In "the Sumptuous Rank of the Signifier": The Gendered Tattoo in Mr. Meeson's Will
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In "the Sumptuous Rank of the Signifier":The Gendered Tattoo in Mr. Meeson's Will Patricia Murphy (bio) In an 1888 Fortnightly Review essay ominously titled "The Fall of Fiction," an anonymous critic complained that H. Rider Haggard's recent "minor" novels "raise alternately the eyebrows and the gorge of his readers" (335).1 Uttering a similar sentiment, the Boston Literary World contended that "delicacy is something we have no right to expect from Mr. Haggard," yet the reviewer cited the novelist's latest offering, Mr. Meeson's Will, as evidence that when the writer "gets away from the raw beef and bloody bones business, Mr. Rider Haggard is actually capable of an amusing story" (275). The novel did garner a more positive reading from the Athenaeum, which announced that the tale is "told with a vigour" and, "as a mere story[, was] excellent," despite Haggard's "noble disregard of accuracy in details" (660). The remarkable point about the reviews of the novel is that none of them gave more than a passing reference to the novel's astonishing definitive episode, the tattooing of a will on a woman's body to convert her into a legal document. Indeed, only the Dublin Review made note of the event, dismissing it as a "somewhat bizarre incident (175)."2 Yet the strange occurrence initiates compelling hermeneutic trajectories that offer unsettling insights into the gender inflections of this 1888 novel. The tattoo inhabits "the sumptuous rank of the signifier," to borrow Roland Barthes's terminology (65), in its multiple permutations that reinforce Victorian perceptions of male superiority. Through a complex web of linkages, the tattoo marginalizes, controls, and punishes the novel's main character, a successful woman writer, for appropriating male privilege; by this means, the narrative seeks to bind her to the conventional association of femininity with the body rather than the mind. Language becomes not a tool under her control, but a weapon wielded against her. In this essay, I examine three key paths emanating from the pivotal tattooing incident to explore its gender implications. First, I contextualize the tattoo within its cultural framework, investigating connections to empire and otherness, along with vague hints of unlawful and dangerous behavior. Second, I examine the ways in which the tattoo acts as a means of control over the transgressive quasi-heroine, evaluating the tattoo as a marker of both sexuality and desexualization, as well as literal and figurative evidence of female commodification. Third, I explore the tattoo's gendered relationship to the processes [End Page 229] of cultural inscription. My objective here is not to provide an exhaustive analysis of the Victorian tattoo but to examine the multifarious ramifications of one such manifestation, the utterly intriguing one offered by Mr. Meeson's Will. Before proceeding to this analysis, though, it is necessary to address the narrative's assumption that the central figure indeed requires control. Mr. Meeson's Will follows the travails of Augusta Smithers, who is a paradoxically simplistic and complex character in that she embodies elements of both the conventional woman and the threatening New Woman.3 On first regard, Augusta seems to conform to the paradigmatic Victorian heroine through both physical attributes and personality traits. The "exceedingly pretty" (69) Augusta is a "well-formed young lady of about twenty-four" who boasts "pretty golden hair, deep grey eyes, a fine forehead, and a delicate mouth" (5). With her "sweet face" (257), Augusta acts traditionally through her maidenly blushes, determined modesty, tearful response to tribulation, and humble self-effacement designated by such remarks as "I am very silly" (13). "A good and religious girl" (142), Augusta is portrayed approvingly as a woman with a highly developed sense of duty who puts the interests of others above her own and even "rejoice[s]" at the chance of sacrifice (128). Indeed, that sacrificial tendency leads her to undertake the painful tattooing that is so crucial to the novel, and the term "sacrifice" and its variants are repeatedly invoked in describing the episode. Even the protagonist of Augusta's novel Jemima's Vow seems to have a sacrificial nature, as she dies at the end of the narrative happy that "she had now kept...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".