Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

William Morris

Expand Messages
  • Bernice Marin
    Good morning: Just a question, did Lewis Carroll ever had the chance to meet William Morris at Oxford University? Bernice California Central Coast, US ... Do
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Good morning:  Just a question, did Lewis Carroll ever had the chance to meet William Morris at Oxford University?
       
      Bernice
       
       
      California Central Coast, US


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
    • Keith Wright
      I ve not come across any references to a meeting between the two although they shared many mutual friendships. Keith W ... From: Bernice Marin To:
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I've not come across any references to a meeting between the two although they shared many mutual friendships.
         
        Keith W
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:43 PM
        Subject: [lewiscarroll] William Morris

        Good morning:  Just a question, did Lewis Carroll ever had the chance to meet William Morris at Oxford University?
         
        Bernice
         
         
        California Central Coast, US


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

        visit our homepage  at:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/

        to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      • Jlsperanza@aol.com
        In a message dated 6/1/2004 1:53:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, oceanic20002002@yahoo.com writes: Good morning: Just a question, did Lewis Carroll ever had the
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 6/1/2004 1:53:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, oceanic20002002@... writes:
          Good morning:  Just a question, did Lewis Carroll ever had the chance to meet William Morris at Oxford University?
          Bernice
          California Central Coast, US
          Dunno. Google.com not very helpful here: a search for 'Carroll Morris' retrieves the webpage of "Carroll Morris, MA, CH, MRET, certified hypnotherapist".
           
          Cheers,
           
          JL
           
           

           

        • Keith Wright
          Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every spectrum of Victorian
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of nobody - as far as I can tell.  I am not sure if he would have agreed with Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met him, but having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also was friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in their views church wise.
             
            Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!  Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't.  The only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put them in Tennyson's library.
             
            It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me.  Is this just me or did he really become the universally acceptable man?  Throws considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in society!
             
            Keith W
          • Jim Buch
            ... through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of nobody - as far as I
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...> wrote:
              > Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved
              through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every
              spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of nobody
              - as far as I can tell. I am not sure if he would have agreed with
              Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met him, but
              having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also was
              friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in their
              views church wise.
              >
              > Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and
              Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who
              went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!
              Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't. The
              only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and
              even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off
              there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put them
              in Tennyson's library.
              >
              > It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is
              often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me. Is this just
              me or did he really become the universally acceptable man? Throws
              considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in society!
              >
              > Keith W

              Interesting observation.

              It is seemingly a more modern view of a complex man who had often been
              trivialized by past biographical attempts.
            • mikeindex2001
              I think it s important to remember how much we don t know and probably never will know. Even Collingwood said that LC tended to get over emphatic and worked
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I think it's important to remember how much we don't know and
                probably never will know. Even Collingwood said that LC tended to
                get over emphatic and worked up during an argument so given his
                strong views it seems unlikely he was ever bland enough to be
                universally acceptable, and this is probably more an illusion
                created by the absence of evidence. Colllingwood presented a
                deliberately smoothed-out view and the family as a whole have edited
                the available data to remove all of the more awkward or controversial
                aspects - including very probably any professional or social
                conflicts.

                Nevertheless there is evidence remaining of some such, though usually
                it's only patchy. The falling-out with the Tennysons seems as if it
                may have started before the business with the poem and right now we
                don't really know what caused it, or how biiter it may have been.
                There was his confrontation with Harry Furniss in which Furniss was
                humiliated and waited until LC was dead to get his revenge. His
                relationship with the MacDonalds may have cooled in later life -
                though this may have been a more of a drifting apart than any actual
                falling-out.

                Then there's the business with Henry Liddon at the end of their
                Russian trip, when they decided to split up their holiday fund and go
                their separate ways during the last few days in Paris. Dodgson's
                journal doesn't mention this but Liddon's does, yet gives not hint of
                why - though of course they had been arguing ('warmly') about
                religion throughout almost the whole vacation, so presumably it was
                something to do with that.

                Then let's not forget LC was one of the 'rebel' Students who
                confronted Dean Liddell and the Canons (sounds like a sixties pop
                group) in the mid-1860s - which of course makes it so inexplicable
                that Liddell didn't get rid of him when he had the chance, as Keith
                pointed out.

                And I wonder what we would know if his diary for 1860 wasn't
                missing? He was probably there to witness the historic confrontation
                between Wilberforce and Huxley, and it would be interesting to know
                what he was writing in his diaries during this whole controversial
                period. He seems to have at least partially accepted the concept of
                evolution - at least later in his life, so I wonder what standpoint
                he was taking at the time? Unfortunately because the evidence has all
                gone, we can only guess.

                Mike










                --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                wrote:
                > Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved
                through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every
                spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of
                nobody - as far as I can tell. I am not sure if he would have agreed
                with Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met
                him, but having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also
                was friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in
                their views church wise.
                >
                > Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and
                Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who
                went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!
                Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't. The
                only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and
                even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off
                there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put
                them in Tennyson's library.
                >
                > It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is
                often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me. Is this just
                me or did he really become the universally acceptable man? Throws
                considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in
                society!
                >
                > Keith W
              • Keith Wright
                Mike, whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much deeper than that. Absence of evidence is a difficult one to resolve. However, think
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike,

                  whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much deeper
                  than that.

                  Absence of evidence is a difficult one to resolve. However, think of
                  Wilberforce, his bishop. We know little about him. From his photos he
                  looks stern and uncompromomising. Or is it just because I know he was
                  described that way by his contemporaries that I see that in his image? I
                  doubt this because I saw Paget's image and correctly summed up what his
                  character would be like before I read his biography. The same applies to
                  the 30 clergy I researched for Ripon, their characters show through on their
                  images. Yet with Charles L. Dodgson we have a diary, several photos, which
                  nobody ever claims to be able to read his character from, a biography by his
                  nephew, who claims to have first hand knowledge, and yet we still seem to
                  understand so little about him. The modern biographies just add to the
                  confusion, as most rewrites of the facts second hand tend to do, and the
                  whole picture of him becomes very blurred.

                  Was he a liberal in the church? Was he a tory voter by conviction? Did he
                  like animals? Did he have strong views as you say? I don't see that. I
                  don't see him as a bigot, I see him as very open minded but realistic to the
                  extent that he saw he could not express such views openly and live in
                  Victorian society.

                  I can ask myself many questions which one can often answer in the case of
                  someone I have studied - but in his case I cannot give firm answers and I
                  cannot prove that my views on CLD are correct and neither can anyone else
                  seem to produce a convincing case for any of the usual things we associate
                  with personality. Yes he could be grumpy - as Collingwood perhaps saw, he
                  could be jealous as Isa saw, but that wasn't him all the time.

                  Wasn't the fact that Macdonald went abroad why he lost touch? Also should
                  we read anything into their drifting apart other than merely the passing of
                  time. Lots of folk lose touch with others, I do myself, but it does not
                  indicate any differing of views on anything, just circumstances and lack of
                  time. Same applies with Liddon on the Russian trip. They had lived in each
                  other's pockets for weeks and surely anyone as used to their own space as
                  two Oxford dons would crave to be alone at the end of such a long time!
                  Liddon wrote nothing bad about CLD and neither did anyone else, it would be
                  a fortunate man who could just have 'he lost his temper occasionally' in the
                  book of accounting after his death!

                  The business with Liddell was also deeply puzzling. CLD must have known
                  that Liddell would not or could not raise the old matter of his tenure or
                  he'd not have joined that rebel movement. Either that or he thought that
                  the others were able to protect him should Liddell raise his tenure.
                  Alternatively he may have thought 'Alice' could be his meal ticket if things
                  went wrong! Yet none of this comes across in anything we read, we get the
                  facts and no arguments, we know what people did but not why they did it.

                  Evolution just emphasises the point. People went into each camp. We know
                  where Huxley stood, we know where Wilberforce stood but we haven't a clue
                  what CLD thought. If he'd have been dead set against it he might have
                  written something but he didn't. As a churchman he could be expected to be
                  against it but he apparently wasn't or wasn't so strongly against that he
                  felt the need to go into print on it. Yet evolution was as hotly debated as
                  nuclear power is nowadays.

                  All this seems to point to a much more mature personality that he has been
                  credited with. The little snapshots of the 'errors' he made, such as
                  crawling under the table at a party are perhaps misleading us into the wrong
                  opinion of him.

                  I could say more but I'll bore you all so I'll stop!

                  Keith W








                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
                  To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:47 PM
                  Subject: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same


                  > I think it's important to remember how much we don't know and
                  > probably never will know. Even Collingwood said that LC tended to
                  > get over emphatic and worked up during an argument so given his
                  > strong views it seems unlikely he was ever bland enough to be
                  > universally acceptable, and this is probably more an illusion
                  > created by the absence of evidence. Colllingwood presented a
                  > deliberately smoothed-out view and the family as a whole have edited
                  > the available data to remove all of the more awkward or controversial
                  > aspects - including very probably any professional or social
                  > conflicts.
                  >
                  > Nevertheless there is evidence remaining of some such, though usually
                  > it's only patchy. The falling-out with the Tennysons seems as if it
                  > may have started before the business with the poem and right now we
                  > don't really know what caused it, or how biiter it may have been.
                  > There was his confrontation with Harry Furniss in which Furniss was
                  > humiliated and waited until LC was dead to get his revenge. His
                  > relationship with the MacDonalds may have cooled in later life -
                  > though this may have been a more of a drifting apart than any actual
                  > falling-out.
                  >
                  > Then there's the business with Henry Liddon at the end of their
                  > Russian trip, when they decided to split up their holiday fund and go
                  > their separate ways during the last few days in Paris. Dodgson's
                  > journal doesn't mention this but Liddon's does, yet gives not hint of
                  > why - though of course they had been arguing ('warmly') about
                  > religion throughout almost the whole vacation, so presumably it was
                  > something to do with that.
                  >
                  > Then let's not forget LC was one of the 'rebel' Students who
                  > confronted Dean Liddell and the Canons (sounds like a sixties pop
                  > group) in the mid-1860s - which of course makes it so inexplicable
                  > that Liddell didn't get rid of him when he had the chance, as Keith
                  > pointed out.
                  >
                  > And I wonder what we would know if his diary for 1860 wasn't
                  > missing? He was probably there to witness the historic confrontation
                  > between Wilberforce and Huxley, and it would be interesting to know
                  > what he was writing in his diaries during this whole controversial
                  > period. He seems to have at least partially accepted the concept of
                  > evolution - at least later in his life, so I wonder what standpoint
                  > he was taking at the time? Unfortunately because the evidence has all
                  > gone, we can only guess.
                  >
                  > Mike
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved
                  > through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every
                  > spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of
                  > nobody - as far as I can tell. I am not sure if he would have agreed
                  > with Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met
                  > him, but having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also
                  > was friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in
                  > their views church wise.
                  > >
                  > > Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and
                  > Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who
                  > went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!
                  > Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't. The
                  > only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and
                  > even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off
                  > there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put
                  > them in Tennyson's library.
                  > >
                  > > It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is
                  > often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me. Is this just
                  > me or did he really become the universally acceptable man? Throws
                  > considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in
                  > society!
                  > >
                  > > Keith W
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > visit our homepage at:
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                  >
                  > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                  lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Kate
                  Hi Keith - not boring at all. A very insightful mail and extremely interesting. He was a man who asked questions, and respected people who were honest enough
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Keith - not boring at all. A very insightful mail and extremely interesting.  He was a man who asked questions, and respected people who were honest enough to say "I don't know", or at least to ask questions and think critically. That's what it was about kids - they generally said "I don't get it" rather than covering up. And he was surrounded by people - relatives especially - while, if they weren't exactly imbeciles certainly weren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Frustrating for him. So yes - the fact that he managed to remain onside with many of them may be either a testament to his good breeeding and manners, or to the fact that they were too stupid to pick up the fact that he couldn't stand them! Like Stuart! But never mind - Stuart's bio will continue to influence a good many people for a while yet.
                     
                    Funny, isn't it. Stuart seemed to be less worried that his uncle could be construed as a pedophile than as a heretic, or a radical, or anything else!  The family name was all in all. In answer to your question - he liked animals, I guess, he spent ages trying to get a fishook out of a kitten's mouth, and had sleepless nights worrying about how to put down the old cat at Oxford. What else do we know? he was tolerant - of other religions - at least at the end. But it took some working through. he couldn't abide artifice or pretence of any kind, and he despised falsehood, recognising that you couldn't liove anyone if you didn't trust them. And I think he was afraid of being proud. Pride he despised in others, but he also recognised that the fact that he could be intolerant was also a kind of pride. And he fought to keep it down. He loved his mum - he wrote about her in the Introductory poemn to S & B - hands clasped upon a dead mother's breast. . . he missed her very very much. She was his lodestar, i think. It's a pity that he remains such a shadowy figure - I think she made him what he was, but she is relegated to a few mentions anywhere.
                     
                    There are questions I have - like - who took care of Charles and Hassard when Charles was killed in Ireland? Where did they go - whose influence helped to mould them? The Lutwidges? Or did Lucy {Hume) struggle on her own. The Lutwidges were a strong - and somewhat radical - at least theologically - family.So many questions!
                     
                     
                    Kate Lyon
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 5:05 AM
                    Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same

                    Mike,

                    whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much deeper
                    than that.

                    Absence of evidence is a difficult one to resolve.  However, think of
                    Wilberforce, his bishop.  We know little about him.  From his photos he
                    looks stern and uncompromomising.  Or is it just because I know he was
                    described that way by his contemporaries that I see that in his image?  I
                    doubt this because I saw Paget's image and correctly summed up what his
                    character would be like before I read his biography.  The same applies to
                    the 30 clergy I researched for Ripon, their characters show through on their
                    images.  Yet with Charles L. Dodgson we have a diary, several photos, which
                    nobody ever claims to be able to read his character from, a biography by his
                    nephew, who claims to have first hand knowledge, and yet we still seem to
                    understand so little about him.  The modern biographies just add to the
                    confusion, as most rewrites of the facts second hand tend to do, and the
                    whole picture of him becomes very blurred.

                    Was he a liberal in the church? Was he a tory voter by conviction?  Did he
                    like animals?  Did he have strong views as you say?  I don't see that.  I
                    don't see him as a bigot, I see him as very open minded but realistic to the
                    extent that he saw he could not express such views openly and live in
                    Victorian society.

                    I can ask myself many questions which one can often answer in the case of
                    someone I have studied - but in his case I cannot give firm answers and I
                    cannot prove that my views on CLD are correct and neither can anyone else
                    seem to produce a convincing case for any of the usual things we associate
                    with personality.  Yes he could be grumpy - as Collingwood perhaps saw, he
                    could be jealous as Isa saw, but that wasn't him all the time.

                    Wasn't the fact that Macdonald went abroad why he lost touch?  Also should
                    we read anything into their drifting apart other than merely the passing of
                    time.  Lots of folk lose touch with others, I do myself, but it does not
                    indicate any differing of views on anything, just circumstances and lack of
                    time.  Same applies with Liddon on the Russian trip.  They had lived in each
                    other's pockets for weeks and surely anyone as used to their own space as
                    two Oxford dons would crave to be alone at the end of such a long time!
                    Liddon wrote nothing bad about CLD and neither did anyone else, it would be
                    a fortunate man who could just have 'he lost his temper occasionally' in the
                    book of accounting after his death!

                    The business with Liddell was also deeply puzzling.  CLD must have known
                    that Liddell would not or could not raise the old matter of his tenure or
                    he'd not have joined that rebel movement.  Either that or he thought that
                    the others were able to protect him should Liddell raise his tenure.
                    Alternatively he may have thought 'Alice' could be his meal ticket if things
                    went wrong!  Yet none of this comes across in anything we read, we get the
                    facts and no arguments, we know what people did but not why they did it.

                    Evolution just emphasises the point.  People went into each camp.  We know
                    where Huxley stood, we know where Wilberforce stood but we haven't a clue
                    what CLD thought.  If he'd have been dead set against it he might have
                    written something but he didn't.  As a churchman he could be expected to be
                    against it but he apparently wasn't or wasn't so strongly against that he
                    felt the need to go into print on it. Yet evolution was as hotly debated as
                    nuclear power is nowadays.

                    All this seems to point to a much more mature personality that he has been
                    credited with.  The little snapshots of the 'errors' he made, such as
                    crawling under the table at a party are perhaps misleading us into the wrong
                    opinion of him.

                    I could say more but I'll bore you all so I'll stop!

                    Keith W








                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
                    To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:47 PM
                    Subject: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same


                    > I think it's important to remember how much we don't know and
                    > probably never will know. Even Collingwood said that LC tended to
                    > get  over emphatic and worked up during an argument so given his
                    > strong views it seems unlikely he was ever bland enough to be
                    > universally acceptable, and this is probably more an illusion
                    > created by the absence of evidence. Colllingwood presented a
                    > deliberately smoothed-out view and the family as a whole have edited
                    > the available data to remove all of the more awkward or controversial
                    > aspects - including very probably any professional or social
                    > conflicts.
                    >
                    > Nevertheless there is evidence remaining of some such, though usually
                    > it's only patchy. The falling-out with the Tennysons seems as if it
                    > may have started before the business with the poem and right now we
                    > don't really know what caused it, or how biiter it may have been.
                    > There was his confrontation with Harry Furniss in which Furniss was
                    > humiliated and waited until LC was dead to get his revenge. His
                    > relationship with the MacDonalds may have cooled in later life -
                    > though this may have been a more of a drifting apart than any actual
                    > falling-out.
                    >
                    > Then there's the business with Henry Liddon at the end of their
                    > Russian trip, when they decided to split up their holiday fund and go
                    > their separate ways during the last few days in Paris. Dodgson's
                    > journal doesn't mention this but Liddon's does, yet gives not hint of
                    > why - though of course they had been arguing ('warmly') about
                    > religion throughout almost the whole vacation, so presumably it was
                    > something to do with that.
                    >
                    > Then let's not forget LC was  one of the 'rebel' Students who
                    > confronted Dean Liddell and the Canons (sounds like a sixties pop
                    > group) in the mid-1860s - which of course makes it so inexplicable
                    > that Liddell didn't get rid of him when he had the chance, as Keith
                    > pointed out.
                    >
                    > And I wonder what we would know if his diary for 1860 wasn't
                    > missing?  He was probably there to witness the historic confrontation
                    > between Wilberforce and Huxley, and it would be interesting to know
                    > what he was writing in his diaries during this whole controversial
                    > period. He seems to have at least partially accepted the concept of
                    > evolution - at least later in his life, so I wonder what standpoint
                    > he was taking at the time? Unfortunately because the evidence has all
                    > gone, we can only guess.
                    >
                    > Mike
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved
                    > through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every
                    > spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of
                    > nobody - as far as I can tell.  I am not sure if he would have agreed
                    > with Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met
                    > him, but having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also
                    > was friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in
                    > their views church wise.
                    > >
                    > > Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and
                    > Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who
                    > went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!
                    > Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't.  The
                    > only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and
                    > even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off
                    > there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put
                    > them in Tennyson's library.
                    > >
                    > > It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is
                    > often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me.  Is this just
                    > me or did he really become the universally acceptable man?  Throws
                    > considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in
                    > society!
                    > >
                    > > Keith W
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > visit our homepage  at:
                    >
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                    >
                    > to unsubscribe  send a blank email to:
                    lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >




                    visit our homepage  at:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/

                    to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  • Keith Wright
                    Kate, whilst I agree with you that he found Stuart somewhat lacking he was probably wise enough to know that if anyone was going to put pen to paper after he
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kate,
                       
                      whilst I agree with you that he found Stuart somewhat lacking he was probably wise enough to know that if anyone was going to put pen to paper after he had gone it was Stuart Collingwood.  Collingwood suffered from having to do the bio under the gaze of six of CLD's sisters including his mother.  Having said that, Collingwood gives the date of CLD's father's wedding as 1830 (Page 8 second para) which would have rendered Frances Jane illegitimate and Elizabeth as being possibly conceived out of wedlock!  So much for the sisters reading every word!  They actually married at Hull in 1827. To say Collingwood's influence will last is true, it's almost a primary source but, of course, it's flawed.  However, it doesn't mean that it is useless and it must be a starting point for any analysis - certainly it was for me when I examined CLD's ancestry.  Anything that disgrees with Collingwood needs to be proved, it's not enough just to say Collingwood was wrong and I think . . . . .!
                       
                      I'm not convinced he did like animals, he never kept a pet.  The family dog was Wilfred's.  He treat the cats at Ch.Ch., but that was duty not effection. 
                       
                      The question of who looked after the two boys after CLD's grandfather was shot is a difficult one and the best way to approach it is to say who could have looked after them and what are the probablilities that they did so?  Captain Dodgson left a will but it says nothing about who should look after the boys other than their mother Lucy.  He almost gave Lucy permission to marry after his death and the whole will is written as being from someone who knew he was going to die.  CLD's gandfather was from this will a romantic fool.  Looking at the possibilities we have:-
                       
                      On the Dodgson side all the bishop's offspring apart from the Captain's sister were either dead or unmarried and Percy his brother died in 1807 which still leaves the question open after 1807.  Elizabeth was married in 1802 in Cumbria to Major Chas. Lutwidge and it is possible he was in Cumbria but also likely he was in Walton le Dale, see the Lutwidge ancestry. Everyone else on the Dodgson side was either dead or too remote a relative to be considered.
                       
                      On the Hume side which is also the most likely side for Lucy Hume to have gone back to there are several possibilities which have not been fully explored.  Lucy's parents are the first choice, father James b1743 d1819 and her mother b1741 d1824 he was collector of customs in London.  Next Lucy's brother James b1774 m 1799 d 1842 is the next generation candidate, her married sister Elizabeth b1775 d 1847 I'd consider next, then her sister Mary b1786 d1868, but perhaps too young in 1803 to take on a family and lastly her unmarried sister Menella b1777 d1844 is an outsider.  All need more research.  However, considering that Lucy married George Metcalfe (Marwood) a Canon of Chichester in 1812 the best place for her to meet him was perhaps in London society.
                       
                      Even after 1812 we know not where they lived.  Did the Dodgson boys go to Busby Hall? George Marwood did so it's likely they went with him.  Chichester is a certainty as he was a canon there.  There's evidence the the link with Busby was maintained even up to 1868 when CLD's father died but no direct evidence that CLD went there from Croft, a distance of less than twenty miles. 
                       
                      It needs more research unfortunately.
                       
                      Keith W
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Kate
                      Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 1:03 PM
                      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same

                      Hi Keith - not boring at all. A very insightful mail and extremely interesting.  He was a man who asked questions, and respected people who were honest enough to say "I don't know", or at least to ask questions and think critically. That's what it was about kids - they generally said "I don't get it" rather than covering up. And he was surrounded by people - relatives especially - while, if they weren't exactly imbeciles certainly weren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Frustrating for him. So yes - the fact that he managed to remain onside with many of them may be either a testament to his good breeeding and manners, or to the fact that they were too stupid to pick up the fact that he couldn't stand them! Like Stuart! But never mind - Stuart's bio will continue to influence a good many people for a while yet.
                       
                      Funny, isn't it. Stuart seemed to be less worried that his uncle could be construed as a pedophile than as a heretic, or a radical, or anything else!  The family name was all in all. In answer to your question - he liked animals, I guess, he spent ages trying to get a fishook out of a kitten's mouth, and had sleepless nights worrying about how to put down the old cat at Oxford. What else do we know? he was tolerant - of other religions - at least at the end. But it took some working through. he couldn't abide artifice or pretence of any kind, and he despised falsehood, recognising that you couldn't liove anyone if you didn't trust them. And I think he was afraid of being proud. Pride he despised in others, but he also recognised that the fact that he could be intolerant was also a kind of pride. And he fought to keep it down. He loved his mum - he wrote about her in the Introductory poemn to S & B - hands clasped upon a dead mother's breast. . . he missed her very very much. She was his lodestar, i think. It's a pity that he remains such a shadowy figure - I think she made him what he was, but she is relegated to a few mentions anywhere.
                       
                      There are questions I have - like - who took care of Charles and Hassard when Charles was killed in Ireland? Where did they go - whose influence helped to mould them? The Lutwidges? Or did Lucy {Hume) struggle on her own. The Lutwidges were a strong - and somewhat radical - at least theologically - family.So many questions!
                       
                       
                      Kate Lyon
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 5:05 AM
                      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same

                      Mike,

                      whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much deeper
                      than that.

                      Absence of evidence is a difficult one to resolve.  However, think of
                      Wilberforce, his bishop.  We know little about him.  From his photos he
                      looks stern and uncompromomising.  Or is it just because I know he was
                      described that way by his contemporaries that I see that in his image?  I
                      doubt this because I saw Paget's image and correctly summed up what his
                      character would be like before I read his biography.  The same applies to
                      the 30 clergy I researched for Ripon, their characters show through on their
                      images.  Yet with Charles L. Dodgson we have a diary, several photos, which
                      nobody ever claims to be able to read his character from, a biography by his
                      nephew, who claims to have first hand knowledge, and yet we still seem to
                      understand so little about him.  The modern biographies just add to the
                      confusion, as most rewrites of the facts second hand tend to do, and the
                      whole picture of him becomes very blurred.

                      Was he a liberal in the church? Was he a tory voter by conviction?  Did he
                      like animals?  Did he have strong views as you say?  I don't see that.  I
                      don't see him as a bigot, I see him as very open minded but realistic to the
                      extent that he saw he could not express such views openly and live in
                      Victorian society.

                      I can ask myself many questions which one can often answer in the case of
                      someone I have studied - but in his case I cannot give firm answers and I
                      cannot prove that my views on CLD are correct and neither can anyone else
                      seem to produce a convincing case for any of the usual things we associate
                      with personality.  Yes he could be grumpy - as Collingwood perhaps saw, he
                      could be jealous as Isa saw, but that wasn't him all the time.

                      Wasn't the fact that Macdonald went abroad why he lost touch?  Also should
                      we read anything into their drifting apart other than merely the passing of
                      time.  Lots of folk lose touch with others, I do myself, but it does not
                      indicate any differing of views on anything, just circumstances and lack of
                      time.  Same applies with Liddon on the Russian trip.  They had lived in each
                      other's pockets for weeks and surely anyone as used to their own space as
                      two Oxford dons would crave to be alone at the end of such a long time!
                      Liddon wrote nothing bad about CLD and neither did anyone else, it would be
                      a fortunate man who could just have 'he lost his temper occasionally' in the
                      book of accounting after his death!

                      The business with Liddell was also deeply puzzling.  CLD must have known
                      that Liddell would not or could not raise the old matter of his tenure or
                      he'd not have joined that rebel movement.  Either that or he thought that
                      the others were able to protect him should Liddell raise his tenure.
                      Alternatively he may have thought 'Alice' could be his meal ticket if things
                      went wrong!  Yet none of this comes across in anything we read, we get the
                      facts and no arguments, we know what people did but not why they did it.

                      Evolution just emphasises the point.  People went into each camp.  We know
                      where Huxley stood, we know where Wilberforce stood but we haven't a clue
                      what CLD thought.  If he'd have been dead set against it he might have
                      written something but he didn't.  As a churchman he could be expected to be
                      against it but he apparently wasn't or wasn't so strongly against that he
                      felt the need to go into print on it. Yet evolution was as hotly debated as
                      nuclear power is nowadays.

                      All this seems to point to a much more mature personality that he has been
                      credited with.  The little snapshots of the 'errors' he made, such as
                      crawling under the table at a party are perhaps misleading us into the wrong
                      opinion of him.

                      I could say more but I'll bore you all so I'll stop!

                      Keith W








                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
                      To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:47 PM
                      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Conflicts - or lack of same


                      > I think it's important to remember how much we don't know and
                      > probably never will know. Even Collingwood said that LC tended to
                      > get  over emphatic and worked up during an argument so given his
                      > strong views it seems unlikely he was ever bland enough to be
                      > universally acceptable, and this is probably more an illusion
                      > created by the absence of evidence. Colllingwood presented a
                      > deliberately smoothed-out view and the family as a whole have edited
                      > the available data to remove all of the more awkward or controversial
                      > aspects - including very probably any professional or social
                      > conflicts.
                      >
                      > Nevertheless there is evidence remaining of some such, though usually
                      > it's only patchy. The falling-out with the Tennysons seems as if it
                      > may have started before the business with the poem and right now we
                      > don't really know what caused it, or how biiter it may have been.
                      > There was his confrontation with Harry Furniss in which Furniss was
                      > humiliated and waited until LC was dead to get his revenge. His
                      > relationship with the MacDonalds may have cooled in later life -
                      > though this may have been a more of a drifting apart than any actual
                      > falling-out.
                      >
                      > Then there's the business with Henry Liddon at the end of their
                      > Russian trip, when they decided to split up their holiday fund and go
                      > their separate ways during the last few days in Paris. Dodgson's
                      > journal doesn't mention this but Liddon's does, yet gives not hint of
                      > why - though of course they had been arguing ('warmly') about
                      > religion throughout almost the whole vacation, so presumably it was
                      > something to do with that.
                      >
                      > Then let's not forget LC was  one of the 'rebel' Students who
                      > confronted Dean Liddell and the Canons (sounds like a sixties pop
                      > group) in the mid-1860s - which of course makes it so inexplicable
                      > that Liddell didn't get rid of him when he had the chance, as Keith
                      > pointed out.
                      >
                      > And I wonder what we would know if his diary for 1860 wasn't
                      > missing?  He was probably there to witness the historic confrontation
                      > between Wilberforce and Huxley, and it would be interesting to know
                      > what he was writing in his diaries during this whole controversial
                      > period. He seems to have at least partially accepted the concept of
                      > evolution - at least later in his life, so I wonder what standpoint
                      > he was taking at the time? Unfortunately because the evidence has all
                      > gone, we can only guess.
                      >
                      > Mike
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > Bernice mentioned Morris and it set me wondering how CLD moved
                      > through society seemingly having friends and acquaintances from every
                      > spectrum of Victorian society yet seemed to incur the wrath of
                      > nobody - as far as I can tell.  I am not sure if he would have agreed
                      > with Morris's views, which were revolutionary, even if he had met
                      > him, but having said that he went to F.D.Maurice's church and he also
                      > was friendly with the Bickersteth's both of whom were liberal in
                      > their views church wise.
                      > >
                      > > Wilberforce (soapy Sam), who could get so incensed with Huxley and
                      > Darwin, had every reason to think CLD was a misfit, a clergyman who
                      > went to the theatre, but he apparently did nothing to stop him!
                      > Liddell had every reason to throw him out of Ch.Ch. but didn't.  The
                      > only real anger I can recall CLD showing himself was at Tennyson and
                      > even there it was Emily who wrote the letter, that cooled things off
                      > there but he still sent Tennyson his books and Emily Tennyson put
                      > them in Tennyson's library.
                      > >
                      > > It seems every time I try to fit CLD into a category, a job that is
                      > often simple to do with other characters, he eludes me.  Is this just
                      > me or did he really become the universally acceptable man?  Throws
                      > considerable doubt on his being perceived as a stumbling chap in
                      > society!
                      > >
                      > > Keith W
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > visit our homepage  at:
                      >
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                      >
                      > to unsubscribe  send a blank email to:
                      lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      visit our homepage  at:

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/

                      to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com





                      visit our homepage  at:

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/

                      to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    • Jim Buch
                      ... deeper ... We know ... clue ... expected to be ... that he ... debated as ... has been ... the wrong ... One can make a case that he was eventually not
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...> wrote:
                        > Mike,
                        >
                        > whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much
                        deeper
                        > than that.
                        >
                        > Evolution just emphasises the point. People went into each camp.
                        We know
                        > where Huxley stood, we know where Wilberforce stood but we haven't a
                        clue
                        > what CLD thought. If he'd have been dead set against it he might have
                        > written something but he didn't. As a churchman he could be
                        expected to be
                        > against it but he apparently wasn't or wasn't so strongly against
                        that he
                        > felt the need to go into print on it. Yet evolution was as hotly
                        debated as
                        > nuclear power is nowadays.
                        >
                        > All this seems to point to a much more mature personality that he
                        has been
                        > credited with. The little snapshots of the 'errors' he made, such as
                        > crawling under the table at a party are perhaps misleading us into
                        the wrong
                        > opinion of him.
                        >
                        > I could say more but I'll bore you all so I'll stop!
                        >
                        > Keith W

                        One can make a case that he was eventually not strongly opposed to
                        evolution.

                        His diary of Dec 26, 1872 is alleged to have an entry on Darwin. CLD
                        had read Darwin's "The eExpressions of the Emotins in Man and Animals"
                        and sent Darwin one of his photographs. Allegedly, the note
                        accompanying the picture offered to supply further pictures, as
                        appropriate.

                        The above suggests more than mere openness to these scientific ideas.

                        But, it doesn't prove acceptance or approval of the theory.

                        Jim
                      • Keith Wright
                        Jim, I wasn t saying that CLD was in favour of evolution but he would know where the church stood and as such would be expected to oppose it - certainly around
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim,

                          I wasn't saying that CLD was in favour of evolution but he would know where
                          the church stood and as such would be expected to oppose it - certainly
                          around the time of the famous debate in the 1860's.

                          It does argue the case for him being open minded to a greater extent than
                          his contemporaries, as you say.

                          Keith W


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Jim Buch" <jbuch@...>
                          To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 3:04 PM
                          Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Conflicts - or lack of same


                          > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...> wrote:
                          > > Mike,
                          > >
                          > > whilst I see your point in the first paragraph I think it goes much
                          > deeper
                          > > than that.
                          > >
                          > > Evolution just emphasises the point. People went into each camp.
                          > We know
                          > > where Huxley stood, we know where Wilberforce stood but we haven't a
                          > clue
                          > > what CLD thought. If he'd have been dead set against it he might have
                          > > written something but he didn't. As a churchman he could be
                          > expected to be
                          > > against it but he apparently wasn't or wasn't so strongly against
                          > that he
                          > > felt the need to go into print on it. Yet evolution was as hotly
                          > debated as
                          > > nuclear power is nowadays.
                          > >
                          > > All this seems to point to a much more mature personality that he
                          > has been
                          > > credited with. The little snapshots of the 'errors' he made, such as
                          > > crawling under the table at a party are perhaps misleading us into
                          > the wrong
                          > > opinion of him.
                          > >
                          > > I could say more but I'll bore you all so I'll stop!
                          > >
                          > > Keith W
                          >
                          > One can make a case that he was eventually not strongly opposed to
                          > evolution.
                          >
                          > His diary of Dec 26, 1872 is alleged to have an entry on Darwin. CLD
                          > had read Darwin's "The eExpressions of the Emotins in Man and Animals"
                          > and sent Darwin one of his photographs. Allegedly, the note
                          > accompanying the picture offered to supply further pictures, as
                          > appropriate.
                          >
                          > The above suggests more than mere openness to these scientific ideas.
                          >
                          > But, it doesn't prove acceptance or approval of the theory.
                          >
                          > Jim
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > visit our homepage at:
                          >
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                          >
                          > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                          lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.