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

Re: [lewiscarroll] 39 Articles

Expand Messages
  • HLebailly@aol.com
    Dear Matt, (in haste) a sacrifice I ve pointed to several times already on this list and in my papers : he deprived himself of attending commercial theatrical
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 1, 2001
      Dear Matt,
      (in haste)
      a sacrifice I've pointed to several times already on this list and in my
      papers : he deprived himself of attending commercial theatrical performances
      for eighteen months and drastically reduced it over the next three years:
      1866 : 26 plays
      1867 : 27 plays
      1868 : 4 plays (none after 21st June when his father died)
      1869 : 1 private theatricals at the Synges'
      1870 : 4 plays + 1 amateur private theatricals at the Prices'
      1871 : 3 plays + 3 amateur private theatricals at the Simpsons', the
      MacDonalds' and the Hatches'
      1872 : 5 plays
      1873 : 21 plays (back to normal).
      As mentioned in the recent 'religious controversy' postings, theatre
      attendance (which was regarded as damnatory by the Evangelicals as by the
      Roundheads) was one of the major bones of centention between father and son.
      Compare with Queen Victoria's self-deprivation of the same pleasure (in which
      she indulged as often as CLD as a girl and a happily married wife) for almost
      thirty years as part of her exacerbated bereavement process.
      With best regards to all
      Hugues (not Hughes) Lebailly
    • KarolineLouise@aol.com
      ... Hugues, thanks for providing that data about Dodgson s theatre-visits, it s exactly what I was looking for. It s an incredibly poignant and persuasive
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 1, 2001

        Hugues writes:

        Dear Matt,
        (in haste)
        a sacrifice I've pointed to several times already on this list and in my
        papers : he deprived himself of attending commercial theatrical performances
        for eighteen months and drastically reduced it over the next three years:
        1866 : 26 plays
        1867 : 27 plays
        1868 : 4 plays (none after 21st June when his father died)
        1869 : 1 private theatricals at the Synges'
        1870 : 4 plays + 1 amateur private theatricals at the Prices'
        1871 : 3 plays + 3 amateur private theatricals at the Simpsons', the
        MacDonalds' and the Hatches'
        1872 : 5 plays
        1873 : 21 plays (back to normal).




        Hugues,
        thanks for providing that data about Dodgson's theatre-visits, it's exactly what I was looking for.  It's an incredibly poignant and persuasive example of the 'sacrifice' mode he seems to have got into Do you have any additional data on what kind of plays CLD was seeing before and after the watershed of his father's death? Was there any noticeable shift in type and content? Did his viewing get 'softer', more sentimental? My recollection from my own work on the latter part of his life is that it could have done, but I don't have any specifics.

        I wonder how much of this change was  conscious decision-making and how much a subconscious wish to assuage guilt by belatedly 'becoming' the man his father had always wanted him to be -    outwardly 'respectable',  who didn't mix with dodgy 'arty' types, who didn't see plays (or at least not 'wicked' ones? was this  the compromise that allowed him back into the theatre?), who perpetually judged life and people according to the two-dimensional platitudes of virtue that Victorians believed to be universal truths.

        This  tendency to regard dogmatic observation of  the superficial trappings of religion as a mark of 'holiness', and the tendency to lecture others on his own high standards, as if rigidity were a virtue,  is so noticeably absent from his early self, and so floridly obvious in his later self, it's quite a psychological curiosity. And of course this later Carroll is almost a caricature of the way his father was all his adult life.

        Really and interestingly odd. I'd love to write a play about it, but I don't think I will

        Karoline
      • HLebailly@aol.com
        Dear Karoline, I m afraid I haven t got the time to carry out an in-depth examination of the plays listed chronologically on pp. 6-38 of volume IV of my PHD
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 1, 2001
          Dear Karoline,
          I'm afraid I haven't got the time to carry out an in-depth examination of the
          plays listed chronologically on pp. 6-38 of volume IV of my PHD dissertation
          (annexes), but anyone interested in the question you raise could use the list
          I have provided, which is available on microfiles (didn't I give you a set of
          4 ? I have deposited some at the British LCS archives, anyway).
          What a cursory glance shows is that the 'watershed' is not that clearcut :
          CLD did attend fewer farces, burlesques and adaptations from French
          vaudevilles in the 1870s, 80s and 90s than in the 1850s and 60s, but an
          obvious reason for that is that they were much more scarce on the market,
          partly because of the disappearance of the 'triple-bill' in favour of double
          or single bills (a single play a night, and not a farce, Hamlet and a
          burlesque on the same night, from 6 to 12, as was common at the Princess and
          the Olympic in the 1850s !)
          But he did attend after his father's death such French risquees operettas as
          Offenbach's La Vie Parisienne, Madame Favart and Lurette, Audran's Olivette
          and La Cigale, Planquette's Les Cloches de Corneville, Lecocq's La Fille de
          Madame Angot, pretty mild material to our eyes, but deemed sulphurous enough
          by his nieces in their seventies/eighties for them to expurgate most mentions
          of them from the typescript they allowed Green to publish in 1953, especially
          as they aroused in CLD some of his least known but most open 'Tex Avery
          wolfish' enthusiastic comments on the beauty of forms of young actresses (in
          their twenties) (cf. my various papers on line). Not to mention the various
          Aquatic Entertainments performed in water tanks by young ladies anything
          between 18 and 30, in risque (for the time !) bathing costumes he watched at
          Brighton and Hastings, travelling all the way from Eastbourne for that single
          purpose.
          Doesn't this balance a bit the undeniable increase in the number of
          pantomimes he attended (already part of his theatrical attendance in the
          1850s, and of which neither his father nor his bishop, Samuel Wilberforce,
          would have approved, especially as the transformation scenes were often quite
          'coarse', as he wrote himself, without systematically leaving before they
          started, as he occasionally did when he was in charge of young ladies) ?
          I do not think the older CLD was as stern and prudish as the younger one was
          unconventional and daring : I think both impulses were part of his
          personality all his life long, just as the pleasure he took in the company of
          little girls and in that of teenagers and in that of adult women were
          complementary aspects of his enjoyment of life from childhood to deathbed,
          but he felt more free to be seen with marriageable girls when he was regarded
          by others (or regarded himself) as safely beyond it.
          With best wishes to you all
          Hugues
        • AnisaT@aol.com
          OK List members, As I summarise it, article one generated three key issues: (in no particular order of import): a) The question of Dodgson senior s character
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 3, 2001
            OK List members,

            As I summarise it, article one generated three key issues:

            (in no particular order of import):

            a) The question of Dodgson senior's character as a person and his
            religious beliefs. I think this alone shows just how complex the religious
            debates were in the period. I agree with Karoline that Dodgson Snr was
            'High Church', in the sense that he had clear views in himself on the fact
            that Church dogma must be obeyed and that ritual was an essential part of
            that. That he was a complex and inquiring character however there can be
            no doubt. Sticking to the issue of Dad. There have always been three
            things that fascinated me.
            First, and most striking is the clear way that Dodgson encouraged Carroll
            (sorry about the shorthand) to learn by practice and experience. Carroll's
            early biography clearly shows a parenting and home educational system that
            most modern educationalists would be proud to emulate. There are signs
            of hugely intelligent uses of play to support formal education that was way
            ahead of its time. Creating 'in-house' magazines, building railways and
            other phenomena'. Though this was by no way unique, it was an exception to
            the rule.

            b) Secondly is the fact that he took the living at Daresbury. We do
            know that this was a living he found difficult, both financially and
            geographically. Most of the people he felt close to lived the other side
            of the pennines and I think there is sufficient evidence to show that
            Dodgson Snr strove for a long period before achieving the Croft living.
            By the way, this is why I think the 'Marke' letter is important it is
            supportive evidence for Dodgson's Snr's long term wish to re-locate in
            the North Yorkshire area. Unlike people like Kingsley (or Gorham),
            therefore, it seems likely that Dodgson Snr didn't choose a life of
            relative seclusion or low income such as the Daresbury living offered
            (sorry Keith, but at the time the domestic equivalent to a posting to
            St Helena!) but had been given little choice in the matter. This
            suggests that Dodgson Snr had differences with both the government and
            the Church establishment. I, for one, would love to know more about
            what those differences were. This debate, I believe, is taking us in that
            direction.

            c) Baptismal regeneration. There seem to have been a number of pleas
            regarding what this means and how it affected Carroll and Dodgson Senior. I
            can only offer a simplistic answer to this but here goes. Baptismal
            Regeneration is the idea that only those who are baptised can be saved.
            Lewis Carroll, I would argue, was wholy opposed to this and so, seemingly
            was his father. The 'High Church' in the 1840s and 1850,, for political as
            well as religious reasons, 'believed' in baptismal regeneration. I
            personally think that this is the problem that caused Carroll's father to
            be shunted aside, despite his undoubted commitment and intellect. Any help
            I can get on this I would greatly appreciate. As I see it, the Goreham
            controversy revolved around the fact that Baptismal Regeneration to
            Goreham (this is why he was called a Calvinist by the way) didn't mean the
            obverse. Goreham argued that Baptism didn't mean that baptism didn't mean
            that a child or adult was automatically saved. One can see how confusing
            this is. One could easily take both sides, as it appears that Dodgson Snr
            did. On the one hand you could argue (as many did) that Baptismal
            Regeneration in itself is a 'Popish Heresy' only introduced in the middle
            ages. On the other hand one could argue that if one accepts that Baptism is
            necessary, it is equally dangerous and heretical to say that this means
            automatic salvation?

            I hope I explained that clearly, and I think that's enough for now!

            John Tufail
          • keith
            John, I have no problems with Daresbury being thought of as a backwater clerically because livings were valued at their market price and that at Daresbury was
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 3, 2001
              John,

              I have no problems with Daresbury being thought of as a backwater clerically
              because livings were valued at their market price and that at Daresbury was
              on the very low side. Otherwise, however, it was at the hub of the trade in
              the area and had a thriving industry when most other places were rural in
              aspect. Daresbury was the equivalent in canal terms of a motorway service
              station, lots of passing folk and very few inhabitants.

              I am pleased you are sticking to the ideas of how the religious beliefs
              effected Dodgson and his family as I think trying to understand what they
              believed gives more mileage than trying to work out what the articles mean
              nowadays. We cannot possibly view them from a Victorian perspective.

              On his education, is there any evidence that Dodgson senior actively
              encouraged the magazines the family wrote? He rarely contributed. Perhaps
              mother and later on aunt Lucy were more important in these ventures?

              Is there any evidence that Dodgson senior had a choice of other livings when
              he took Daresbury?
              What puzzles me though is why he stayed there so long, 16 years would seem
              to me to be at least eleven years too long.
              I would also like to know what happened to other clerics of his educational
              standard, did they all make it to the top before Dodgson senior or did some
              of them fall away before him?

              Sorry to just pose questions but they are the things I'd look into if I had
              the time.

              Keith



              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <AnisaT@...>
              To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc: <lyon@...>
              Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 10:06 AM
              Subject: [lewiscarroll] 39 Articles


              > OK List members,
              >
              > As I summarise it, article one generated three key issues:
              >
              > (in no particular order of import):
              >
              > a) The question of Dodgson senior's character as a person and his
              > religious beliefs. I think this alone shows just how complex the
              religious
              > debates were in the period. I agree with Karoline that Dodgson Snr
              was
              > 'High Church', in the sense that he had clear views in himself on the
              fact
              > that Church dogma must be obeyed and that ritual was an essential part
              of
              > that. That he was a complex and inquiring character however there can
              be
              > no doubt. Sticking to the issue of Dad. There have always been three
              > things that fascinated me.
              > First, and most striking is the clear way that Dodgson encouraged
              Carroll
              > (sorry about the shorthand) to learn by practice and experience.
              Carroll's
              > early biography clearly shows a parenting and home educational system
              that
              > most modern educationalists would be proud to emulate. There are
              signs
              > of hugely intelligent uses of play to support formal education that was
              way
              > ahead of its time. Creating 'in-house' magazines, building railways
              and
              > other phenomena'. Though this was by no way unique, it was an exception
              to
              > the rule.
              >
              > b) Secondly is the fact that he took the living at Daresbury. We do
              > know that this was a living he found difficult, both financially and
              > geographically. Most of the people he felt close to lived the other
              side
              > of the pennines and I think there is sufficient evidence to show that
              > Dodgson Snr strove for a long period before achieving the Croft
              living.
              > By the way, this is why I think the 'Marke' letter is important it is
              > supportive evidence for Dodgson's Snr's long term wish to re-locate in
              > the North Yorkshire area. Unlike people like Kingsley (or Gorham),
              > therefore, it seems likely that Dodgson Snr didn't choose a life of
              > relative seclusion or low income such as the Daresbury living offered
              > (sorry Keith, but at the time the domestic equivalent to a posting
              to
              > St Helena!) but had been given little choice in the matter. This
              > suggests that Dodgson Snr had differences with both the government and
              > the Church establishment. I, for one, would love to know more about
              > what those differences were. This debate, I believe, is taking us in
              that
              > direction.
              >
              > c) Baptismal regeneration. There seem to have been a number of
              pleas
              > regarding what this means and how it affected Carroll and Dodgson Senior.
              I
              > can only offer a simplistic answer to this but here goes. Baptismal
              > Regeneration is the idea that only those who are baptised can be
              saved.
              > Lewis Carroll, I would argue, was wholy opposed to this and so, seemingly
              > was his father. The 'High Church' in the 1840s and 1850,, for political
              as
              > well as religious reasons, 'believed' in baptismal regeneration. I
              > personally think that this is the problem that caused Carroll's father
              to
              > be shunted aside, despite his undoubted commitment and intellect. Any
              help
              > I can get on this I would greatly appreciate. As I see it, the
              Goreham
              > controversy revolved around the fact that Baptismal Regeneration to
              > Goreham (this is why he was called a Calvinist by the way) didn't mean the
              > obverse. Goreham argued that Baptism didn't mean that baptism didn't mean
              > that a child or adult was automatically saved. One can see how
              confusing
              > this is. One could easily take both sides, as it appears that Dodgson
              Snr
              > did. On the one hand you could argue (as many did) that Baptismal
              > Regeneration in itself is a 'Popish Heresy' only introduced in the
              middle
              > ages. On the other hand one could argue that if one accepts that Baptism
              is
              > necessary, it is equally dangerous and heretical to say that this means
              > automatic salvation?
              >
              > I hope I explained that clearly, and I think that's enough for now!
              >
              > John Tufail
              >
              >
              > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
              lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            • AnisaT@aol.com
              In a message dated 03/11/2001 17:19:25 GMT Standard Time, keith@cheshire46.freeserve.co.uk writes:
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 3, 2001
                In a message dated 03/11/2001 17:19:25 GMT Standard Time,
                keith@... writes:

                <<
                On his education, is there any evidence that Dodgson senior actively
                encouraged the magazines the family wrote? He rarely contributed. Perhaps
                mother and later on aunt Lucy were more important in these ventures?

                Is there any evidence that Dodgson senior had a choice of other livings when
                he took Daresbury?
                What puzzles me though is why he stayed there so long, 16 years would seem
                to me to be at least eleven years too long.
                I would also like to know what happened to other clerics of his educational
                standard, did they all make it to the top before Dodgson senior or did some
                of them fall away before him?

                Sorry to just pose questions but they are the things I'd look into if I had
                the time.

                Keith
                >>
                To take the first point first Keith,

                I hardly think it matters how active Dodgson Snr was in Carroll's day to day
                education in the sense that without his remit that type of education could
                not have gone on. Unfortunately we will never know the whole facts regarding
                this. I do think we can say that Carroll's relationship with his father may
                have been similar to the relationship Matthew Arnold had with Thomas Arnold,
                a parallel I find fascinating given the Rugby connection.

                Yes, the length of time, I agree is far longer than Dodgson Snr could have
                been expected to 'suffer' in Daresbury (I take your point about the other
                aspects of Daresbury!). That is why I think it was down to something
                fundamental like the Baptismal Regeneration/original sin issue. It is
                interesting, though that the period 1827 through to his finally getting his
                living at Croft in 1843 pre-dated the beginning of the 'Tractarian Movement
                and lasted through it. It was only after the Tractarian (Oxford) movement
                began to disintegrate into its seperate parts that he gained the Croft
                living. I feel that this is more than a coincidence.

                Your last question is more difficult to answer because it involved more than
                'educational stature'. Class and connections played an equal part. But I
                would hazard to say that I no of no similar example of someone with the same
                combination of intellect, class and connections fared as badly as Dodgson
                Snr. Even Matthew Arnold (back to him again), though rigorously opposed as
                almost an atheist, was given substantial sops - both in terms of prestige and
                remuneration.

                Hope that helps

                John Tufail
              • Kate Lyon
                Kia ora - Could we leave the question of Maurice s meetings for a bit and return to the question of the Articles, which were supposed to be one of the foci of
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 16, 2001
                  Kia ora -
                  Could we leave the question of Maurice's meetings for a bit and return to the question of the Articles, which were supposed to be one of the foci of the list in the last couple of weeks.  I posted a letter fron CLD to Mary Brown on the subject of Hell and Eternal Damnation which has been lost in the ether somewhere.  I find the entire subject of the Articles quite interesting - does anyone else care to pursue it any further? Or do we simply give it a proper burial and subject it to Eternal Damnation?
                   
                  Karoline also discussed the idea of looking at CLD's hairshirting entires in the Diaries, which I thought was a good suggestion.  So before any more tempers become frayed, can everyone agree to disagree and move on to the matter in hand?
                   
                  All the best, Kate
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.