Lewis Carroll's Shifting Reputation
Why has popular opinion of the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland undergone such a dramatic reversal?
- By Jenny Woolf
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2010, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 4)
In 1932, the centennial of Dodgson’s birth, Alice Liddell, then an 80-year-old widow, traveled with her son and sister to New York City to receive an honorary doctorate from Columbia University for “awaking with her girlhood’s charm the ingenious fancy of a mathematician familiar with imaginary quantities, stirring him to reveal his complete understanding of the heart of a child.” An informal group of his admirers commemorated the centennial by praising Dodgson as a “great lover of children” and raising the equivalent of almost $800,000 in today’s currency to fund a Lewis Carroll children’s ward at St. Mary’s Hospital in London. That may have been the last time he was so simply remembered.
The next year, a writer named A.M.E. Goldschmidt presented at Oxford an essay titled “Alice in Wonderland Psycho-Analysed,” in which he suggested that Dodgson was suppressing a sexual desire for Alice. (Her fall down the well, he wrote, is “the best-known symbol of coitus.”) Goldschmidt was an aspiring writer, not a psychoanalyst, and some scholars say he may have been trying to parody the 1930s vogue for Freudian ideas. Whatever his intent, unambiguously serious writers picked up the thread.
“We are reasonably sure that the little girls substitute for incestuous love objects,” wrote New York University professor Paul Schilder in 1938. The meaning of an illustration of a long-necked Alice is “almost too obvious for words,” psychoanalyst Martin Grotjahn offered in 1947. Similar analyses would appear as the literature on the Alice author grew.
In 1945, Florence Becker Lennon advanced the case that Dodgson had had an unhealthy attraction to Alice with Victoria Through the Looking Glass, the first modern critical biography of him. “People have wondered what he did with his love life,” Lennon wrote. “Now it can be told. He loved little girls, but, like Peter Pan, he had no intention of marrying them.” But Alice, she wrote, “was the first and most favoured of his girl friends,” and she speculated about the idea that Dodgson precipitated the rift with the Liddells by proposing “honourable marriage to [Alice] directly or through her parents” in 1863. Alice was 11 then—too young, even by Victorian mores.
Lennon’s basis for the assertion may have seemed sound: Ina was one of her sources. (Alice did not talk to Lennon because, her sister said, she was ill.) But in a letter to Alice, Ina wrote, “I tremble at what I said” to Lennon about the Liddell family’s supposed rift with Dodgson. “I said his manner became too affectionate to you as you grew older and that mother spoke to him about it, and that offended him, so he ceased coming to visit us again.” Ina had also told Lennon that she, Ina, was 10 at the time—but she was 14, or old enough to entertain formal suitors.
Whether Ina was mistaken, duplicitous or confused when she spoke with Lennon, her letter to Alice does not say. (One conjecture is that she lied to conceal Dodgson’s interest in her, or hers in him; given his finances and prospects at the time, her parents would have discouraged the match.)
The idea that Dodgson had an unhealthy involvement with Alice has persisted, although there is no evidence to support it. Three major biographies published in the 1990s, by Donald Thomas, Michael Bakewell and Morton Cohen, suggested that he had pedophilic urges but never acted on them.
Lennon acknowledged that she wrote without the benefit of Dodgson’s diaries, which were published in abridged form in 1954 and in full, with Wakeling’s annotations, beginning in 1993. But even they are an imperfect source. Four of the 13 volumes are missing—as are the pages covering late June 1863, when his break with the Liddells occurred. A Dodgson descendant apparently cut them out after the writer died.
But if the diaries offer nothing about his romantic interests, other documents do.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (15)
Diary's are not for ripping pages of after authors' death, I am so frustrated because of past British culture's habit to make Egyptian statuses of deities, persons' own diaries etc. different than originals. We should have a right to now the truth about past cultures and persons without fear of what happens to their reputation. We should take history as it is, it would be much more interesting to hear the facts than read a lot of books based on inperfect sources. Times are different and people are different and todays crimes were not crimes in the past and vice versa and if they were, it makes more interesting facts.
Posted by Mirkka on February 14,2013 | 02:49 AM
I find it so upsetting that Mr.Carrolls reputation is so ruined these days. But of course you are right, Its not him who sexualizes children, its OUR society.
Posted by Miriam on May 5,2012 | 04:16 PM
From a 21st c. viewpoint, it is certain that Carroll's behavior falls under the category of pedophilia, in the sense that he was totally obsessed with, and attracted to prepubescent girls.
One cannot deny this, as Carroll himself had stated so many times in his personal writings. However, though his motivation for his attraction may have been purely innocent, or sexual, no one can know, but it IS an absolute fact, and no evidence to the contrary, that he never acted overtly sexual, or inappropriately with his "child-friends".
That being said, in recent years, revisionists, in order to project a kinder image of Carroll for the 21st c. (and possibly in order to feel less guilty about their intense interest in a man whom by many of the uninformed, is thought to have been a child molester) have tried to make him into everything from a chaste cleric, a homosexual, etc. etc. in order to "cleanse" his tarnished image!
The BIGGEST bugaboo of all is the assertion of many that Carroll had true romantic feelings for Alice Liddell. Detractors try to wave red herrings in the path of truth in order to have no such idea be taken seriously. I will not list the many "arguments" that have been put forth, but I will rebut with a few points/reasons more likely than not why Carroll was most certainly "in love" with Alice Liddell, whether actual thoughts of marriage was within the scope of his romantic affections or not.
The poems framing the Alice books. The destroyed letters, the talk with Mrs. Liddell, the Alice/Ina letters, Carroll's letter to grown Alice..His not attending Alice's wedding to name but a slight few..
I am limited here by word count. Read my review of Leach's book on Amazon.
Posted by Japonaliya on March 14,2012 | 01:07 PM
Enjoyed your article - researched Carroll for university paper years ago and I agree that we err when we view yesterday through today's eyes.
It's vital to study any topic within its historical context. For example, would someone generations in the future view the popular photographs of Anne Geddes as evidence that we wished to eat our children? Would assertions be made that our generation included closet cannibals? Let's hope that the trend for revisionist history ends before that claim is made!
Posted by Nina Johnson on January 27,2012 | 04:26 PM
"Another thought, "We see him through the prism of contemporary culture—one that sexualizes youth, especially female youth, even as it is repulsed by pedophilia." hits it right on the mark. Our society is obsessed with pedophilia, even to the point of using the term to describe situations which are clearly not pedophilia (sex with 16 year olds for example). By these standards, many people of the 1800s, including our own ancestors, would be judged to be pedophiles and locked away."
Been reading about LC for over 40 yrs now. So many modern people have the unhealthy obsessions, and the need to see children as victims no matter what. From everything we know about Carroll (diaries, testimony of those who actually knew him when they were kids) he was always respectful and fun. Someone whom they remembered as making them feel BETTER about themselves as children. The nude photos, he knew were controversial, but this was an era where naked baby & child pictures were not rare. Cherubs always had been decorative. Carroll looked at children as beautiful and unflawed, but there is no record or testimony of his having "interfered" with any. My own take is that he was an innocent, and in this age, that's a difficult concept. He was also sincerely religious, if a bit unusual. He was out in the open re his photographic preferences. He always consulted the mothers and the kids. If there was any hint of shyness or reluctance, he he "dropped the request immediately." We overlay the Victorians with current concerns, some of which are absurdly exaggerated due to omnipresent media. Carroll is not known to have ever "hurt" any children. He was compassionate and gentle--he once took a stray kitten to the vet to get a fish hook removed from its' mouth. One child said of him "he made wonderful a childhood that would otherwise have been very dreary."
That about sums him up. Those who have dreary issues still to deal with, seek counseling; but they are not Lewis Carroll's fault.
Posted by Charlotte on October 25,2011 | 10:55 AM
Dodgson was not treated with LSD. He died in 1898 and LSD was invented in 1938. As for all this non-sense about the changing attidutes, I can not beleive how many people have wasted countless hours on something that no one can change. Everyone whoever knew Dodgson is dead (I;m not 100% about that, but he died over 113 years ago, so I'm just going to assume) I can't find one thing that can be accomplished by figuring out what kind of man he was. I wouldn't not let my children read the books or watch the movies if we found out he was a molseter. He's dead, can't hurt children now.
Posted by Jessica on May 26,2011 | 11:58 AM
Jenny (and anyone else interested in understanding Dodgson's behavior and personality)-
There is obviously a lot of speculation and misconceptions about Charles Dodgson. However, to understand him, you really need to understand Geschwind's Syndrome, which is exhibited by people with temporal lobe epilepsy. In Dodgson's case, stickiness and hypergraphia were prominent.
Eve LaPlante's book, "Seized", about TLE, explains Dodgson's symptoms and also some of his medical history (he was being treated for epilepsy with one of the only epilepsy drugs available at that time, LSD).
His seemingly odd personality traits and behaviors make complete sense in this context.
Eric
Posted by Eric Brown on March 21,2011 | 01:47 PM
This is a really excellent article Jenny.
You have very succintly summarised the whole debate around Carroll's relationships with his female companions.
However! I do think you have done yourself a disservice in Not acknowledging that you have wholly relied on secondary sources. It is interesting that you quite happily quote secondary sources in the introductory section of the article as this enables you to rebuff these sources. Yet you do not (except in the case of the admirable Edward Wakeling) cite the sources you use to rebuff the likes of Cohen. For example, you cite the famous (or infamous) 'note' as though it was common knowledge. You fail to mention that it is a contentious isue and you fail to mention the controversy it has raised. You also fail to mention the discoverer of the note.
I do think you should be more scrupulous in acknowledging sources. Other than that I think you are doing a really good job.
best wishes
John tufail
Posted by John Tufail on August 5,2010 | 07:20 PM
Couple of interesting websites about the changing image, if you google 'carroll myth'. Leach apparently is 'the Queen of the Revisionists'
Posted by Bernardo on June 3,2010 | 06:57 AM
@john nicol
First he wasn't considered a pedophile, then he might have been (with no real evidence), then we found more material that appears to indicate he was not. What would you have us do?
It nothing else, it appears that history is going back to the original opinion of his time after his character was attacked by spurious claims. That was the revision.
Another thought, "We see him through the prism of contemporary culture—one that sexualizes youth, especially female youth, even as it is repulsed by pedophilia." hits it right on the mark. Our society is obsessed with pedophilia, even to the point of using the term to describe situations which are clearly not pedophilia (sex with 16 year olds for example). By these standards, many people of the 1800s, including our own ancestors, would be judged to be pedophiles and locked away.
Posted by Mike on April 26,2010 | 01:46 PM
Another chapter of "Revisionist History"
Posted by john Nicol on April 22,2010 | 01:54 AM
It is curious that there is such a debate about the intentions of someone in one era, by someone viewing them through the coloured lenses of another era, since the values of one era do not always match the ideas and philosophies--nor even differing cultures--of some time remote.
For example, it is easy to view the burning of witches as something insipid, ignorant or superstitious, from one's contemporary arm-chair, but within the context and locales of the times, the prevailing ideas were that the burning of the witch would release the connection to those dark forces that had inhabited that body; thus allowing that person to be cleansed.
I would think that, too often, contemporary viewers are quick to jump without looking, or having complete knowledge of a person, distant era or whatever, and find the sensational, as that is far more profitable than something scholarly, exact, and to the points within the context of that distant era, et al., as there is little sensation and even less profit, to do so. While not everyone may be motivated by profit or sensationalism, we live in a time when the negative has far more media value than the positive.
The author has done an admirable job pointing to the events and circumstances, as well as the knowledge extant and missing, on Lewis Carroll.
I would be curious to see how Victorians would have viewed us; and what value judgements they would have drawn through those Victorian lenses.
Posted by Andreas Berg on April 10,2010 | 05:23 AM
The reason why popular opinion of Dodgson changed is because in each period, critics view the past through the filter of their own time.
Posted by Dr. Yusuf Al-Kindi on April 7,2010 | 06:44 PM
This article kind of doesn't answer its own question,'why did popular opinion of the author of 'Alice' undergo such a dramatic reversal'? It doesn't even say there was a reversal, let alone what caused it. Was there? If there was, what caused it? Was it Leach's book? If there wasn't, why say so?
Posted by justin on March 30,2010 | 04:54 PM