Showing posts with label hair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hair. Show all posts

Thursday, 15 November 2018

Hair in History. An interview with Susan J. Vincent by Fay Bound Alberti



I am delighted to dedicate my blog post this week to a new book by Dr Susan J. Vincent, a brilliant cultural historian and past partner-in-crime when we took our PhDs together at the University of York.

Susan, once a primary school teacher, has spent the last 24 years instead following a childhood interest in historical dress. She is a Research Associate at the Centre for Renaissance and Early Modern Studies (CREMS) at the University of York and has written on topics - and garments - that range from early modernity to the present day. Her previous books include Dressing the Elite: Clothes in Early Modern England (2003), The Anatomy of Fashion: Dressing the Body from the Renaissance to Today (2009) and as general editor, Bloomsbury's six-volume publication, A Cultural History of Dress and Fashion (2017).


Susan J. Vincent 

Susan's new book, Hair: An Illustrated History, published by Bloomsbury Press, aims to take the reader ‘on a lavishly illustrated journey into the world of this remarkable substance and our complicated and fascinating relationship with it’. Through a clever blend of art, film, diaries, newspapers, texts and images’, Susan explores the stories we have told about hair and why they matter: ‘From ginger jibes in the seventeenth century to bobbed-hair suicides in the 1920s, from hippies to Roundheads, from bearded women to smooth metrosexuals’, you will never look at hair the same way again.

I met up with Susan to talk about the book, and to ask what had been her inspiration.


Hair: An Illustrated History, by Susan J. Vincent


Fay: “Hair is a fascinating subject. What made you interested in its history?"

Susan: ‘Well as you know, I’m a dress historian. I became aware that while sociologists and anthropologists had written a lot about hair, dress historians hadn’t – hair exists somewhere between the body and the garment and it was part of dressing practice in the past – people in the past had good and bad hair days too!”

Fay: ‘What’s the most surprising thing you learned while researching this book?’

Susan: ‘So many things! I was surprised how wearing a length of hair that is opposed to the status quo and the norm is shocking and adversarial and can be used to make political statements. I was also surprised how much continuity there is in what we have wanted from hair over hundreds of years. The way we treat and wear hair might have changed, but people have always wanted to style it and look after it, and to have it thick and full. They worried about it falling out. They wanted to change its colour. Perhaps most surprising is the similarity in how people in the past felt about their hair care providers, the relationships they built with them, and the continuity in hairdresser and barber stereotypes.”

Fay: “Your book contains wonderfully descriptive stories about how people thought about and treated their hair over the years – do you have a favourite?”

Susan: “My favourite area is the bob, and how it enflamed passions. When women began to ‘bob’ their hair in the 1920s, it was linked to suicides from shock - either on the part of the newly-bobbed woman, or the suicide of a shocked and appalled family member. And bobs were hugely transformative - for individuals, for the hairdressing industry, and for society as a whole. For the first time ever, women didn’t have to have long hair, a change we take for granted today”.

Fay: “What is the most important message of the book?”

Susan: “That we can’t take hair for granted. I wanted to call the book: What we’ve done to hair and what hair has done to us. And I think that’s it in a nutshell: hair is not neutral, it has a huge effect on us, and we have an effect on it. We use it in lots of different ways, live our lives with it, make political points, and harness it to establish and articulate relationships”.

This beautifully illustrated and researched book covers a wide range of different perspectives on hair, as our discussion suggests, and I will leave you with an extract. Today, there is enormous pressure on women to eradicate hair from all over their bodies (at least the places where we don’t want it to grow). And the industry of hair removal is expensive and extensive. As a counterpoint to this trend of hair removal, and as a reminder that in the midst of exploitation around the female body, some women found ways to thrive, Susan tells the story of Madame Clementine Delait, a Bearded Lady.


Madame Clementine Delait, courtesy of
Wellcome Images


“Clementine was born in 1865 in a small village in Lorraine. Aside from shaving her facial hair, which began to grow in her teenage years, she lived an unremarkable life, marrying a local baker and together with him setting up the Café Delait. It was sometime after this that things started to change, for she ended up making a bet with a customer and letting her beard grow: ‘The success was immediate’, she wrote, ‘they were all crazy about me'. (Quoted in Susan Bell, 'Memoirs of a Bearded Lady who Noted Barbed Comments in Ink).

As Clementine’s fame spread, her beard became an attraction that was good for business, and she and her husband renamed their establishment the Café de la Femme à Barbe (Café of the Bearded Woman). Clementine’s husband died in 1926, just before she turned forty, and the widow took her facial hair further afield, eventually achieving celebratory status in Parisian and London theatres.

There are numerous postcards of her in many different poses and contexts, not only from her days of wider fame but also taken in front of her café, the establishment’s eponymous bearded proprietor. She died in 1939, requesting that her tombstone bear the inscription, ‘Here lies Clementine Delait, the bearded lady’. Thus Clementine’s memoir reveals that she deliberately put away her razor and chose to come out of the hirsute closet. She herself publicized her ability to grow whiskers, and it was a source of personal pride, as well as profit.

As evidenced by the memorial inscription she chose, Clementine Delait’s beard was a fundamental part of her identity and it gave her a social standing and degree of agency she would otherwise have been unable to attain. And she most certainly did not feel herself to be merely a curiosity for exhibit: ‘I was much more and much better than that.’

***

For a chance to win a copy of Hair: An Illustrated History by Susan J. Vincent, please answer the following question in the comments. The lucky winner's name will be drawn at random:

Which of the following items is the most recently invented hair-care invention?

a) tweezers
b) comb
c) hairbrush
d) curling tongs

Thank you to everyone who has commented and entered this competition. I am delighted to announce that the winner, who was selected at random, is Felicity Eldridge. Felicity, please get in touch with me via my website and we can arrange for the book to be sent to you. 

www.fayboundalberti.com

Thursday, 8 March 2018

'Accused of witchcraft and murder in 1518 and 2018' by Karen Maitland

New Mexico, 1920.
'Melita, the day after she was rescued
from hanging as a witch.'
Photo: James George Wharton
I was horrified, but sadly not surprised, to read of the terrible ordeal of a mother and daughter in Jharkhand State, India who, in February 2018, were dragged from their house by relatives, had their heads shaved and were paraded naked around the village, accused of having caused the death of a family member by witchcraft. Of the many cruelties perpetrated upon these two women, one that stuck out for me was the shaving of their heads. Why do some people fear women’s hair so much that they either demand to cover it up or cut it off?

From ancient times, in many cultures, cunning women and ‘witches’ were thought to be able to double the potency of any spell, curse or cure by unbinding their hair. Witches were believed to be able to whip up a storm that could sink ships simply by shaking their hair lose. To bind or cut a woman’s hair was thought to bind or sever her power, like weakening the mighty Samson by shearing his locks.

At the height of the witchcraft trails in England and Europe, Inquisitors were advised to shave the head and bodies of any women or man accused of witchcraft before integrating them. Jordanes de Bergamo in 1470 refers to this practise, and aside from helping to break their prisoners’ spirits, it was advocated for three reasons –

1) The ‘witch’ might conceal amulets or charms in his or her hair to render them immune to the pain of torture.

2) The devil himself might hide in their hair and instruct the accused how to answer in order to deceive the interrogators. This belief also extended to those deemed to be possessed. Their heads were not shaved, but they were made to wear wigs. When fits or ravings took hold of them, their wig would be snatched off and pushed into a flask in the hope that the demon had been pulled off with the wig and was now sealed in the bottle, rather like catching a wasp or spider in a pinch of paper.
'Examination of a Witch' by Thompkins H. Matteson, 1853
Collection of Peasbody Essex Museum

3) But in England the reason mostly commonly given to justify shaving the head and body was so that the cunningly concealed devil’s marks, such as moles or birthmarks, would be exposed.

Today is not only International Women’s Day, but also the 500-year anniversary of the birth of another woman who also found herself accused of witchcraft, Sidonie of Saxony, Princess of Calenberg-Göttingen, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, who was born 8th March 1518.

In 1545, a marriage was arranged for her to Duke Erich II of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1528–1584), a man ten years younger. Although the couple seemed to get on well at first, perhaps Sidonie should have guessed he was unlikely to remain faithful for long, since he had broken off his engagement to Agnes of Hesse to marry her.
Sidonie, from a painting by Lucas Cranach, 1550

Erich’s mother, the Duchy’s regent, had converted the family to Lutheranism, but when Erich began to rule the Duchy, two years after his marriage, he reconverted to Catholicism. Much to his annoyance, Sidonie maintained her Lutheran faith. The marriage soon began to buckle under the weight of financial pressures and childlessness, and Sidonie started to believe her husband was trying murder her. In 1555, a merchant told her brother Augustus that Erich had ordered poison from him to do away with her.

Erich did not bother to conceal the fact that he had installed a very young mistress at Calenberg Castle where he was now living. Sidonie had previously refused to allow ‘the whore’ into their home and in turn Erich banned the duchess from the castle. But in 1563, the duke barely escaped with his life when a fire broke out under his bed, and he accused his wife of trying to kill him.

From 1564, Sidonie was more or less kept prisoner in her own home. Then in that same year, Erich became extremely ill. His hair and nails fell out and his body swelled. A physician, Dr Cornelius Mertens, swore before witnesses that the duke had been poisoned.
Erich, circa 1573. Artist unknown

As soon as he recovered sufficiently, Erich had four acquaintances of his wife arrested for witchcraft and attempted murder. Under torture, three confessed to planting some kind of explosive device under his bed, and then afterwards, with a fourth woman, Godela Kuckes, they swore they had brewed a harmful substance intended to kill the duke. Godela Kuckes confessed without being tortured, but a few days later, having been kept in solitary confinement, she was found dead by the prison guards with a broken neck. It was rumoured she’d been killed by the devil himself, though whether that devil was Erich or one of his henchmen we will probably never know.

The other three conspirators were burned at the stake as witches. But the deaths did not end there, for Erich had a further 37 people who he claimed to be involved executed, some by burning. On 30th March 1572, Duke Erich assembled nobles and authorities from Hannover and Hameln and publicly accused his wife of witchcraft and of attempting to murder him. Given what had already happened to the 41-other accused, Sidonie was justifiably terrified.

The duchess managed to get away and travelled to Vienna to beg Emperor Maximilian II for help. Maximilian ordered that an investigation should be carried out and the evidence heard at the imperial court. All witnesses recanted their testimony against Sidonie and she was eventually declared innocent of all charges. Elector Augustus gave her the monastery of the Poor Clare’s at Weissenfels and she lived there until she died on 4th January 1575, aged 56. At her request, she was buried in Freiberg Cathedral.

On this International Women’s Day, it is wonderful to celebrate the achievement of women, but perhaps reflect that for some, like those two women in India, attitudes have not changed much in 500 years. World wide we still have a long way to go.

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

A (Very) Short Brush With Hair... Catherine Johnson

Hello there. You asked for it so I am attempting it. But I am just skirting the ends of a very unruly topic for an audience that I am patronisingly assuming knows very little. Excuse me. This is a very shallow resume through the Pacific Ocean that is African  hair.  This is a huge topic. Women of every colour have always had to cope with their appearance being something of  importance to society. Women must be careful not to appear too anything, they are judged and judged again. And not just by men and society as a whole, by our sisters, friends and mothers. There is so much prejudice (historical and present day) against natural African hair from the wider world as well as within the Black community itself (and of course that construct does not exist at all.)
Angela Davis with her radical Afro
I'm really just touching on things here. There are probably several anthropological studies of how and why and I really would be here all day. But the white community (see, that doesn't exist either) has always been afraid and in awe of the unfettered black woman and her hair and felt happier with it tamed and bludgeoned into as near a facsimile of favoured European hair as possible.

As a mixed race woman with soft curls the one thing I always knew - old ladies would tell me in the street - was that I had lovely hair - this was before the tyranny of straighteners. Even my Mum knew I had the easier option, she didn't have to learn how to 'do' Afro hair and as a working woman with no time to fuss about she just kept my hair boy short until I was old enough to complain.

It wasn't really long until secondary school, where my teachers would regularly tell me off for messy hair telling me I looked like 'The Wild Man of Borneo'. Yes, that. Many times.

But although my hair was frizzy it did mostly hang down. If any of you have observed small black girls in a, say, nursery school, (not these days dressing up boxes routinely contain wigs) you might have noticed them tie long skirts or t-shirts round their heads to make the required, swishy,  'princess hair'. Black tightly curled hair was always described (by white writers) in a derogatory way as 'woolly' or  'wiry'.

You might not be aware of the massively complicated politics of black hair. Is it right, for example that the only way to get on (be employed) is to apply shit loads of chemicals or tightly woven on extensions to obtain the necessary Michelle Obama straight hair style?  The chemicals in these products have been shown to increase the possibility of fibroids and are highly toxic, the weaves can pull and damage hair growth and cause all sorts of problems.

You may be aware that Afro hair is different to European or Asian hair, heaps drier for a start. And that years of treatment or wig wearing (many black women of the previous generation to mine had wigs for work and church) could result in real damage.

You might not know that many employers will not employ black women with natural hair - an Afro, or corn rows or locks. In fact I remember in one of my last proper jobs working in a bookshop in Whitechapel where the head of the arts centre that ran the shop - a lovely white woman told us employees - including the bookshop manager - who had short locks - that she could not abide them, because they looked 'dirty'. Airlines and the US army have banned braided hairstyles when surely these are the neatest going? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27626509 

You might think that this sort of thing never happens these days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31914177


You might not be aware that there is a movement among young women who rail against it and go natural - this I am happy to say is a thing nowadays with many many You tube channels chronicling the trails of going product free and  sharing information  about natural oils and conditioners to keep their hair healthy.

If you think I am making much think about those big prize ceremonies, OK, there are much fewer Black actresses on any red carpet, but next time see how many of those actresses wear their hair naturally. The beautiful Lupita Nyong'o  was a trailblazer.
Lupita Nyong'o

It has been said by some that when black women refuse to make their hair conform to the European/Western standards it can be seen as dangerous, as a form of defiance. Think of Angela Davies and her Afro.  Society wants us to be something we're not. I am rather pleased there are so many women reclaiming their hair and deciding that they can be themselves rather than spend money and time trying to make themselves acceptable to the wider society.

And as I said in an earlier post Chris Rock, the American actor has made a rather good film that explores the subject in more depth. It's called Good Hair.

Catherine Johnson has always been lucky with her hair. She is also writing a film called Relax based on the story of the British company, Dyke and Dryden who first imported chemical hair relaxer into the UK.

Her next novel is called The Curious Tale of The Lady Caraboo, it's out in July.


Saturday, 10 May 2014

Hair in all the wrong places – Michelle Lovric


 
My forthcoming novel, The True & Splendid History of the Harristown Sisters, is about hair.

Long, vigorous yet soft, feminine hair. Hair that flows in rich torrents from seven pretty heads. Hair that can be put to work, making money for men who peddle long-tressed dolls and quack medical products for the scalp.

For The Harristown Sisters is set in the 1860s, the age of arch pseudo-medicine, when human perfectability was for sale in a bottle whose contents could be advertised without any regulation as to truth or safety.  A new power-base in the feminine purse, in the mid nineteenth century, shared a cultural vortex with the Pre-Raphaelite painters and the poets who both celebrated and problematized the hair of women as an expression of passionate and unruly desires.

The English Poetry Database, where I first began my researches, teemed with 19th century works featuring ‘hair’, ‘curl’ and ‘tresses’. Browning, Rossetti and their lesser ilk wrote longingly of lying under silky tents of feminine hair, or of being strangled by the fatal tresses of supernatural sirens like Lilith, Adam’s first, wicked wife, who alleged dined on human babies. Above is Monna Vanna, by Dante Gabriele Rossetti and below his Lady Lilith, now at the Delaware Museum (both paintings courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

 
But it would be transcending bliss to die in a coil of female hair, according to the poets, tapping neatly into the post-Albertine Victorians’ fascination with all things deathly. Miniature hair reliquaries were worn by fashionable women: glass fronted jewels containing the hair of the lamented deceased.

And the matrons of England and America were encouraged to spend on their hair, on the principle that a husband would remain captivated by his wife’s long-flowing feminine charms while her sensible housekeeping extracted only dry compliments.
It was the age of Edward’s Harlene, Koko for the Hair and most of all the preparations of America’s Seven Sutherland Sisters, who had thirty seven feet of hair between them.  They are pictured in one their classic poses below - they performed in circuses and shows where they sold their Scalp Food and Hair Restorer, being living advertisements for the efficacy of these potions. These sisters provided the inspiration for my novel, though I chose to set it in Ireland and Venice, where the Pre-Raphaelites, the earlier artists who inspired them, and the dawn of photography had more cultural resonance in my study of hair.


In the course of my research I also explored the problem of hair where hair should not be. In mid-Victorian times, this was personified by Julia Pastrana, the diminutive Mexican ‘Baboon Lady’ who danced the Highland Fling and sang on the stage to the horror and delight of American and British audiences.


Weeds are sometimes described as plants simply growing in the wrong place. Hair that grows abundantly in the prescribed zones is a bio-marker of desirable breeding stock. A hand running through a curl attached the beloved’s head finds only pleasure and sentiment. But when hair appears in the wrong place – such as in our soup – we feel revulsion and a sense of dirtiness.

Julia Pastrana – a gentle soul who spoke three languages and loved sewing – suffered from hypertrichosis. She was furred all over her body, had a beard and a simian visage caused by another rare condition, Gingival hyperplasia.


 
Billed as ‘the ugliest woman in the world,’ Julia was arguably the most celebrated ‘freak’ of the age. Even after her death, her embalmed body, in a dancing pose, would be exhibited all over Europe by unscrupulous sideshow managers, first and foremost her own husband, Theodore Lent.

The treatment of Julia Pastrana taps into two key moral debates of our own time: where does celebrity culture cross over into criminal intrusion and venality at the expense of the prey? And why is the ‘disgusting’ such a viable commodity? Embarrassing bodies, sexual failure, eating disorders: there’s a pornography of body dysfunction paraded on the television screens every night of the week.

A play and a film have been written about Julia Pastrana, and a third is in production.  The Ass Ponys recorded a song about her mind, life and marriage, with a refrain ‘He loves me for my own sake’, highly ironic under the circumstances.
It is less than two years since Julia Pastrana’s body finally received a picturesque burial in her native Mexico.

As an exercise in empathy, during the writing of The Harristown Sisters, I decided to write a personal essay as Julia Pastrana. People who are monstered rarely have voices. It is the way of dehumanization to render the victim silent. I wanted to give Julia the privilege of looking out of her anathematized body, instead of merely being looked at. I also wondered what she would have thought about her posthumous repatriation to Mexico, and finally concluded that it would find small favour with her.
This part of my research was not published, but it informed a great deal of what I wrote about in The True & Splendid History of the Harristown Sisters.

I wonder if others among you find that some of your most interesting work stays off the published page? Examples, please!
This post really ends with that question, but below, as an optional extra, is my personal essay as Julia Pastrana.

Michelle Lovric's website
Unless otherwise attributed, the pictures are courtesy of Wellcome Images, which has recently made its wonderful historical collection available for general use.
The True & Splendid History of the Harristown Sisters is published on June 5th by Bloomsbury


Julia Pastrana


Eighteen thirty-four, I’m born in Mexico, a baboon of a baby, hooded whiteless eyes filled up with lucent brown. My jaw thrusts out like an orange, or a bustle, split by two great slugs of lips snug over double rows of teeth. My forehead slopes steeply back; there’s fur on my feet, and shags and tufts and gouts of hair everywhere, everywhere that hair shouldn’t be.

By three my beard was tied with string. My tribe in Sinaloa de Leyva mumbled things about my mother but they let me live. Ma slapped children when they screamed at the sight of me, but I guessed from her averted eyes and sparing hands that she wished me unborn.  I could not crawl back inside her so I grew away from her.

I peaked at four and a half feet, with breasts, beckoning thighs, a supple dancing style, a melodious voice, a tongue for languages, a cool hand for pastry, and a desire to please the men with hair where hair should be.

A pink ribbon round my beard now, tight-laced in a Spanish dress, I was hired as a servant girl to the governor of Sinaloa. My mother’s eyes were opaque as the cart took me away. She did not wave

The governor brought me out after dark to serve port to male guests. One of them, a Mr Rates, watched me with long eyes through the candle flames. Late in the night, he threw a purse across the table.

 Mr Rates was my first handler. He handled me onto the stage: Gothic Hall, New York, was deemed the best place for a gothic beast like me. I was twenty then; sang and danced with fluent grace to jungle roars from the stalls, and roses flung, quite hard.  Behind my whiteless eyes, I learned English and dreamt of soft hands parting my fur with caresses and a man who’d let me dance for him, unpaid.

My billing was ‘The Marvelous Hybrid or Bear Woman’, she of the gorilla’s jaw, ape’s eyes, and hair where hair should not be. The New York papers showed their love: ‘terrifically hideous’, they said I was.

The doctors lifted, inserted, prodded till I cried. Mott from the Medical Society pronounced me ‘the most extraordinary being of the present day’, being the result of my Mexican mother mating with an orang-utan. Proof of her depravity: she’d sold me to the circus. If I mentioned otherwise, Mr Rates told me quietly, he’d skin me for my pelt and stuff me.

‘Then,’ he reflected, ‘you’d be pure profit. No cost in food and board. Remember this.’

The demi-monkey waltzed with soldiers at a military gala, knowing the fellows had been dared, feeling their reluctance through the tense fingers on my back, where my gown crushed the fur almost but not quite flat.

In Boston I was styled ‘the Hybrid Indian: The Misnomered Bear Woman’ – by the Horticultural and the Boston History Society. Neither could decide whether ‘animal’ or ‘vegetable’ best described the thing I was.

Mr Rates sold me to J.W. Beach of Cleveland. From him, I came into the possession of one Theodore Lent, my small-eyed darling, my bearded destiny, who, judging me worth the passage, carried me off to London, where they went mad for me and the hair that grew where hair should not be, while I fell deep in love with Lent, and he not at all with me.

How it clamped my heart when my love billed me ‘The Nondescript’. He claimed it meant my marvels surpassed description. It did not. ‘The grotesque’s dancing is like a fairy’s,’ the London papers wrote. ‘The monster sings romances and lilts Highland Flings to perfection.

Charles Darwin wrote of me kindly, but published me in The Variation of Animal and Plants under Domestication.

By now I spoke a lady’s English. My knitting was a credit to me, though my Theodore refused to touch the gaiters I made him. He’d swallow my little suppers with an averted face.

He coached me to tell of twenty marriage proposals turned down: to say that no admirer had yet proved rich enough to catch my glistening eye.

‘There will be someone,’ he promised, ‘There’s always someone with an itch for a thing like you.’

He toured me in Berlin and Leipzig to raise my price. I acted in a play, Der curierte Meyer. A German boy falls in love with a veiled woman. But when he goes offstage, I lift the gauze, convulsing the audience with hilarity at the horror of my baboon face. When my lover sees me unveiled, his cure is instant. I rehearsed with Theodore, till I could take it without flinching.

No rich suitors came to marry me, but other handlers loomed in, offering terms and smiles. Theodore proposed. On our wedding night, he closed his face, the shutters, the curtains and put out the light. He divided me rough and sudden from my girlhood. In the morning, he was gone, and stayed gone for days. I did not allow the stained sheets changed and lay sleepless on my hardened blood, remembering. My heart beat like jungle rain when he appeared again; I cried from joy if his lips curved upwards. His eyes never smiled when they looked on me.

In Vienna he let more doctors pay to do what he had done in the darkest part of me, with sharp cold tools instead of his hard heat and shouted obscenities. He locked me in our rooms by day. In Poland and Moscow, he grew crueller and harder though I stood on tiptoe in everything to please him. He still came to me some nights, roaring on gin. He clapped his hand over my great lips, grasped the bedstead rungs and laboured on me. Afterwards he’d fling himself from me, groaning, to vomit in his chamber pot and strode swearing from the room.

Yet he got a child on me.

No baby ever had such a delightful layette, every item stitched by me. The nursery I had painted all the colours of hope. Of course I wondered what was growing inside me, the little stranger was already beloved. Theo kept away. If I saw his face, it was in profile only.

He did not burn the anonymous letters but left them for me to see. You have mated with a beast. You have stained mankind with bestiality.

The birth tore my narrow hips apart. Worse than pain was the sight of my son who took after me with whiteless eyes, bustle-jaw and hair where hair should not be. I slapped myself so as not to scream at the sight of him. His hours of life were thirty five.

‘Put it in a bucket and throw it in the river,’ Theodore told the maid.

Puerperal sepsis seized me like a serpent, poisoned me, shook me, till I saw Sinaloan ghosts again, the New York stage, Theodore’s face. My widower did not visit my deathbed, sent the photographer instead. He was in deep negotiations to sell our two corpses to Professor Sukolov at the Anatomical Institute in Moscow, and had gone to buy a monkey the height of a two-year-old child. The public, he told the maid, loving horror as they did, would not accommodate a baby, even semi-human, stuffed. ‘Better this,’ he said, wringing the monkey’s neck and kissing the maid’s.

At the sound of his lips on her skin, my hairless soul rose from my corpse. No funeral. Instead, I watched Sukolov dissect the monkey and me side by side on stained slabs. I saw the scalpel separate my skin, cried out soundlessly when he chose a finer blade for the poor small creature. I began to feel for my monkey child a fierce new love.

 
For six months, the professor hovered over us, extracting, scouring, packing, stitching us to such perfection that we retained our colour and our form. My sawdust-stiffened limbs were mounted in my old dancing pose, hand on hip. A crucifix hid the seam that held my breasts together. Sewn into a short Spanish dress, I was set up in a glass case, my false simian son in a sailor suit on a pedestal in a separate box where I might stare at him as the paying customers did. 

News came to Theodore of the great crowds we drew and the great sums made for Sukolov. Our marriage certificate, presented to the American consul, robbed the Russian professor of his hard-won profits. That gaunt February of sixty-two, Theodore shipped us back to England; charged a shilling a look at the ‘Embalmed Nondescript’ and her progeny. Then he hired us out to a travelling museum of curiosities, I, the monster with hair where hair should not be, still topped the bills and filled the tents.

By now Theodore had found a girl near as hairy as myself. He set her up as “Zenora Pastrana”, my sister. He married her as well. The four of us, two living and two dead, toured till Theodore tired – his calculating mind slowed for the first but not the last time to a sick ticking. He rented his first wife and supposed son to a Vienna museum. With my corpse retired, he claimed that Zenora was me. The two repaired to St Petersburg, bought a waxworks. It was there my Theodore, Zenora’s Theodore, the stock exchange’s Theodore went mad. In the asylum, my spirit watched him long days writhing on his bed. It danced my Highland Fling for him, combed the hair where it should be, and touched him till he shrieked. He died insensible or perhaps fully sensible of me for the first time.

In eighty-eight, Zenora left Russia, reclaimed our bodies, toured them. Wooed by a young man, she sold us to an anthropological exhibit in Munich. J.B. Gassner put our bodies on the German fair circuit. At a circus convention in Vienna, he auctioned the monstrous Madonna and her brute baby. For a quarter of a century we passed from hand to calloused hand for cash.

The new century felt the old disgust for a pair of creatures with hair where hair should not be. In ‘twenty-one, Haakon Lund bought us for his Norwegian chamber of horrors. That was the year my name was divided from my body. ‘Julia Pastrana’ was not listed on the bill of sale. The new generation of shilling-payers did not think me real, but a diabolical confection of horsehair and leather, a relic of more barbarous times before Modernity, its brute lines, featureless towers, slot windows, slack chairs and inhumanly pale renders. I thought Modernity a diabolic confection of vanity and laziness. Modernity and I agreed to disagree.

When the Nazis thundered into Norway they ordered us destroyed. But Lund made them believe an Ape woman tour would line the Third Reich’s coffers, while showing to a hairy nicety miscegenation’s awful perils. On the strength of the world’s worst ever idea, my monkey son and me outlasted the war and the pale blue eyes that despised us up and down the Rhine.

 ‘Fifty-three and the good times were over for monsters. Lund stored his chamber of horrors, including us, in a warehouse outside Oslo. Rumours spread of a ghastly ape haunting the midnight dust. Teenage horror-seekers broke in, surrounded us, opened their mouths in ‘O’s and screamed till I thought our glass would shatter. Lund’s son Hans saw new money in the teenage stories in the press. He set us back to earn.

But now at last, someone remembered the old ape lady Julia Pastrana. In ‘sixty-nine, Judge Hofheinz, collector of curiosities, hired detectives to hunt down the Female Nondescript. Hans set up a bidding war for our corpses, only to withdraw from the sale to profit from the press’s frantic delight. He put us on the circus routes of Sweden and Norway, then shipped us to America. Here a New Age public finally found its conscience and cried out against the poor corpses paraded. So Hans rented us to Swedes. Again I travelled until people, month by month, grew ashamed of seeing me. I settled into years of peaceful warehouse dust, tender as fingers on my cheek.

Then the vandals came. They tore off my son’s arm, punched his little jaw, threw him in a gutter where the mice ate him. By the time he was found, he was in small scraps. I was left alone in my glass case looking at his empty pedestal, year on year.

‘Seventy-nine, I was stolen in the night. Once more, I was separated from my name. Children found my arm protruding from a ditch. The police pulled an entire woman, with hair where it should not be, from the mud and leaves. A crime against a woman dead a hundred years could not be chased.  And who would charge dead Theodore with selling his wife, living and dead?

They delivered me to the Norwegian Institute of Forensic Medicine. I lived in its basement, a friend to mould and unsolved case files.

Nineteen-ninety, I felt the old cold draft of a journalist swooping down on me. I sold more newspapers when my ugly tale was knitted to my old body again.

Norwegian priests pressed for a Christian burial.  A compromise – a sarcophagus in Oslo’s Museum of Medical History, a small DNA extraction first.

Twenty-twelve they sent me back Mexico, a burial my home country. A Roman Catholic mass was said over me. My coffin was borne to the cemetery in Sinaloa Province where I had begun. Instead of dirges the band played jaunty music, as if it were a fine thing to lay the dancing baboon-lady in earth at last. 

But I shall hardly rest in peace.

For why was I repatriated to a backwater I left gratefully at twenty? Was I not celebrated worldwide, a star of the stage, the newspapers’ darling? Should I not have had a hollow in the actors’ graveyard in Covent Garden? Or lie with the other famous clever ladies in Saint Pancras field? 

Or better still, I should have been allowed to sleep beside my Theodore, to lie and lie beside him for immemorial nights; to watch him gyre in his grave as the muscles died and shrank and danced his bones on leathery strings. Everything would drip from us, except my deathless hair, wrapped around his every place, a black wreath, a furring, a stirring of living hair everywhere on Theodore, everywhere my hair should justly be.