The Carlyles at Home by Thea Holme
published 1965
(also Parallel Lives by Phyllis Rose, published 1983)
[excerpt] Christmas in the 1840s was the occasion – as indeed it
still is – for a great slaughtering of beasts and birds; and butchers’ shops in
Chelsea were filled with gruesome works of art, decorated, as Jane [Carlyle]
noted in horrified fascination, with holly, and ‘very coquettish bows’ of blue
and red ribbon. ‘a number of persons,’ she said, were gazing at the arrangement
of dead animals in one shop window, ‘with a grave admiration beyond anything I
ever saw testified towards any picture in the National Gallery! The butcher
himself was standing beside it, receiving their silent enthusiasm with a look
of Artist-pride struggling to keep within the bounds of Christian humility.’
‘Last Christmas,’ she remembered, ‘another of our Chelsea
butchers…regaled the public with the spectacle of a living prize-calf,
on the breast of which (poor wretch) was branded – like writing on turf - “6d per lb”. And the public gathered about
this unfortunate with the greedy look of cannibals.’
comments: This charming book (lent to
me by Chrissie
Poulson) gives a fascinating picture of Victorian
Britain, and also very specifically of Thomas and Jane Carlyle.
The couple moved into a house in Cheyne Walk, in Chelsea in
London in 1834, and stayed there for the rest of their lives. Thomas was one of
the leading historians and thinkers of the age, famous for his books on The
French Revolution and Frederick the Great. His wife Jane was very
intelligent and well-educated (partly by her husband) and an heiress is a small
kind of way – Thomas didn’t make any money to speak of till late in his life. Phyllis
Rose, in Parallel Lives, her marvellous book about some Victorian
marriages, compares Jane with Emma, the heroine of Jane Austen’s 1815 book,
and it’s a thought-provoking idea. Only this Emma has by no means married Mr
Knightley.
The (roughly) contemporary writer Samuel Butler is the
source of a famous quote about the pair: "It was very good of God to let
Carlyle and Mrs. Carlyle marry one another and so make only two people
miserable instead of four."
And it is a fascinating relationship, raising all kinds of
questions about feminism, genius, and housework. There seems little doubt that
they loved each other very much, and made the best of things, and worked
together through various struggles. After she died, Thomas was horrified to
read in her letters and diaries about much unhappiness (Phyllis Rose, interestingly,
thinks some of this was performative by Jane, aimed at presenting herself as a
victim.) Thea Holme doesn’t really go there in this book, but she does make it
clear that life wasn’t easy for this Victorian housewife – the book is very
much seen through her eyes.
One of their best friends said of them ‘No-one who visited
the Carlyles at home could tell whether they were poor or rich’. They certainly
had friends who were a lot better-off, and there is a sad element of Jane
supporting and helping her husband in creating his great work, running the
household. Then when he is being lionized she feels inadequate, dowdy,
unsociable and ignored. In particular Thomas becomes very friendly with the wealthy
and beautiful Lady Harriet Ashburton.
However the tone of the book, and of Jane’s letters which
are a key source, is surprisingly cheerful, amusing and entertaining.
Other people’s relationships are always a mystery, and
impossible to be certain about, but what I took from these two books:
1) Thomas
Carlyle was as completely thoughtless and selfish as, apparently, all
respectable Victorian men, assuming the world would be run for their benefit.
No-one can know whether Jane Carlyle could have achieved more as, say, a writer
if she had had the opportunities…
We can only see them through 21st century eyes.
2) Bolshy
me says that they treated the servants appallingly, but again no differently
from every other Victorian household. ‘In her 32 years at Cheyne Row, 34 maids
came and went, not counting charwomen, little girls and other temporary
makeshifts.’ I think this speaks for itself. One of the most telling facts
comes early on: the maid sleeps in the kitchen, but Thomas likes sitting in the
kitchen, so she must wait, shivering and tired, elsewhere till she can go to
bed. Presumably to get up at 5am to start the housework.
The Holme book is a delight. The author lived in the
Carlyle house, which is a memorial to Thomas: her husband was the curator there
for the National Trust. There are charming illustrations by Lynton Lamb – and
the whole book would be worth it for the wonderful endpaper picture - at the top of the post:
In the spring of 1857, the painter and photographer Robert
Tait, 'a Dumfriesshire man from near Moffat, living in London, and frequenting
the Carlyles', 'took the bright idea that a Picture of our sitting room would
be amazingly interesting to posterity a hundred years hence'. After completing
the work, the artist himself opined that the picture would keep his name alive,
when better painters were forgotten.
Copyright National Trust
A few years ago I embarked on reading Sartor Restartus, one
of Thomas Carlyle’s most revered works. I had good reason to try it: it has
been described thus:
The book is increasingly recognized as "the founding
text for the emergence of the serious and organized study of clothing",
otherwise termed "dress studies" or "fashion theory". How very CiB. You might think.
Well, we didn’t get on. I wrote in my notes: ‘Weird
satirical classic: mind-numbingly dull to the point of unreadability.’
For this reason I have never embarked on his French
Revolution book, despite my feverish interest in the topic in 2024: The
French Revolution. One day.
Thomas Carlyle is much featured in the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis
Letters, subject of two
blogposts early in 2025. Unsurprisingly, the two men
were fans.
Christmas butchers – can’t find a photo of one early
enough, but did enjoy this selection of Xmas meats:
A butcher’s shop of the 1880s, actually in Shrewsbury, from
The
National Media Museum.
Christmas butcher’s interior – 1920 and Canada, from the Alberta
Archives.
Two more pictures of a shop in Canada, Community Archives.
I did feel sorry for Jane, reading this. And even by Victorian standards, surely Carlyle was exceptionally selfish and entitled. I can't imagine Trollope hogging the kitchen and making the little maid suffer. As for Jane: who knows what she might have been capable of. The best options were to remain single (the Brontes, Jane Austen) or find one of the rare men who would recognise your genius (George Eliot. Elizabeth Barrett Browning). I did have to reread Carlyle at one point. He has not worn well.
ReplyDeleteMrs Gaskell seems to have had a happy marriage too, though I was disappointed to read somewhere that she was shocked by George Eliot's marital status. She seems quite un-judge-y usually.
DeleteI agree about Trollope. Charles Dickens I can slightly imagine writing terribyly sympathetically and movingly about a kitchen maid without actually considering her in real life. Wilkie Collins would probably seduce her.
Did you read the French Revolution book?
Yes, I was thinking that Mrs Gaskell was an exception. As for being shocked, of course she WAS married to a minister ... non-conformist, can't remember which denomination. And I agree about Dickens. No, I read Past and Present as part of my research for my Ph.D.
DeleteThey were Unitarians.
DeleteOh yes, they were. I once found out what was the defining characteristic of Unitarians, but have forgotten again.
DeleteShe was maybe someone who loved the sinner even if her moral framework saw the sin...
I may be wrong, but I think I have read that what was special (and highly controversial) about Unitarians was that they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
DeleteAnyway, I came here to say that I have also read somewhere that Elizabeth Gaskell was loved by her servants who tended to stay with her a long time. I can hardly think of a better testimony for a Victorian person, man or woman. It is interesting that this was also the case with Charlotte Brontë - who liked and was liked very much by Gaskell. These two otherwise very different women obviously shared some kind of core quality.
Yes, always a bit wary going into theological matters, but they are not traditional Christians.
DeleteAnd - in the early days of being able to use the internet for research, I went down a complete rabbit-hole on the religious affiliations of US Presidents, after seeing a claim that Unitarians are over-represented. There is now a nice handy Wiki page (not back then) listing all the Presidents and their faiths, and there is an astonishing range!
Yes exactly Mrs Gaskell on the right side with servants! And her friendship with Charlotte Bronte was a wonderful thing.
The phrase "feminism, genius and housework" reminded me of a review of the film Julia with Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave. Fonda played the noted writer Lillian Hellman and had some scenes of home life with Dashiel Hammett. The movie was about women's friendship and dedication to a cause, but this review included the incredible remark that the reviewer couldn't help but wonder who made the beds in the Hellman/Hammett household. Now maybe the film wasn't as engrossing as it wanted to be, but if it had been about men instead of women that remark would never have been made.
ReplyDeleteExtraordinary remark!
DeleteWhat an interesting look at the Carlyles and at the era, Moira. I must say, I'm not a vegan, but that's a stark description of the butcher shop! As I was reading your post, I was thinking about the place of women and what that meant for the Carlyles, and there you were mentioning it. And I agree with you about the treatment of servants, too. All in all, it sounds like an engaging read.
ReplyDeletethanks Margot, it was a very interesting way to learn about life in those times, as well as more about these notable characters.
DeleteSometimes I wonder how geniuses of the male variety manage to get their enormous heads through doorways! (Probably with the help of women who enable their awful behavior.)
ReplyDeleteTee hee!
DeleteI very much like the portrait of the two. It reminds me a little bit of the Hockney portrait of Mr and Mrs Clarke and Percy, a married couple in their domestic setting, looking very separate from each other. I also like Carlyle's coat or dressing gown or whatever it is he's wearing.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good point, I wonder if Hockney had that in mind? Love both those pictures.
DeleteNo photos of butcher's shops before the 1880s, but might there be a picture of the enormous turkey in the window in A Christmas Carol somewhere?
ReplyDeleteOh yes maybe! They always look long and thin in butchers' windows, hung up by their necks, whereas you want them to look round and plump.
DeleteJane was right - I always want to know how people lived in their rooms. The chairs by the fire a kind of bivouac, and the dining table used as a shared desk. Fitted carpet! Waist-high dado. Carpet on table (protects mahogany veneer). Hearthrug ON the carpet - so that you could take it up and beat it.
ReplyDelete(Lucy)
Yes exactly - all the details to enjoy. I could look at pictures like this all day long
DeleteI liked Parallel Lives so much I insisted my book group read it some years ago. Later I went to an author event and Phyllis Rose signed my copy, either of that or Jazz Cleopatra, also very interesting. It struck me as funny that she was married to Laurent de Brunhoff, son of the original Babar author. He was very nice and friendly at the event I attended.
ReplyDeleteI suspect women running households where 34 maids came and went, not counting charwomen, little girls and other temporary makeshifts would feel self-righteous and put upon to have to keep training new staff, while we would think they were either dreadful mistresses or underpaid their staff (or both). The image of the poor kitchen maid is appalling.
Oh I'm glad she was nice (and him too)! I do love that book, such a good idea and structure.
DeleteYes, to our modern eyes the constant changes of staff are very significant.
I am always fascinated by the fact that Diana and Oswald Mosley never seem to have had trouble getting staff, and kept them for years. They must have had some going points within that (to me) rather grim exterior.
I think keeping staff is definitely a good sign: not being able to is *probably* a bad one
I’ve read about the Carlyle’s - don’t think it was either of these books, it may have been Jane Carlyle’s letters - and remember the poor maid. Also Thomas complaining bitterly that the noise of the young ladies next door practising on the piano prevented him from working, until at last the Carlyles decided to have a kind of soundproof study made for him, which involved great expense and so much noise and mess that they ended up staying elsewhere whilst the work went on. Months later it was finally finished , they moved back and Thomas settled down to work for the first time in his new room, only to find as the young ladies struck up on the piano that all that trouble and expenditure had resulted in no perceptible improvement whatever.
ReplyDeleteDo those butchers’ window displays still exist anywhere? Certainly not unusual in my youth to see a row of half-pigs hanging in the shop window, though I don’t recall them being decorated for Christmas.
Sovay
I live in the Netherlands and I was used to cuts of meat being presented on metal trays behind glass in the counter. I was quite shocked by English butcher shops in the seventies. There would be recognisable legs of beef hanging on hooks behind the counter, and half pigs, as you said. The butcher would hack bits off while you waited. At home all this stuff went on out of sight of the customers. And what to ask for? Cuts of meat were different anyway, but how do you know what there is in a leg of beef?
DeleteClare
In a village near me there is a butcher's shop which in season has game birds hanging outside. I've also seen people walk in with a couple of birds in the pockets of their big hunting jacket, and sell them for cash across the counter.
DeleteIt's surprising how interesting butcher's shops are!
Sovay: Yes all those memorable bits turn up in this book too. It is quite the saga.
DeleteI have a theory that people actually preferred to buy their meat in supermarekets because it was all nicely cut up in packs, not scarey, and no-one to ask you hard questions - when I was young, I felt that kindly butchers, meaning only to be helpful, would ask 'how do you want that prepared?' or 'what's it for?' and I didn't know the answers
Clare - I’m sure you’re right about people preferring tidy, clearly labelled cuts; I think also many people prefer not to be reminded that their meat used to be part of an animal, which was unavoidable in the face of the half-pigs and sheep. The game birds seem to be the exception - often on display complete with feathers - I’ve never been tempted to buy one but sometimes wonder whether, if I did, the butcher would pluck it for me, because I wouldn’t have a clue where to start.
DeleteSovay
CiB- reading on tiny phone screen and struggling to distinguish one comment from the next! Serious cookery writers often encourage their readers to find and cultivate a skilled butcher, take their advice, ask for special cuts &c but I felt the same as you in my youth; even if the butcher had been prepared to settle down for a nice chat about my precise requirements, I had no wish to reveal my ignorance to the queue of other, usually older customers .
DeleteSovay
Yes, exactly, we are twin souls here I think. I definitely preferred the anonymity of a supermarket freezer, and did not find those cookery writers helpful!
DeleteYou would not be happy with our arrangements here; we buy a quarter of a steer every year from neighbors who have a herd of black Angus. I have never met one of them up close and personal, but I do see the calves out lolloping around the pasture whenever I drive into town.
DeleteIn one of my first jobs, I worked with someone who told me that he and his wife would buy half a sheep or cow for their freezer. This would have been chopped up into useful parcels by the farmer. But one time they became suspicious that he was cheating them, and so they reassembled the animal on the kitchen table to see if it fitted together. And NO - there was extra cheap cuts and not enough legs. Or something. This story has lived happily in the back of my mind for more than 40 years, so am very glad to be reminded of it.
DeleteSmall nitpick: there's an excess T in Sartor Resartus. I got my old dictionary out; the literal meaning is the mender remended.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the info. After due consideration, I am going to leave the typo in place just for now. (it's Christmas Day)
DeleteThat calf is sticking in my mind....I have a thing about eating veal anyway, considering the way some calves are kept in little huts for at least part of their lives. But then I don't eat lamb either, so maybe it's more of a thing about young animals. (I know I'm too sentimental about animals.) Perhaps you should add a warning to animal-rights activists!
ReplyDeleteI think my trigger warning covers everyone!
DeleteOn my longish walks I'm currently listening to Bill Bryson's "The Body" (although I generally prefer fiction when reading, nonfiction works better for listening...the variety of voices needed to render dialogue has me constantly hitting "10-second rewind;" maybe this is just my quirk?), and I learned that pioneering nutrition scientist Wilbur Atwater recommended that people eat 2 pounds of meat a day. 2 pounds!
ReplyDeleteMind you, this is how science advances. Atwater was basically the first to quantify calories. The times tended to regard the body as a furnace and food as its fuel, and vitamins and minerals and micronutrients were yet unknown. In a humorous touch, Atwater was the son of a Methodist preacher and employed by a Methodist university (Wesleyan) and a devout man himself, so the recognition that alcohol was a very efficient way to deliver calories was awkward. But he published it anyway. Because, science. -- Your blogfriend, Trollopian
p.s. My other recent reading, for a book group, is Stendhal’s "Charterhouse of Parma" which I find tedious in long stretches. Very long stretches. (There’s a funny clothes story in the first few pages, if you count a military uniform as clothing and why not, but that's about it for CiB's niche. Except for late mention of a priestly soutane, or cassock.) I found myself comparing it to a Trollope of similar length. Stendhal has 28 chapters and they have numbers, not titles, hence useless for navigation. Trollope ("The Vicar of Bullhampton," if you must know) has 73 chapters and they all have descriptive but nonspoiler titles. I remain staunchly -- your blogfriend, Trollopian
DeleteVery interesting about the science and the protein! As you say - this is how science advances. There's a role that sugar plays in history - something to do with enabling more calories, rather like alcohol. Obviously I read this in a sensible non-fiction book, and understood it totally for a month, and now have forgotten the details. I also read somewhere that we are just coming out of being the most protein-fed people in history - a peak coming as people got better off and automatically assumed the more meat and protein the better; but now fine-tuning their consumption.
DeleteI read Charterhouse and Red and Black many years ago, and liked them very much, but with some judicious skimming. (battle scenes! although the idea of not really knowing you were in the Battle of Waterloo is amusing). Julian Sorel an excellent character.
But I probably will never read again. Not when there's so much Trollope left to read!
I’m not sure that people in general are fine-tuning their protein intake - “protein-rich” or “source of protein” has been widely used for promotion of many foods over the past few years, encouraging us all to assume that more protein must be good for us. And as most of the other food groups (sugar, starch, grease and burnt crunchy bits, according to Terry Pratchett) seem to be bad for us …
DeleteSovay
I'd be interested to see statistics. I think there is a lot of talk about protein, particularly among the superfitness community, but others are cutting back on meat.
DeleteWhen I was a child, if you couldn't eat all your dinner, your parents would say 'well just finish the meat' = the expensive, more valuable food. Now they are more likely to say 'well eat up your vegetables...'