by Ashley Elizabeth Paolozzi
Abstract: With a growing interest in zoos, natural history museums, and menageries, the world of nineteenth-century London was teeming with locations that provided a pseudo-experience of the natural world within the heart of the modern city. At the same time, animal rights activists began to show concern with the containment and display of animals within these spaces as well as issues surrounding the human/animal relationship. Lewis Carroll’s children’s classic Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and the complimentary images created by artist John Tenniel examine the tension triggered by the rise in human/animal relations while acting as an effective critique on the containment and display of animals in Victorian England. Critical examination of a number of Tenniel’s images as well as Carroll’s accompanying text demonstrates Alice’s attempt at gaining power over the animals of Wonderland and the power struggle that arises when a human attempts to control a world that is not their own.
Since its first publication in 1865, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland has become a standard addition to the canon of children’s literature. Throughout the years, the artwork of Alice and the world of Wonderland have been reinvented countless times to create a more contemporary version of the century old novel. However these new editions lack the commentary on the Victorian human/animal power struggle that can be seen in Alice’s original illustrations by popular nineteenth-century political cartoonist John Tenniel (1820-1914). Historically, children have been exposed to the writing of authors such as Sarah Trimmer and A. A. Milne whose literature promotes a utopian world where humans and animals co-exist without conflict. Unlike these and many other examples of children’s literature, Carroll and Tenniel’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland foregrounds the human/animal power struggle in Victorian London at the time of the book’s publication, a struggle reflected throughout the visual and textual depictions of Alice’s strained encounters with the animals in Wonderland.
At first glance, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland appears to be nothing but a simple, whimsical tale about a little girl who has stumbled into a world populated by humorous and bizarre characters. It is easy to see that Alice’s relationship with Wonderland is complicated and the inhabitants of the nonsensical space are manic to the point of being completely unhelpful in assisting her quest to return home to England. What may not be initially obvious is that Alice’s unfavourable relationship with Wonderland’s animals is partially due to her own intrusive actions. The concept of Alice as “an invader disrupting a warm and happy world” is explored in James R. Kincaid’s article Alice’s Invasion of Wonderland (1973); an idea that reflects Victorian invasion into animal spaces as well as invasion into other human civilizations through colonization (97). Due to the popularity of Disney’s 1951 animated remake Alice in Wonderland it is difficult to imagine Alice as anything but a proper young lady who is the victim of a world that confuses and frustrates her. However, the original source material shows that it is the animals that are victimized and find themselves at the mercy of the invasive little girl who’s stubborn attitude demands the rules of Wonderland follow her own ideologies. As Rose Lovell-Smith states in her article “The Animals of Wonderland: Tenniel as Carroll’s Reader” (2003), Alice single handedly “inverts the theme of kindness to animals” which highlights Alice’s continuously misguided relationship with Wonderland’s inhabitants (387).2
Alice’s initial tumble down the rabbit hole to Wonderland brought her into an environment much different than the one familiar to her back in England. The rules of Wonderland have no interest in Alice’s comfort and force her to adapt to a world of complete ‘nonsense.’ Frustration with her situation is evident in both visual and textual depictions of her character throughout the book. Perhaps Alice is not intended to represent a little girl, but instead her actions could symbolize the attitudes towards the struggling human/animal relationship present within Victorian England. Exploring examples of Alice’s interactions with various Wonderland animals illustrate this human/animal power struggle while reflecting the tension occurring in the world that the artist and writer lived in and where the character of Alice grew up.
Victorian England, Animals, and Carroll
Before delving into the societal commentary within the text and illustrations it is important to understand Carroll’s (1832-1898) background and the historical context in which Alice was created. During the nineteenth-century, England’s inhabitants including royal figures and authors such as Carroll began to publicly question and oppose issues of animal welfare. For instance, the Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals focused on the most controversial issues involving animal welfare including “the killing of birds for sport and millinery, and the use of nonhumans in vivisection” (Ryder 2000, 95). Before becoming queen Princess Victoria herself was a member of the society and by 1887 the RSPCA had “no less than twenty royal and four ducal patrons” (ibid., 96). Similar to contemporary interest in the British monarchy, having royalty involved in the RSPCA made the “cause fashionable and effective” since “the emulation of the upper classes… was a central preoccupation in the lives of thousands of Victorians” (ibid.). It is noted in Richard D. Ryder text Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism (2000) that a number of literary figures from the later nineteenth-century “sympathized with animals” including Lewis Carroll (ibid., 100). However, Ryder notes that very few popular authors such as Carroll were involved in the organization since they were seen by the society as being “too extreme” in their beliefs (ibid.).
Carroll’s personal involvement in the anti-vivisection movement is his most well-known participation in the fight for animal rights and occurred after the publication of both Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, And What Alice Found There (1871). First published in June 1875 in the English magazine The Fortnightly Review, Carroll’s article “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection” highlights leading arguments in favour of scientific vivisection which he contrasts with his own personal rebuttal for each of these arguments. Though he had no quarrel with the actually killing of animals, Carroll challenged the notion that humans have a right to inflict pain on non-human beings stating that “any infliction of pain needs its special justification” (848). He also opposed the concept of the human/animal hierarchy by stating that man’s assumed superior role over non-human animals is “a strange assertion [coming] from the lips of people who tell us that man is twin-brother to the monkey!” (ibid.). The stance Carroll took in his Fortnightly Review publication is even more interesting since it was published under his pen name, Lewis Carroll; the name associated with his work on Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, and not his birth name of Charles Dodgson.
Carroll, Tenniel, and the Relationship between Text and Images
The intervention that Alice itself offers into public discussion of human/animal relations comes to light most clearly when we attend to the interplay between Carroll’s text and Tenniel’s illustrations. Carroll’s decision to choose a Punch political cartoonist as the illustrator for his children’s novel is curious considering Tenniel’s specialty of creating political commentary on Victorian society for an adult audience. However, being a lifelong fan of Tenniel and Punch, Carroll was naturally drawn to the style of illustrations presented within the popular London based magazine (Morris 2005, 139). As a political cartoonist Tenniel focused his entire career on his ability to insert clever socio-political commentary into his illustrated artworks. Since the idea of visual play was something of an interest to Carroll, having a political cartoonist create the visuals for Alice gave the book misleadingly insightful images to go with Carroll’s own curious text resulting in Alice having many “references to the Victorian world” (Morris, 149). On top of this, Carroll and Tenniel both shared interests in the subjects of medievalism, word games, Shakespeare, and, most importantly, animals (Morris, 140). Acknowledging Carroll and Tenniel’s shared love of visual/textual play signals to the reader that there is something more to Alice than initially meets the eye and allows the book to speak of subjects, such as England’s human/animal power struggle, that exist beyond its explicit narrative. As the Duchess exclaims in Chapter 9: The Mock Turtle’s Story: “everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it” (Carroll 1982, 97).
This compatible relationship between authors and their illustrators ensures fluidity between the text and corresponding image. With Alice, this allows multiple layers of meaning to exist within the overall text that can capitalize on the visual and textual play that both Carroll and Tenniel enjoyed. Authors of illustrated children’s literature generally leave out details and information that the reader can find in the accompanying pictures. (Sipe 2012, 11). The same goes for the illustrators; details that have already been explained in the text do not necessarily need to appear in the visuals (ibid.). This formula strengthens the relationship between the text and images–a relationship that is especially apparent in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland when it comes to the examination of the book’s animals and their relationship with the human protagonist (ibid.). As mentioned in Frankie Morris’ Artist of Wonderland: The Life, Political Cartoons, and Illustrations of Tenniel (2005) the complementary nature of Carroll’s text alongside Tenniel’s visuals are so dominant that “never have pictures so complemented and developed an author’s text” (149). Carroll’s narrative depends so heavily on Tenniel’s illustrations that the author alludes to the artist’s images directly within the book’s narrative. For example, in the ninth chapter of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland titled The Mock Turtle’s Story, Alice and the Queen stumble upon a sleeping Gryphon and, in the text, Carroll instructs the reader to “look at the picture” if they are unaware of the visual appearance of the mythical creature (Carroll 1982, 87). By allowing Tenniel’s illustration to provide a physical description of the Gryphon, Carroll does not need to waste time explaining its appearance in the narrative.
In the opening chapter of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland Alice asks the pivotal question of “what is the use of a book… without pictures or conversations?” (ibid., 17). Her inquiry speaks to this intentional visual and textual relationship presented throughout the novel that is highlighted in Mou-Lan Wong’s article Generations of Re-Generation (2009, 139-40). Wong comments on the deliberate placement of illustrations throughout the text that ensure the visuals remain “within the peripheral vision” of the reader and that they feel “effortlessly incorporated into the reading process” (ibid.). The importance of understanding the collaborative efforts of Alice’s text and images is crucial when exploring the commentary on Wonderland’s animal/human power struggle, since simply reading the text or viewing the images would not effectively convey the relationship that Alice had with the non-human population of Wonderland.
Natural History Illustrations and Wonderland’s Reversed Power Dynamic
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland takes place in a world where the human/animal hierarchy is consistently challenged. One of the ways that Tenniel accomplishes this is through the use of illustrated anthropomorphism. Tenniel’s Alice images reflect the visual qualities of both his political cartoons as well as nineteenth-century natural history illustrations. Striking visual similarities can be seen in the dodo bird in Alice and the natural history illustration of a dodo bird from The Illustrated Natural History: Birds (1864) by John George Wood (Figure 1 and Figure 2; Lovell-Smith, 397). Both dodos are shown in a profile with identical body shapes and extraordinarily similar feather details. The only real difference is that Tenniel has anthropomorphized his dodo by giving him a cane and tiny hands that sprout from underneath his wings. The artist’s decision to include these human qualities allow the viewer to feel more comfortable in identifying with the dodo as an intelligent creature, unlike other Wonderland animals such as the puppy that demonstrate no human qualities in order to appear unintelligent to the reader. Giving the dodo hands and a cane represents a shifting hierarchy and that the animals of Wonderland are capable of intelligence equal to and above Alice’s own. This is important when exploring Alice’s attitude towards the animals since Tenniel is demonstrating that her pre-conceived notions of this hierarchy do not apply within Wonderland’s space.
Tenniel illustrates other qualities of anthropomorphism by giving the animals human-like mannerisms and facial expressions (ibid., 395). These attributes reflect nineteenth-century interest of depicting creatures in natural history illustrations as having “near-human personality or expressiveness” (Smith 2009, 295). By mimicking natural history illustrations Tenniel increases his depiction of Alice as a stranger in Wonderland since scientific images of animals in their own natural environment normally do not include the presence of a human, especially a well-dressed little girl. Complimenting his career as a political cartoonist Tenniel’s attention to the popular trend of natural history drawings gives Alice a distinct, child friendly appeal filled with visual riddles that compliment Carroll’s own comical and witty narrative.
Alice and Human/Animal Power Struggles in Wonderland
A reflection of England’s power struggle between human and non-human animals can be seen in Alice’s interactions with Wonderland’s inhabitants in both the narrative and corresponding images. For instance, in the fourth chapter of the book when Alice encounters “an enormous puppy” with “large round eyes,” it is clear that the animal does not exhibit the anthropomorphized characteristics of Wonderland’s other creatures (Carroll 1982, 44). He appears both playful and curious when confronting Alice who fears the puppy because of his large size. However, she still attempts to play with him with a stick she finds on the ground. Despite worrying that the puppy could eat her, Alice mentions out loud to herself that she “should have liked teaching [the puppy] tricks very much – if [she’d] only been the right size to do it!” (46).
Alice’s encounter with the puppy is visually and textually significant since it demonstrates her assumed hierarchical position over the animal despite the drastic differences in their sizes (Figure 3). She wishes she was larger so that she could control the puppy and make him do tricks at her command. This would also eliminate the fear that the larger animal might have the ability to cause her harm. Alice’s wish of being larger in this particular situation may not only relate to her physical size but also with being older and more capable of controlling an animal. Visually, the puppy’s eyes appear concerned and reluctant to get too close to the demanding human. In this instance, as in many others, Carroll presents the narrative from Alice’s perspective while Tenniel provides the perspective of the animal. The puppy’s fear and apprehension is a result of his confrontation with Alice and is demonstrated more immediately in the accompanying illustration than the written narrative.
The puppy’s inability to speak to Alice like Wonderland’s other animals articulates how the animal is intellectually lower than Alice and is therefore not a real threat to her in the same way as characters such as the White Rabbit and Bill the Lizard. Her interest in taming the puppy reflects ideas of the domestication of animals. In Wonderland, Alice is a “representative of humanity” who “carr[ies] the unconscious values and assumptions of us all into a freer and more questioning land” (Kincaid 1973, 93). In this land animals such as the puppy are not seen as an object for potential enslavement but are instead seen as free beings populating a world different than Alice’s own.
The text of Alice tells the reader that she makes a couple of sincere attempts to connect with Wonderland’s animals. However, in the end she does nothing but upset and frighten them. When floating through the Pool of Tears in her recently miniaturized state during chapter two A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale, Alice encounters a mouse swimming through the waves. During this particular encounter Alice finds immense difficulty holding her tongue on the subject of her beloved cat Dinah and fails to think twice about the mouse’s instinctual fear of the an animal he would typically be hunted by.
The text reads: “Oh, I beg your pardon!” cried Alice hastily, afraid she had hurt the poor animal’s feelings. “I quite forgot you didn’t like cats”. “Not like cats!” cried the Mouse in a shrill, passionate voice. “Would you like cats if you were me?” (Carroll 1982, 29)
Despite her apology, Alice shifts the conversation to dogs, particularly one that she knows from back home that enjoys hunting rats, naturally upsetting the mouse again. In “Alice and Wonderland: Curious Child” (1973), Nina Auerbach notes that Alice continues to be confused as to “why nobody in Wonderland likes Dinah” (36). Her general “attitude towards the animals she encounters,” as Auerbach says is “often one of casual cruelty” (ibid., 27). This concept of cruelty can be seen less in Carroll’s dialogue between Alice and the mouse and more in Tenniel’s visual depiction of the encounter (Figure 4). Though the dialogue shows Alice’s struggle with upsetting the mouse, the accompanying image illustrates the young child smiley cruelly at the animal while he attempts to swim away from her. The mouse’s arched brow shows his desperation in escaping the smug little girl who continues to spout thoughtless words at him. Tenniel shows Alice as almost enjoying the distress of the mouse and how quickly she has established herself as the superior being in the new world she has just recently entered.
Alice’s power struggle with the animals of Wonderland gets increasingly difficult as the book progresses. The infamous illustration of the Mad Hatter’s tea party with the March Hare and the Dormouse displays a disgruntled Alice clearly irritated with the rules of incomprehensible game of riddles being forced upon her (Figure 5). Tenniel’s image shows her head bowed low as she peers at her hosts under a furrowed brow. She sits slumped in a cushioned parlour chair in an uncharacteristic manner of a middle-class child who would have been raised to sit with perfect posture at an afternoon tea. The text accompanying this image tells of Alice’s self-invitation to the tea party and the Mad Hatter, March Hare, and Dormouse’s insistence that there is no room available at the table for a fourth guest. Alice proclaims that there is surely enough room for a fourth since the size of the table is fairly large. She then accuses the March Hare of being uncivil for having offered her a glass of wine when the party did not actually have any wine at their table. To this, the March Hare says to Alice “it wasn’t very civil of you to sit down without being invited” inverting the notion of uncivilized actions off of the animals and onto the human (Carroll 1982, 66). Alice’s participation in the event increases her own frustration since the role of power she is used to has been turned around and handed to the animals.
This conversation and the accompanying image seen in Figure 5 explore concepts of non-human spaces outside of the city as well as confusion between hospitality (which Alice expects) and invasion (which the Dormouse, March Hare, and Mad Hatter experience). The Mad Hatter, despite being a grotesque representation of a human, is a welcome member of this animal dominated space since he fully conforms to Wonderland’s rules and is an active participant in the norms of the society. Alice, on the other hand, is not a welcomed guest but more of an intruder who insists there is enough room for her (a stranger) and is consistently frustrated when the rules governing the tea party are not like the ones she is used to back home.
Alice’s annoyed facial expression illustrated during the tea party is repeated a number of times throughout the book in Tenniel’s illustrations. She is often unable to get her own way, an issue that causes chaos when she tries to force her own ideologies on Wonderland’s populace. The inhabitants of Wonderland, specifically animals like the March Hare, are the cause of Alice’s anger and discomfort. Alice’s interactions with these animals, though meant to be shown in a humorous and light manner, lead to some interesting implications of Alice’s lack of tolerance and empathy towards the inhabitants of Wonderland that are heavily implied during the tea party by both Tenniel and Carroll.
Another instance where this lack of empathy is displayed occurs in the fourth chapter of the book titled The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill (Kincaid 1973, 97). In this chapter, Alice finds herself in the White Rabbit’s home where she drinks from a conspicuously labeled bottle. Her insisting curiosity and inability to perceive her intruding presence within the animal’s spaces results in an extreme growth spurt when she drinks from the mysterious substance. This growth ultimately traps her within the White Rabbit’s home. Alice, fearing the anger of the White Rabbit when he finds her in this ridiculous state realizes she “had no reason to be afraid of [the rabbit]” since she is “now about a thousand times as large” as him (Carroll 1982, 40). Hearing the rabbit just outside the window Alice “spread[s] out her hand, and made a snatch in the air,” and despite not physically grabbing onto him “she heard a little shriek and a fall, and a crash of broken glass” greatly upsetting the White Rabbit who then initiates an attempt to remove the unwelcome and violent guest from his home (ibid., 41).
Accompanying the text is Tenniel’s illustration of Alice’s hand which, as Carroll explains in his text, belongs to the now gigantic sized child. Tenniel’s image shows the reader the look of pure fear on the face of the rabbit who has been swatted at by the monster currently occupying his home (Figure 6). This image also exhibits the sheer size of the child and the power she now has over the small animal. While Carroll’s text gives the perspective of the angry Alice, Tenniel shows the reader the result of her aggressive actions on the rabbit.
The peculiar and humorous situation also examines human dominance over the wild and the notion of the larger, and more powerful being (in this case, Alice the human) gaining power and control over the small and defenceless creature. She does not acknowledge the discomfort and fear she is causing the White Rabbit and swatting at him illustrates her inability to empathize with the distressed animal. Alice’s main concern is her own well being and she takes her frustrations of her situation out on the rabbit instead of recognizing that it was her own invasive actions that caused the chaos. Alice’s entrapment within the White Rabbit’s home is a comical example of role reversal. In a typical situation it would be the animals and not the human that would find themselves trapped within a confined zoo like space. Now it is Alice’s turn to be up for display while the animals gain voyeuristic abilities which Alice naturally finds frustrating and unnatural.
Wonderland as the Anti-Zoo
Reflecting on Alice’s encounters with these animals, Tenniel and Carroll have portrayed the fantastical world of Wonderland as the complete opposite of both a zoological park and a menagerie. The confinement of animals in both zoos and menageries in Victorian England was ultimately a demonstration of human “triumph of order over the chaotic wild” (Ritvo 1996, 47). Unlike the free world of Wonderland, the conditions for animals in the zoos of Victorian England were far from ideal. In 1832 a report was written by Martin Lichtenstein documenting the poor conditions the animals in the London Zoo resided (Ito 2006, 169). This included the deaths of the zoo’s monkeys from exposure to winter temperatures since the zoo deemed heating charges for their enclosures to be too expensive (ibid.). Criticism from anonymous parties were also published in The Times in 1836 discussing frustration over the lack of improvement to the conditions within these zoos (ibid.). The power struggle between human and non-human animals was on display everywhere within the zoo environment and was an issue gaining attention from the people of London.
While Tenniel enjoyed an occasional visit to the zoo, Carroll’s exposure to animal containment came from his visitation to a menagerie, a private institution which serves the purpose of caging exotic animals for either display or purchase within the collection a wealthy owner (George 2013, 19). The menagerie visited by Carroll was Tudor House which was owned by Pre-Raphaelite artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti (ibid., 20). The artist’s brother, William Michael Rossetti, claimed Dante lacked any real fondness towards animals despite being the owner of an impressive collection of them at his 16 Cheyne Walk residence in London (ibid.). According to Rossetti’s sister Christina Rossetti “there were, as has often been stated, various creatures, quaint or beautiful, about the house and grounds, some of them at liberty” (Bell 1898, 134). On the more specific creatures at Tudor House, she writes “I particularly recall Bobby – a little owl with a very large face and a beak of a sort of egg-shell green; a woodchuck, a deer, and a wombat, nameless, or of a name unknown to me” (ibid.). As stated in her biography, Christina Rossetti also recalls how “Tudor House and its grounds became a sort of wonderland; and once the author of “Wonderland” photographed us in the garden” which references a visit to the menagerie that Carroll took to photograph the Rossetti family (ibid.). In “Rossetti’s Menagerie: The Condition of Animals in Victorian Britain” (2013) Jodie-Anne George states that she believes it was these visits to the Tudor House that inspired the creation of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, one of the most infamous scenes in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Figure 5; 20). Alice’s entrapment in the White Rabbit’s home plays on the small living quarters that Victorians and Tenniel witnessed animals experiencing in the London Zoo and what Carroll would have seen when visiting Rossetti’s menagerie.
As a young girl of a potentially middle-class family, the character of Alice would more than likely have visited a zoological park in England and would have witnessed this human power over animals. Without cages forced upon animals, the physical barrier placed between man and beast in Carroll and Tenniel’s fictional world is non-existent. Without the safety of these steel bars, Alice is just as vulnerable as animals in a zoo or menagerie. Tenniel’s illustrations of Wonderland depict these animals in their natural environment and are a further reminder that Alice doesn’t belong in this world.
The collaboration between Tenniel and Carroll permitted Alice to subtly discuss significant issues regarding animal/human relations in England during the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Having a political cartoonist create the images for Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland allowed Carroll to explore themes above and beyond the expectations of children’s literature. Due to Tenniel’s history as a political cartoonist and Carroll’s deliberate selection of him as the artist for the Alice books, it can be assumed that this decision was based not only on Tenniel’s appropriate art style but also for his ability to compliment Carroll’s text by weaving additional meaning into his illustrated work. Together, Tenniel and Carroll successfully created a treasured children’s book that contained commentary on human power over animals, a central aspect of the Victorian human/animal relationship.
Auerbach, Nina. “Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child.” Victorian Studies 17 (1973): 31-47. Accessed June 28, 2014.
Bell, Mackenzie. Christina Rossetti: A Biographical and Critical Study. London: Thomas Burleigh, 1898.
Carroll, Lewis. “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” In The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll, 17-106. London: Chancellor Press, 1982.
Carroll, Lewis. “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection.” In Fortnightly Review 17 (June 1875): 847-854. Accessed June 30, 2014.
George, Jodie-Anne. “Rossetti’s menagerie: The condition of animals in Victorian Britain.” Journal of the Scottish Society for Art History 17 (2012-2013): 19-23. Accessed September 30, 2013.
Ito, Takashi. “Between Ideals, Realities, and Popular Perceptions: An Analysis of the Multifaceted Nature of London Zoo, 1828-1848.” Society & Animals 14 (2006): 159-178. Accessed November 18, 2013.
Kincaid, James R. “Alice’s Invasion of Wonderland.” Modern Languages Association 88 (1973). Accessed November 18, 2013.
Lovell-Smith, Rose. “The Animals of Wonderland: Tenniel as Carroll’s Reader.” Criticism 45 (2003): 383-415. Accessed September 30, 2013.
Morris, Frankie. Artist of Wonderland: The Life, Political Cartoons, and Illustrations of Tenniel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005.
Ritvo, Harriet. “The Order of Nature: Constructing the Collections of Victorian Zoos.” In New worlds, new animals: from menagerie to zoological park in the nineteenth century, edited by R.J. Hoage, 43-50. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Ryder, Richard D. “Victorian Consolidation.” In Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism, 95-120. Oxford; New York: Berg, 2000.
Sipe, Lawrence R. “Revisiting the Relationships Between Text and Pictures.” Children’s Literature in Education 43 (2012): 4-21. Accessed June 30, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s10583-011-9153-0.
Smith, Jonathan. “Evolutionary Aesthetics and Victorian Visual Culture.” In Endless forms: Charles Darwin, natural science and the visual arts, edited by Diana Donald and Jane Munro, 237-252. London: Yale University Press, 2009.
Wong, Mou-Lan. “Generations of Re-generation: Re-creating Wonderland through Text, Illustrations, and the Reader’s Hands.” In Alice Beyond Wonderland: Essays for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Karoline Leach, 135-151. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2009.
1 Kincaid, “Alice’s Invasion of Wonderland,” 97.
2 Lovell-Smith, “The Animals of Wonderland,” 387.
3 Ryder, “Victorian Consolidation,” 95.
4 Ryder, “Victorian Consolidation,” 96.
5 Ryder, “Victorian Consolidation,” 96.
6 Ryder, “Victorian Consolidation,” 100.
7 Ryder, “Victorian Consolidation,” 100.
8 Carroll, “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection,” 848.
9 Carroll, “Some Popular Fallacies about Vivisection,” 848.
10 Morris, Artist of Wonderland, 139.
11 Morris, Artist of Wonderland, 149.
12 Morris, Artist of Wonderland, 140.
13 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 97.
14 Sipe, “Revisiting the Relationships Between Text and Pictures,” 11.
15 Sipe, “Revisiting the Relationships Between Text and Pictures,” 11.
16 Sipe, “Revisiting the Relationships Between Text and Pictures,” 11.
17 Morris, Artist of Wonderland, 149.
18 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 87.
19 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 17.
20 Wong, “Generations of Re-generations,” 139-140.
21 Wong, “Generations of Re-generations,” 139-140.
22 Lovell-Smith, “The Animals of Wonderland,” 397.
23 Lovell-Smith, “The Animals of Wonderland,” 395.
24 Smith, “Evolutionary Aesthetics and Victorian Visual Culture,” 295.
25 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 44.
26 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 46.
27 Kincaid, “Alice’s Invasion of Wonderland,” 93.
28 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 29.
29 Auerbach, “Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child,” 36.
30 Auerbach, “Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child,” 27.
31 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 66.
32 Kincaid, “Alice’s Invasion of Wonderland,” 97.
33 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 40.
34 Carroll, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” 41.
35 Ritvo, “The Order of Nature,” 47.
36 Ito, “Between Ideals, Realities, and Popular Perceptions,” 169.
37 Ito, “Between Ideals, Realities, and Popular Perceptions,” 169.
38 Ito, “Between Ideals, Realities, and Popular Perceptions,” 169.
39 George, “Rossetti’s menagerie,” 19.
40 George, “Rossetti’s menagerie,” 20.
41 George, “Rossetti’s menagerie,” 20.
42 Bell, Christina Rossetti: A Biographical and Critical Study, 134.
43 Bell, Christina Rossetti: A Biographical and Critical Study, 134.
44 Bell, Christina Rossetti: A Biographical and Critical Study, 134.
45 George, “Rossetti’s menagerie,” 20.