02 May 2020

Charles Dickens was a beast to his wife Catherine

In 1835, the Morning Chronicle in London launched an evening edit­ion, edited by music critic George Hogarth. Hogarth invited Charl­es Dickens (1812–70) to contribute, and Dickens soon became a reg­ul­­ar vis­itor to his Fulham house, enjoying the company of Hogarth's three daughters, Georgina, Mary and young Catherine (1815–79). Charles and Catherine quickly married (1836).

At first, the two were happily married and gave birth to 10 child­ren tog­ether. Early on, Dickens called his wife My Dearest Life, and Dearest Darling Pig in letters to her. But this all changed when, after 22 years of marriage, Charles de­cid­ed that he was tired of his multiparous wife who’d lost her good looks and figure, and always smelt of breast-milk. So he began an affair with a slim, 18-year-old act­r­ess, Ellen Ternan (1839–1914).

Charles, Catherine and two of their daughters, c1850. 
The only photo I could find of the two spouses together.
Smithsonian 


Literature Professor John Bowen at York Uni recently un­covered 98 letters that were kept at Houghton Library at Harvard but never an­alysed. These letters revealed the abandoned Catherine, in shocking detail. Some was old news eg Dickens blocked up the door between his and his wife’s bedrooms and falsely claimed that Catherine had not car­ed for the children. Dickens was desperate to get rid of his wife, but it was Prof Bowen’s evidence that finally tipped the histor­ical scales in Catherine’s favour.

The letters were an exchange between Dickens’ novelist-neigh­­bour, Edward Dutton Cook, and his journ­alist friend William Moy Thomas, staff writer on Dickens’ journ­al. The two men explored the Dickens’ marriage & separation via a cor­res­pondence Cook had had with Catherine in the very year she died (1897). Discreet and well connected in the London literary world, Cook was well placed to record Cather­ine’s story which had been otherwise suppressed. Plus Cook clearly knew of Ellen Ternan’s relat­ionship with Dickens, the house he bought for her and her subseq­uent life as the wife of an Oxford man!!

The discovery that Charles Dickens tried to certify his wife in a mental asylum was already known by some. Cather­ine’s aunt wrote that Dick­ens wanted Cath­er­ine’s doc­tor to certify her mental illness, but the doctor “sternly refused, saying he considered Mrs Dickens per­fectly sound in mind”. Prof Bowen believed he had identified that doctor, Dr Thomas Har­rington Tuke, super­intendent of Manor House Asylum in Chiswick from 1849-88. Dr Tuke’s refusal to go along with Charles' plan to falsely commit Cath­erine was brave, leading Dickens to later exact revenge against Tuke’s reputation.

Most accounts of the break-up of Charles Dickens’ mar­r­iage in 1858 had given HIS side of the story. The charge of mental dis­order was a part­icularly frightening one for women in the 1850s. In the same month that Dickens and Catherine separ­at­ed, his close friend and fellow novel­ist Edward Bulwer-Lytton suc­cessfully plot­ted to have his wife Rosina certified in­sane. Only after a wide­spread public outcry was Rosina judged sane and then freed.

  Young Catherine Dickens

Middle aged Charles Dickens


Young Ellen Ternan

Dickens was very famous & very well connected. John Forster was secr­et­ary to the Commissioners of Lunacy, and both he and Dickens were close friend­s with key figures in the trade eg psychiatrist Dr John Conolly. To be accused of mental disorder with Dr John Conolly and John Forster on-side was very threatening. Dr Conolly believed Catherine’s passivity about her husband’s infid­elity was suff­icient to have her certified. He’d already done it for Lord Lytton!

After their separation was finally settled in June 1858, Dickens wrote a letter claiming that it was actually Cather­ine’s idea to move out and that she had “a mental disorder under which she some­times labours.” The letter was published in a newspaper, because Charles thought pub­lic exposure would help control “his side” and would clarify that his ex-wife was an uncontrollable bur­den. And when the charge of mental dis­order was published in the paper, it also gave Cath­er­ine a terrifying glimpse of what Ch­arles might do. But it didn’t always help Charles. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, for example, wrote: “What a dread­ful letter that was! And what a crime for a man to use his genius as a cudgel again­st the woman he promised to protect tenderly with life and heart”.
  
Meantime Catherine Dick­ens moved to Gloucester Cres, where she lived for her last two decades, until her death in Nov 1879. Her allowance was £600 per annum, until it was halved after Dickens died in 1870. Despite having to live a deprived, lonely life, she loved the th­eatre, and enjoyed her children and grand­children. It was und­oub­t­edly far better for Catherine to be free of her scheming husband.

Nelly and Dickens destroyed all their letters before he died in 1870. After the funeral, Catherine's sister Georgina became the chief prot­ector of his legacy and took care to keep his love affair secret. Fortunately Nelly st­ar­t­ed­ a new life after Dickens’ death, marrying a much younger man, George Wharton Rob­inson, and having two child­ren. Definitive evidence of the Dickens love affair didn’t come out until long af­ter Nelly’s death.

Dickens Museum, London
Photo: BBC

So who would have believed Catherine’s version of events? Her al­l­egations ag­ainst her husb­and were cert­ainly true and gave a totally damning account of Dickens’ behaviour. But it was only as Catherine was dying from Jan 1879 on that she felt free enough to tell Cook the truth about Charles. Cook wrote that after Catherine had borne 10 children, Dickens described his wife as “a great fat lady, flor­id with arms thick as the leg of a life Guard’s man and red as a beef sausage.” [I lost my waistline after birthing just two bab­ies]

You may like to read Newfound Letters Reveal Charles Dickens Wanted His Sane Wife, Catherine Dickens, Locked In An Asylum By Marco Margaritoff, 27/2/2019.





20 comments:

Deb said...

I had to read Great Expectations in high school and did not enjoy it at all. I put it down to Dickens Snr being imprisoned and Charles Dickens being put into a factory to survive.

Hels said...

Deb

Charles Dickens was widely known as the greatest British novelist of the long Victorian era, a man who enjoyed a wider popularity during his lifetime than had ANY previous author. So when our English Literature teachers were selecting novels each year, they probably had to include Great Expectations. I didn't like Miss Havisham, or the cruelty, and the scary imagery remained long after the book was finished.

However why did Dickens repeat the cruel behaviour in real life? And why to the woman he was supposed to protect most?

Parnassus said...

Hello Hels, Many famous men (and women) abused the power that their fame gave them in order to control or punish others. However, this was particularly reprehensible in Dickens' case, because his novels were quite preachy about abuses in society, so for him to adopt the same type of manipulations was the height of hypocrisy.
--Jim

Anonymous said...

I feel shame at being a man at times. What awful times. He described his wife's physical state after she having born ten children. I wonder what was his physical state, I am sure not a lithesome youth. Thankfully the truth is known.

Jim's comment is interesting.

Hels said...

Parnassus

how ironic that must have been. Of all the social themes Dickens addressed, consider: abuses of the new Poor Law system, evils of London’s criminal world and victimisation of children. And as I said, his deep social commitment as an adult were derived from his own traumatic childhood. Yet this rather radical writer didn't apply these firm beliefs to women in general, or to his own wife in particular!

Hels said...

Andrew

I saw a film years ago with middle aged, overweight Catherine sitting alone in her room knitting, while Dickens and his bricklayers were sealing her room with a floor to roof wall. From that day on, said the film, only one grown up child was allowed to see Catherine in the years before Charles died. If he didn't want more than 4 or 5 children, he should have kept his pants zipped up.

Read Charles Dickens’s Unhappy Children
https://www.thedailybeast.com/charles-dickenss-unhappy-children

Hilary Melton-Butcher said...

Hi Hels - that disparity between men and women, not so bad today ... but still there. Kipling insisted that his letters and personal stuff was burnt after his death ... probably removing that possibility of judgement after his death. Dickens could probably have done with that - he was a perceptive man in his writing ... but desperate for adoration ... which most definitely didn't improve his character. He's still much admired for his literary skills and for drawing our attention to the appalling life of those in poverty. He did some philanthropic work ... but sadly in latter life couldn't relate to his wife and what she'd been through. It's interesting to look back though ... stay safe - Hilary

Hels said...

Hilary

artists and writers only wanted to have their records burned after their deaths, IF they thought they might be embarrassed by something. But as you say, Dickens was so desperate for adoration that nothing else was important, other than his literary success.

Not only did he not have any time for Catherine. He wanted the children to leave home asap. One son went into the army; one went to the navy; a third became a Mountie in the Canadian west; two more emigrated to Australia. He supported only one son through university.

Vagabonde said...

What a cad! I didn’t know that about him. Actually I don’t know a whole lot because I went to school in France and we didn’t study foreign authors that much as we had a heavy program with our own authors, like Victor Hugo, Guy de Maupassant, Gustave Flaubert, Balzac, Emile Zola and so many others. I have A Christmas Carol but have not read it since it is on TV every holiday. I did buy a second hand copy of American Notes that Dickens wrote after traveling to the United States for 6 months. I believe he had some harsh views on America. But there are still thousands of books on the shelves in Georgia waiting for me to move them, or give them away.
I enjoyed your post. It was quite enlightening. It was not easy for any woman in England in those times, I think in France they were not so uptight and had more regard for women, but who knows.

Hels said...

Vagabonde

Mostly we don't know about writers, artists and musicians' private lives; rather we normally judge them by the quality of their work. Rightly so! But sometimes a famous person's behaviour is so egregious that we have to examine the impact on his life, his work and on the wife and children.

If I can offer a French example, Paul Gauguin married a Danish woman and had 5 children in the first 10 years. Then he moved his wife and children to Copenhagen, returned to Paris alone and never saw them again. Despite consorting with teens abroad, I can't find any record of Gauguin providing financial support for his own children.

mem said...

I think that the nonavailability of birth control was a tragedy . Dickens did behave appallingly but one cant help but think of the sad choice between having an active sex life and the inevitable birth of children must have been a hard one for many couples. He obviously didn't take his responsibilities within his family very seriously and behave d in a very narcissistic way . Mind you i doubt he was unusual . I know of a situation which happened in the 1940s where a church going good woman was forced into an illegal abortion carried out with anesthetic by a sympathetic GP because her husband threatened to leave her and their six children if she went ahead and had the baby. Queen Victoria found this a very difficult choice to make , having a passionate love for her husband but a lifelong resentment toward her children .
It is fascinating that a man who obviously had so much empathy for the human condition could behave like this . Maybe he poured all that empathy into his stories and had none left over closer to home .

Hels said...

mem

he was not at all unusual for a man of fame and resources!! Consider Baron Edward Bulwer-Lytton who I mentioned in passing. He was a well respected English writer, a Whig and later Conservative politician and then Secretary of State for the Colonies. When he got sick of his wife Rosina, he faked an insanity charge and had her locked up in an insane asylum. Soon her children were taken away from her and Edward was promptly raised to the peerage.

When you ask how "a man who obviously had so much empathy for the human condition could behave like this", I can only suggest that the concept of humans excludes women.

mem said...

I have been reading up on Rosina , she was an interesting woman and probably " a handful " as Victorian wives go . Her mother was an early feminist and campaigner fro women's rights, Her friend was lady Caroline Lamb and she apparently appeared at the hustings when her Ex was trying to get into parliament and denounced him in front of the crowds . this what led to her incarceration for a few weeks. At around this time Wilkie Collins had written and published "The Woman in White "which has at its core the incarceration of an inconvenient wife in a mental asylum . This primed and educated the public to be outraged at men doing this and lead to Rosina getting out . She did lose contact with her children and her daughter died in mysterious circumstances at the age of 20 . After her husband died she wrote an autobiography of the period of her incarceration . This totally estranged her from her son who seems to have taken his fathers side . It is also interesting that her husband worshiped his mother who withdrew financial support when he married Rosina against her wishes. Lots of interesting Psychology going on in this family me thinks .

Hels said...

mem

I agree that many marriages faced conflict once their front door was closed, but there were few options open to the powerless in society i.e women, working families, Catholics etc. Even if Rosina Bulwer-Lytton greatly annoyed her husband on a daily basis, the fact that he tried and succeeded in locking her up in an asylum, and taking the children, was immoral.

Actually Bulwer Lytton was quite smart - many psychiatrists believed that hysterical neurosis was caused by the uterus and was thus almost normal for women.

Rachel Phillips said...

Good morning. I have just read this and my opinion is that what happened should be studied within the context of divorce law in Victorian Britain and not in isolation. Objectively, Dickens was a great writer. Thank you, if my comment is published.

Hels said...

Rachel

Thanks for your comment. I didn't want to get into a debate about whether Dickens was a great writer or not. He was in every high school English curriculum so I always assumed he was important.

But I did want to consider his behaviour, his colleagues', the doctors and the lawyers in defeating Catherine. They produced whatever evidence was needed, within the context of Victorian family law, to get rid of the fat, middle aged bore and take up with the young, slim lovely.

And what was Charles' relationship with Catherine's young sister, Georgina?

Jim of Olym said...

If Mr. Dickens had kept his d##k in his pocket more often, perhaps he would have had fewer children to feed, and his wife would have been healthier. Vanity of vanities!

Hels said...

Jim,

not only would his wife have been fitter and less exhausted, poor thing.

Virtual Victorian reported that "Dickens’ idea of the perfect woman is often portrayed in his fiction as being just seventeen, innocent and ripe for a gentleman’s picking, or set upon pedestals so high as to be quite unobtainable". Catherine was getting older, but Charles' mistresses were getting younger :(.

Viola said...

Hello Hels,

I am changing my comment to make it a bit milder! I still love Dickens’s writing and this is a good article about his relationships with women, I think: https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/english-news/2020/06/04/catherine-waters-on-dickens-attitude-to-women-for-the-conversation/ We really can’t cancel everyone who behaved badly. There is no talk about ‘cancelling’ Byron, for example, and his behavior was just as egregious or more! What about all that Dickens did for charity, for the poor and making people aware of faults in the law? Even promoting the celebration of Christmas was good.

I am inclined to agree with Rachel.

Hels said...

Viola

this is a dilemma I have addressed many times, and not just about Dickens. Of course we really cannot cancel everyone who behaved badly.... there would be no-one left standing, and not just in Britain. I think school students should still be introduced to the most talented writers, painters etc but we should provide a more honest assessment:

eg1 Vincent van Gogh painted like a dream, but he cut off his ear because he lived a long time in a psychiatric asylum.

eg2 Albert Einstein was a scientific genius, unmatched in the world of physics. But he was a totally neglectful father to his son Eduard who was left alone for 30 years in a psychiatric asylum in a distant country.