Was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) a paedophile, a pornographer, or both ?

A recent BBC documentary entitled  The Secret World of Lewis Caroll  produced some fairly strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the answer is a qualified yes.

There was also argument to suggest that he was only a “repressed paedophile”and arguments (from those not wishing to see Caroll’s reputation sullied) that the attitude towards young children and their budding sexuality was far more liberal in the Victorian age.

Broadcaster and journalist Martha Kearney noted that in Victorian times the “fascination with the innocence of young girls was widespread”. So here are the  images demonstrating Dodgson’s fascination with the innocence of young girls.

The one that is cited most frequently is the photograph of Alice, taken in the family garden.  It’s difficult not to see this as anything other than a highly sexualised portrait of the very young child.  Certainly this looks more like a Victorian street urchin than the daughter of a Dean at Oxford University.


It worth contrasting this particular photo with another, altogether more demure one, that Dodgson took of Alice. Alice It’s very easy to read too much into a single photograph. But there is an element within Dodgson’s photographic work that we would now interpret differently with a modern sensibility about the nature of the sexual relationships between older men and young girls.

There is no doubt that Alice is a precociously beautiful young girl and it is worth contrasting two photographs by famous American photographer Sally Mann of her daughter Candy. candy sally-mann Like Alice, Candy is a precociously beautiful young girl. But the photos of Candy show young girl playing grown-ups and offer an important insight into the way in which an adult world of impinges on a child’s world.

Sally Mann is clearly a much better photographer than Dodgson ever was and her work has a far more confrontational aspect than Carroll’s but nonetheless in the first photograph of Alice, we have a young girl who appears to have been dressed up by the photographer to fulfil some idea ( fantasy?) of the photographer rather than to reflect the child at play or in some natural setting as is the case in much of Mann’s work.

Then there’s the picture of Alice kissing Dodgson.  Again, the picture has highly sexualised overtones. To the modern sensibility this is inappropriate behaviour and it’s certainly naive to be photographing it.  But perhaps that’s it. Perhaps Dodgson was simply very naive.


However, it is puzzling to understand why Dodgson would have taken such a photo in the first place and how and why it became public. It would be difficult to imagine that he would be likely to show a photograph like this to Alice’s parents. It is also unlikely that they would have agreed to it being in the public domain, especially given that her father was the Dean of Christ Church College, Oxford, presumably a pillar of respectable society.

Then there is a series of photographs that he had published in the late 1870s.


Beatrice Seated Before the White Cliffs

 This is a photograph of Beatrice Sheward Hatch, taken with the knowledge and consent of her mother, Evelyn, who moved in “stimulating circles”.  One can assume that the other two photos of Beatrice’s sister, also Evelyn, with similarly taken with her mother’s consent. So perhaps this is as innocent as the Caroll supporters would argue.


 Evelyn Hatch


Evelyn Hatch


Annie and Frances Henderson

One of the legal tests for defining pornography is “redeeming artistic merit”. In my opinion these pictures fail on this particular count and you could probably say that they are slightly on the wrong side of tacky but just short of purient.

But then at the end of the BBC programme came the stunning revelation. The programme’s producers had discovered some  of Dodgson’s photographs of Alice’s sister, Lorina, in a French museum one of which is a full frontal nude.

untitled 3

It’s difficult to argue that this is anything other than child pornography.

It is well known that there was a break between Dodgson and the Lindell family. The reasons for it have been open to speculation. The most widely accepted is that the Liddel family found out about Dodgson’s infatuation with Lorina.  However, they may also have found out about photographs like this one. It’s difficult to imagine any parents being pleased about this.

So where does this leave us in our assessment of Charles Dodgson?

On balance, its likely that by our modern definition, he was engaged in taking child pornography.   And possibly there will be revelations of other work that is hidden away in archives that will confirm this over time.

Coming close on the suggestion that Dodgson was a pornographer is the suggestion that he was also a paedophile. There is nothing to suggest that this was the case, no rumour, no innuendo. But more importantly there is nothing in the commentary of the women he photographed as children to suggest that it was any sexual element in his relationship with them.

The case of Dodgson in many ways a similar case of Woody Allen. For those who accept the veracity of the claims against Allen, they constitute a significantly negative element in the assessment of his work.

Lewis Carroll’s standing as a writer of children’s literature is far more significant than Allen’s as a film producer. However, it will be difficult from now on to read Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland without the shadow of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson falling across the page.

Readers may also be interested in

David Hamilton: The nymphets and the line between art and soft-core pornography

Can any of David Hamilton’s work be judged to be pornographic?

David Hamilton: bringing a soft focus to soft-core porn

Two views of female sexuality: David Hamilton’s Nymphettes and Norman Lindsay’s Amazons

21 thoughts on “Was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) a paedophile, a pornographer, or both ?

  1. Hello, Timothy. I came to your blog by accident, actually, while researching the relationship of Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis carroll) & the Visual Arts, & while Iooking for images on the Internet to illustrate a presentation at a local Museum. I study the “Alice” books.

    Judging from my first look at your blog, it is obvious it is about photography, or else that it takes a keen interest in photography. I’ve also noticed in your bio that you have a phD, & you strike me as a whole as a cultured person, mostly judging by the nice way you write & by your vast interests.

    It is in the light of all this that I now take the liberty to write this comment here, knowing that you will surely appreciate the fact that my post is well-meant. I wanted to leave a comment to your blog post so as to let you & your readers know the obvious: first, that the alleged “photograph” of Lewis Carroll “kissing” Alice Liddell is in fact a cheap, rather silly composite, a (rather poorly, let’s agree) photoshopped image which I am surprised keeps luring the informed & genuine interest of cultured people towards this question of Carroll’s/Dodgson’s supposed pedophile inclinations time, & time again. How an intelligent person such as yourself could be so easily & irresponsibly deceived by this obvious & crude trick is really beyond me, I must say.

    The “photograph” in question is a composite of two well known photographs, & a simple & quick search on the Web would have surely shed some light on this matter. You should have done your homework, if I may say so…

    Secondly, the image of the naked girl –it has already been established by serious scholars– is not a photograph of Lorina Liddell, as it was purported to be the case, & it was certainly not Dodgson/Carroll who took this picture, despite the allegations hastily advanced in what I cannot but call a “mockumentary” –this shame of a “journalistic” piece that “The Secret World of Lewis Caroll” turned out to be.

    May I finally add that your argument comparing the photography of Dodgson of the “Beggar Alice” & the fantastic photography of extremely talented Sally Mann is a rather flawed one? To say, as you now do, that Alice Liddell as a Beggar Child here “appears to have been dressed up by the photographer to fulfil some idea ( fantasy?) of the photographer rather than to reflect the child at play or in some natural setting” is both to bring into the image in question a personal reading that is, I’m afraid, tainted with personal opinion & experience, & to also ignore the circumstances of how photography in general & photographic practice in particular was thought of & practiced in Victorian times, in the very early years of the art of photography.

    I hope you can correct the misinformation in this post of yours, & that you can therefore keep aiming at the excellence that you seem to be striving at in your writing here. Thank you, & greetings from Argentina.

    Martín Pérez
    The Lewis Carroll Society Argentina.

    • Not to say that if Sally Mann ever had a daughter called “Candy” she managed to keep her locked in the basement her entire life. The photograph is called “Candy cigarette” – tho’ if it’s made of candy or tobacco we’ll never know…
      An abysmal example of picking an easy corpse to kick, and then managing to kick yourself in the groin….

  2. Hi, I just thought you’d like to know that one of the photos you discuss is a fake– the kiss between Carroll and Alice is not an authentic image. You’re not the first to be fooled by it, it drives me crazy. It’s a combination of two authentic, traceable, well-sourced images: one; a self-portrait of Carroll reading from 1857 (flipped) and one a photo of Alice opening her mouth to eat cherries held out by her sister from 1860. The all-too-convincing fake began its rounds on the internet around 2010ish with no source or verification. You were right to question the image’s astounding inappropriateness. I appreciated your article though 🙂

  3. Ope, to correct myself, the Carroll half of the photo (of Carroll reading) is from a photo taken by Reginald Southey in 1856. (not a self-portrait).

  4. In 1978 I went to a Lewis Carroll exhibition at the Rosenbach Museum in Philadelphia. I was slightly interested in Lewis Carroll. I was shocked that the exhibit contained several photos attributed to Carroll the subjects of which were preteen girls completely nude. No one at the museum seemed concerned. I often wondered how it was handled if parents brought their children who saw the photos.

  5. Timothy,
    When you say about the Alice Liddel as Beggar Girl photo that “It’s difficult not to see this as anything other than a highly sexualised portrait of the very young child”….. That’s quite an exaggeration. There’s one exposed shoulder, because she’s a beggar girl. How is that sexualisation? It’s not. It’s playing dress-up.
    (Sometimes, pedosexuals accuse others, in the hope to convince people that THEY themselves are “good guys”. One sees similar behaviour in American rightwing extremists who accuse the left of being racists if they support benefits to blacks. These cultural hill billies scream racism in the hope that their own racism won’t be noticed) In interviews, as an adult woman Alice Liddell said she noticed the attention he was paying her, but not ever that it was sexualised or inappropiate.

    And the cases of Woody Allen and Lewis Caroll are very different. Against Woody Allen, the evidence is highly circumstantial, because of Mia Farrow. He’s only been accused ONCE. Carroll had disthttps://gravatar.com/site/signup/inct encounters with several girls. Nobody accused Carroll of anything at the time. etc etc

  6. Pingback: Will David Hamilton be remembered as a modern day Charles Lutwidge Dodgson? | Tim Haslett's Blog

  7. I was really shocked to read that several preteen girls nude photos were taken with parents’consent in name of Art, which Art? I do not call this Art but “broken innocence”.
    Also I feel inconfortable to watch the one that is cited most frequently, the photograph of Alice, taken in the family garden. I am agreed that it is as you stated as “anything other than a highly sexualised portrait of the very young child”, this is the way I feel at least. What I can not stand is how the childs looked the camera, in none of these children seemed fine or playing but it feels that they have been dressed up by the photographer even being in Victorian times it does not justify such images which I find really disturbing, they posed as adults not as sponteneous children and here in these photos we do not feel childwood by the adult “thought”. I was speachless seeing the photographs of Alice’s sister, Lorina, which is a full frontal nude. I just wonder how he did ask Lorina to do so and this could explain the break between Dodgson and the Lindell family. But this is my opinion and knowing unfortunalty myself what a pedophile is I can only be and feel connected with these children because afterall, we tend to forgot that they were children, and these children were asked to pose without clothes which I do not think normal. The very chocking photo was also with Evelyn Hatch, by how she was posing and her look in her eyes says it all. It is not easy to take off your clothes as an adult so I can image as a child and under which reason? because behind a photo there is always a story and not need to have a diploma to know it. I really do think that only people who know can understand what I mean and I do really feel uncomfortable seeing these photos in the name of art of not, because at the end I do not think that these children fully understood and were totaly innocent and may be not agreed to do so by the way they looked the camera.
    Therese R – Nice – France

    • You are applying 21st century interpretations to 19th century works.

      There was no internet in the 19th century, no movies, no television. People entertained themselves differently.

      In particular, there was a fad for staging “tableaus” – ie scenes from classic literature, or greek or roman myths. When staging one of these tableaus someone would pick an exciting moment from a story, assemble a costume, or costumes, props. And then someone, usually the host/hostess, or their children, would don the costume, pose, and guests would applaud.

      To 20th or 21st century standards this posing could seem highly suspicious, highly sexualy charged, and not innocent, at all. But, from my reading, to the more innocent Victorian mind, this posing was innocent, because it was based on high-brow literature, or ancient myths, even if it required those posing to appear naked, or practically naked.

      Dodgson’s photos fit firmly within this tradition.

      Is it possible that Dodgson was not bringing an innocent mind to staging his child models in scenes from the classics, and that he was exploiting the innocent acceptance of their parents? I suggest that is unknowable.

      I suggest we consider the alternate possibility, that Dodgson was bringing an innocent mind to his photography, and if a time traveler from the 21st century was to visit him, and accuse him, he would be shocked.

  8. Hmm. I don’t use wordpress very often. But it forced me to do some maintenance today. It said I left a comment here, on March 6, 2020. Imagine my surprise when I couldn’t find it?

    I can’t imagine I left a rude comment. I don’t do that.

      • Okay. Here I am at the article, and I don’t see my comment from 2020-03-06. If there was some reason you didn’t approve my comment, in 2020, then it is disappointing you didn’t bother to say why. I am a serious person. I don’t leave drive by comments.

        I may have commented on the impressive young woman, Olympia Nelson, who posed for her mother in a recreation of one of Dodgson’s famous photos.

    • Hi Geo,
      I have searched but couldn’t find it. I always approve all comments. As you can imagine some, especially about this article, are pretty unflattering. If you want to post it again I will approve it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.