Lewis Carroll and his relationships with children

One of the most frequently asked questions in e-mails concerning Charles Dodgson is whether it is true that he was a paedophile. It is interesting that such questions about him have only started to be asked in recent times, fanned, one might suggest, by the considerable publicity that has been given to paedophilia. There are some books and recent articles, some to be found on the world-wide-web, where the tacit assumption is now being made that he did have an unhealthy interest in pre-pubescent girls. Much is made of his comment that he liked children "except boys", of the fact that he was unmarried, of the fact that he did not eventually take holy orders, and of the fact that before his death he destroyed many photographs, particularly nude studies, that he had made during his life. That seems to be the sum total of the "evidence."

With regard to Dodgson being unmarried, it is not generally known that senior students (in other Oxford Colleges known as Fellows) at the time were appointed on the understanding that they remained single. Yes, Dodgson could have become a minister, but it is quite possible that he decided against this simply on the grounds that he suffered from a bad stammer.

There is of course a quantum leap between being fond of children, be it boys or girls, and having an unhealthy sexual interest in them. As far as the writer has been able to make out, no serious scholars of photographic history see any evidence whatsoever in the allegations that have been made. In the first place, there exists ample evidence that all children photographed were always accompanied by their parents, and presumably they had no qualms about him. When one examines the pictures, the children always appear relaxed in the photographs. There appear to be no cases in which mothers had objected to photographs being taken; all one sees in his work and in his writings is someone who was genuinely fond of children. It may be that he had seen in a young girl a delightful innocence which he sought to portray. But nothing more than that.

Indecency, as well as beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder. Quite a lot of money can be made in pursuit of the peculiarly English habit of seeking to debunk and destroy anyone held in high esteem. It could be argued that the more vociferous or angry people who indulge in this may have been real or imagined victims of abuse themselves and that perhaps, therefore, they may be over-sensitive in this direction. Another possibility may be that some may in fact be seeing their own sins in others.  Until the writer is provided with evidence, which as far as he can see simply does not exist, this brilliant photographer, artist and story-teller remains totally innocent.

Recently I have been accused of being "out of date" in respect of this remarkable man. A site that claims to have the latest research on this is www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com. ** My site, of course, is concerned with famous photographers and not in any way an attempt to provide a sociological or psychological analysis on these pioneers. Nevertheless, the comment prompted me to consult various historians, and to read what must be the definitive work on this photographer. "Lewis Caroll, Photographer" is by Roger Taylor and Edward Wakeling, published by Prinston University, a book that is well worth a read. He is one of many with whom I have exchanged correspondence on this topic.

Roger Taylor documents in detail the many photographs taken by Dodgson, and in passing refers to nude photographs of children, documenting the sessions in detail. He writes:

"This, then, is the substance of Dodgson's nude photography: an activity limited to eight sessions spread over thirteen years involving the children of six families (excluding Ada Smith, whose profession as a life model puts her in a somewhat different category). It is not the record of a habitual voyeur, pornographer or paedophile, but the response of an overtly sentimental bachelor to the innocent beauty and grace of childhood. Whether this type of photography was Dodgson's way of satisfying or sublimating his sexual desires can never be known and will alays remain fruitless speculation. Certainly the fear that this might be the case never troubled the families involved, and we can be certain that any whiff of impropriety would have been keenly scented."

**See also "In the Shadow of the Dream Child: A New Understanding of Lewis Carroll", by Karoline Leach

This page would not have been written but for the many emails I have received, and (what seems to me to be an unhealthy) interest. One of the many correspondents summarises the controversy thus:

"It ... seems to me that Carroll's inclusion amongst "Famous British Paedophiles" ... demonstrates that there is a wide - fortunately not universal - tendency to conflate within the single term "paedophile" a whole spectrum of relationships with children, from the wholly admirable and caring to the utterly despicable, and to assume the lowest common denominator for all. That this ignores both the evidence and the etymology is a characteristic [regrettably] appropriate to the persons who do it."

Though there are some interesting points in the web-site cited above, there is nothing I can see that confirms the various myths surrounding this photographer. Interestingly, Karoline Leach, in her book, suggests that Dodgson was far more interested in Alice Liddell's mother than in Alice herself!

Back to main article on Carroll

© Robert Leggat, 2005.