by Mary Hoban
19 – Disintegration
On family members see LOMHW, pp. 26–33; TA to JA, 14 Jun & 18 Oct 1880; JA to TA, 5 Jul 1880; Ada to JA, 12 May 1880; Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, pp. 73–76, p. 78; AWR, p. 224. On Polly’s marriage as a stark contrast to that of her parents see Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 81. Approaching her tenth wedding anniversary, Humphry had, according to Polly, given her ‘ten years of real and great happiness and constant tenderness and care and cherishing’, and she was expecting that the next ten years of her life with him would be even happier. On TA’s appointment as professor of English literature at the Catholic University of Ireland in Dublin, reactions to it, & his reignited campaign for JA to join him see TAHF, p. 181; TA to JA, 13 Dec 1881, 1 Jun 1882, 30 Nov 1883; JA to TA, 22 Mar 1884; MA to TA 19 Apr 1882, BCAM; MHW to JA 3 Mar 1882, TCCL; Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 86. On JA’s definitive declaration & on other women living apart from their husbands see JA to TA, 15 Feb & 22 Mar 1884, BCAM. On TA’s attacks on JA as a mother & her children’s responses see TA to JA, 1 Jun 1882; 18 & 30 Nov 1883; TA to MHW, 6 Feb 1884; TA to Frances Arnold, 26 Oct 1883; JA to TA, 22 Oct 1884, 12 Feb 1888; JA to MHW, 14 Dec 1884, BCAM; MHW to TA, 25 Nov 1882, 4 Aug 1883, 5 Feb & 5 Mar 1884, TCCL. On possibility of TA getting chair in Oxford see JA to TA, 8 Mar 1884, BCAM; MA to TA, 5 Apr 1885, LMADE; AVW, p. 216. On financial wrangling between JA & TA see TA to JA, 22 Nov 1884; TA to Ethel Arnold, 7 Mar 1885; JA to TA, 2 Feb 1887; JA to TA, 12 Feb 1888, BCAM; MHW to TA, 18 Feb 1885, 11 Mar 1885, TCCL. On TA quoting George Eliot: JA and Polly had met George Eliot at an evening with the Pattisons in Oxford in 1871. When the ladies had retired after dinner, Eliot, knowing that Polly was studying Spanish history, thought she might like to hear about her own journey through that country. Her kindness was always remembered. See AWR, vol. 1, pp. 144–46. On Judy’s marriage to Leonard Huxley see MHW to JA, 27 Dec 1881, TCCL; Cohen, The Letters of Lewis Carroll, vol. 1, pp. 467, 533; Judy Arnold to TA, 15 Feb 1882; TA to JA, 22 Nov 1884, BCAM; see also LTAY, p. 233. On JA’s deterioration and TA’s responses see Frances Arnold to TA, 17 Sep 1885; Frances Arnold to JA, 6 Jul 1886; TA to JA, 15 & 18 Apr 1883, 9 Mar 1884, 24 Mar, 18 Oct, & 6 Dec 1886, 19 Feb 1887; JA to TA, 28 Apr 1884, 2 Feb 1887; Jane Forster to TA, May 1886, BCAM; MA to TA, 30 Nov 1886, LMADE; MHW to TA, 13 Sep 1885, 29 Mar & 1 Apr 1886; MHW to JA, 3, 13, & 27 Apr, 29 Jun, 17 Oct, & 6 Dec 1886, TCCL. On JA’s spiritual beliefs see MHW to JA, 27 April & 9 Sep 1886; MHW to Willy Arnold, 7 Apr 1888, TCCL; JA to TA, 13 Oct & 14 Dec 1886; TA to JA, 3 & 6 Nov 1886, BCAM; LTAY, p. 218. On Polly’s rebuke of TA see MHW to TA, 23 Jan 1887, TCCL. On TA’s summary of JA’s failings and her responses see TA to JA, 19 Feb 1887; JA to TA, 4 & 7 Feb 1887, BCAM. On Dot’s menstruation see MHW to JA 1 Feb 1887, TCCL. On responses to progress of disease see JA to TA, 14 Dec 1886; Frances Arnold to TA, 19 Feb 1887; TA to JA, 8 Dec 1886, Mar 1887; TA to Ethel Arnold, 14 Feb 1887; Frank Arnold to TA, 11 Mar & 6 May 1887; Ethel Arnold to TA, 8 May 1887; TA’s Account of Julia Sorell Arnold’s last illness, May 1887–7 April 1888, BCAM; MHW to JA, 6 Dec 1886 & 28 Feb 1887; MHW to TA, 9 Mar 1887; MHW to Willy Arnold, 14 Mar 1887; MHW to JA, 7 May 1887, TCCL; MA to Jane Forster, 9 Apr 1887, LMADE. On ‘appalling agony’ see JA to TA, 17 Feb 1887, BCAM. The tubes used to relieve JA, known as Southey’s Tubes, were invented by Reginald Southey, a friend of Charles Dodgson. On Ethel’s theatrical ambitions: Ethel, unlike Judy, had failed to win a scholarship to Somerville, and had instead expressed an ambition to become an actress, causing concern to her mother and family. This was a time when the editor of Punch, Frank Burnand, who was also a prolific playwright, declared categorically that no parent would wish their daughter to go on the stage. ‘A well-brought-up girl would react to the stage in one of two ways, either recoiling in disgust at “life behind the scenes” and fleeing, or else succumbing to its corruption “until the fixed lines of the moral boundary have become blurred and faint”’. Curiously, Burnand’s two wives were both actresses. With no likelihood of ever winning her parent’s approval for such a life, Ethel began writing. Before long she had had several short stories published and was offered the opportunity of writing a serial for the Temple Bar magazine, one of the leading literary magazines of the time. See TA to JA, 13 Dec 1881; JA to TA, 14 June 1884, BCAM; MHW to JA, 27 Dec 1881, TCCL; Michael Sanderson, From Irving to Olivier: a social history of the acting profession in England 1880–1983, The Athlone Press, London, 1985 (1984), pp. 10–11; Claire Tomalin, The Invisible Woman, Penguin Books, 1991, p. 21. On Julian Huxley: towards the end of July, Judy brought the newborn Julian Huxley to stay in Oxford, and JA’s delight was intense when, for all the pain it caused, she held the child in her arms. See Frances Arnold to TA, 2 Jun 1887, BCAM; MHW to JA, 7 & 11 May 1887, TCCL. On visitors to JA see JA to TA, 10 & 17 Feb 1888, BCAM. Chavasse’s pastoral skills were widely appreciated and it was to him that JA had turned for spiritual advice and solace. Chavasse was, she told Tom, ‘esteemed & respected by men of all shades of opinion’, including Mr Talbot, the Warden of Keble, and Benjamin Jowett, the Master of Balliol. LTAY p. 241; Frances Arnold to TA, 11 Aug 1887; Theodore Arnold to JA, 22 Aug 1887; JA to TA, 31 Jan & 6 Mar 1888, BCAM; MHW to JA, 8 Sep 1887, TCCL; Rickards’s Felicia Skene, p. 135. On Theodore’s marriage: the problem with Theodore’s wife was never articulated fully, except in one rather bitter sketch left by TA in which he described her as ‘such an impracticable dreadful creature as his wife is it is seldom a man’s lot to meet with; she is an octopus’. When word reached JA of the failed marriage, she felt it should not have come as such a surprise to everyone, and referred to him as the ‘poor old boy’, an expression oddly reminiscent of how TA’s family had always referred to him. See TA to JA, 15 Jul, year undated (written from Dublin); JA to TA, 11 Nov 1885, BCAM; MHW to JA, 4 & 13 Apr 1886, TCCL. On Willy Arnold’s prediction see LOMHW, p. 53. On TA visiting Josephine Benison see TA to JA, 15 Jul 1887, BCAM. On better relations between JA & TA see JA to TA, 31 Jan 1888, 10 & 19 Feb 1888, & Ethel Arnold to TA, 15 Feb 1888; TA’s account of JA’s last illness, BCAM. On Robert Elsmere & TA’s reaction to it see JA to TA, 12 Feb 1888; TA to JA, 12 Feb 1888, BCAM. On TA’s failing to recognise the seriousness of JA’s illness JA wrote,
I could not help being both astonished and amused to a certain extent at what you say in yr letter of this morning about my ‘wonderful vitality’ & the probability of our all having a pleasant summer together at Sea View. Horatio Symonds happened to come just as I had finished reading it, & I read what you said on the subject of my health to him. The remark he made was, ‘Well he certainly is a most extraordinary man, does he not see that you are simply living on morphia? This will last for a certain time but it cannot go on for an indefinite time.’
See JA to TA, 1 Feb 1888, BCAM. On discussion between JA and Charles Dodgson see Cohen, The Letters of Lewis Carroll, p. 697. Dodgson disagreed with JA believing that another text — ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’ — stated the necessary truth. ‘On a very cold day towards the end of February’ see JA to TA, 25 & 26 Feb 1888, BCAM; MA to Lucy Whitridge, 16 Mar 1888; MA to TA, 11 Mar 1888, LMADE. On JA’s death see TA, ‘Account of Julia Sorell Arnold’s Last Illness, May 1887–7 April 1888’; Ethel Arnold to TA, 19 Feb & 3 April 1888; Frank Arnold to TA, 25 Feb 1888; JA to TA, 5 Mar 1888; Frances Arnold to TA, 3 & 4 Apr 1888; Mary Hayes to TA, 12 Apr 1888, BCAM; Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 123; MHW to JA, 30 Mar 1887; MHW to Dorothy Ward, 3 Apr 1888; MHW to Willy Arnold, 7 Apr 1888; MHW to TA, 19 Apr 1888, TCCL; TAHF, p. 195.
20 – Aftermath
On TA’s reaction to JA’s death see TA to Frances Arnold, 29 Apr 1888 & 25 Sep 1890; TA, ‘Account of Julia Sorell Arnold’s Last Illness, May 1887–7 April 1888’, BCAM; LTAY, p. 219. On TA’s remarriage to Josephine Benison & Polly’s reaction see AVW, pp. 227–30; TA to MHW, 19 Oct 1889; MHW to TA, 4 & 15 Apr, 29 Jun, 23 Oct, 22 Nov, 20 Dec 1889, TCCL; TA to Frances Arnold, 25 Sep 1890, 12 Jun 1892; JA to TA, 7 Feb 1887, BCAM. On Ulysses returning to Ithaca
see TA to Frances Arnold, 12 Jun 1892, BCAM; LTAY, p. 229. On Lucy Selwyn’s death see Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, pp. 165–66; Frances Arnold to TA, 4 Oct 1894, BCAM. Of all JA’s daughters, Lucy’s life followed the most traditional path. When, in 1887, Carus was appointed headmaster of Uppingham, Lucy assumed the role of headmaster’s wife whilst giving birth to seven children in ten years. On her death her devastated husband turned to Maud Dunn, JA’s niece and Gussie’s daughter, for support, eventually marrying her. On TA’s death and Josephine’s death see LTAY, pp. 245–46, 248; TAHF, pp. 197–98. On reception of Robert Elsmere: by October of 1888, the book was into its fifteenth edition, and sales had reached 1200 a week. Weeks later, the novel was selling in America to great acclaim and was into it eighteenth edition. It was to go on and sell over one million copies and be published in most foreign languages. See MHW to TA, 13 Oct, 16, & 23 Nov 1888, 10 Feb 1889, 7 Apr 1898, TCCL; Peterson, Victorian Heretic, p. 159; Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 108; Jones, Mrs Humphry Ward, pp. 85–87. On Jowett’s response to dedication see letter from Frank Arnold to TA, 27 Jan 1892, BCAM. On JA as inspiration for Helbeck see MHW, A Writer’s Recollections, vol. 1, ch. 1, where she writes, ‘There was in her an instinctive dread of Catholicism, of which I have suggested some of the origins — ancestral and historical. It never abated. Many years afterward, in writing Helbeck of Bannisdale, I drew upon what I remembered of it in describing some traits in Laura Fountain’s inbred, and finally indomitable, resistance to the Catholic claim upon the will and intellect of men.’ See also Peterson, Victorian Heretic, pp. 106, 114, 137. On Polly’s desire for TA’s approval of Helbeck: Polly wrote in her autobiography that she consulted her ‘Catholic father, without whose assent I should never have written the book at all; and he raised no difficulty’. And later she wrote that her first anxiety was her father, and she was seized with misgivings lest certain passages should wound or distress him. ‘I, therefore, no sooner reached Italy than I sent for the proofs again, and worked at them as much as fatigue would let me, softening them, and, I think, improving them, too.’ AWR, vol. 2, ch. 6; see also LTAY, p. 242; Jones, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 132. On Polly’s involvement in education, including pre-school & for disabled children & her anti-suffrage activities see the various biographies of Polly, including these: Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward; Jones, Mrs Humphry Ward; LOMHW & Showalter, A Literature of Their Own, pp. 230–31. On Willy see Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward, p. 164; WTA; The Times, 30 May 1904; WTA, Manchester Guardian, 30 May 1904; WTA, Quarterly Review, Oct 1905; Rugby School Register, 1842–1874, p. 266; TAHF, pp. 190–92; LTAY, p. 242; Scott, The Making of the Manchester Guardian, ch. 3. On Theodore: In the year following JA’s death, Polly spent more than £500 helping Theodore, the Dunns, Ethel, Frank, and Humphry’s family. See letter from MHW to TA 30 Nov 1888, TCCL. JA had always felt very protective towards him, believing that he had experienced a difficult life and was forever optimistic about his chances. JA to TA, 6 Mar 1888, BCAM; LTAY, p. 242. On Frank see JA to TA, 23 Jan 1888, BCAM; LTAY, p. 242; TAHF, p. 192. On Judy see Huxley, Memories I, pp. 14–15, 64–65, 206; TAHF, p. 190. In addition to Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s other major works include Antic Hay, Point Counter Point, and The Doors of Perception. Julian Huxley, besides becoming the director-general of UNESCO in 1946, was also a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund, was awarded the Kalinga Prize for the popularisation of science in 1953, the Darwin Medal in 1956, and knighted in 1958. On Ethel: in 1884 Ethel suffered a nasty horse accident, and in so doing had dashed JA’s expectations of an imminent engagement. Whether Ethel’s hopes were likewise dashed is unclear, but she never married, and given her parents’ marital estrangement, she may have had no desire to follow suit. She suffered constant and various illnesses, a traditional evasive weapon in women’s armoury against an uncertain or undesirable future. See JA to TA, 22 Mar 1884, BCAM; LTAY, p. 242; Cambridge Chronicle, 16 Jan 1909. On how JA & TA have been portrayed: TA has generally been portrayed as a charming, gentle, often impractical saint, for whom real life only took place in thought, and JA as not an easy woman, whose deficiencies as a housekeeper meant that the family was always short of money, and whose histrionics caused TA untold problems. For example, in the short biography accompanying her portrait in Elegance in Exile (p. 74), Julia ‘was considered a disreputable woman of “undisciplined and tempestuous nature” … By her mid twenties [she] had broken off two engagements, indulged in flirtations and allegedly seduced her first fiancé’s father … Her personal history, however, did not deter … Thomas Arnold …’ In his biography of TA, Bergonzi says, ‘One gets the sense, that while Tom, in his way, tried to be a dutiful father, Julia preferred her daughter at a distance’ (p. 123), and ‘Mary remembered and gave a jaundiced picture of Julia’s housekeeping in her description of Mrs Hooper in Lady Connie (1916) “[She] was the most wasteful of managers; servants came and went interminably; and while money oozed away, there was neither comfort nor luxury to show for it. As the girl grew up, they learned to dread the sound of the front doorbell, which so often meant an angry tradesman”’ (p. 133). Sutherland reflects on JA’s poor management in his biography of MHW, (p. 30) while Shakespeare suggests she was an ‘undisciplined’, vain, vituperative, and air-headed young woman (p. 122) who used her marriage as an escape from the military and settler society, (p. 123) whose husband quickly discovered that she was not simply beautiful, but financially extravagant, prone to passionate outbursts of temper, and liked to ‘nag, nag, nag him til he almost lost his sense’ (p. 124). On obscure women ‘who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs’ see George Eliot, Middlemarch, Penguin, New York & Harmondsworth, 1965, p. 896.