistance to Lombroso’s theories exhibited by many British criminologists, they were met with favourable reaction by a number of notable British writers on psychology, including not only Francis Galton and Havelock Ellis but also asylum-based psychiatrists on the margins of the criminal-justice system, including Thomas Clouston (of the Edinburgh Royal Asylum), Samuel Strahan (of the Northampton County Asylum), and Alfred F. Tredgold (author of the widely read textbook Mental Deficiency ).Footnote 48 Though Lombroso’s theories were certainly controversial, they were very much part of the social consciousness at the fin de siècle in both Britain and America. The deviant body became an increasingly centralized topic as anxieties about the physically aberrant grew. Such a process of marginalization reinforced the dominance of physical wholeness.
In addition to the feared criminal traits of those who displayed physical difference, the premium on physical integrity was also bolstered by medical and folkloric views that saw the aberrant body as a potential threat to normative society. Drawing on disability theorist Tobin Siebers’s framework of the “evil eye event”—a dynamic in which “accusation exaggerates” physical and mental differences “until they take on a supernatural dimension”—Susan M. Schweik shows how late nineteenth-century unsightly begging laws sought to protect the normate, in particular women, from bearing witness to dismembered or deformed beggars.Footnote 49 Schweik reveals that fears proliferated stemming from a belief that seeing physically atypical people could have pathological effects on women, producing symptoms such as “seizures, hysteria, or ‘conniption’ [a fit of hysterics].”Footnote 50 Anxieties surrounding “maternal impression”—the theory that if a pregnant woman witnessed a person with a deformity, the “shock” caused by such an encounter could result in her unborn child bearing a similar “affliction”—also thrived in this period. As Jan Bondeson shows us, 170 articles on maternal impression appeared in US scientific journals between 1839 and 1920.Footnote 51 Underlining the intolerance of Western society to witnessing physical difference in real life, Schweik shows us how several American cities criminalized the display of perceived ugliness in public spaces during the late nineteenth century.Footnote 52 Though such abominable legislation did not appear in Britain in the same period, similar fears existed there. Martha Stoddard Holmes explains that amidst an environment in which many conflicting theories arose, “any physical impairment had the potential to be perceived as transmissible by contact; by miasmic air; by a combination of contact, environment, and individual constitution; or perhaps simply by the social class into which one was born.”Footnote 53 The sheer variety of explanations listed by Holmes reveals the level of anxiety that surrounded the supposed risk of becoming physically disabled in Victorian Britain.
Legal and Social Factors
Linked to Quetelet’s drive for standardization, another event that contributed much to anxieties surrounding physical difference was the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. The Amendment Act introduced a centralized system to manage administering relief to the poor. The new system was brought about, at least in part, in response to fears from social reformers that the decentralized parish-based system of poor relief implemented by the Elizabethan poor laws was inconsistent and, at times, misused. The new system sent able-bodied men seeking relief to the workhouse while providing limited out-relief to those deemed deserving—namely, those unable to work, including the young, the elderly, and the disabled. Despite this tightening of the law, as Holmes reveals, fears of abuse remained. Much discussion about the extent to which the unwaged disabled were deserving of relief perpetuated as a result.Footnote 54 This context is discussed in more detail in Chap. 4, which considers anxieties about physical completeness alongside social mobility, but it is worth noting at this point that the act brought public attention to the ability of aberrant bodies, the classifying of such bodies, and an association of physical difference with mendicancy.
Changing meanings of work further exacerbated links between physical difference and an inability to work, a factor that had severe implications for men—the primary breadwinners in this period. Works such as Thomas Carlyle’s Past and Present (1843) and Samuel Smiles’s Self Help (1859) were influential as they propounded the importance of industriousness and renounced idleness.Footnote 55 John Tosh plots the rise of this ideology between the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1884, when suspicions surrounding privilege gained momentum and faith in the idea of individual autonomy took its place.Footnote 56 Such an emphasis on autonomy and industry meant that those exhibiting physical difference were seen as lacking the necessary attributes to succeed in life. Erin O’Connor explains that “Victorian ideals of health, particularly of male health, centered on the concept of physical wholeness: a strong, vigorous body was a primary signifier of manliness, at once testifying to the existence of a correspondingly strong spirit and providing that spirit with a vital means of material expression.”Footnote 57 As we learn from Henham’s “The Human Bundle,” where the maimed man is branded “a lump of breathing, useless flesh,” for men especially, physical difference was seen as an indicator of a subject’s inability to work.Footnote 58 This was the case on both sides of the Atlantic. “Nowhere is the disabled figure more troubling to American ideology,” writes Garland-Thomson, “than in relation to the concept of work.”Footnote 59 Highlighting public curiosity surrounding the ability of atypical bodies to work, Garland-Thomson elsewhere observes that amputees performing the most commonplace of tasks became public spectacles: “the ‘Armless’ or ‘Legless Wonders’ who performed mundane tasks like sewing, writing, riding a bicycle, or drinking tea [in freak shows] were at once routine and amazing, both assuringly domestic and threateningly alien.”Footnote 60 While the public were fascinated by and yet unsure of the working capacities of physically incomplete subjects, as O’Connor shows, contemporary prosthetists sought to cash in on prejudices by producing devices that could enable disabled men to return to work.Footnote 61
While physically incomplete men were often believed to be unable to work, a point evidenced in autobiographical memoirs by disabled factory workers, such as A Narrative of the Experience and Sufferings of William Dodd (1841), women missing body parts were regularly represented as unmarriageable and thus not useful in terms of procreation or social obligations—they were seen as part of the “superfluous women” problem.Footnote 62 Exceptions to this trend were imagined in literary sources, such as Wilkie Collins’s Poor Miss Finch (1872), a topic that Holmes discusses at length in Fictions of Affliction (2004).Footnote 63 But in reality, barriers existed that made it difficult for physically and cognitively different women to enter the marriage market. For instance, contemporary medical science sometimes linked physical aberrance to hereditary illness and deformity, raising concerns about women exhibiting physical losses entering the arena of marriage. I focus specifically on these contexts and how anxieties surrounding women with atypical bodies were exacerbated and interrogated by literary depictions in Chap. 5.
In addition to these concerns, the idea was also prevalent that physical wholeness comprised a full head of hair and a complete set of teeth. Galia Ofek notes how hair “became increasingly significant to the formation of self-image since the growth of the European city and the ascendance of the bourgeoisie in the early stages of mercantile capitalism.” During the nineteenth century, “among the middle classes in Victorian England, women’s hair turned into a salient focal point as fashion dictates and social mores prohibited bare hands, legs, and other parts which were covered for modesty’s sake, thereby turning hair, neck, and shoulders into the ‘focus of sexual interest’ which substituted ‘for all the rest.’”Footnote 64 This explains, to some extent, the significance of hair among women, but what about its significance for men? It is true that men’s haircuts grew shorter and less ornate during the nineteenth century. But displaying a full head of hair was still important for men as baldness signified physical decline, something that they were keen to ward off. In Kay Heath’s discussion of male-midlife anxieties, she analyses an advertisement for the Edwardian “hair grower” Tatcho in which maker George R. Sims challenges British men with the headline, “Bald, grey, or sparse of Hair: what are your chances in life?”Footnote 65 Quoting the advertisement, Heath writes, “baldness ‘is a touchy subject with most men,’ because age can be determined by hair rather than years: while a shiny pate make one ‘old at thirty,’ ‘with a good head of hair’ a man ‘may look young at fifty.’” As Heath shows us, in a time when “concepts like occupation and physical prowess replaced traditional notions of privilege to determine the measure of a man,” it became less desirable for men to display accepted signs of old age in public spaces.Footnote 66
Meanwhile, the demand for a full set of clean, healthy teeth gained purchase as urbanization and the promises of capitalism encouraged individuals to “cultivate good surface impressions.”Footnote 67 M. D. K. Bremner has noted that the demand for perfect teeth was first cultivated in modern society in early eighteenth-century France: “High society developed a pagan view of life. Beauty became the dominant note of the age. Well-to-do people sought health, comfort and good looks and tried above all to retain their youth. Since a toothless face can look neither young nor beautiful, there was great demand for dentistry.”Footnote 68 Pioneering dentist Pierre Fauchard reaped the rewards of such a culture, but it was not until the 1840s that dentistry began to professionalize more widely across Europe and North America.Footnote 69 The rise of dentistry at this time shows the impact and prevalence of physiognomy in the early to mid-Victorian period. As Karen Halttunen notes, advice manuals published between 1830 and 1850 implored readers to take care of their personal appearances: “Surface impressions were essential to success in the world of strangers … because appearances revealed character.”Footnote 70 The desire for good teeth was exacerbated by the sheer volume of advertisements for teeth-related products that potential consumers in Britain and America were bombarded with—in particular following the Great Exhibition of 1851.Footnote 71 M. Cox et al. observe that “Patented tinctures and powders proliferated … particularly in response to periodontal [gum] disease and [to aid] the removal of calculus [tartar, a hardened form of plaque].”Footnote 72 Peter A. Reichart meanwhile draws attention to the prevalence of the Areca nut in popular tooth pastes and powders.Footnote 73 Simulated by major developments in dentistry—including the introduction of anaesthesia and the use of vulcanite, a cheap and easy material to work with to manufacture false teeth bases—the mandate for good teeth was so great that by 1877 one journalist wrote:
Natural teeth, clean, sound, and perfect, are essential to the comeliness of any human face. Defective teeth mar the handsomest features and cause us to turn away our gaze with a kind of disgust from a countenance otherwise faultlessly beautiful. Sound teeth not only add to the comfort and personal appearance, but contribute largely to the health of all, hence special and scrupulous attention should be paid to them daily, from early childhood, from the time when the first permanent tooth makes its appearance about the sixth year.Footnote 74
To make a good first impression in a world where cultivating an appearance of physical wholeness was of growing importance, a good set of teeth became a fundamental requirement.
Literatures of Loss
Literary sources captured the ableist zeitgeist of the period while raising new anxieties concerning the neurological symptoms of physical loss. Ground in research on the intimacy of mind and body (especially the role of the nervous system as the joining matter between the two), the arrival of phantom limb syndrome into public discourse via literary fiction further exacerbated social fears of bodily loss. Coined in 1871 by the American neurologist and fiction writer Silas Weir Mitchell, phantom-limb syndrome describes the common sensation whereby, when a limb has been amputated, “the sufferer does not lose consciousness of its existence.”Footnote 75 Mitchell’s coinage stands to this day as the recognized term to describe this condition. According to Mitchell, phantom-limb sensations were so frequent that only five per cent of amputees did not experience them.Footnote 76 Mitchell suggested that this condition could manifest itself in several ways. It could cause symptoms such as a feeling that a lost limb was still attached and functioning; intense pain at an extremity no longer there; itchiness of a lost extremity; a feeling of “perpetual … automatic activity”; and a sensation of the “shortening of the absent member.”Footnote 77 As Mitchell explains:
Since the stump is the lowest visible point where pain or touch is felt, the sensorium or central organ of feeling gradually associates in place the lost hand or foot with the stump, the most remote existing part, impressions on which are referred to the lost limb. Hence arises a notion of shortening in the absent member—an idea which is more and more faintly contradicted by previous knowledge, and more and more reinforced by present subjective sensations.Footnote 78
In other words, Mitchell suggests that the visual and haptic senses become confused because of nerve damage to the severed limb, leading to a sensation whereby an outer extremity becomes associated with the end of a stump.
Some of these symptoms were known to medical practitioners long before Mitchell’s work on the topic. He noted himself that Ambroise Paré, a sixteenth-century pioneer of amputation and prosthetics, referred to these kinds of sensation in his work on limb loss.Footnote 79 But it was Mitchell’s own fictional account of a quadruple amputee in 1866 that brought public attention to this medical topic. Prior to his coinage, other nineteenth-century medical practitioners, like Wilhelm Gottfried Ploucquet, Jeremais David Reuss, François Xanvier Swediaur, Gabriel Valentin, Thomas Young, Godofredus Theodatus Rhone, Johannes Müller, and Charles Bell, all wrote about phantom limbs, but none captured the public imagination in the same way as Mitchell.Footnote 80 The latter used literature as a tool to communicate his ideas to a wider audience, capitalizing on the popularity of the Gothic mode, while exploiting and further developing social anxieties regarding the loss of limbs.
Published anonymously, Mitchell’s “The Case of George Dedlow” (1866), a sketch about a man who lost all four of his limbs during the American Civil War, humorously explored some of the neurological, psychological, and ontological implications of amputation.Footnote 81 Much to Mitchell’s amazement, this sketch, which poses itself as a kind of medical report, was considered factual by many readers. According to Mitchell, “Inquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the sufferer, and in an interior county of New York a subscription was actually started for the unhappy victim.”Footnote 82 While Mitchell was careful to distance himself from this short story by providing a corrective in his later article “Phantom Limbs” (1871), there were significant parallels between the symptoms described by the fictional George Dedlow and Mitchell’s medical explanation. Though Dedlow does not define the condition that he describes as “phantom-limb” syndrome in Mitchell’s literary work, his observations regarding the limb consciousness that he and the other inpatients at the Stump Hospital (Nashville, Tennessee) experience, in combination with the various sensations described—itching, pains, and cramps—bear uncanny resemblance to those parsed in the author’s later medical piece.Footnote 83 In a slightly more figurative way than in “Phantom Limbs,” using Dedlow as a mouthpiece, Mitchell ventriloquially explains the neurological phenomenon of phantom limbs in layman’s terms, using a simile of a bell-wire to explain why a sensation of a lost limb remains after it has been removed. As Dedlow suggests, a severed nerve present in a stump is a like a bell-wire because it can be stimulated at any part of its course and still produce a signal at its extremity. Mitchell makes the same point in “Phantom Limbs,” using the more relatable and bodily example of the sensation experienced when we hurt our “crazy-bone” (now known in the United Kingdom and the United States by the colloquial term the “funny-bone”).Footnote 84 While Mitchell’s essay explained phantom-limb pain in a more intricate, medicalized way, the two pieces described many of the same neurological symptoms of limb loss. In fact, the only aspects arising from “George Dedlow” that Mitchell really refuted in his article were: first, the possibility of surviving quadruple amputation; second, the fact that phantom-limb pain only occurs in poorly formed stumps; and, third, that such extreme psychological states can be produced by amputations—Dedlow experiences delight while believing that he is united with his missing limbs at a spiritualistic séance before slipping into a dreary state of unhappiness.
The very symptoms of phantom-limb pain described by Mitchell reaffirmed beliefs in the importance of embodied wholeness. Mitchell’s works revealed to relatively ignorant readers that losing a limb resulted not only in the loss of function of that part but also in severe and sometimes debilitating neurological symptoms. Losing a limb took on greater meaning as it represented a disruption of the overall structural unity of the body. By emphasizing the existence of muscular memory, a phenomenon that O’Connor suggests allowed artificial limbs to function, Mitchell’s research into stump pathology suggested that phantom-limb pain was a product of the body’s refusal to accept dismemberment, again bringing into focus both the nervous link between mind and body and the perceived importance of physical integrity.Footnote 85 However, complicating the premium placed on physical wholeness, stumps often had to be re-amputated to cure some amputees of severe phantom-limb symptoms. Mitchell described an example whereby this course of action was required in Injuries of the Nerves (1872).Footnote 86
O’Connor draws our attention to the feminizing implications of the pathological stumps associated with phantom-limb disorder.Footnote 87 Revealing the heavily gendered view of contemporary medical practitioners, O’Connor quotes John Erichsen, who in his 1854 treatise The Science and Art of Surgery associated “pathologically constituted stumps” with “feminine susceptibility.” According to Erichsen, most serious cases of intense stump pain and twitching arose “from constitutional causes, and invariably occurs in females, more particularly in those of the hysterical temperament, and who are subject to neuralgic pains elsewhere.”Footnote 88 As O’Connor argues:
The notion that stump pathology is not only feminine, but female, had far-reaching consequences for medical and social understandings of the male amputee, whose manhood was thereby implicated in an effeminate pain pattern. Altering the body in ways that were as psychically threatening as they were physically therapeutic, amputation raised the possibility that cutting off a man’s limb could cut a man off from himself.Footnote 89
O’Connor’s concern is the male amputee. It is true that “jumpy stumps” presented a supposedly feminizing threat to male amputees, but the implications of such on female amputees should not be overlooked.Footnote 90 Jane Wood has noted how hysteria was a condition “whose clinical criteria could be modified to diagnose all the behaviours which did not fit the prescribed model of Victorian womanhood.”Footnote 91 Female amputees were rendered even further from ideals of womanhood by neurotic stumps. The spasmodic and wild behaviour of such stumps exhibited the negative traits against which ideal womanhood was defined, providing an additional symptom of loss that female (as well as male) amputees needed to conceal to pass. The exposure of phantom-limb syndrome to a public audience therefore exacerbated fears of limb loss to both male and female readers.
In addition to works such as Erichsen’s, which show that pathological stumps were part of medical consciousness before Mitchell’s work on the topic, other literary writings, such as Frederick Marryat’s Jacob Faithful (1834) and Charles Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend (1864–1865), exhibited the curious and confounding behaviour of amputated stumps.Footnote 92 Though published before Mitchell’s nuanced work on the topic, these stories fostered fears of bodily loss as they presented stumps as unruly and perplexing. Marryat’s Jacob Faithful, a popular bildungsroman for children, features a character named Old Tom, a double-amputee naval veteran who lost his legs fighting in the battle of Trafalgar during the Napoleonic Wars. While Old Tom can be considered an archetypical good prosthesis-using navy veteran—alongside later fictional examples such as Dickens’s Captain Cuttle from Dombey and Son (1846–1848) and Gruff and Glum from Our Mutual Friend—what is unique about Marryat’s character is that he makes manifest not only the functional limitations of primitive prostheses, which were standard for Greenwich Hospital amputees, but also the nervous peculiarities that apparently so often accompanied limb loss.Footnote 93 Much to his son Tom’s and the eponymous protagonist Jacob’s surprise, Old Tom reveals that despite being amputated above both knees, his toes give him periodic discomfort. “[S]ometimes I feel them just as plain as if they were now on, instead of being long ago in some shark’s maw,” Old Tom reveals. “At nights I has the cramp in them till it almost makes me halloo out with pain. It’s a hard thing when one has lost the sarvice of his legs, that all the feelings should remain. The doctor says as how its nervous.”Footnote 94 Here, Old Tom reveals his own excruciating experience of what would later be labelled phantom-limb pain by Mitchell. Marryat presents Old Tom’s curious, painful, and neurotic stumps as medical curios, evoking the nineteenth-century fascination with bodily abnormality exhibited in so-called freak shows.Footnote 95 Like these sideshows, Marryat’s representation simultaneously exploited and contributed to contemporary anxieties related to physical difference; aligning with Gilman’s observations, it utilized the dynamic of “healthy” observer versus pathologized observed.Footnote 96
Dickens’s depiction of Silas Wegg has been linked to Marryat’s characterization of Old Tom. Michael Cotsell, for instance, highlights the similarities of the two characters in terms of how both alter the words of songs to fit the occasion.Footnote 97 The most significant likeness in terms of the cultural construction of wholeness, however, is that both characters display phantom-limb symptoms. While reading various accounts of misers to Mr. Boffin in Chap. 6 of Book 3 in Our Mutual Friend, the amputee Wegg becomes increasingly excited. His excitement is signified by the prodding and elevation of his wooden leg: he repeatedly “peg[s]” his comrade, Mr. Venus, and his leg “start[s] forward under the table, and slowly elevate[s] itself as he read[s].”Footnote 98 These impulsive movements can be read to display self-action on the part of his prosthesis, as both Herbert Sussman and Gerhard Joseph imply regarding Captain Cuttle in Dombey and Son, or just Wegg’s comic absurdity.Footnote 99 And yet such neurotic behaviour could also be read as the result of a twitching stump, one plausibly affected by phantom-limb or jumpy-stump syndrome. In this way, we can read Dickens’s representation in context with recent research that brings to light how his fiction described conditions before they had been medically recognized.Footnote 100 The involuntary movement of Wegg’s leg eventually results in him losing balance and “dropp[ing] over sideways” onto Venus.Footnote 101
The automatous behaviour of Wegg’s peg, powered by what seems a pathologized stump, bears resemblance to the “curious spasmodic maladies” described by Mitchell in his later essay on phantom limbs.Footnote 102 Wegg is himself described as “spasmodic” when he attempts to pick himself up off the floor. The phallic resemblance of this unconscious behaviour—a body part becoming erect before reaching a violent climax and ending with the subject left in a “pecuniary swoon”—is undermined by what would have been seen as feminine, hysterical undertones.Footnote 103 His lack of self-control and compromised position at the end of this scene—where he lies on Venus in a swoon-like state—emphasizes his apparently unmanned condition as an amputee.Footnote 104 Though troubling from a contemporary perspective, this scene was clearly intended to be comical. In fact, it was not uncommon for Dickens to use physical difference for comic purposes. For instance, in Nicholas Nickleby (1838–1839), the author encourages the reader to laugh at the villainous schoolmaster Wackford Squeers’s mishaps that are brought about by his lack of full peripheral vision, a functional difference that arises from him having one eye.Footnote 105 Philip Hobsbaum writes that the “Jonsonian” humour of Squeers’s representation makes tolerable what would otherwise seem an unbearable “rhetoric of indignation” towards Yorkshire schoolmasters.Footnote 106 In a similar fashion, Dickens uses grotesque comedy in Our Mutual Friend to lighten what might have otherwise appeared a frustrating story about a duplicitous “cripple” who almost upsets the status quo by climbing the social ladder (a narrative trajectory that I explore further in Chap. 4). Though at other times (even within the same narrative) much more sympathetic to issues of physical difference—think, for instance, of his representation of characters such as Esther Summerson, Joe Willet, and Captain Cuttle—in this instance, Dickens’s depiction of Wegg’s out-of-control stump exacerbates anxieties about losing limbs.Footnote 107 As we will see in Chap. 4, for the Dickens that wrote Our Mutual Friend , the amputee was at once fascinating, confounding, suspicious, and troubling. Regarding Dickens’s depiction of stump maladies, however, like Marryat’s earlier depiction and Mitchell’s literary and medical writings, it represented (and exploited for fictional purposes) real-life issues facing amputees, thereby cultivating social fears of limb loss.
Before we turn to fictional representations of prostheses in the chapters that follow, it is important to consider the position the emerging prosthesis market assumed amidst the culture described so far. Aligning with trends in patent medicine that Thomas Richards, Claire L. Jones, and Jamie Stark have described, prosthetists of all types, including makers of limbs, eyes, teeth, and hair, capitalized on growing anxieties about the body and health, in particular the increasing mandate for physical completeness.Footnote 108 As O’Connor has revealed, the notion of rebuilding amputees to a condition of wholeness was commonly evoked in nineteenth-century prosthesis discourse, especially that involving male amputees.Footnote 109 The American prosthesis firm, A. A. Marks, one of the most famous and successful makers of its time, for instance, included the following testimony from the Atlanta Christian Index and Southwestern Baptist in its catalogue: “Mr. Marks has the most skilled mechanics in his manufactory, turning out frequently a dozen or more limbs a week. It is interesting to see his patrons leave their crutches in his office, and walk off apparently whole—men, too, who had lost both legs and who were brought in by attendants” (emphasis added).Footnote 110 After purchasing one of Marks’s patented artificial legs with rubber foot, John McKenzie, a Civil War amputee, similarly testified, “I felt like a whole man again.”Footnote 111 Limb makers such as Marks were keen to assert to potential users the abilities of their devices to recomplete supposedly disaggregated bodies. Testimony pages, such as the ones from which the quotations above are extracted, were important locations where makers could communicate the quality of their devices to potential consumers without attracting accusations of quackery.Footnote 112
Artificial-limb makers were not the only ones to draw from the dominance of wholeness in their advertisements. French artificial-eye maker Auguste Boissonneau, who brought his highly rated enamel artificial eyes to Britain and Ireland in the early 1850s drew directly from many of the cultural factors described above that contributed to the stigmatization of those missing body parts. An advertisement printed in Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser in 1852 reads:
Mr. Boissonneau has succeeded in removing the physiognomical defect, which is the consequence of such a loss, by his newly-devised Artificial Eyes, which patients can apply themselves with the greatest ease. The movements of the artificial substitute are so admirable that it is hardly possible to distinguish nature from art. The use of these eyes is fully appreciated by those who are aware how much irregularities of the face mar a man’s career[.]Footnote 113
Drawing from prejudices against having one eye, including those brought about by physiognomy and concepts of work that equated supposedly unhealthy bodies with incapacity, advertisements such as this also buttressed such discrimination by presenting it as an unquestionable reality in public forums. Sources like this not only pandered to the demands of this rhetoric but sought to cash in on them by providing means with which to occlude physical difference from public view. For Boissonneau and his contemporaries, prejudices against physical incompleteness were what made their work viable in the competitive marketplace.
Advertisements for false teeth sold by firms such as Mr. P. B. André, Field and Co., and the Holborn Dental Institute, meanwhile, stressed the completeness of their devices as replacements for lost teeth.Footnote 114 Each of these firms guaranteed that their teeth “answer[ed] to the purpose for which they are intended, viz: Mastication, Articulation, and Natural Appearance.”Footnote 115 False teeth were thus pitched as prostheses that could replace both functionally and aesthetically the body part(s) that they stood in for. As we see in Chap. 6, not everyone was convinced by such claims.
Wig makers were often much bolder in their assertions, claiming that their devices could not merely supplement but enhance. An advertisement for one seller reads as follows:
The natural grace and adornment of these,
Can’t fail to delight, but are certain to please.
No sooner, in fact, are they worn by the fair,
Than at once they outrival the natural Hair.
‘Tis surprising to notice how much they’re worn!
If a fair-one is seen at a play or a ball,
Such “Fronts” are admired by each and by all;
And if the good Lady should chance to be single,
She’ll shortly be hail’d by the marriage-bells’ jingle!Footnote
F. Browne, Advertisement for Professor F. Browne’s Ladies’ Toupees, n.d., EPH 154, Hair care box 1, Wellcome Lib., London.
F. Browne, Advertisement for Professor F. Browne’s Ladies’ Toupees, n.d., EPH 154, Hair care box 1, Wellcome Lib., London.This poem brings into focus the demand for full heads of hair but also shows how, unlike the other prostheses discussed in this book, artificial hair was not just used to stand in for something missing. False fronts and trusses were popular adornments for women, especially in the 1860s when the fashion for artificial hair was at its height. Hair enhancers and replacements, like false fronts, false chignons (artificial curls), wigs, toupees, and other hair pieces became so popular that, in 1849, 6200 pounds of human hair—which was the most popular manufacturing material for these bodily accoutrements—was imported to England from France alone.Footnote 117 From 1855 to 1868, sales of false hair went up by 400 per cent, showing the increasing popularity of artificiality.Footnote 118 By 1880, London alone was said to annually consume over 100,000 pounds of human hair.Footnote 119 The popularity of artificial hair at the mid-century shifted accepted standards for women’s hair. The prevalence of additional hair pieces meant that, temporarily, the concept of completeness enveloped an expectation that women would have more hair than most were able to grow naturally. Although, as Ofek has demonstrated, artificial hair was a technology treated with suspicion even when it was at its most popular, its prevalence at the mid-century meant that the whole body upon which the concept of normalcy was shaped temporarily became one with an unnatural abundance of hair.Footnote 120 This trend reveals the arbitrary, constructed, and historically contingent nature of physical norms.
The way that prostheses were marketed as devices that could remove the visual presence of physical difference is of course questionable, and it is worth drawing attention to this before exploring the ways in which literature responded to these technologies. We can consider the process of prostheticizing the aberrant body to enable it to pass as a kind of rehabilitation process, a concept that irks many disability-studies scholars and activists. Not quite as abhorrent as eugenics, but based on a similar premise of erasure, rehabilitation seeks to remove physical difference from sight. As Henri-Jacques Stiker explains, “rehabilitation marks the appearance of a culture that attempts to complete the act of identification, of making identical. This act will cause the disabled to disappear, dissolve them in the greater and single social whole.”Footnote 121 I do not wish to dismiss the reality of difficulties stemming from impairment or to undermine the importance of creating technologies that make the lives of people with disabilities easier or less painful. But it is an undoubted historical trend, evidenced by the marketing ploys described above, that the production of prostheses has often supported ideological—eradicating the visual presence of difference—and capitalistic rather than solely ameliorative and/or altruistic ends.
As this chapter has revealed, the nineteenth century witnessed the codification of a social system that privileged physical wholeness and marginalized those who displayed physical difference. Several historical factors encouraged and strengthened this situation, including the rise of bodily statistics, the growth of physiognomy, the development of Poor Law legislation, the solidification of ableist models of work, the advances of materialist approaches to mind and body, the publicity of bewildering symptoms of bodily loss, and the vogue for white teeth and full heads of hair. In such a society, prosthesis makers, whose businesses during this time benefited from a growing knowledge of the human body, technological developments, and innovations in hygiene and surgical procedures, cashed in on such demands for physical wholeness by providing devices that they claimed could conceal physical deficiency from public view, thereby allowing users to pass as normal. In contrast, as I will show, fictional representations of prostheses held a complex relationship with the emerging hegemony of wholeness. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 explore how this complex negotiation with the concept of wholeness played out in relation to representational factors including class, gender, and age. The next chapter, however, showcases how certain prosthesis narratives problematized the contemporary hegemony of physical completeness by imagining powerful non-normative and non-human alternatives. If we consider the use of prostheses inspired by a medical-model understanding of physical difference, the following chapters provide examples of Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky’s claim that “[the] ‘medical model’, powerful though it has been in shaping the life experiences of people with disabilities, has never gone uncontested.”Footnote 122
For more on Temple Bar, see Peter Blake, “The Paradox of a Periodical: Temple Bar Magazine under the Editorship of George Augustus Sala (1860–1863),” The London Journal 35, no. 2 (2010). For more on this short story, see Ryan Sweet, “‘A Human Bundle’: The Disaggregated Other at the Fin de Siècle,” Victorian Review 40, no. 1 (2014).
Henham, “A Human Bundle,” 58.
Lennard J. Davis, Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body (New York: Verso, 1995).
Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 8.
Sander L. Gilman, Disease and Representation: Images of Illness from Madness to Aids (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 1–17.
Davis, Enforcing Normalcy; Lennard J. Davis, Bending Over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism, and Other Difficult Positions. Cultural Front (New York: New York University Press, 2002); Katherine J. Kudlick, “Disability History, Power, and Rethinking the Idea of ‘The Other,’” PMLA 120, no. 2 (2005): 557–61.
Davis, Bending Over, 50–51.
Anolik, Demons of the Body, 4.
Quayson, Aesthetic Nervousness, 20.
Davis, Enforcing Normalcy, 24.
Craton, The Victorian, 32–35; Davis, Enforcing Normalcy, 23–49.
Adolphe Quetelet, A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties, ed. Thomas Simbert, trans. R. Knox (Edinburgh: William and Robert Chambers, 1842).
Craton, The Victorian, 32.
Qtd. in Theodore M. Porter, The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 102.
Craton, The Victorian, 33–34.
Davis, Enforcing Normalcy, 29.
Quetelet, A Treatise, 99.
Bruce Haley, The Healthy Body and Victorian Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 3.
Kevin Berland, “Inborn Character and Free Will in the History of Physiognomy,” in Physiognomy in Profile: Lavater’s Impact on European Culture, ed. Melissa Percival and Graeme Tytler (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005).
Johann Caspar Lavater, Essays on Physiognomy, trans. Thomas Holcroft, 8th ed. (London: Willam Tegg & Co, 1853).
Sharrona Pearl, About Faces: Physiognomy in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 33.
Lucy Hartley, Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 74.
John Graham, “Lavater’s Physiognomy in England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 22, no. 4 (1961): 562.
Richard Payne Knight, An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste (London: T. Payne & J. White, 1806), 199.
Zech 11:17 (Authorized Version).
Luke 11:34 (AV).
Lavater, Essays, 318.
Matt 18:9 (AV).
I would like to thank Sue Zemka for her help with these points.
Qtd. in Lavater, Essays, 386.
See Chapter 1 and Jeffrey A. Brune and Daniel J. Wilson, eds. Disability and Passing: Blurring the Lines of Identity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013).
Thomas Southwood Smith, The Philosophy of Health; or, An Exposition of the Physical and Mental Constitution of Man, with a View to the Promotion of Human Longevity and Happiness, vol. 1 (London: Charles Knight, 1835), 1.
Alexander Bain, The Senses and the Intellect, 3rd ed. (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1855).
Alexander Bain, “Common Errors on the Mind,” Fortnightly Review 4, no. 20 (1868): 160.
Lorraine J. Daston, “British Responses to Psycho-Physiology, 1860–1900,” Isis 69, no. 2 (1978); Rick Rylance, Victorian Psychology and British Culture: 1850–1880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Roger Smith, Free Will and the Human Sciences in Britain, 1870–1910 (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2013).
William A. Cohen, Embodied: Victorian Literature and the Senses (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), xii.
Henry Maudsley, Responsibility in Mental Disease (New York: D. Appleton, 1874), 17.
Such a view, however, was not consistent with Maudsley. By 1895, he accepted the key role played by social habits and surroundings. See Neil Davie, “The Impact of Criminal Anthropology in Britain (1880–1918),” Criminocorpus: Revue d’Histoire de La Justice, Des Crimes et Des Peines 4 (2010). For more on Maudsley and the implications of his work in relation to discourses of disability, see Martha Stoddard Holmes, Fictions of Affliction: Physical Disability in Victorian Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), 66–68.
David G. Horn, The Criminal Body: Lombroso and the Anatomy of Deviance (London: Routledge, 2003), 8.
Ibid., 12–13, 59–86.
Among the most complete translations is Cesare Lombroso, Criminal Man, ed. and trans. Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006).
David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder, Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000); Quayson, Aesthetic Nervousness.
Davie, “The Impact”; Alfred F. Tredgold, Mental Deficiency (New York: William Wood, 1908).
Tobin Siebers, The Mirror of Medusa, revised ed. (Christchurch: Cybereditions, 2000), 27; Schweik, Susan M. The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public. New York: NYU Press, 2009.
Schweik, The Ugly Laws, 153. Also see Mary P. Ryan, Women in Public: Between Banners and Ballots, 1825–1880 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 69.
Jan Bondeson, A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities (London: I.B. Tauris, 1997), 158.
Schweik, The Ugly Laws.
Holmes, Fictions, 63.
Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); Samuel Smiles, Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (London: S. W. Partridge & Co.: 1859).
John Tosh, Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family, and Empire (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005), 96.
Erin O’Connor, Raw Material: Producing Pathology in Victorian Culture (Durham: Duke University Press, 2000), 104.
Henham, “A Human Bundle,” 58.
Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies, 46.
Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, “The Beauty and the Freak,” in Points of Contact: Disability, Art, and Culture, ed. Susan Crutchfield and Marcy Epstein (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 191.
O’Connor, Raw Material, 106–17.
William Dodd, A Narrative of the Experience and Sufferings of William Dodd, A Factory Cripple. Written by Himself, in Factory Lives: Four Nineteenth-Century Working-Class Autobiographies, ed. James R. Simmons, Jr. (London: Broadview, 2007). For more on the so-called superfluous-woman issue, see Nan H. Dreher, “Redundancy and Emigration: The ‘Woman Question’ in Mid-Victorian Britain,” Victorian Periodicals Review 26, no. 1 (1993).
Wilkie Collins, Poor Miss Finch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Holmes, Fictions, 34–73.
Galia Ofek, Representations of Hair in Victorian Literature and Culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), 2–3.
Qtd. in Kay Heath, Aging by the Book: The Emergence of Midlife in Victorian Britain (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009), 25.
Heath, Aging, 25.
Karen Halttunen, Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 42–43.
M. D. K. Bremner, The Story of Dentistry from the Dawn of Civilization to the Present (New York: Dental Items of Interest, 1939), 55.
Before this time, especially in England, dentistry was amateurish and replete with charlatanism. Its reputation was very poor, and it served primarily as a relief of pain service. N. David Richards, “Dentistry in England in the 1840s: The First Indications of a Movement Towards Professionalization,” Medical History 12, no. 2 (1968): 139.
Halttunen, Confidence Men, 40.
Thomas Richards argues that out of the Great Exhibition, the 1887 and 1897 Jubilees of Queen Victoria, and the various Imperial Exhibitions of the 1890s “came all of the familiar imperatives of modern commodity culture, with its emphasis on status, exoticism, health, and female sexuality.” Richards plots the rise of advertising against these public spectacles while also considering the importance of illustrations, which were printed more cheaply following developments in printing technologies. Thomas Richards, The Commodity Culture of Victorian England: Advertising and Spectacle, 1851–1914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 71.
M. Cox et al., “Dental History: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Dental Restoration, Treatment and Consequences in a British Nobleman,” British Dental Journal 189, no. 11 (2000): 595.
Peter A. Reichart, “Toothpastes Containing Betel Nut (Areca Catechu L.) from England of the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of the History of Medicine 39 (1984).
“The Teeth,” The London Reader: Of Literature, Science, Art and General Information 29, no. 743 (1877): 305.
Silas Weir Mitchell, “Phantom Limbs,” Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine 8 (1871): 565.
Stanley Finger and Meredith Hustwit, “Five Early Accounts of Phantom Limb in Context: Paré, Descartes, Lemos, Bell, and Mitchell,” Neurosurgery 52, no. 3 (2003): 675–86.
Silas Weir Mitchell, “The Case of George Dedlow,” in The Autobiography of a Quack and the Case of George Dedlow, by Silas Weir Mitchell (New York: Century, 1900).
Mitchell, “Phantom Limbs,” 564.
Mitchell, “The Case,” 131.
Ibid., 132; Mitchell, “Phantom Limbs,” 566.
O’Connor, Raw Material, 106–17.
Silas Weir Mitchell, Injuries of the Nerves and Their Consequences (New York: Dover, 1965).
O’Connor, Raw Material, 106–17.
John Erichsen, The Science and Art of Surgery: Being a Treatise on Surgical Injuries, Diseases, and Operations, 2nd ed. (London: Walton and Maberly, 1857), 87; qtd. in O’Connor Raw Material, 107–108.
O’Connor Raw Material, 107–108.
For more on this condition, see G. Martin Huggins, Amputation Stumps: Their Care and After-Treatment (London: Henry Frowde, Hodder and Stoghton, 1918), 149; O’Connor, Raw Material, 109; and Julie Anderson, “‘Jumpy Stump’: Amputation and Trauma in the First World War,” First World War Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).
Jane Wood, Passion and Pathology in Victorian Fiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 12.
Frederick Marryat, Jacob Faithful (London: Richard Edward King, 1834); Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend (London: Everyman, 2000).
Charles Dickens, Dombey and Son (London: Penguin, 2002).
Marryat Jacob Faithful, 178.
For more on this fascination, see Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body (New York: New York University Press, 1996); Garland-Thomson, Extraordinary Bodies; Rachel Adams, Sideshow U.S.A.: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Craton, The Victorian; Marlene Tromp, ed., Victorian Freaks: The Social Context of Freakery in Britain (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2007); and Nadja Durbach, Spectacle of Deformity: Freak Shows and Modern British Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009).
Gilman, Disease and Representation.
Michael Cotsell, The Companion to Our Mutual Friend (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986), 50.
Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 513–15.
Herbert Sussman and Gerhard Joseph, “Prefiguring the Posthuman: Dickens and Prosthesis,” Victorian Literature and Culture 32, no. 2 (2004).
See Kara Rogers, “9 Dickensian Diagnoses,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed June 15, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/list/9-dickensian-diagnoses; Lisa Sanders, “Diagnosing with Dickens,” The New York Times, December 17, 2006, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17wwln_diagnosis.t.html; Meir Kryger, “Charles Dickens: Impact on Medicine and Society,” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 8, no. 3 (2012); and Hannah Devlin, “Charles Dickens’ Contribution to Medicine Highlighted in London Exhibition,” The Guardian, May 16, 2018, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/16/dickens-acute-observations-on-health-celebrated-in-london-exhibition.
Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 151.
Mitchell, “Phantom Limbs,” 564.
Dickens, Our Mutual Friend, 515.
Here I suggest that Dickens feminizes Wegg in this scene, but, like Talia Schaffer, I do not endorse the tired and problematic reading of disability as a symbol for castration. For a through critique of this familiar reading, see Talia Schaffer, Romance’s Rival: Familiar Marriage in Victorian Fiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 159–98.
Charles Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby, 2 vols. (London: Scholar Press, 1982).
Philip Hobsbaum, A Reader’s Guide to Charles Dickens (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1998), 52.
For more on the complexity and inconsistency of Dickens’s treatment of disability, see Stanley F. Wainapel, “Dickens and Disability,” Disability and Rehabilitation 18, no. 12 (1996); Adrienne E. Gavin, “Dickens, Wegg, and Wooden Legs,” Our Mutual Friend: The Scholarly Pages, accessed June 18, 2018, http://omf.ucsc.edu/london-1865/victorian-city/wooden-legs.html; Elisabeth G. Gitter, “The Blind Daughter in Charles Dickens’s Cricket on the Hearth,” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 39, no. 4 (1999); Holmes, Fictions; Sussman and Joseph, “Prefiguring the Posthuman”; Julia Miele Rodas, “Tiny Tim, Blind Bertha, and the Resistance of Miss Mowcher: Charles Dickens and the Uses of Disability,” Dickens Studies Annual 34 (2004); Tom Shakespeare, “Stickin’ up for Dickens,” Ouch! It’s a Disability Thing, last modified December 13, 2006, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/opinion/stickin_up_for_dickens.shtml; Paul Marchbanks, “From Caricature to Character: The Intellectually Disabled in Dickens’s Novels,” Dickens Quarterly 23 (2006); Christine Ferguson, “Sensational Dependence: Prosthesis and Affect in Dickens and Braddon,” Lit: Literature Interpretation Theory 19, no. 1 (2008); Karen Bourrier, “Reading Laura Bridgman: Literacy and Disability in Dickens’s American Notes,” Dickens Studies Annual: Essays on Victorian Fiction 40, no. 1 (2009); Craton, The Victorian; Jennifer Esmail, “‘I listened with my eyes’: Writing Speech and Reading Deafness in the Fiction of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins,” ELH 78, no. 4 (2011); and Heather Tilley, “The Sentimental Touch: Dickens’s Old Curiosity Shop and the Feeling Reader,” Journal of Victorian Culture 16, no. 2 (2011).
Thomas, The Commodity; Claire L. Jones, The Medical Trade Catalogue, 1870–1914 (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014); James F. Stark, “‘Recharge My Exhausted Batteries’: Overbeck’s Rejuvenator, Patenting, and Public Medical Consumers, 1924–37,” Medical History 58, 4 (2014). Also see James Harvey Young, The Toadstool Millionaires: A Social History of Patent Medicines in America before Federal Regulation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961); and Anne Digby, Making a Medical Living: Doctors and Patients in the English Market for Medicine, 1720–1911 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
O’Connor, Raw Material, 102–47.
Qtd. in George E. Marks, Marks’ Patent Artificial Limbs with Rubber Hands and Feet (New York: A. A. Marks, 1888), 154.
Qtd. in ibid., 232.
Jones, The Medical, 38.
Auguste Boissonneau, Advertisement for Auguste Boissonneau’s Artificial Eyes, Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser, August 26, 1852, front page.
P. B. André, “Advertisement for Mr. P. B. André, ‘Surgeon & Mechanical Dentist,’” n.d., British Library Online Gallery, accessed June 18, 2018, http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/014eva000000000u06984000.html; Field & Co., Advertisement for Artificial Teeth Patented by Field & Co., 1884, British Library Online Gallery, accessed June 18, 2018, http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/zoomify72552.html; Holborn Dental Institute, Advertisement for the Holborn Dental Institute, 1886, British Library Online Gallery, accessed June 18, 2018, http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/014eva000000000u05139000.html.
Holborn Dental Institute, Advertisement.
F. Browne, Advertisement for Professor F. Browne’s Ladies’ Toupees, n.d., EPH 154, Hair care box 1, Wellcome Lib., London.
Alexander Rowland, The Human Hair, Popularly and Physiologically Considered with Special Reference to Its Preservation, Improvement and Adornment, and the Various Modes of Its Decoration in All Countries (London: Piper, Brothers & Co., 1853), 164.
Ofek, Representations, 37.
C. Henri Leonard, The Hair: Its Growth, Care, Diseases and Treatment (Detroit: C. Henri Leonard, 1880), 9.
Henri-Jacques Stiker, A History of Disability, trans. William Sayers, revised edition (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 128.
Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, The New Disability History: American Perspectives (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 259.
Adams, Rachel. Sideshow U.S.A.: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
André, P. B. “Advertisement for Mr. P. B. André, ‘Surgeon & Mechanical Dentist.’” n.d. British Library Online Gallery. Accessed June 18, 2018. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/014eva000000000u06984000.html.
Anderson, Julie. “‘Jumpy Stump’: Amputation and Trauma in the First World War.” First World War Studies 6, no. 1 (2015): 9–19.
Anolik, Ruth Bienstock, ed. Demons of the Body and Mind: Essays on Disability in Gothic Literature. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2010.
Bain, Alexander. The Senses and the Intellect. 3rd ed. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1855.
———. “Common Errors on the Mind.” Fortnightly Review 4, no. 20 (1868): 160–75.
Berland, Kevin. “Inborn Character and Free Will in the History of Physiognomy.” In Physiognomy in Profile: Lavater’s Impact on European Culture, edited by Melissa Percival and Graeme Tytler, 25–38. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005.
Blake, Peter. “The Paradox of a Periodical: Temple Bar Magazine under the Editorship of George Augustus Sala (1860–1863).” The London Journal 35, no. 2 (2010): 185–209.
Boissonneau, Auguste. Advertisement for Auguste Boissonneau’s Artificial Eyes. Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser, 26 August 1852.
Bondeson, Jan. A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities. London: I.B. Tauris, 1997.
Bourrier, Karen. “Reading Laura Bridgman: Literacy and Disability in Dickens’s American Notes.” Dickens Studies Annual: Essays on Victorian Fiction 40, no. 1 (2009): 37–60.
Bremner, M. D. K. The Story of Dentistry from the Dawn of Civilization to the Present. New York: Dental Items of Interest, 1939.
Browne, F. Advertisement for Professor F. Browne’s Ladies’ Toupees. n.d. EPH 154. Hair care box 1. Wellcome Lib., London.
Brune, Jeffrey A., and Daniel J. Wilson, eds. Disability and Passing: Blurring the Lines of Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013.
Carlyle, Thomas. Past and Present. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Cohen, William A. Embodied: Victorian Literature and the Senses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Collins, Wilkie. Poor Miss Finch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Cotsell, Michael. The Companion to Our Mutual Friend. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986.
Cox, M., J. Chandler, A. Boyle, P. Kneller, and R. Haslam. “Dental History: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Dental Restoration, Treatment and Consequences in a British Nobleman.” British Dental Journal 189, no. 11 (2000): 593–96.
Craton, Lillian. The Victorian Freak Show: The Significance of Disability and Physical Differences in 19th-Century Fiction. New York: Cambria Press, 2009.
Daston, Lorraine J. “British Responses to Psycho-Physiology, 1860–1900.” Isis 69, no. 2 (1978): 192–208.
Davie, Neil. “The Impact of Criminal Anthropology in Britain (1880–1918).” Criminocorpus: Revue d’Histoire de La Justice, Des Crimes et Des Peines 4 (2010): n.pag.
Davis, Lennard J. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. New York: Verso, 1995.
———. Bending Over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism, and Other Difficult Positions. Cultural Front. New York: New York University Press, 2002.
Devlin, Hannah. “Charles Dickens’ Contribution to Medicine Highlighted in London Exhibition.” The Guardian, May 16, 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/16/dickens-acute-observations-on-health-celebrated-in-london-exhibition.
Dickens, Charles. Nicholas Nickleby. 2 vols. London: Scholar Press, 1982.
———. Dombey and Son. London: Penguin, 2002.
———. Our Mutual Friend. London: Everyman, 2000.
Digby, Anne. Making a Medical Living: Doctors and Patients in the English Market for Medicine, 1720–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Dodd, William. A Narrative of the Experience and Sufferings of William Dodd, A Factory Cripple. Written by Himself. In Factory Lives: Four Nineteenth-Century Working-Class Autobiographies, edited by James R. Simmons, Jr., 181–300. London: Broadview, 2007.
Dreher, Nan H. “Redundancy and Emigration: The ‘Woman Question’ in Mid-Victorian Britain.” Victorian Periodicals Review 26, no. 1 (1993): 3–7.
Durbach, Nadja. Spectacle of Deformity: Freak Shows and Modern British Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
Erichsen, John. The Science and Art of Surgery: Being a Treatise on Surgical Injuries, Diseases, and Operations. 2nd ed. London: Walton and Maberly, 1857.
Esmail, Jennifer. “‘I listened with my eyes’: Writing Speech and Reading Deafness in the Fiction of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins.” ELH 78, no. 4 (2011): 991–1020.
Ferguson, Christine. “Sensational Dependence: Prosthesis and Affect in Dickens and Braddon.” Lit: Literature Interpretation Theory 19, no. 1 (2008): 1–25.
Field & Co. Advertisement for Artificial Teeth Patented by Field & Co. 1884. British Library Online Gallery. Accessed June 18, 2018. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/zoomify72552.html.
Finger, Stanley, and Meredith Hustwit. “Five Early Accounts of Phantom Limb in Context: Paré, Descartes, Lemos, Bell, and Mitchell.” Neurosurgery 52, no. 3 (2003): 675–86.
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
———. Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. New York: New York University Press, 1996.
———. “The Beauty and the Freak.” In Points of Contact: Disability, Art, and Culture, edited by Susan Crutchfield and Marcy Epstein, 181–96. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Gavin, Adrienne E. “Dickens, Wegg, and Wooden Legs.” Our Mutual Friend: The Scholarly Pages. Accessed June 18, 2018. http://omf.ucsc.edu/london-1865/victorian-city/wooden-legs.html.
Gilman, Sander L. Disease and Representation: Images of Illness from Madness to Aids. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.
Gitter, Elisabeth G. “The Blind Daughter in Charles Dickens’s Cricket on the Hearth.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 39, no. 4 (1999): 675–89.
Graham, John. “Lavater’s Physiognomy in England.” Journal of the History of Ideas 22, no. 4 (1961): 561–72.
Haley, Bruce. The Healthy Body and Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Halttunen, Karen. Confidence Men and Painted Women: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America, 1830–1870. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
Hartley, Lucy. Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Heath, Kay. Aging by the Book: The Emergence of Midlife in Victorian Britain. Albany: SUNY Press, 2009.
Henham, Ernest G. “A Human Bundle.” Temple Bar 111, no. 438 (1897): 42–58.
Hobsbaum, Philip. A Reader’s Guide to Charles Dickens. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1998.
Holborn Dental Institute. Advertisement for the Holborn Dental Institute. 1886. British Library Online Gallery. Accessed June 18, 2018. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/evancoll/a/014eva000000000u05139000.html.
Holmes, Martha Stoddard. Fictions of Affliction: Physical Disability in Victorian Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Hood, Thomas. Miss Kilmansegg and Her Precious Leg. In Selected Poems of Thomas Hood, edited by John Clubbe, 193–270. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Horn, David G. The Criminal Body: Lombroso and the Anatomy of Deviance. London: Routledge, 2003.
Huggins, G. Martin. Amputation Stumps: Their Care and After-Treatment. London: Henry Frowde, Hodder and Stoghton, 1918.
Jones, Claire L. The Medical Trade Catalogue, 1870–1914. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014.
Knight, Richard Payne. An Analytical Inquiry into the Principles of Taste. London: T. Payne & J. White, 1806.
Kryger, Meir. “Charles Dickens: Impact on Medicine and Society.” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 8, no. 3 (2012): 333–38.
Kudlick, Katherine J. “Disability History, Power, and Rethinking the Idea of ‘The Other.’” PMLA 120, no. 2 (2005): 557–61.
Lavater, Johann Caspar. Essays on Physiognomy. Translated by Thomas Holcroft. 8th ed. London: Willam Tegg & Co, 1853.
Leonard, C. Henri. The Hair: Its Growth, Care, Diseases and Treatment. Detroit: C. Henri Leonard, 1880.
Lewis, Henry Clay. “The Indefatigable Bear Hunter.” In Louisiana Swamp Doctor: The Writings of Henry Clay Lewis, edited by John Q. Anderson, 233–44. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1962.
Lombroso, Cesare. Criminal Man. Edited and translated by Mary Gibson and Nicole Hahn Rafter. Duke University Press, 2006.
Longmore, Paul K., and Lauri Umansky. The New Disability History: American Perspectives. New York: New York University Press, 2001.
Marchbanks, Paul. “From Caricature to Character: The Intellectually Disabled in Dickens’s Novels.” Dickens Quarterly 23 (2006): 3–14; 67–85; 169–81.
Marks, George E. Marks’ Patent Artificial Limbs with Rubber Hands and Feet. New York: A. A. Marks, 1888.
Marryat, Frederick. Jacob Faithful. London: Richard Edward King, 1834.
Maudsley, Henry. Responsibility in Mental Disease. New York: D. Appleton, 1874.
Mitchell, David T., and Sharon L. Snyder. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Mitchell, Silas Weir. “The Case of George Dedlow.” In The Autobiography of a Quack and the Case of George Dedlow, by Silas Weir Mitchell, 113–49. New York: Century, 1900.
———. “Phantom Limbs.” Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine 8 (1871): 563–69.
———. Injuries of the Nerves and Their Consequences. New York: Dover, 1965.
O’Connor, Erin. Raw Material: Producing Pathology in Victorian Culture. Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.
Ofek, Galia. Representations of Hair in Victorian Literature and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009.
Pearl, Sharrona. About Faces: Physiognomy in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.
Porter, Theodore M. The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Quayson, Ato. Aesthetic Nervousness: Disability and the Crisis of Representation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Quetelet, Adolphe. A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties. Edited by Thomas Simbert. Translated by R. Knox. Edinburgh: William and Robert Chambers, 1842.
Reichart, Peter A. “Toothpastes Containing Betel Nut (Areca Catechu L.) from England of the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Medicine 39 (1984): 65–68.
Richards, N. David. “Dentistry in England in the 1840s: The First Indications of a Movement Towards Professionalization.” Medical History 12, no. 2 (1968): 137–52.
Richards, Thomas. The Commodity Culture of Victorian England: Advertising and Spectacle, 1851–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.
Rodas, Julia Miele. “Tiny Tim, Blind Bertha, and the Resistance of Miss Mowcher: Charles Dickens and the Uses of Disability.” Dickens Studies Annual 34 (2004): 51–94.
Rogers, Kara. “9 Dickensian Diagnoses.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed June 15, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/list/9-dickensian-diagnoses.
Rowland, Alexander. The Human Hair, Popularly and Physiologically Considered with Special Reference to Its Preservation, Improvement and Adornment, and the Various Modes of Its Decoration in All Countries. London: Piper, Brothers & Co., 1853.
Ryan, Mary P. Women in Public: Between Banners and Ballots, 1825–1880. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Rylance, Rick. Victorian Psychology and British Culture: 1850–1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Sanders, Lisa. “Diagnosing with Dickens.” The New York Times, December 17, 2006. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17wwln_diagnosis.t.html.
Schaffer, Talia. Romance’s Rival: Familiar Marriage in Victorian Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Schweik, Susan M. The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public. New York: NYU Press, 2009.
Shakespeare, Tom. “Stickin’ up for Dickens.” Ouch! It’s a Disability Thing. Last modified December 13, 2006. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/opinion/stickin_up_for_dickens.shtml.
Siebers, Tobin. The Mirror of Medusa. Revised ed. Christchurch: Cybereditions, 2000.
Smiles, Samuel. Self-Help; with Illustrations of Character and Conduct. London: S. W. Partridge & Co.: 1859.
Smith, Roger. Free Will and the Human Sciences in Britain, 1870–1910. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2013.
Smith, Thomas Southwood. The Philosophy of Health; or, An Exposition of the Physical and Mental Constitution of Man, with a View to the Promotion of Human Longevity and Happiness. Vol. 1. London: Charles Knight, 1835.
Stark, James F. “‘Recharge My Exhausted Batteries’: Overbeck’s Rejuvenator, Patenting, and Public Medical Consumers, 1924–37.” Medical History 58, 4 (2014): 498–518.
Stiker, Henri-Jacques. A History of Disability. Translated by William Sayers. Revised edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Sussman, Herbert, and Gerhard Joseph. “Prefiguring the Posthuman: Dickens and Prosthesis.” Victorian Literature and Culture 32, no. 2 (2004): 617–28.
Sweet, Ryan. “‘A Human Bundle’: The Disaggregated Other at the Fin de Siècle.” Victorian Review 40, no. 1 (2014): 14–18.
“The Teeth”. The London Reader: Of Literature, Science, Art and General Information 29, no. 743 (1877): 305.
Tilley, Heather. “The Sentimental Touch: Dickens’s Old Curiosity Shop and the Feeling Reader.” Journal of Victorian Culture 16, no. 2 (2011): 226–41.
Tosh, John. Manliness and Masculinities in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Essays on Gender, Family, and Empire. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005.
Tredgold, Alfred F. Mental Deficiency. New York: William Wood, 1908.
Tromp, Marlene, ed. Victorian Freaks: The Social Context of Freakery in Britain. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2007.
Wainapel, Stanley F. “Dickens and Disability.” Disability and Rehabilitation 18, no. 12 (1996): 629–32.
Wood, Jane. Passion and Pathology in Victorian Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Young, James Harvey. The Toadstool Millionaires: A Social History of Patent Medicines in America before Federal Regulation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sweet, R. (2022). Constructing and Complicating Physical Wholeness. In: Prosthetic Body Parts in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture. Palgrave Studies in Nineteenth-Century Writing and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78589-5_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78588-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78589-5
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)