The Clennam family secret: FAQs

(If you're looking for the recap of part five, it's here.)

The main part of the Clennam family secret is, I think, one of the best secrets in literature, or at least in the literature that I've read. It's big and juicy and very difficult to guess. I for one didn't see it coming when I read the book. Mistaken paternity, after all, is a dime a dozen, but a maternity mix-up? That's a lot trickier to pull off.

That said, I can't blame anyone who has trouble understanding all the details. There are quite a few details to understand -- and in the movie they all get blurted out pretty fast, some of them in a French accent, with lots of Tattycoram intercutting to boot. Plus, a few things from the book are left out or changed.

So what I'll do here is cover the basics and clear up a few misunderstandings I've seen around the Web, and also reprint part of the appendix that Dickens provides at the end of the book, and then finally explain the changes that Andrew Davies made. This is going to be rather lengthy, but it should cover everything, and hopefully it will be explanatory enough that we won't have to resort to flow charts. Click below to continue. . . .

Who were Arthur's real parents?

Mr. Clennam was his real father, but Mrs. Clennam was not his real mother. His real mother was a young singer whose name we never learn.

Who were Amy's real parents?

Mr. and Mrs. Dorrit were her real parents. There are no parental secrets in her case.

Are Amy and Arthur related?

No.

What was the connection between the families?

Amy's uncle Frederick was a patron (supporter) of Arthur's real mother in her singing career.

Mr. Dickens will take it from here:

Many years ago, a Mr. Gilbert Clennam put forward his orphan nephew (Arthur's father) as husband for the Mrs. Clennam in the story. They were married. Later, this Mrs. Clennam discovered that her husband had already gone through a form of marriage with another woman, who had borne him a son. Mrs. Clennam, a woman of vindictively self-righteous religiosity, demanded that the child (Arthur) be given into her own custody: if not, she would expose her husband, and bring it about that his uncle cut off his financial support. She got her way, taking possession of the child Arthur, while his true mother went mad and died, and his father went abroad and later died too.

[A word about that "form of marriage" business. I'm not clear on whether Dickens meant that the young couple -- Arthur's father and his real mother -- had actually secretly married, or whether he was just trying to be coy about the fact that they'd slept together. I know which idea I like better -- think of the Mrs. Clennam we know finding out not only that there was a child, but also that her own marriage wasn't valid -- but I don't know which one Dickens intended to convey. We're told that Arthur's real mother acted very guilty when Mrs. Clennam confronted her, but also that she referred to a "desecrated ceremony of marriage" (Mrs. Clennam's words) that they had gone through. Sounds like they may have made vows to each other without benefit of clergy, or something like that. --GRD]

Meanwhile, Gilbert Clennam has heard of the existence of Arthur's true mother; but all he has heard is that she was a girl whom his nephew had loved, but had abandoned in order to marry as his uncle had wished, and that she had subsequently gone mad and died. He has felt remorse at this, and as a kind of recompense has left, in a codicil to his will, a thousand guineas to the youngest daughter of the man who had at one time acted as patron to this girl (i.e. Arthur's true mother); or, if that man had no daughter, to his brother's youngest daughter. [Emphasis Dickens's, not mine. No one uses italics like a Victorian. --GRD]

This man who had acted as patron to Arthur's mother was Frederick Dorrit: he had helped her, in her youth, to be a professional singer. But Frederick Dorrit had had no daughter. The legacy therefore became due to the youngest daughter of his brother: that is to say, to Little Dorrit herself.

And you know the rest: Mrs. Clennam hid the codicil and related papers and later tried to destroy them, but Jeremiah -- "either as giving him a chance to blackmail Mrs. Clennam, or simply for the satisfaction of knowing that he had bested her" -- smuggled them to his brother, and Blandois got them from him and thought he'd try a spot of blackmail on his own account.

Clear as mud? Okay. Here are the things that Andrew Davies changed in the miniseries. First, if I understood correctly, he made Arthur's mother a dancer instead of a singer; I have no idea why. Just so Arthur could find her dancing shoes in the box? Doesn't seem like much of a memento, but whatever. Second, from what Blandois says, Davies seems to have changed Arthur's father's premarital fling (or secret marriage?) into an extramarital fling, so that it was actually adultery. I preferred it the other way, but as far as the story's concerned it doesn't make a great deal of difference, I suppose. Third, he makes Gilbert Clennam the father of Arthur's father, instead of the uncle of Arthur's father. Fourth, he specifies that Arthur's real mother wrote directly to Gilbert Clennam for help, which wasn't in the book.

Fifth -- now, I think this is the biggest change. In the miniseries, we hear that Gilbert Clennam, wanting to recompense Arthur's real mother for her suffering but knowing she was already dead, left money in her honor to a little poor child born in prison on the same day Arthur's mother had died -- Amy Dorrit. And that works fairly well. Truthfully, I can never read all that business about "the youngest daughter of the brother of the patron" without a "Say what?" 

BUT -- if I heard everything right -- they actually make it sound in the miniseries as if Gilbert Clennam had picked a poor child at random, and that would be a bigger coincidence than even Dickens ever knew. Personally, I think it works best if you added both reasons together -- to wit, "I can no longer help this poor dead woman, but this patron/landlord of hers has a niece born in poverty the same day she died. I'll leave his niece some money in this woman's honor." It makes so much more sense that I can't imagine why Davies didn't do it that way. Things are already so complex that one more little complexity wouldn't have hurt. Actually, it probably would have simplified everything.

(By the way, in case you're interested in the timeline, all this means that Arthur's real mother died, Amy was born, and Arthur went to China, all around the same time. This actually tallies with the book.)

And finally, Davies has Jeremiah say that he didn't burn the papers because he had no right to -- meaning, I presume, that he could have gotten in legal trouble over it. Which, again, makes sense, but, again, is even stronger if you add it to the reasons Dickens gave (i.e., he had no legal right plus he wanted to get the better of Mrs. Clennam plus he had considered blackmailing her himself).

And there you have it: The dark and tangled (and extremely long) history of the House of Clennam. However, I know we have readers here who know more about Dickens than I do, so if I've missed anything important or gotten anything wrong, please weigh in. And if anyone still has questions, ask away!

Comments

[Gina]

Now that's dedication, Paul! :-) To answer your question about Mrs. Clennam: In the miniseries, she died right away (presumably from shock and stress); in the book, she lingered for some time -- a couple of years, I think -- in a catatonic state before dying.

[Janet Hicks]

I have just watched the final episoded twice. It seems they were Arthur's baby-booties/shoes in the wooden box, surely too small to be dancers shoes as you wrote? That makes sense. The box was Arthur's treasure as it turned out.
But what happened to Amy Little Dorrit's inheritance? It is not mentioned again. We know that Dad Dorrit and Arthur and everyone invested in crooked Bank, but where was the legacy from the grandfather Gilbert Clennam invested in trust for Amy? It is not mentioned. If the legacy was to come to her, why did she say "I have nothing" to Arthur, when it was her father Dorrit's fortune which was lost in the failed bank, nothing ever said about her own legacy entrusted to her from Gilbert Clennam.?

[Janet Hicks]

Another puzzling anomaly: final episode when Amy and Arthur are in Marshalsea discussing their love, Arthur says a line I am almost twice your age. Were they not born on the same day according to Dickens' story? this clearly does not make sense, is it an error of the script-writer?
The glaring omission from the ending, as questioned by me in previous post is: what happened to Amy's "legacy" fortune, which is never explained. The legacy which existed in the Will or codicil of Gilbert Clennam, but never resolved, as she announced herself penniless.
It's beyond comprehension, Scriptwriter.

[Gina]

No, they weren't born on the same day. If I remember correctly, she was born right around the time that he was leaving for China.

[Gina]

And yes, they left the legacy for Amy out of the miniseries. Confusing, I know!

[Janet Hicks]

Thankyou for confirming my impression re the legacy being not addressed. Rather sloppy for an otherwise top miniseries, what a letdown of an ending. Thankyou for taking the time to inform me of things. This is wonderful of you.

[Gina]

Happy to help!

[DWLee3]

In the legal world, if someone dies "intestate" (with no will), the items are distributed "per stirpes"...the way I understand it, because Fredrick Dorrit had no heirs, next the inheritance would go to Fredrick's parents (presumed deceased), and then next the inheritance would go to his brother - or maybe to Amy Dorrit because that is what the bequest specified. (I am no lawyer.) But that is how the inheritance MIGHT have gotten to Amy.

[GlobeTrotter5K]

Omg THANK YOU for explaining this; I wa.s so confused toward the end. Imagine my discomfort watching Amy and Arthur fall in love because I thought the whole time that Amy was the love child. And to get to the end and learn the twist only to be left befuddled as to who Amy's real parents were...I couldn't t enjoy the most romantic part of the whole movie because I was grossed out thinking Amy was kissing her half brother. The movie did a poor job of explaining Amy's connection to the family. I searched and searched and finally found this post that explained the whole thing. Now I can go to sleep.

P.s. It's crazy how Mrs. Clemens felt more affection to Amy than the child than Arthur. It makes sense to me why the filmmakers felt they had to change her motive...making the affair between Arthur's father and biological mother and extramarital event as opposed to the novel's premarital one. Had it remained the latter, those of us watching two centuries later would have only been left with a WTF response. I mean, having a baby out of wedlock is no big deal these days, but an extramarital love child? Now THATS a scandle.

[Sheepgetlambs]

I just watched the whole miniseries and I think there is domestic violence implied when Pet says that marriage isn't at all what she expected. If not violence, at least some pretty unpleasant experiences for her in bed. Henry is so inconsiderate, despite his claims of love for Pet, that her new attitude toward him and marraige can't entirely be explained by the Frenchman's presence or Henry's insistence on his enjoyment of the Frenchman's company.

Also, I, too was confused by the explanation of the family secret and have found the explanation here very, very helpful. The loose ends at the end of the story, and the seeming evaporation of Amy's legacy, bothered me, but not as much as wondering about poor Pet's future with awful Henry. The look on his face when he sees his new baby said it all. He is too self-absorbed to be a decent father, or husband once his wife has the demands of motherhood placed on her.

[Sheepgetlambs]

Another's anomaly. In the miniseries, near the end, Aurthur says he got a letter from his real mother and that she loves him. I thought she had died in the asylum.??

[Tiffany]

Love all of this! Thank you so much!

[Varun Singh]

Sorry, I seem to have found this spot rather late. I have been in the process of preparing a monograph relating to all the medical conditions described by CD.
Very interesting conversation. Yes, I agree that amongst all Dickens' works, Little Dorrit is full of surprises and mysteries.

I also agree that Andrew Davies ought not to have changed the ending, which in a way I consider a sacrilege as it ruins what CD had intended. I say so because CD's mastery and genius leaves no room for his narrative to be tampered with. Will come back with a few issues/questions later.

[Carol]

Thanks Gina for your detailed explanation. I've watched the BBC adaption a few times and was also confused and left with the impression that Amy and Arthur were half-brother and half-sister. Couldn't quite see that the Georgians would be happy reading about such an incestuous relationship in a newspaper serial. It also raised the equally confounding question of why Mr Dorritt would claim Amy as his daughter if she was of no relationship to him at all.
So pleased I now understand the complexities of the characters' backgrounds much better.

[Marilyn G]

Just getting to your site in May 2016! I was always baffled by the financial doings in Little Dorrit. I have been confused since mini series! I am so glad I now have some answers. I could have read the book, but I was not that interested.

[Gina]

Hi Marilyn -- glad we could help! But I do recommend the book as well. It's REALLY good. :-) Thanks for stopping by.

[Ruth]

I just finished the book, Little Dorrit. I have not seen the miniseries yet. I'm confused by a couplw of things in the book. 1
Why does the house explode? That was bizarre. 2. What was making the sounds Affery was so afraid of? It seemed Dickens made so much of this and then just dropped it and never explained it, other than Affery's comment that Arthur's mother was still alive in the house somewhere.

[Gina]

Ruth, the answers to your questions actually go together. The house was very old, neglected, and literally falling to pieces -- that was the source of the noises, and that was the reason it eventually crumbled to the ground.

[Marian]

I always have to read your excellent post after watching it, and this is the third time. :) It seems like it would've been simpler if Davies had used the original plot, but through a flashback sequence instead of a verbal explanation.

That said, this series has aged well. I only wish the BBC would make more like it! I'm starting to feel like the days of great adaptations are past. It's not to say that there aren't anachronisms in Little Dorrit (definitely some), but overall it's of a better caliber IMHO than some of their newer dramas.

[Rebecca Lansky]

Arthur's mother was Lizzy. Don't you have read little dorrit in detail.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

So glad you're still enjoying it, Marian! :-)

Rebecca, no, I don't believe we ever learn Arthur's mother's name. The only people who discuss her -- Mrs. Clennam, Jeremiah, Affery, and Blandois -- never refer to her by name.

[Karen T-S]

Andrew Davies's screenwriting — excellent in most respects — fell down IMO by failing to explain what happened to Amy's legacy. Not having read the novel, I couldn't understand why she was left (albeit happily) penniless until Doyce arrived. I am enormously grateful to blbarnitz for explaining everything. And of course many thanks to Gina for the blog!

[CStewart]

Just watched this. Confused like everyone else. Thanks for youre explaination. So glad they weren't brother and sister. We were afraid. There were great actors here: the fat girl, Amy's dad, and Mr. Sparklesby. I must read the book!.

[Liz Walker]

I've just finished watching the Andrew Davies miniseries on DVD. I had worked out that Arthur was not the child of Mrs Clennam and that he and Amy were not related, though I didn't make the connection via Frederick. The thing that puzzled me was, why did Miss Wade have the box with the shoes (or bootees) and letter from Arthur's mother? I read the book many years ago but don't remember this bit at all.

[Gina]

Blandois gave it to her for safekeeping.

[Kelly]

I'm much later then anyone else on here, but I just watched all of little dorrit online and was so confused at the ending that I googled the plot explanation to understand the ending and why Arthur's grandpa or uncle in the book, would leave little Amy dorrit any money at all. Unless she was his grand-daughter or niece in the book, making her half sister to Arthur. I thought as a lot of people sis that Arthur n Amy had the same mom, but not giving birth so far apart as 20 years. Less, like 10 years maybe. So as many others were, I was confused as to how they could marry, after knowing all the truths of their lives. I know people used to marry their cousins or further distant relations (which is icky enough), but not half siblings I hope. I'm glad that this blog explains everything and that any and Arthur aren't related at all. But still end up wealthy, in spite of Mr.dorrit losing his fortune, and the house of clenham literally falling. I had wondered about the money left over that would've still gone to Arthur as Mr. Clenham's son. Now that someone said the 2nd twin flintwich stole it n ran off to Amsterdam, plus any burning the will of money left to her, her 2nd smaller fortune lost. But if the dorrit estate was still accumulating money wouldn't there be something left for her n siblings? I guess not if her dad was so foolish to move literally every type of funding they had to the merdles scam. I remember something the queen said in another favorite of mine. "The white queen" Did you really expect me to keep all my jewels in 1 basket? She was talking about both her son's the princes, not money. But the concept is the same. She had sense enough to remove 1 son n hide him away for safe keeping since she couldn't hide both. When people came to kill her son's, they got 1 Prince and an imposter. Mr. Dorrit should've done the same with his money. As they say, never put all your eggs in one basket. In case that basket falls, they all break. Sound advice in whatever you're trying to protect.

[Carl Wilson]

Since this is the book featured in this year’s Dickens Universe at the UC Santa Cruz, I have just finished reading it for the first time since the miniseries came out, and possibly for the first time in the eight or so readings actually understood what Dickens did regarding the codicil and all of the money issues. William, Fanny, and Tip all invested with Mr. Merdle, so they lost all of their money along with Arthur and what Pancks lost. That part was pretty easy. And Flintwinch ran off with as much money from Clennam & Co that he could get his hands on. What remains unclear is how Mrs. Clennam lived for three years after the collapse of the house, and what relationship Arthur and Amy had with her (we know they took care of Fanny’s children and Tip also until he died of dissipation). We must assume that she had little or no money left over, so that Arthur and Amy would live solely on the reasonable (perhaps even generous) income Arthur would earn in the future as part of Doyce & Clennam. There’s no getting around the issue of the codicil being crazy, or of Miss Wade hiring Rigaud to spy on the Gowans or many of Flora’s unexpected intrusions into the plot—they’re just nuts, but what are you going to do? Flora is simply one of Dickens’s best-ever creations, so no matter how she gets on stage, it’s worth it. I also love the miniseries in spite of some of its problems, primarily because Matthew Macfadyen, while not Dickens’s vision of Clennam, is dreamy. Now I have to rewatch the 1988 movie, particularly for the delightful portrayal of Flora by the formidable Miriam Margolyes.

[Sarah LaBelle]

Arthur's father married in some way not recognized by his uncle or the bride the uncle chose for his nephew. It could have been private vows, vows in a church that the strict sect did not recognize -- t did not matter, the uncle was controlling his nephew's life, and the nephew did not simply emigrate or do what his son finally did, separate himself from the family business. The marriage disliked by the uncle happened well before Arthur's father caved in to his uncle Gilbert's demands to marry a woman from that strict religious sect. The baby Arthur was already born! The uncle learned of the first wife and the baby only when he (uncle Gilbert Clennam) added a second bride to the scene. The uncle and the new wife were both cruel people. Why not let the nephew stay married to the wife of his choice? There would be no novel then; their rigidity in who rules the family is the start of the plot. The Mrs Clennam of the story is harsh and jealous, and claims it is all in her bible. Likely it is not there, it her jealousy and anger at being second choice and having no child that she carried that drives her. She will raise the child to make the mother of the child miserable. The uncle relented on his own harshness a few years later when he wrote the codicil to his will. The novel does not say exactly when that happened, the codicil, but it was kept secret by Mrs Clennam a long time. She never relented of her jealousy until she was being blackmailed, so she told the story to avoid the blackmail.

[Trish]

A Dickens blog - awesome!I would add to the discussion about the house becoming dilapidated\ collapsing. I took it to represent the life of lies Arthur's "mother" had built, and become a prisoner in. Her guilt, despite declaring she was right before God, left her paralyzed and her surroundings rotting from the moment the farce began. Dickens never let realism interfere with a message. When she accepted guilt, that world literally collapsed. I disagree with those who say she never repented but told the truth because too stubborn to be blackmailed. She had reached out to help Little Dorrit and knelt before her to ask forgiveness. Despite my love of Dickens, her dying and going to God redeemed rather than lingering on was a better ending.

[Laura]

Thanks for the explanation. I was Totally confused at the end of the mini series

[Gary Melton]

I'm surprised that all these posts refer to the 2008 PBS mini-series and none of them talk about the 1987 movie. In many ways, I preferred the movie to the mini-series: I like the castings much better and I liked the approach the movie took of telling the story twice, once from Arthur's viewpoint and then again from Amy's viewpoint. While the ending of the mini-series was much less confusing than the movie's (which really didn't explain ANYTHING), it was still confusing! I really appreciate the complete explanation here...I have seen the movie 3 times and the mini-series once and STILL didn't begin to understand the actual "secret". I must read the book one day!

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Thanks for commenting, Gary! As a matter of fact, I did review the 1987 movie -- but I'm afraid you may not like what I had to say:

http://dickensblog.typepad.com/dickensblog/2011/03/little-dorrit-1988.html

[Andi]

Thanks so much Gina for explaining the connection between the Clennams and the Dorrits. Love Andrew Davies' adaptations to bits but that was particularly badly handled. Also, just wanted to add for those who asked about whether 1000 guineas was a lot of money, yes it was. The book is written in the 1850s. If 1000 guineas=1050 pounds, in today's money, 1050 pounds would be more than 130,000 pounds. And money went a lot further back then as cost of living and income taxes were so much lower. A good nutshell of info on Victorian cost of living here: https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-victorian-middle-classes#