Images of death in the Victorian era

The idea of photographing the dead might be seen as morbid today but it made perfect sense to Victorians. Readers might like to find Audrey Linkman's book Photography and Death, published by Reaktion Books in 2011.

Most photographs of a recently deceased person were taken by professionals, and were kept at home in the same way as all other family photographs were kept – mounted on the wall or inserted into family photo albums. But why did they have the deceased photos taken at all? Ordinary Victorian families could not have afforded dozens of photographs. So the post-mortem photograph was often the only image the family would ever have of their loved parent, sibling or child. There was little choice - if families did not record the person’s image just before he/she was buried, how would they properly memorialise their loved one?

A little girl in mourning clothes standing close to her younger, deceased sibling.

Norwich, N.Y.

Photo credit: Etsy

In the examples I've seen, the portraits were posed peacefully. The person may have suffered terrible pain for months or years, but appeared as peaceful as he/she had before the suffering set in. Linkman noted that at least for people who died within a familial context, the picture reminded the family that their loved one was truly at rest.

With high mortality rates in childhood, the photos filled a painful void. They honoured the loved relative and seemed to have been part of the healing process for the survivors.

Postmortem photography of the dead, esp children, was also an obsession for late C19th Americans. Bereaved families wanting to keep a memory of a lost child would have a photo made of the child lying in its coffin. Some of these photos were given to family members and friends, or appeared on memorial cards announcing the child’s death. Or these photos could be on one side of memento mori lockets and brooches, with the other side containing a lock of hair. These lockets were emotional keepsakes post death.

Photography and Death is important as it revealed the significance of images that might make modern families queasy. We may respond with equanimity when the deceased person lay on a bed with the eyes closed, as if asleep. But often the formally dressed body was seated erect on a couch, playing with toys, surrounded by flowers or propped up between live people. Daily Oddities noted that the dead eyes were "open"; this was done either by propping the subject’s eyes open or painting pupils onto the photo-graphic print. And many early images had a rosy tint added to the corpse's cheeks. The book’s strength was that it placed these rather uncomfortable images within the context of changing cultural attitudes towards death and loss.

Mourning locket, 

photo from Carter's

Why did many of these photos look as if they were taken in the family’s front parlour? An interesting aside to the familial context came from mental_floss. The parlour/death room was an important part of funerary rituals for the Victorian era, the place where deceased family members were laid out before the burial. In the Victorian and Edwardian eras, many funerals were still taking place at home until slowly, by WW1, most funerals started to take place in funeral homes. As the professional funeral parlour came into vogue, the home parlour was quickly rebranded a “living room”. A 1910 issue of Ladies Home Journal declared that for Americans at least, the death room would become a term of the past.

For Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders,  WW1 also brought an end to elaborate Victorian-style mourning rituals. The huge numbers of soldiers who died and were buried overseas, as well as the resultant collective grief, made individual displays of mourning at home seem inappropriate.

Linkman acknowledged that for violent deaths, the situation was very different. In Western Europe, young men were clearly sent off to war whenever their nation required it. In Eastern Europe, pogrom massacres were a constant feature of life. I am assuming that families would not have been comforted by images of massacred brothers and sons, even assuming they could retrieve the bodies distant from home.

Millais, portrait of the late Cecil Webb, 

1887, NGV

One last thought about the momentos that provided a kind of therapy and a physical remembrance. Ordinary working families might have relied on a locket containing hair of the deceased or a ring. The National Gallery of Victoria has a portrait of an Australian child who died in 1886, painted by the British artist John Everett Millais in 1887. This beautiful and sombre memorial was presumably painted from a photo, sent to Britain by the grieving parents. It was expensive.

Photos may have made the death images more lifelike, but examine a funerary monument from the mid C18th. The wax head and body of Sarah Hare (1689-1744)  was placed in a mahogany box in Stow Bardolph church, Norfolk. She had instructed her family as follows: "I desire to have my face and hands made in wax with a piece of crimson satin thrown like a garment in a picture, hair upon my head and put in a case of mahogany with a glass before." So it may be assumed that the fabrics were taken from Hare's own clothing and the corset was the one she wore in life.

Although wax memorials like this were rare, it seemed to function for the mid C18th Hare family just as the Victorian death photos did 100+ years later.

Sarah Hare funerary monument, 1744

Hare Chapel, Stow Bardolph Church, Norfolk

Excellent photos can be found in Victorian History,  History and traditions of England,  Daily Oddities, Histatic and Mental Floss. Thank you to William Clements Library.