MILLAIS, CHARLES DICKENS AND THE HOLY FAMILY
John Everett Millais’ Christ in the House of His Parents
By Philip McCouat For reader comments on this article see here
Introduction
In 1850, a painting by the young English artist John Everett Millais debuted at the Royal Academy exhibition. Although it was not obscene, violent or poorly painted, it attracted howls of outrage and hostility. One notable critic, the author Charles Dickens, described it as “mean, odious, repulsive, and revolting” [1]. The Times reviewer described it as “revolting” and “disgusting” [2], and others considered it to be a “monstrously perverse” example of “puerile crudity” [3], an exercise in “studious vulgarity” [4] and “ugly, graceless, and unpleasant” [5].
This article examines why the painting provoked such extreme reactions by Dickens and others -- and what this may tell us about attitudes in Victorian England to the “proper” roles of religion and art.
This article examines why the painting provoked such extreme reactions by Dickens and others -- and what this may tell us about attitudes in Victorian England to the “proper” roles of religion and art.
Fig 1: John Everett Millais, Christ in the House of His Parents (aka ‘The Carpenter’s Shop’), oil on canvas, 1,397 cm wide (55 in), 864 cm height (34 in), Tate Britain (1850)
Part 1: The painting and the furore
What’s in the painting
First, let’s see what’s happening in the painting. The physical setting is a carpenter’s workshop, with wood shavings and other detritus scatted on the floor. It is based on a real carpenter’s shop in Oxford Street, London [6], transposed to a semi-rural setting. Through an open doorway at the back of the shop we can also see a green field with a fenced flock of sheep [7].
The balding carpenter on the right and his bare-chested assistant at left are working on a wooden door on the work-table. An older woman with a red cloak is reaching for a pair of pliers and a nail. At far right is a young boy, dressed only in fur or hairy britches, who is edging forward, carefully balancing a shallow bowl full of water.
In the foreground, a woman in a white cape and long blue robe is kneeling on the floor, appearing to comfort a young, auburn-haired boy. He is holding up the palm of his hand, which has evidently been injured by a nail. The carpenter reaches out tenderly to hold the boy’s hand. All the people we can see are bare-footed.
The balding carpenter on the right and his bare-chested assistant at left are working on a wooden door on the work-table. An older woman with a red cloak is reaching for a pair of pliers and a nail. At far right is a young boy, dressed only in fur or hairy britches, who is edging forward, carefully balancing a shallow bowl full of water.
In the foreground, a woman in a white cape and long blue robe is kneeling on the floor, appearing to comfort a young, auburn-haired boy. He is holding up the palm of his hand, which has evidently been injured by a nail. The carpenter reaches out tenderly to hold the boy’s hand. All the people we can see are bare-footed.
The religious nature of the painting
The perceived problem with this painting arose because Millais used these characters to represent holy figures who were deeply venerated by Christians.
Although the painting was not given a title when first exhibited [8], its religious associations were clearly indicated by the Biblical quote which accompanied it [9]. So, the artist intended that the central boy displaying the wound in his hand would be the youthful Christ, the woman is his mother, the Virgin Mary, the carpenter is his father Joseph, the older woman is St Anne (Mary’s mother), and the boy on the right is the young John the Baptist.
Throughout the painting there are numerous reminders of the Christian story, foretelling the future of the youthful Christ [10]. So, for example, the bowl of water may symbolise his future baptism in the Jordan River. The sheep congregating outside could be the Christian faithful, waiting for their shepherd. The ladder leaning against the back wall may symbolise the climb to heaven (Jacob’s Ladder) [11]. The white dove perched on a rung of the ladder may represent the Holy Spirit. The worktable could be an altar, the back wall a rood screen, and the carpenters’ triangle on the back wall may represent the Holy Trinity [12]. And, of course, the wound in Jesus’s hand prefigured his eventual crucifixion.
Although the painting was not given a title when first exhibited [8], its religious associations were clearly indicated by the Biblical quote which accompanied it [9]. So, the artist intended that the central boy displaying the wound in his hand would be the youthful Christ, the woman is his mother, the Virgin Mary, the carpenter is his father Joseph, the older woman is St Anne (Mary’s mother), and the boy on the right is the young John the Baptist.
Throughout the painting there are numerous reminders of the Christian story, foretelling the future of the youthful Christ [10]. So, for example, the bowl of water may symbolise his future baptism in the Jordan River. The sheep congregating outside could be the Christian faithful, waiting for their shepherd. The ladder leaning against the back wall may symbolise the climb to heaven (Jacob’s Ladder) [11]. The white dove perched on a rung of the ladder may represent the Holy Spirit. The worktable could be an altar, the back wall a rood screen, and the carpenters’ triangle on the back wall may represent the Holy Trinity [12]. And, of course, the wound in Jesus’s hand prefigured his eventual crucifixion.
The reasons for the hostility
So, why were the critics so upset? And why were their attacks so ferocious?
Essentially, the hostile critics believed that Millais’ depictions of the holy family lacked any physical beauty, which in turn reflected badly on their personal character, and that this was totally unacceptable where the holy family were concerned. Furthermore, Millais’ view that the proper role of art was to show truth, not idealised beauty, was wrong-headed and ran counter to centuries of accepted artistic practice. Finally, a curious fixation about red hair may also have been a factor. So, let’s look at each of these in more detail.
#1: The characters were ugly, dirty, diseased and misshapen
Essentially, the hostile critics believed that Millais’ depictions of the holy family lacked any physical beauty, which in turn reflected badly on their personal character, and that this was totally unacceptable where the holy family were concerned. Furthermore, Millais’ view that the proper role of art was to show truth, not idealised beauty, was wrong-headed and ran counter to centuries of accepted artistic practice. Finally, a curious fixation about red hair may also have been a factor. So, let’s look at each of these in more detail.
#1: The characters were ugly, dirty, diseased and misshapen
Fig 2: Detail of Mary and Jesus in Millais’ Christ in the House of His Parents
Much was made by the hostile critics about the depicted characters’ physical foibles, their dirtiness, their unattractiveness, their unhealthiness and their menial or vulgar associations, all depicted with a “disgusting fidelity” [13]. The Times reviewer, for example, commented that Millais’ “attempt to associate the Holy Family with the meanest details of a carpenter’s shop, with no conceivable omission of misery, of dirt, of even disease, all finished with loathsome minuteness, is disgusting” [14]. Various other critics described the painting as a “painful display of anatomical knowledge” [15], noted the “squalid filth for which the whole [PRB] group is remarkable” [16], and commented that “such a collection of splay feet, puffed joints, and misshapen limbs was assuredly never before made within so small a compass” [17].
Fig 3: Detail of floor in Millais’ Christ in the House of His Parents. Bare feet and wood shavings were taken by hostile critics as indications of poverty and squalor
Mary was interpreted as “a whining, sickly woman” [18] who resembled a “sore-heeled, ugly, every-day seamstress” [19]. She was “a woman, so horrible in her ugliness, that (supposing it were possible for any human creature to exist for a moment with that dislocated throat) she would stand out from the rest of the company as a Monster…. in the lowest gin shop in England” [20].
Jesus was seen to be “a red-haired, ricketty bantling [21], “a red-haired Jew-boy” [22] or (in Dickens’ memorable description) as a “hideous, wry-necked, blubbering, red-headed boy in a bed-gown” [23]. St Anne was seen as “a snuffy old woman who seems to have mistaken [the workshop] for the tobacconist’s next door” [24]. These intemperately-expressed criticisms must have come as an unpleasant surprise to the friends and relatives who had actually posed for Millais’ painting! [25].
Some of the critics felt that this indicated that Millais and his followers simply had warped or uninformed ideas about physical beauty -- “have the poor young men really been so unfortunate in their life-series of feminine visions?”[26]. Others felt that Millais knew that his characters lacked conventional beauty, but that he had deliberately made them look disagreeable. This, of course, made him even more annoying to the critics, as it “it seemed as if Millais and his followers took pleasure in seeking out such forms as would be called ugly or mean” [27].
#2 Their lack of beauty reflected badly on their character
Some the criticisms reflected a view, common at the time, that a person’s morality or inner worth was strongly associated with their physical appearance. People who looked hideous or horrible, as Millais had supposedly painted the holy family, were not likely to be dignified and noble in character, as tradition demanded.
Susan Casteras notes that in the mid-19th century, “a tidal wave of authors pressed forward with treatises on craniology, characterology, pathognomy, physiology, physiognomy, phrenology, and other real and pseudo-sciences. Books such as Face Reading: With Hints on Love, Courtship and Marriage, The Study of the Human Face: Mouth, Lips, and Nose, and Noses and How to Read Them … proliferated. Many people accepted in general the beliefs and conclusions conveyed by these publications, which offered a supposed system of classification by which to analyse (or psychoanalyse) human nature and conduct. These all-embracing constructs covered physical, mental, and moral order, and while their aims may seem facile and simplistic to late twentieth-century readers, such "how-to" manuals validated faith in progress and made it possible for Victorians to believe they could decipher the intentions and characters of other people” [28].
Jesus was seen to be “a red-haired, ricketty bantling [21], “a red-haired Jew-boy” [22] or (in Dickens’ memorable description) as a “hideous, wry-necked, blubbering, red-headed boy in a bed-gown” [23]. St Anne was seen as “a snuffy old woman who seems to have mistaken [the workshop] for the tobacconist’s next door” [24]. These intemperately-expressed criticisms must have come as an unpleasant surprise to the friends and relatives who had actually posed for Millais’ painting! [25].
Some of the critics felt that this indicated that Millais and his followers simply had warped or uninformed ideas about physical beauty -- “have the poor young men really been so unfortunate in their life-series of feminine visions?”[26]. Others felt that Millais knew that his characters lacked conventional beauty, but that he had deliberately made them look disagreeable. This, of course, made him even more annoying to the critics, as it “it seemed as if Millais and his followers took pleasure in seeking out such forms as would be called ugly or mean” [27].
#2 Their lack of beauty reflected badly on their character
Some the criticisms reflected a view, common at the time, that a person’s morality or inner worth was strongly associated with their physical appearance. People who looked hideous or horrible, as Millais had supposedly painted the holy family, were not likely to be dignified and noble in character, as tradition demanded.
Susan Casteras notes that in the mid-19th century, “a tidal wave of authors pressed forward with treatises on craniology, characterology, pathognomy, physiology, physiognomy, phrenology, and other real and pseudo-sciences. Books such as Face Reading: With Hints on Love, Courtship and Marriage, The Study of the Human Face: Mouth, Lips, and Nose, and Noses and How to Read Them … proliferated. Many people accepted in general the beliefs and conclusions conveyed by these publications, which offered a supposed system of classification by which to analyse (or psychoanalyse) human nature and conduct. These all-embracing constructs covered physical, mental, and moral order, and while their aims may seem facile and simplistic to late twentieth-century readers, such "how-to" manuals validated faith in progress and made it possible for Victorians to believe they could decipher the intentions and characters of other people” [28].
Fig 4: Phrenological advice from L A Vaught’s ‘Practical Character Reader’
Casteras also observes that this belief “reinforced the social order and contemporary British attitudes to class and race in a seemingly rational guise. Crime, goodness, nationality, sex differences. Anglo-Saxon supremacy – all could be explicated through such inductive, if misguided, reasoning” [29]. In literature too, many authors such as Charles Dickens or Charlotte Bronte “often provided characters with a full set of physical attributes to be interpreted by readers. Significant clues to character weakness or strength were conveyed by a lady's regular or irregular nose, forehead, eyes, hands, or demeanor, while a man too might be damned by a cruel mouth or small head [30].
#3: The painting was a challenge to artistic tradition
European artists had for centuries typically depicted the holy family in a conventional and appropriately reverential manner, which required depictions that embodied concepts of beauty, perfection, purity and spirituality. However, Millais’ versions of these venerated people did not conform to this well-accepted artistic tradition.
Millais was a founder of the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (PRB), which had been formed shortly before, in 1848. Its other main members were the young English painters were William Holman Hunt and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. They believed that art had taken a wrong direction ever since the 16th century Renaissance artist Raphael embodied a style of idealising nature and striving towards beauty at the expense of truth [31].
#3: The painting was a challenge to artistic tradition
European artists had for centuries typically depicted the holy family in a conventional and appropriately reverential manner, which required depictions that embodied concepts of beauty, perfection, purity and spirituality. However, Millais’ versions of these venerated people did not conform to this well-accepted artistic tradition.
Millais was a founder of the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (PRB), which had been formed shortly before, in 1848. Its other main members were the young English painters were William Holman Hunt and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. They believed that art had taken a wrong direction ever since the 16th century Renaissance artist Raphael embodied a style of idealising nature and striving towards beauty at the expense of truth [31].
Fig 5: Raphael, The Sistine Madonna (1514)
Instead, the PRB preferred to paint their subjects as the eye saw them, with all their natural flaws and defects, instead of as idealised creations – “God was in the details”. Their works included close-up views of nature, portraits of young women, religious events and mythology, all rendered with a clear bright focus.
These beliefs and aims particularly annoyed Dickens. To him, rejecting Raphael and those who followed him meant that you must be prepared to abandon “all religious aspirations”, “elevating thoughts”, and “all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred, graceful, or beautiful associations”. Instead, you would have to prepare yourselves “for the lowest depths of what is mean, odious, repulsive, and revolting” [32].
To add insult to injury, these challenges to accepted norms were being made, not by a mature and respected artist, but by a young, inexperienced artist doing his first significant religious work, backed up by his audacious supporters in the Brotherhood [33].
#4 Issues with red hair, hatred and Jewishness
A further factor particularly affecting Dickens’ perception was, surprisingly enough, the depiction of a red-haired Jesus. As we’ve seen, Dickens not only extravagantly criticised Millais’ depiction of Jesus because it showed Jesus as wry-necked, blubbering and hideous, but also, significantly, because he had red hair. Why was this characteristic considered as significant?
Obviously, we don’t know the colour of Jesus’ hair, and in artists’ imaginations over the centuries it has varied significantly, including reddish on many occasions. However, in many countries, going back thousands of years, there appears to have been an extraordinary but common prejudice against red-haired people in general, ranging in intensity from “jocular” to virulent or even violent. One aspect of this was the artistic tradition, going back the Middle Ages, of portraying Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, as having red hair, presumably to readily visually distinguish him from the other, loyal, disciples [34].
Although lacking any supporting historical or biblical evidence, this association of red hair with Judas became embedded not only in art, but also in the language, so that red-haired people could be described as being “Judas-coloured” [35]. Shakespeare referred to this in As You Like It ("His very hair is of the dissembling colour, something browner than Judas") [36]. In France, it used to be that redheads were liable to be insultingly referred to as “poil de Judas”( = hair of Judas) [37].
These beliefs and aims particularly annoyed Dickens. To him, rejecting Raphael and those who followed him meant that you must be prepared to abandon “all religious aspirations”, “elevating thoughts”, and “all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred, graceful, or beautiful associations”. Instead, you would have to prepare yourselves “for the lowest depths of what is mean, odious, repulsive, and revolting” [32].
To add insult to injury, these challenges to accepted norms were being made, not by a mature and respected artist, but by a young, inexperienced artist doing his first significant religious work, backed up by his audacious supporters in the Brotherhood [33].
#4 Issues with red hair, hatred and Jewishness
A further factor particularly affecting Dickens’ perception was, surprisingly enough, the depiction of a red-haired Jesus. As we’ve seen, Dickens not only extravagantly criticised Millais’ depiction of Jesus because it showed Jesus as wry-necked, blubbering and hideous, but also, significantly, because he had red hair. Why was this characteristic considered as significant?
Obviously, we don’t know the colour of Jesus’ hair, and in artists’ imaginations over the centuries it has varied significantly, including reddish on many occasions. However, in many countries, going back thousands of years, there appears to have been an extraordinary but common prejudice against red-haired people in general, ranging in intensity from “jocular” to virulent or even violent. One aspect of this was the artistic tradition, going back the Middle Ages, of portraying Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, as having red hair, presumably to readily visually distinguish him from the other, loyal, disciples [34].
Although lacking any supporting historical or biblical evidence, this association of red hair with Judas became embedded not only in art, but also in the language, so that red-haired people could be described as being “Judas-coloured” [35]. Shakespeare referred to this in As You Like It ("His very hair is of the dissembling colour, something browner than Judas") [36]. In France, it used to be that redheads were liable to be insultingly referred to as “poil de Judas”( = hair of Judas) [37].
Fig 6: Stereotypical depiction of Judas with red hair and hooked nose in Caspar Isenmann’s Betrayal of Christ, detail from Altarpiece, St Martin’s Church (1465, Unterlinden Museum)
Over time, this association of red hair with the traitor Judas has come to be applied to other marginalised groups of people, who were seen as outsiders, evil or treacherous. Notably, in some people’s minds, this included Jews [38]. This spurious association of red hair and Jewishness, or the curious concept of the “foxy-haired Jew”, explains why one hostile critic of Millais’ painting could slightingly refer to Jesus being depicted as a “red-haired jew-boy”, knowing that both components of that description would be understood by many viewers to be meant as a criticism, notwithstanding that Jesus was in fact Jewish [39].
It seems that that Dickens himself, like many others in that era, had negative perceptions about Jewishness, at least early in his career. And it also seems that he felt that red hair was associated with villainy and with Jewishness. For example, in his early novel Oliver Twist (1838), the loathsome character Fagin is portrayed as a “a very old, shrivelled Jew whose villainous looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted old hair” which is later identified as a red colour. Dickens repeatedly referred to Fagin, not by his name, but simply as “the Jew”. Similarly, the villainous Uriah Heep in Dickens’ David Copperfield is described as having red hair, and a lust for money. In his Sketches by Boz, Dickens also refers disapprovingly to “the red-headed and red-whiskered Jews who forcibly haul you into their squalid houses”. And, as we shall see later, he refers to the prospective buyer of his house as the “Jew Moneylender”.
If Dickens held these negative views about the association of red hair with treachery and with Jewishness, he may in his own mind have regarded the depiction of Jesus with red hair as being particularly insulting. If so, it may be conjectured that this may have infected Dickens’ judgment of the painting, and may also have contributed to his feeling that Millais had deliberately gone out of his way to be offensive [40].
It seems that that Dickens himself, like many others in that era, had negative perceptions about Jewishness, at least early in his career. And it also seems that he felt that red hair was associated with villainy and with Jewishness. For example, in his early novel Oliver Twist (1838), the loathsome character Fagin is portrayed as a “a very old, shrivelled Jew whose villainous looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted old hair” which is later identified as a red colour. Dickens repeatedly referred to Fagin, not by his name, but simply as “the Jew”. Similarly, the villainous Uriah Heep in Dickens’ David Copperfield is described as having red hair, and a lust for money. In his Sketches by Boz, Dickens also refers disapprovingly to “the red-headed and red-whiskered Jews who forcibly haul you into their squalid houses”. And, as we shall see later, he refers to the prospective buyer of his house as the “Jew Moneylender”.
If Dickens held these negative views about the association of red hair with treachery and with Jewishness, he may in his own mind have regarded the depiction of Jesus with red hair as being particularly insulting. If so, it may be conjectured that this may have infected Dickens’ judgment of the painting, and may also have contributed to his feeling that Millais had deliberately gone out of his way to be offensive [40].
Some alternative views about the painting
Although the hostile reaction to the painting was common, it was not unanimous. Contrasting with the unrelenting negativity of the hostile critics, some critics took a more measured and more considered approach. The Illustrated London News referred to “the sincerity of look in the heads of the principal figures. The intentional deformities, such as the frost-bitten toes of Joseph, the sore heel of the Virgin, &c., are not at all to our taste; but the picture has so many merits, that all its eccentricities may be very well excused, though they cannot be overlooked” [41].
The Guardian critic noted that the work “possesses qualities and merits of a high order… We find here intensity of expression breathing from every detail, and a faithful and unaffected adherence to nature is made ancillary to the impression intended to be produced by the whole….. [T]here is a living interest in the figures which gives the whole the appearance of an actual transaction, and which attracts and wins us to a prolonged study and examination”.
This critic also took a more measured approach to the representation of the main characters: “[The Virgin] kneels by him with hands clasped in an agony of maternal grief, and a countenance of the deepest tenderness and solicitude, while she holds out her cheek for his kiss. Her face is older than might be historically supposed to belong to the Virgin at the time of this occurrence, as though the study and observation of her wondrous child had wrought habitual anxiety of mind, and drawn premature wrinkles on her brow…..”
He concludes, “We have heard objections made to the vulgarity of the picture; the too faithfully portrayed imperfections of the feet of Joseph and the Virgin offend some delicate eyes; others find the subject itself too painful to be contemplated with pleasure; to many it savours of profanity. Without denying that a subject more suitable to the tastes, knowledge, or creed of the present day might have been found, we are willing to take the artist’s work as he presents it to us, distinguished in truth of painting and force of expression”[42].
The Guardian critic noted that the work “possesses qualities and merits of a high order… We find here intensity of expression breathing from every detail, and a faithful and unaffected adherence to nature is made ancillary to the impression intended to be produced by the whole….. [T]here is a living interest in the figures which gives the whole the appearance of an actual transaction, and which attracts and wins us to a prolonged study and examination”.
This critic also took a more measured approach to the representation of the main characters: “[The Virgin] kneels by him with hands clasped in an agony of maternal grief, and a countenance of the deepest tenderness and solicitude, while she holds out her cheek for his kiss. Her face is older than might be historically supposed to belong to the Virgin at the time of this occurrence, as though the study and observation of her wondrous child had wrought habitual anxiety of mind, and drawn premature wrinkles on her brow…..”
He concludes, “We have heard objections made to the vulgarity of the picture; the too faithfully portrayed imperfections of the feet of Joseph and the Virgin offend some delicate eyes; others find the subject itself too painful to be contemplated with pleasure; to many it savours of profanity. Without denying that a subject more suitable to the tastes, knowledge, or creed of the present day might have been found, we are willing to take the artist’s work as he presents it to us, distinguished in truth of painting and force of expression”[42].
Part 2: Dickens reconsiders
Some change of attitude about Jewishness
As we’ve seen, Charles Dickens had led the charge in criticising Millais’ painting. His views were based primarily on the perceived nastiness of the depictions of the holy family. They may also have been, in part, affected by his views about Jewish people, and on Millais’ supposedly arrogant defiance of artistic traditions based on his pre-Raphaelite views. However, Dickens later substantially modified his published views on both the Jewish issue and the Pre-Raphaelite issue. In both cases, this change of heart was due partly to the strenuous efforts made by trusted friends or acquaintances to convince him to modify his stance.
The first step in his change of mind about Jewish people occurred in 1858, when Dickins sold his house to a couple Eliza and James Davis, who happened to be Jewish. He expressed his initial mistrust of them in a letter to a friend, describing Mr Davis, a banker, as “the Jew Moneylender”, and saying that “of course I shall never believe him until he has paid the money”. But his concerns were allayed when the transaction was finalised satisfactorily, leading him to note that “Mrs. Davis appears to be a very kind and agreeable woman. And I have never had any money transaction with anyone more promptly, fairly, and considerately conducted than the purchase of Tavistock House has been.” It was an early hint that a change in his approach could be possible.
The first step in his change of mind about Jewish people occurred in 1858, when Dickins sold his house to a couple Eliza and James Davis, who happened to be Jewish. He expressed his initial mistrust of them in a letter to a friend, describing Mr Davis, a banker, as “the Jew Moneylender”, and saying that “of course I shall never believe him until he has paid the money”. But his concerns were allayed when the transaction was finalised satisfactorily, leading him to note that “Mrs. Davis appears to be a very kind and agreeable woman. And I have never had any money transaction with anyone more promptly, fairly, and considerately conducted than the purchase of Tavistock House has been.” It was an early hint that a change in his approach could be possible.
Fig 7: Photographic portrait of Eliza Davis
Eliza Davis herself later wrote to Dickens, praising his efforts to draw attention to the plight of the poor, but pointing out that although he created both good and bad Christian characters, his only Jewish character in Oliver Twist was a villain, and that this had fostered a “vile prejudice”. She also suggested that he contribute to a worthy Jewish charity as a gesture of justice and atonement. Dickens apparently made such a donation, but continued to defend his position by claiming that in fact “that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew”.
Over time, the persistent Eliza continue to make reasoned pleas for Dickens to change his mind. Due partly to his respect for her integrity, Dickens eventually came to an acceptance that his earlier portrayal of Jewish people could be perceived as needlessly offensive. He halted a reprinting of Oliver Twist mid-production to delete the multitude of references to Fagin as “the Jew” and replace them simply with “Fagin” or other neutral terms. He also included a kindly and sympathetic Jewish character in his final novel Our Mutual Friend (1865), and continued to correspond with Eliza warmly for the rest of his life [43].
Over time, the persistent Eliza continue to make reasoned pleas for Dickens to change his mind. Due partly to his respect for her integrity, Dickens eventually came to an acceptance that his earlier portrayal of Jewish people could be perceived as needlessly offensive. He halted a reprinting of Oliver Twist mid-production to delete the multitude of references to Fagin as “the Jew” and replace them simply with “Fagin” or other neutral terms. He also included a kindly and sympathetic Jewish character in his final novel Our Mutual Friend (1865), and continued to correspond with Eliza warmly for the rest of his life [43].
The reconciliation with Millais
The attack on the painting, led by Dickens, had led to an enormous public backlash, not only against the pre-Raphaelites themselves, but also against many other young artists who were struggling to present untraditional works [44]. Dickens would later feel some regret about this. He said that he had not foreseen how seriously people would take what he had intended to be "a witty – albeit caustic – critique of what he considered a group of arrogant young men" [45].
Over time, Dickens may also have been impressed by the evident skills that Millais continue to display, and by the strong defence of the Pre-Raphaelites’ ability and sincerity by the influential art critic John Ruskin [46]. Dickens later sent a cordial note to Millais, along with this grudging semi-apology: "Objecting very strongly to what I believed to be an unworthy use of your great powers, I once expressed objections in (this) same journal. My opinion on that point has not in the least changed, but it has never dashed my admiration of your progress in which I suppose are higher and better things..." [47].
Over time, Dickens may also have been impressed by the evident skills that Millais continue to display, and by the strong defence of the Pre-Raphaelites’ ability and sincerity by the influential art critic John Ruskin [46]. Dickens later sent a cordial note to Millais, along with this grudging semi-apology: "Objecting very strongly to what I believed to be an unworthy use of your great powers, I once expressed objections in (this) same journal. My opinion on that point has not in the least changed, but it has never dashed my admiration of your progress in which I suppose are higher and better things..." [47].
Fig 8: John Everett Millais, The Black Brunswicker (1860), with woman’s face modelled by Katey
Dickens’ younger daughter Katey also played a part in the reconciliation. As it happens, she was an art student who became engaged to one of Millais’ closest friends, Charlie Collins, the brother of the novelist Wilkie Collins, author of the sensational book The Woman in White [48]. The Collins family were close friends of Dickens, and a sociable meeting was organised to bring Millais and Dickens into personal contact. This apparently went very well, and helped foster a mutual respect [49]. Some time later, Millais himself wrote to Dickens, asking him to allow Katey to pose as the young lover in Millais’ The Black Brunswicker [50]. By this time, Dickens and Millais had established a healthy relationship, and Dickens gave his approval [51]. Millais would later paint Katey as a wedding present for her second marriage. The ultimate seal on the reconciliation came in 1870 when Millais, by now knighted and regarded as a pillar of respectability, was called in to draw Dickens' official deathbed portrait.
Conclusion
Millais’ painting and the reactions to it are a good example of how new approaches in art which reflect the need for artistic innovation can clash with the more conservative forces that resent or resist change. And on a more personal level, it shows how the passions leading to intemperately-expressed views can, with time and goodwill, evolve into more fruitful and positive relationships ■
© Philip McCouat, 2026. First published July 2026.
We welcome your comments on this article.
This article may be cited as “Philip McCouat, “Millet, Charles Dickens and the Holy Family” Journal of Art in Society, 2026 https://www.artinsociety.com/millais-charles-dickens-and-the-holy-family.html
Return to HOME
© Philip McCouat, 2026. First published July 2026.
We welcome your comments on this article.
This article may be cited as “Philip McCouat, “Millet, Charles Dickens and the Holy Family” Journal of Art in Society, 2026 https://www.artinsociety.com/millais-charles-dickens-and-the-holy-family.html
Return to HOME
End Notes
[1] Charles Dickens, “Old Lamps for New Ones”, Household Words, 15/6/1850 https://web.archive.org/web/20211128174336/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/HW15jun50.html
[2] JG Millais, The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais, Volume 1 at 75-6 https://dn721503.ca.archive.org/0/items/lifelettersofsir01milliala/lifelettersofsir01milliala.pdf
[3]"The Arts. The Royal Academy." Spectator 23.1140 (5 May 1850), 426-427. https://web.archive.org/web/20100709134923/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/SP5may50.html
[4] "The Royal Academy Exhibition." Builder, 1 June 1850, 255-256
[5] "The Pictures of the Season", Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, July 1850, 82
[6] Google Arts & Culture, “Christ in the House of his Parents” https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/christ-in-the-house-of-his-parents-the-carpenter-s-shop-sir-john-everett-millais/KgHTjZxC7spFMQ?hl=ent
[7] The sheep were based on two sheep’s heads that Millais obtained from a local butcher: Tate catalogue entry https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/millais-christ-in-the-house-of-his-parents-the-carpenters-shop-n03584].
[8] Tate, op cit, [see end note 7]
[9] Zechariah 13:6: The rather oblique text is, "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
[10] Leonie Caldecott, “Through a Glass Darkly: Musings on Pre-Raphaelite Bodies, Humanum https://humanumreview.com/articles/through-a-glass-darkly-musings-on-pre-raphaelite-bodies
[11] For more on Jacob’s Ladder, see Philip McCouat, “Elsheimer’s Flight into Egypt: the intersection of religion, art and science”, Journal of Art in Society, www.artinsociety.com https://www.artinsociety.com/elsheimerrsquos-flight-into-egypt-how-it-changed-the-boundaries-between-art-religion-and-science.html
[12] Amelia McKee, “Millais, Catholicism and the Victorian Critics”, Art for the Liturgical Year https://liturgicalyearinart.substack.com/p/millais-catholicism-and-the-victorian
[13] "The Royal Academy. May Exhibition." Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine 17 (June 1850), 355-360. https://web.archive.org/web/20100709165759/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/TEMjun50.html
[14] Millais, op cit [see end note 2]
[15] Builder, op cit, [see end note 4]
[16] Punch 19 (18 May 1850), 198. https://web.archive.org/web/20150923011712/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/PUN18may50.html
[17] Blackwood’s, op cit [see end note 5]
[18] "The Royal Academy. May Exhibition." Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine 17 (Jun. 1850), 355-360. https://web.archive.org/web/20120209010928/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/TB1jun50.html
[19] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]
[20] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[21] Tait’s, op ci, [see end note 18]. A bantling was a brat or illegitimate child
[22] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]
[23] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[24] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[25] Joseph's head, for example, was based on Millais's own father, but the body was based on a real carpenter. The Virgin Mary was based on his sister-in-law Mary Hodgkinson; John the Baptist was posed by a young adopted cousin, Edwin Everett; and Nöel Humphreys, the son of an artist friend, sat for the young Christ: Tate, op cit [see end note 7]
[26] See Susan P Casteras, “Pre-Raphaelite Challenges to Victorian Canons of Beauty”, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, 1992, at 14. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3817653
[27] Casteras, op cit [end note 26] at 13. In some ways, these attitudes echo the reaction by some to the frank depictions of holy characters in the works of Caravaggio some three centuries previously. Caravaggio commonly used street people and prostitutes as his models for holy people, emphasising that real people were involved, not just idealisations. At the time, this tendency was strongly criticised by some critics as being unacceptably vulgar
[28] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 13
[29] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 15
[30] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 15
[31] E H Gombrich, The Story of Art, Phaidon, London, 1970, at 386
[32] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[33] It’s said that the painting proved to be so controversial that Queen Victoria asked that it be removed from the exhibition, where it was creating a sensation, and brought to her so she could examine it in private
[34] See discussion in Philip McCouat, “On the Trail of the Last Supper”, Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/on-the-trail-of-the-last-supper.html. Interestingly, the Biblical “sinful woman” Mary Magdalene was also often depicted with red hair
[35] Definition in Oxford English Dictionary (1933 edn)
[36] Act 3, Scene 4
[37] Even today, people with red hair can attract negative descriptions such as “ranga” (derived from orangutan), “blood nut” or “carrot top”
[38] Mellinkoff, Ruth, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993 at 154. See also Paffenroth, Kim, Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2001; Shreckenberg, Heinz, The Jews in Christian Art, Continuum, New York, 1996
[39] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]; Leah Berkenwald, “What is Jewish Hair?”, Jewish Women’s Archive https://jwa.org/blog/jewish-hair
[40] It has also been argued that Dickens’ dislike of the painting was affected by his belief that the painting’s imagery was too Roman Catholic: see Jude V Nixon, “‘[M]Any Jewels Set in Dirt’: Christology, ‘Pictures from Italy’, and Pre-Raphaelite Art.” Dickens Studies Annual 41 (2010): 81–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44371444; and McKee, op cit [see end note 12]
[41] "Exhibition of the Royal Academy" [Christ in the House of His Parents review]. Illustrated London News 14 May 1850, 336 https://web.archive.org/web/20150922015021/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/ILN14may50.html
[42] "Music and Fine Arts," Guardian 1 June 1850, 396 https://web.archive.org/web/20150922012541/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/GUA1jun50.html
[43] Yvette Alt Miller, “The Jewish Woman Who Changed Charles Dickens’ Mind about Hating Jews’, Aish, 9 August 2025 https://aish.com/the-jewish-woman-who-changed-charles-dickens-mind-about-hating-jews/; Murray Baumgarten, “The Other Woman – Eliza Davis and Charles Dickens”, Dickens Quarterly, Vol 32, No 1, March 2015
[44] Lucinda Dickens Hawksley, Charles Dickens: The Man, The Novels, The Victorian Age, Andre Deutsch, London, 2011, at 113
[45] Lucinda Hawksley, “Katey Dickens: the forgotten story behind ‘The Black Brunswicker’”, Art UK, 8 June 2016 https://artuk.org/discover/stories/katey-dickens-the-forgotten-story-behind-the-black-brunswicker
[46] George P Landow, “ ‘Your Good Influence on Me’; The Correspondence of John Ruskin and William Holman Hunt” The Victorian Web, 12 June 2007 https://victorianweb.org/painting/whh/HRLet/introduction.html
[47] Gordon H Fleming, John Everett Millais: A Biography, 1999
[48] Millais became very fond of Katey, who became a successful artist, mainly of children’s portraits. For more on The Woman in White see Philip McCouat, "The Two Women in White, Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/the-two-women-in-white.html
[49] Lucinda Hawksley, Charles Dickens and his Circle, National Portrait Gallery, London, 2016, at 95
[50] Lucinda Hawksley, op cit [see end note 45] https://artuk.org/discover/stories/katey-dickens-the-forgotten-story-behind-the-black-brunswicker
[51] Lucinda Dickens Hawksley, op cit [see end note 44].
© Philip McCouat, 2026. First published July 2026.
Return to HOME
[2] JG Millais, The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais, Volume 1 at 75-6 https://dn721503.ca.archive.org/0/items/lifelettersofsir01milliala/lifelettersofsir01milliala.pdf
[3]"The Arts. The Royal Academy." Spectator 23.1140 (5 May 1850), 426-427. https://web.archive.org/web/20100709134923/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/SP5may50.html
[4] "The Royal Academy Exhibition." Builder, 1 June 1850, 255-256
[5] "The Pictures of the Season", Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, July 1850, 82
[6] Google Arts & Culture, “Christ in the House of his Parents” https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/christ-in-the-house-of-his-parents-the-carpenter-s-shop-sir-john-everett-millais/KgHTjZxC7spFMQ?hl=ent
[7] The sheep were based on two sheep’s heads that Millais obtained from a local butcher: Tate catalogue entry https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/millais-christ-in-the-house-of-his-parents-the-carpenters-shop-n03584].
[8] Tate, op cit, [see end note 7]
[9] Zechariah 13:6: The rather oblique text is, "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
[10] Leonie Caldecott, “Through a Glass Darkly: Musings on Pre-Raphaelite Bodies, Humanum https://humanumreview.com/articles/through-a-glass-darkly-musings-on-pre-raphaelite-bodies
[11] For more on Jacob’s Ladder, see Philip McCouat, “Elsheimer’s Flight into Egypt: the intersection of religion, art and science”, Journal of Art in Society, www.artinsociety.com https://www.artinsociety.com/elsheimerrsquos-flight-into-egypt-how-it-changed-the-boundaries-between-art-religion-and-science.html
[12] Amelia McKee, “Millais, Catholicism and the Victorian Critics”, Art for the Liturgical Year https://liturgicalyearinart.substack.com/p/millais-catholicism-and-the-victorian
[13] "The Royal Academy. May Exhibition." Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine 17 (June 1850), 355-360. https://web.archive.org/web/20100709165759/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/TEMjun50.html
[14] Millais, op cit [see end note 2]
[15] Builder, op cit, [see end note 4]
[16] Punch 19 (18 May 1850), 198. https://web.archive.org/web/20150923011712/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/PUN18may50.html
[17] Blackwood’s, op cit [see end note 5]
[18] "The Royal Academy. May Exhibition." Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine 17 (Jun. 1850), 355-360. https://web.archive.org/web/20120209010928/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/TB1jun50.html
[19] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]
[20] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[21] Tait’s, op ci, [see end note 18]. A bantling was a brat or illegitimate child
[22] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]
[23] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[24] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[25] Joseph's head, for example, was based on Millais's own father, but the body was based on a real carpenter. The Virgin Mary was based on his sister-in-law Mary Hodgkinson; John the Baptist was posed by a young adopted cousin, Edwin Everett; and Nöel Humphreys, the son of an artist friend, sat for the young Christ: Tate, op cit [see end note 7]
[26] See Susan P Casteras, “Pre-Raphaelite Challenges to Victorian Canons of Beauty”, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, 1992, at 14. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3817653
[27] Casteras, op cit [end note 26] at 13. In some ways, these attitudes echo the reaction by some to the frank depictions of holy characters in the works of Caravaggio some three centuries previously. Caravaggio commonly used street people and prostitutes as his models for holy people, emphasising that real people were involved, not just idealisations. At the time, this tendency was strongly criticised by some critics as being unacceptably vulgar
[28] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 13
[29] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 15
[30] Casteras, op cit [see end note 26] at 15
[31] E H Gombrich, The Story of Art, Phaidon, London, 1970, at 386
[32] Charles Dickens, op cit [see end note 1]
[33] It’s said that the painting proved to be so controversial that Queen Victoria asked that it be removed from the exhibition, where it was creating a sensation, and brought to her so she could examine it in private
[34] See discussion in Philip McCouat, “On the Trail of the Last Supper”, Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/on-the-trail-of-the-last-supper.html. Interestingly, the Biblical “sinful woman” Mary Magdalene was also often depicted with red hair
[35] Definition in Oxford English Dictionary (1933 edn)
[36] Act 3, Scene 4
[37] Even today, people with red hair can attract negative descriptions such as “ranga” (derived from orangutan), “blood nut” or “carrot top”
[38] Mellinkoff, Ruth, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993 at 154. See also Paffenroth, Kim, Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2001; Shreckenberg, Heinz, The Jews in Christian Art, Continuum, New York, 1996
[39] Builder, op cit [see end note 4]; Leah Berkenwald, “What is Jewish Hair?”, Jewish Women’s Archive https://jwa.org/blog/jewish-hair
[40] It has also been argued that Dickens’ dislike of the painting was affected by his belief that the painting’s imagery was too Roman Catholic: see Jude V Nixon, “‘[M]Any Jewels Set in Dirt’: Christology, ‘Pictures from Italy’, and Pre-Raphaelite Art.” Dickens Studies Annual 41 (2010): 81–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44371444; and McKee, op cit [see end note 12]
[41] "Exhibition of the Royal Academy" [Christ in the House of His Parents review]. Illustrated London News 14 May 1850, 336 https://web.archive.org/web/20150922015021/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/ILN14may50.html
[42] "Music and Fine Arts," Guardian 1 June 1850, 396 https://web.archive.org/web/20150922012541/http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic/GUA1jun50.html
[43] Yvette Alt Miller, “The Jewish Woman Who Changed Charles Dickens’ Mind about Hating Jews’, Aish, 9 August 2025 https://aish.com/the-jewish-woman-who-changed-charles-dickens-mind-about-hating-jews/; Murray Baumgarten, “The Other Woman – Eliza Davis and Charles Dickens”, Dickens Quarterly, Vol 32, No 1, March 2015
[44] Lucinda Dickens Hawksley, Charles Dickens: The Man, The Novels, The Victorian Age, Andre Deutsch, London, 2011, at 113
[45] Lucinda Hawksley, “Katey Dickens: the forgotten story behind ‘The Black Brunswicker’”, Art UK, 8 June 2016 https://artuk.org/discover/stories/katey-dickens-the-forgotten-story-behind-the-black-brunswicker
[46] George P Landow, “ ‘Your Good Influence on Me’; The Correspondence of John Ruskin and William Holman Hunt” The Victorian Web, 12 June 2007 https://victorianweb.org/painting/whh/HRLet/introduction.html
[47] Gordon H Fleming, John Everett Millais: A Biography, 1999
[48] Millais became very fond of Katey, who became a successful artist, mainly of children’s portraits. For more on The Woman in White see Philip McCouat, "The Two Women in White, Journal of Art in Society https://www.artinsociety.com/the-two-women-in-white.html
[49] Lucinda Hawksley, Charles Dickens and his Circle, National Portrait Gallery, London, 2016, at 95
[50] Lucinda Hawksley, op cit [see end note 45] https://artuk.org/discover/stories/katey-dickens-the-forgotten-story-behind-the-black-brunswicker
[51] Lucinda Dickens Hawksley, op cit [see end note 44].
© Philip McCouat, 2026. First published July 2026.
Return to HOME