Victorian Book of the Dead

[HoneyMaker]

DISCLAIMER/WARNING

Ok, lets get the disclaimer/warning out of the way first . . . I find these photographs very interesting and the majority beautiful. However, the majority of the pictures are of children and I realise that some people may find this distressing. I'm not here to upset anyone or cause harm. I just want to start a thread with a serious tone in which we can have a serious discussion of the contents. I'm starting this thread purely because I mentioned the topic in passing and i've had a few pm's saying that those users would be interested in the subject. I fully understand if you do not wish to continue reading or look at the links provided. I also understand if this thread is deleted (although it doesn't break the rules). I'm not trying to cause trouble.

Is that enough of a disclaimer??

Now to the topic . . . .

For many years I’ve been fascinated with the Victorians habit of taking pictures of dead relatives. This was sparked by “The Others” as I had to prove a point at college that they did actually exist. Anyway, this isn’t only a Victorian ‘thing’ it has been popular with many cultures since the invention of photography and continues today.

• The person is shown ‘sleeping’ surrounded by family or alone in a ‘normal’ situation – on a chair, bed, in mothers arms
• The person has eyes painted over the photograph or the eyelids actually opened and then posed either on their own or with family members
• The person is in a coffin

When searching for these on the internet you often get comments left on the website such as “errrr that’s sick” etc but I think they are missing the point. The main reason for the photographs being taken in the Victorian era as this may have been the only chance for a permanent reminder to be taken. It was cheap compared to sitting for a portrait and certainly didn’t require the time commitment. Those that wanted to always remember their mother/daughter/grandfather could invite a photographer into the home quickly and easily.

But now this isn’t the case. Photography is prevalent but this practice continues today. I believe it is because the cultures that still practice this are more ‘connected’ with their dead. The family member is more likely to die at home, the corpse will be prepared by the family and the coffin kept at home till burial – why should a final picture not be taken?

Like I said at the beginning, I find these very beautiful. I see them as a demonstration of love, preparing your relative, swallowing your grief in order to have that one last picture.

When my nephew died he still looked like ‘him’. He was beautiful and just looked like he was sleeping. If it hadn’t been for the tubes I think we would have continued to take photographs so we had as many as we could. Unfortunately once the funeral home got their hands on him he became different and no longer looked like my beautiful nephew. Due to this I’m not sure if I ‘understand’ the concept more. My friend had a still birth and she took pictures of her daughter as it was the only chance she would have. She does not have these on general display (which is her personal choice) but she carries one with her at all times and she will often look at the others. This for me isn't any different.

I know I’ve written a very long initial post but I’m really interested in your thoughts on this subject. Should it be taboo? I doubt that anyone would scrap these pictures but we do know about someone that posted on two peas with pictures of her mothers funeral.

As i've mentioned on another thread I was at the funeral of a close friend and her father took pictures of her being buried and the 'happy' mourners (we were asked to smile). I didn't understand this at the time, and I still don't understand why the mourners were photographed but I 'get' the pictures of her.

I would like to open the floor now so to speak. I've put links at the bottom. As above, please please please do not look at them unless you really want to or feel prepared to.

I quote from Hysteri-Cal .... "if you have a weak stomach or don't like looking at dead people - don't let morbid fascination take over .. DO NOT LOOK" ...

Example 1

Example 2

[Insomniac]

Having been a nurse for many years,I don't find this siubject upsetting,but understand that others may do. I have seen many people die,and have also 'laid out' many people after death-in many different ways as even in this there are 'fashions' for procedure. I remember watching a programme about the Lucitania some years ago,when they showed many photos of the people who had lost their lives. Some of those were gruseome,as they had been in the sea for some time,but generally they just looked asleep.

I can't say that I would specifically search for these images. I think I read somewhere that the Victorians had a particular reason for these photos but can't remember what I read! But they were fascinated by death,hence the sudden interest in mediums etc during that time-most of whom were phonies.

I'll be interested to see other peoples comments on this.

[ermidillo]

I've been looking at the pictures from your links and all I can say is fasinating! I felt they were very calming and found i wanted to know more about the people, how they died and lived etc. these questions I find myself asking even when I see old photograph in antique shops and secondhand shops it makes you wonder how they got there in the first place, don't they mean anything to someone anymore??

I'm actually quite suprised this practice has stopped, if it was still done in the 1930's as some of the pictures read why did it suddenly stop (perhaps the war?) today women who have babies that pass away are encouraged to have a photograph taken of their little one to help the grieving process why do more people not do this for loved ones?

I was aware of this amazing style of photograph but until you posted this thread I hadn't given it anythought to find out about it on the internet. Thank you for opening my eyes.

[HoneyMaker]

It hasn't stopped, in many countries and cultures it has continued.

I think it has lessened in the West as death has become seperated from every day life. We have become 'sanitised' about our dead. After all, now people tend to die in hospital and are quickly whisked away to funeral homes to be prepared by others. We might 'visit' them but thats it from death to burial/cremation. Death has become taboo, children are kept away from funerals and funeral homes so the idea of taking a picture of a loved one (when they've died) is seen as 'wrong' somehow

[Annie]

I would imagine it stopped as photography became more common.

My guess is that in Victorian times photos of people were very rare, and probably prohibitively expensive for most people. So someone you love dies (particularly a baby or small child who most likely wouldn't have been photographed yet) and you want something to remember them by. This was most likely the only time in peoples....er....lives (!) that they were photographed?

By the 1930s cameras would be becoming more common. I have pictures of my dad as a boy in the early 1930s and his family were by no means rich. So you have your reminders of your loved ones.

These days cameras are so common most people have them in their phones. Every moment of our day could be recorded if we wished, so no need for these reminders.

Does this sound reasonable?

[Voodoo Vixen]

Interesting idea - didn't find it offensive or gross as it all seemed to be done with the utmost taste and with a great deal of love. Perhaps most of them are of children because families would feel they needed a reminder of the short time they actually had with the child or for siblings to remember. I believe the Victorians had a great 'interest' in death, mourning clothes, mourning jewellery with hair in lockets etc.

[leeann21]

I find this sort of thing so intriguing, being into scrapbooks and all i often wonder what would be wrong with doing something like this, the pictures are very calming as many people have said....saying this i can see why some people may be upset by them....but everyone has the right to an opinion

[juliebee]

My friend has just this evening uploaded a Lo she did of her sister and husband cradling their still-born baby. I found it so moving and she says she found it really difficult but is glad that she did the LO for herself and for her sister. She has treated the subject with great empathy, and it is a real credit to her.

I know that I couldn't do this, how about you?

[katesmad]

I'm finding this really interesting, I didn't know that people took photos of their loved ones when they had died. I totally understand that some people would find it distressing, but thanks for the insite.

[madhattermillie]

well done on posting such a taboo subject.

after seeing 'the others' this also facinated me, but due to one thing and another i never did follow it up.

I know many people take photographs of stillborn babies, when i worked at a photo developing place we had quite a number to develop. but i have no idea why the practice of photography of childen and adults stopped, maybe because we are now encoraged more to remember people 'as they were' during life, and to get the death part over and done with, to forget the death even.

anyway, thanks for the links, i will definitely be having a good look later, if anything for the point of victorian photography (i am very interested in the photography side of these images)

also wanted to add, there is a US site that have photographs of stillborn and short life babies, they are tasteful pics and you can see why they give the family comfort after the child has passed. i will post the link when i find it.

[HoneyMaker]

My friend has just this evening uploaded a Lo she did of her sister and husband cradling their still-born baby. I found it so moving and she says she found it really difficult but is glad that she did the LO for herself and for her sister. She has treated the subject with great empathy, and it is a real credit to her.

I know that I couldn't do this, how about you?

I think I could. When I was younger definately not. I was not frightened of death I just had never grown up with it if you know what I mean.

Now, after losing my beloved nephew I thank the stars that I managed to meet him, that he was actually alive for a few days. If he hadn't have been I would still have held him, still have kissed him and still have taken photographs of him.

I made a scrapbook for my sister of his three days on this earth and I chose not to include anything about his death - I wanted it to be a celebration that he was here, that he lived, I felt including his death negated that.

However, had he been still born I would have made her a small album of the pictures of the family holding him

[Insomniac]

When I worked as I Midwife I was often asked by parents to take photos of them with their little ones that had passed away,and I think it really did help them. Sadly,people who had decided not to,often came back to us to say they regretted not doing it when they had the chance. As a Christian I only see the body as a vessel for our soul anyway,but as it is our manifestation on earth it is how we remember the pople who have passed,and I have also found that peoples imaginations were far worse than the reality,so that a photograph-especially if a baby was born with an abnormality,was such a wonderful reminder of how beautiful there baby really was.

[NickyRich]

I have been fascinated by the majority of photos but I did find one or two a bit ghoulish. I must say, when I sat with my sister just after she died, she looked really peaceful and serene. However, when I saw her in the chapel o rest, she didn't look like her at all. They must have found these photos a comfort and I think they are a real piece of social history. This may sound strange but thanks for posting these links

[SallyB]

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. From a personal point of view, I do have a picture of my daugher, Charlotte Rose, who passed away - but I don't know that I would like it shared.

Having said that though, why not? It's up to people to be mature and responsible enough to make their own choices. After all - they don't have to look do they.

Some of the pictures are beautiful - but I do still see the sadness in them too.

Very interesting link.

[Bluemoonjules]

Not something I'd be particularly interested in. I don't think I'd be disturbed by seeing a recently deceased loved one, but I don't find it particularly necessary to see someone in their coffin days/weeks later, therefore I wouldn't want a photograph, either. Not for any other reason than the medical fact that the body starts to change and people stop looking as they did in life.

It was a very long time before I could visit my grandparents' grave as all I could think of was them lying in the ground. Now I have my memories and photos of them living and breathing.

The Victorians made a whole industry of death, and believed that murdered people had an image of their murderer captured in their eyes (I think that's what a previous poster was referring to).

Yes, I suppose I do think it is a bit morbid.