Lewis Carroll: The Hunting of the Snark

[Why]

The following four lines are an excerpt from Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:

The crew was complete: it included a Boots—

A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—​

A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—

And a Broker, to value their goods.​

In his illustrations to Carroll's long Snark ballade, Henry Holiday depicts

1. the Bellman,
2. the maker of Bonnets and Hoods (you see only half of his face),
3. the Barrister,
4. the Broker,
5. the Billiard-marker,
6. the Banker,
7. the Beaver,
8. the Baker,
9. the Butcher.

Thus, nine members of the crew are visible. There is no Boots. A Boojum turned Snark is not depicted either (and about the Snark you can't be sure, because you "see" it only in the Barrister's dream), but later Holiday explained the reason for the missing Boojum. The missing depiction of the Boots is no issue explained by Holiday.

In the preface to The Hunting of the Snark, Lewis Carroll spends quite a few lines on portmanteau words. (The term "portmanteau" was used by Humpty Dumpty to describe such words already before Carroll wrote the Snark.) Could "a Boots — A maker of Bonnets and Hoods" be an introduction of a boots, who is a maker of bonnets and hoods? Could Boots be a portmanteau for maker of Bonnets and Hoods?

In all writings about The Hunting of the Snark, the Boots and the maker of Bonnets and Hoods are treated as different persons. If that is so, there would be

1. the Bellman,
2. the Boots,
3. the maker of Bonnets and Hoods,
4. the Barrister,
5. the Broker,
6. the Billiard-marker,
7. the Banker,
8. the Beaver,
9. the Baker,
10. the Butcher.

However, how can we be sure that the crew has ten members? By telling it at least three times?

I am not asking you to make a statement whether the crew has nine members or ten members. I think that both statements are possible. But do you think that for one of them there is a higher probability that it is true than for the other one?

Edit (2023-09-26): I replaced old links by links to my blog.

 

[merrill]

Carroll/Dodgson probably not just owned no fewer than nineteen works by Charles Darwin or his critics, he probably also read them. To me, "The Hunting of the Snark", written when vivisection was intensively discussed in the public, almost looks like an allusion to Darwins's expedition with the HMS Beagle, to the beneficial as well as to the dark sides or research: Snark and Boojum.

Did you know that, during his voyage, Darwin used lacing needles for dissection and (perhaps vivisection) under the microscope? Darwin defended vivisection, Carroll was opposed to it. That perhaps could explain, why in "The Hunting of the Snark" a contemplative activity like lace-making turns into an offence: »But the Beaver went on making lace, and displayed // No interest in the concern: // Though the Barrister tried to appeal to its pride, // And vainly proceeded to cite // A number of cases, in which making laces // Had been proved an infringement of right.«

And as I learned when had to write my essay on the same, John Tenniel’s illustrations are as integral to reading about "Alice" as Henry Holiday's illustrations are integral to reading about the "Snark".

 

[Vitrvvivs]

Interesting question, but unfortunately I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Patrick Murtha]

This is unlikely. “Boots” is well-known colloquial English for a bootblack. It would be an awkward portmanteau for “bonnets and hoods”, and a portmanteau should be novel and identifiable as such. The introduction of all the crew members in that quatrain are separated by dashes. So although some may like to think that there are nine crew members rather than ten, I think there is zero evidence to that effect.

 

[Why]

Carroll/Dodgson probably not just owned no fewer than nineteen works by Charles Darwin or his critics, he probably also read them. To me, "The Hunting of the Snark", written when vivisection was intensively discussed in the public, almost looks like an allusion to Darwins's expedition with the HMS Beagle, to the beneficial as well as to the dark sides or research: Snark and Boojum.

Did you know that, during his voyage, Darwin used lacing needles for dissection and (perhaps vivisection) under the microscope? Darwin defended vivisection, Carroll was opposed to it. That perhaps could explain, why in "The Hunting of the Snark" a contemplative activity like lace-making turns into an offence: »But the Beaver went on making lace, and displayed // No interest in the concern: // Though the Barrister tried to appeal to its pride, // And vainly proceeded to cite // A number of cases, in which making laces // Had been proved an infringement of right.«

And as I learned when had to write my essay on the same, John Tenniel’s illustrations are as integral to reading about "Alice" as Henry Holiday's illustrations are integral to reading about the "Snark".

Yes, I kew that as I wrote about this in 2015. (In my blog is a link to that article too.) In your post, the link behind "write my essay" leads to a web page which raises a security warning.

 

[Why]

This is unlikely. “Boots” is well-known colloquial English for a bootblack. It would be an awkward portmanteau for “bonnets and hoods”, and a portmanteau should be novel and identifiable as such. The introduction of all the crew members in that quatrain are separated by dashes. So although some may like to think that there are nine crew members rather than ten, I think there is zero evidence to that effect.

Why do you think that in Lewis Carroll's view a portmanteau should be novel and identifiable as such?

“Next, when you are describing
　A shape, or sound, or tint;
Don’t state the matter plainly,
　But put it in a hint;
And learn to look at all things
　With a sort of mental squint.”

Lewis Carroll, https://snrk.de/Gutenberg/Phantasmagoria_by_Lewis_Carroll.htm#page123

More about the boots: https://snrk.de/boots-bonnetmaker/