Though my heart its passion hides; “She is all my fancy painted her,” But oh! how much besides!
It was when writing for The Train that he first felt the need of a pseudonym. He suggested “Dares” (the first syllable of his birthplace) to Edmund Yates, but, as this did not meet with his editor’s approval, he wrote again, giving a choice of four names, (1) Edgar Cuthwellis, (2) Edgar U. C. Westhall, (3) Louis Carroll, and (4) Lewis Carroll. The first two were formed from the letters of his two Christian names, Charles Lutwidge; the others are merely variant forms of those names—Lewis = Ludovicus = Lutwidge; Carroll = Carolus = Charles. Mr. Yates chose the last, and thenceforward it became Mr. Dodgson’s ordinary nom de plume . The first occasion on which he used it was, I believe, when he wrote “The Path of Roses,” a poem which appeared in The Train in May, 1856.
On June 16th he again visited the Princess’s Theatre. This time the play was “A Winter’s Tale,” and he “especially admired the acting of the little Mamillius, Ellen Terry, a beautiful little creature, who played with remarkable ease and spirit.”
During the Long Vacation he spent a few weeks in the English Lake District. In spite of the rain, of which he had his full share, he managed to see a good deal of the best scenery, and made the ascent of Gable in the face of an icy gale, which laid him up with neuralgia for some days. He and his companions returned to Croft by way of Barnard Castle, as he narrates in his Diary:—
We set out by coach for Barnard Castle at about seven, and passed over about forty miles of the dreariest hill-country I ever saw; the climax of wretchedness was reached in Bowes, where yet stands the original of “Dotheboys Hall”; it has long ceased to be used as a school, and is falling into ruin, in which the whole place seems to be following its example—the roofs are falling in, and the windows broken or barricaded—the whole town looks plague-stricken. The courtyard of the inn we stopped at was grown over with weeds, and a mouthing idiot lolled against the corner of the house, like the evil genius of the spot. Next to a prison or a lunatic asylum, preserve me from living at Bowes!
Although he was anything but a sportsman, he was interested in the subject of betting, from a mathematical standpoint solely, and in 1857 he sent a letter to Bell’s Life, explaining a method by which a betting man might ensure winning over any race. The system was either to back every horse, or to lay against every horse, according to the way the odds added up. He showed his scheme to a sporting friend, who remarked, “An excellent system, and you’re bound to win—if only you can get people to take your bets.”
In the same year he made the acquaintance of Tennyson, whose writings he had long intensely admired. He thus describes the poet’s appearance:—
ALFRED TENNYSON. (From a photograph by Lewis Carroll).
A strange shaggy-looking man; his hair, moustache, and beard looked wild and neglected; these very much hid the character of the face. He was dressed in a loosely fitting morning coat, common grey flannel waistcoat and trousers, and a carelessly tied black silk neckerchief. His hair is black; I think the eyes too; they are keen and restless—nose aquiline—forehead high and broad—both face and head are fine and manly. His manner was kind and friendly from the first; there is a dry lurking humour in his style of talking. I took the opportunity [he goes on to say] of asking the meaning of two passages in his poems, which have always puzzled me: one in “Maud”—Strange that I hear two men
Somewhere talking of me;
Well, if it prove a girl, my boy
Will have plenty; so let it be.He said it referred to Maud, and to the two fathers arranging a match between himself and her.
The other was of the poet—Dowered with the hate of hate, the scorn of scorn,
The love of love.He said that he was quite willing it should bear any meaning the words would fairly bear; to the best of his recollection his meaning when he wrote it was “the hate of the quality hate, &c.,” but he thought the meaning of “the quintessence of hatred” finer. He said there had never been a poem so misunderstood by the “ninnies of critics” as “Maud.”
During an evening spent at Tent Lodge Tennyson remarked, on the similarity of the monkey’s skull to the human, that a young monkey’s skull is quite human in shape, and gradually alters—the analogy being borne out by the human skull being at first more like the statues of the gods, and gradually degenerating into human; and then, turning to Mrs. Tennyson, “There, that’s the second original remark I’ve made this evening!” Mr. Dodgson saw a great deal of the Tennysons after this, and photographed the poet himself and various members of his family.
In October he made the acquaintance of John Ruskin, who in after years was always willing to assist him with his valuable advice on any point of artistic criticism. Mr. Dodgson was singularly fortunate in his friends; whenever he was in difficulties on any technical matters, whether of religion, law, medicine, art, or whatever it might be, he always had some one especially distinguished in that branch of study whose aid he could seek as a friend. In particular, the names of Canon King (now Bishop of Lincoln), and Sir James Paget occur to me; to the latter Mr. Dodgson addressed many letters on questions of medicine and surgery—some of them intricate enough, but never too intricate to weary the unfailing patience of the great surgeon.
A note in Mr. Dodgson’s Journal, May 9, 1857, describes his introduction to Thackeray:—
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. (From a photograph by Lewis Carroll).
I breakfasted this morning with Fowler of Lincoln to meet Thackeray (the author), who delivered his lecture on George III. in Oxford last night. I was much pleased with what I saw of him; his manner is simple and unaffected; he shows no anxiety to shine in conversation, though full of fun and anecdote when drawn out. He seemed delighted with the reception he had met with last night: the undergraduates seem to have behaved with most unusual moderation.
The next few years of his life passed quietly, and without any unusual events to break the monotony of college routine. He spent his mornings in the lecture-rooms, his afternoons in the country or on the river—he was very fond of boating—and his evenings in his room, reading and preparing for the next day’s work. But in spite of all this outward calm of life, his mind was very much exercised on the subject of taking Holy Orders. Not only was this step necessary if he wished to retain his Studentship, but also he felt that it would give him much more influence among the undergraduates, and thus increase his power of doing good. On the other hand, he was not prepared to live the life of almost puritanical strictness which was then considered essential for a clergyman, and he saw that the impediment of speech from which he suffered would greatly interfere with the proper performance of his clerical duties.
BISHOP WILBERFORCE. (From a photograph by Lewis Carroll).
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Wilberforce, had expressed the opinion that the “resolution to attend theatres or operas was an absolute disqualification for Holy Orders,” which discouraged him very much, until it transpired that this statement was only meant to refer to the parochial clergy. He discussed the matter with Dr. Pusey, and with Dr. Liddon. The latter said that “he thought a deacon might lawfully, if he found himself unfit for the work, abstain from direct ministerial duty.” And so, with many qualms about his own unworthiness, he at last decided to prepare definitely for ordination.
On December 22, 1861, he was ordained deacon by the Bishop of Oxford. He never