Archdeacon DOdgson

[jenny2write]

I've read the little book about letters from the Archdeacon to Skeffington and also one or two of his other letters quoted in biographies, and I think he (the Archdeacon) sounded absolutely charming and very likeable and interesting. He was clearly extremely interested in his children and very involved with them. His children apparently said (according to Colingwood) he had strong views about what they should do with their lives, but other than this, which may not have been meant as a criticism, I have hardly heard anything about him that I don't like the sound of. I wonder if anyone else knows anything about him or has any views on him.

[Jules]

Apr 24, 2008 11:34:15 GMT -5 jenny2write said:

I've read the little book about letters from the Archdeacon to Skeffington and also one or two of his other letters quoted in biographies, and I think he (the Archdeacon) sounded absolutely charming and very likeable and interesting. He was clearly extremely interested in his children and very involved with them. His children apparently said (according to Colingwood) he had strong views about what they should do with their lives, but other than this, which may not have been meant as a criticism, I have hardly heard anything about him that I don't like the sound of. I wonder if anyone else knows anything about him or has any views on him.

Iiinteresting....*strokes chin*

I read Cohen and Leach when I was studying the Alices at uni. My recollection is they both said Archdeacon Dodgson was a controlling emotionally distant man. I get a picture of Pa Barrett from The Barretts of Wimpole Street! So I'd love to see the cuddly letters! Are they available?

[mikeindex]

I've also read the letters to Skeffington and I'm afraid that to me they came across as overbearing, judgmental and manipulative! I don't have the text to hand, but I particularly remember the one about the Young Ladies and how Skeff should be wary of making a fool of himself in front of them (I think Karoline quotes this one at some length) - no wonder none of his children got married in his lifetime; also the relentless harping on Skeff's intellectual inferiority and how the poor boy couldn't help it, and the oblique jibe at CLD in 'I feel more proud of your testamur than another man's first class'.

I think Cohen's analysis of the relationship is very sensible, probably the best thing in his book - though to my mind the strong sense of inferiority which he ascribes to CLD was much more something that both of them felt ought to be there than that actually was.

Mike

[johntufail]

Hi Mike,

As you know I rathe disagree with your position on this - certainly as regards Dodson Snr's paranting during Childhood years. Eveything we know about the family suggests that Dodgson Snr ruled with an extremely light hand. At worst he left the home curriculum to the mother (very unusual - usually the father lsid down the curriculum rules, even when the mother was left to carry them out!).

It may be that once adulthood was reached, the father took on a more traditional Victorian role (and that's all that the letters you cite reveal, just about par for the course for a Victorian father's letters). I'm afraid, try as a might, I can find nothing excessively overbeaing or manipulative in Dodgson Snr's letters. I do detrect some anxieties, but that again is fairly normal.

Regards

JT

[mikeindex]

John, what is the evidence for his ruling with a light hand and where did you find it? (And indeed for his marrying for love - and this being frowned on - which you mentioned on another board? All I know is that he married his cousin, and if this were a disqualification for high office in the Church there would have been very few Victorian bishops!)

Mike

[otherprofessor]

I think that ruling 'with a light hand' is a modern 'virtue' that gentlemen of Archdeacon Dodgson's generation would not have appreciated, and very properly so. Light hands do not produce well adjusted children. Firmness and discipline might be unfashonable but they are proven to work. Firmness doesn't equate with brutality. My dear father was very firm, and it was more than our lives were worth to cross him or cheek him, but he was no brute.

[johntufail]

Mike.. Two points. First regarding 'disqualification for high office.' I pointed out that marriage between cousins, though not illegal, was strongly disaproved of and required special sanction. This is not opinion but fact - check it out. The particular branch of the Anglican Church with whom Dodgson Dnr is most closely associated (High Church, Oxford Movement) is the branch that most strongly disapproved of this type of 'consanguinity'). So far as I know (I just haven't been able to find evidence), Dodgson Snr did not seek dispensation for his marriage. I would dearly like to know if, in fact he did, and who sanctioned it!

The evidence of what I called his father's 'light hand' (which I use in relative and contextual terms) is the many recods we have of Caroll's childhood activities, the type of games he played (and when he played them) and the range of books he was allowed to read as a young boy and of course, the fact of and the contrnts of 'The Rectory Umbrella! In terms of the norms of the 1830's and 40's it does seem a remarkably liberal upbringing for the son of a High Church cleric! Compare, for example with accounts of the upbringing of other Children of his period.

I am not saying that Dodgson Snr was a perfect father - not even arguing that he was not strict and demanding - just that he appears to have had a far more enlightened view on the education of his children than the majority of his peers.

[Jules]

Apr 27, 2008 6:13:28 GMT -5 johntufail said:

Mike.. Two points. First regarding 'disqualification for high office.' I pointed out that marriage between cousins, though not illegal, was strongly disaproved of and required special sanction. This is not opinion but fact - check it out.

Actually that's not true. My dad is a former vicar and a lecturer in Divinity, and well, you get to know some stuff. There never was a ban on cousin marriage in the Church of England. It's always been perfectly legal and no dispensation has ever been required.

[johntufail]

I'm very sorry to have to disagree with you, but if you take the time to independently research what I said, you will find that what I said was correct. Iagree, don't dispute at all, that, within the Anglican Church, marriages between cousins of whatever degree was not banned. Indeed, if it had been very many of the European ruling dynasties would have not been able to develp their incestuous progress.

However, the issue of dispensation was real and important. That it was given freely when required is not the issue in this case, that it was required is.

My initial authority on this was the The Right Reverend David Shephard, I have since confirmed it by numerous references.

regards

JT

[Jules]

Apr 27, 2008 18:31:26 GMT -5 johntufail said:

I'm very sorry to have to disagree with you, but if you take the time to independently research what I said, you will find that what I said was correct. Iagree, don't dispute at all, that, within the Anglican Church, marriages between cousins of whatever degree was not banned. Indeed, if it had been very many of the European ruling dynasties would have not been able to develp their incestuous progress.

However, the issue of dispensation was real and important. That it was given freely when required is not the issue in this case, that it was required is.

My initial authority on this was the The Right Reverend David Shephard, I have since confirmed it by numerous references.

regards

I'm so confused! If it's not banned why would you need a dispensation?

[johntufail]

Good question! I can't say that I'm personally enough of an authortiy on the subject to give you an informed answer - though I'll certainly make enquiries. However, the answer lies in the complicated nature of the whole idea of consanguinuity and the 'idea' of blood relationships. Fotr example certain relationships are completely forbidded because the blood relationship is so close (e.g. brother sister) whereas the less close the relationship, the lesser the 'moral repugnanance. In cases such as cousins, where some element of bood-line exists, there is still thought to be a taint. Therefore, although there is no absolutue prohibition, the Church does not actually approve, hence the need for dispensation.

Does that make any sense to you?

As I said, I'll seek a more aythoritive answer for you from some one more competent if you wish.



Regards

JT

[bettyboop]

I really like the sound of the Archdeacon. The mere fact his children were as well adjusted and creative as they obviously were speaks volumes.

[jenny2write]

I have heard that there are quite a few personal letters from Mrs. Dodgson still extant and they hardly mention the children at all. In fact, I don't think Mrs. D took a huge personal interest in her children - not that she didn't love them, of course; and she certainly paid a lot of attention to their religious training. . But I've noticed this slight tendency to impersonality in well organised mothers of very large families. Perhaps she felt a bit like the old woman who lived in a shoe. By contrast, Mr. D (as shown by the letter quoted in "Collected Letters" was prepared to sit down and write a long piece of nonsense to a little boy, and to buy him a present too when he was away. I think that he was the one who took the interest in his children, not poor overrun Mama who was probably only too glad to have something else to think about sometimes. . It's surely significant that CLD never, ever portrays a normal mother-son relationship in any of his works, whereas there are many mischievous references to fathers and sons, some of them quite cheeky.

[jenny2write]

Oh and by the way, the book is LETTERS TO SKEFFINGTON DODGSON FROM HIS FATHER, edited and with an introduction by Anne Clark Amor, published by the Lewis Carroll Society.

As for warning Skeffington off the ladies, well, it does sound as if Skeff was a shade lacking in social skills, although a most affectionate and loving man. Perhaps there had been incidents in the past where he had fallen inappropriately for a girl who had shown him some kindly attention, and Papa didn't want it happening again.