Author: Stephanie Chatfield

  • “You Wouldn’t Hang a Stunner”: Rossetti and the Madeleine Smith Murder Trial

    “You Wouldn’t Hang a Stunner”: Rossetti and the Madeleine Smith Murder Trial

    Key Takeaways

    • Madeleine Smith stood trial in 1857 for the murder of her former lover, Pierre Emile L’Angelier, becoming a subject of public fascination.
    • The relationship between Madeleine and L’Angelier was secretive, with passionate letters that ultimately put her future at risk.
    • L’Angelier’s death from arsenic poisoning led investigators to Madeleine, who had previously purchased arsenic, making her a prime suspect.
    • Despite the scandal, the court ruled ‘not proven,’ and Madeleine continued her life, marrying George Wardle and later moving to New York.
    • The case reflects Victorian society’s obsession with crime and the complex interplay between beauty and morality, as illustrated by Rossetti’s remark on Madeleine.

    In 1857, a twenty-two-year-old woman stood trial in Glasgow for murdering her former lover, and Victorian Britain did what it does best: turned scandal into spectacle.

    Her name was Madeleine Smith, and she was not only accused; she was watched. Reported on. Speculated over. Consumed in newspapers the way we consume true-crime documentaries now, except with more soot, more sermons, and far fewer guardrails.

    And somewhere down in London, in the orbit of the Pre-Raphaelite circle, artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti heard about the case and delivered a remark so Rossettian it feels like a shard of his personality in a single line:

    “you wouldn’t hang a stunner!”
    (“Letters of D. G. Rossetti,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. 77)

    Rossetti used “stunner” often, his favorite shorthand for beauty with impact, beauty that almost feels like a force. But here, the word lands with a strange shiver. It’s funny in that appalling way men can be funny about women in danger. It’s a compliment that doubles as a verdict: she’s too beautiful for consequences.

    Which is, of course, its own kind of sentence.

    Madeleine Smith and the Secret Romance

    Madeleine was the daughter of an upper-middle-class family. Respectability was part of her furniture. Then she met Pierre Emile L’Angelier, a clerk at a shipping firm, who was low income, with uncertain prospects, and, crucially, not “acceptable.”

    So they did what so many people do when a relationship can’t survive daylight: they made it a secret.

    There were letters, of course. Dramatic, poetic, deeply Victorian love letters, full of the intensity that feels like forever right up until it doesn’t.

    Their relationship became sexual, and they wrote about it openly to each other. That detail matters, because it becomes the lever that could ruin her.

    Because once Madeleine’s feelings cooled and once her parents introduced her to William Minnoch, a suitable match in every social sense, L’Angelier suddenly held something dangerous:

    He had her words. In ink. In her handwriting.

    And he could use them to destroy her future.

    Madeleine Hamilton Smith
    Madeleine Hamilton Smith. Did she murder L’Angelier?

    Arsenic, the “Poison Book,” and a Trail in Plain Sight

    When L’Angelier died of arsenic poisoning, investigators found Madeleine’s letters among his possessions, and the case snapped into a shape that the public could follow with relish.

    There was also the practical horror of proof: it was established that Madeleine had purchased arsenic twice and signed the “Poison Book” at the time of purchase. An ordinary administrative detail that, in a sensational trial, becomes a spotlight.

    The press seized the story. In The Invention of Murder, Judith Flanders describes the appetite for this kind of coverage and the protective language used around “good families,” a tone that tries to maintain decorum while the public crowds in for a better view. (You can almost hear the polite panic in lines like, “We fervently trust that the cloud over her head… may be speedily removed.”)

    And the Pre-Raphaelite circle, so steeped in sympathetic Guineveres and Ophelias, so practiced at painting women as tragic and tender, followed too. It’s easy to imagine how Madeleine Smith might have been folded into their emotional imagination: a young woman “led astray,” cornered by the consequences of desire, punished by a society that loved to moralize after it had finished gawking.

    Hence Rossetti: too beautiful to hang.

    Ann Todd as Madeleine Smith
    Actress Ann Todd portrayed Madeleine Smith in the 1950 film ‘Madeleine’, directed by Todd’s husband David Lean.

    “Not Proven”

    In the end, the verdict was “not proven.” Madeleine was released.

    She left Glasgow. She did not marry Minnoch. Her life continued, but not as it had been. Notoriety has a way of becoming a shadow that follows you into every room.

    And here is the twist that feels almost designed for a Guggums post, one of those strange little stitches connecting art world circles to scandal-world headlines:

    In 1861, Madeleine married George Wardle, a manager at Morris & Co., a man Rossetti and his circle knew well. Rossetti later wrote a satire, The Death of Topsy, in which Madeleine poisons William Morris with coffee. (Victorian men had many ways of processing their anxieties; satire was one of their safer outlets.)

    Madeleine and Wardle separated in 1889. She later moved to New York, remarried (to William Sheehy), and lived until 1926, long enough for the scandal to fade into “story,” the way public hunger always eventually moves on to the next thing.

    She may never have known that a famous painter/poet weighed in on her fate with a breezy line about beauty and execution.

    Why the Victorians Couldn’t Look Away

    The Madeleine Smith trial sits inside a larger Victorian obsession: murder as mass entertainment.

    There was a market for souvenirs of hangings. People bought pieces of the execution rope. Penny publications, called penny bloods and penny dreadfuls, fed a public appetite for villainy, gore, and moral panic packaged as thrill.

    And that appetite didn’t vanish. It evolved.

    It helped build the runway for sensation fiction and the detective story, genres that still shape what we frequently watch and read today.

    The Mystery Lineage (and the Pre-Raphaelite Overlap)

    Victorian crime culture helped produce the fictional mysteries we now treat like comfort food… cozy, macabre, brainy, addictive.

    And in that lineage, you can find flickers of Pre-Raphaelite connection:

    • Wilkie Collins, friend to Millais, gave us The Woman in White and The Moonstone, stories full of identity, concealment, and dread disguised as domestic order.
    • Mary Elizabeth Braddon gave us Lady Audley’s Secret, a sensation novel with a deliciously painterly awareness of surfaces and the violence they can hide.
    • Sherlock Holmes became the enduring Victorian detective, endlessly reimagined, and Holmes’s world even brushes against the Pre-Raphaelite orbit through the shadowy figure of Charles Augustus Howell, often cited as a model for Doyle’s villain Charles Augustus Milverton.

    What I love about these overlaps is that they reveal something the Victorians understood instinctively: beauty and danger are not opposites. They are often co-conspirators. The prettiest room can hide the darkest story. The most “respectable” household can be the one that needs the most careful looking.

    What Rossetti’s “Stunner” Line Really Exposes

    On the surface, Rossetti’s quip is easy to repeat. It’s witty, scandalous, irresistibly quoteable.

    But underneath it, there’s an uncomfortable truth: Madeleine’s beauty became part of the public argument about what she deserved. As if appearance could cancel out culpability or amplify it.

    As if a face could be a defense.

    As if a woman’s fate could be weighed on a scale where one side is morality and the other is the aesthetic pleasure she provides.

    The Victorians loved to paint women as symbols. They also loved to punish them for being human.

    And Madeleine Smith, whatever the truth of what happened between her and L’Angelier, became a perfect vessel for that contradiction.

    She was a scandal.
    A story.
    A stunner.
    A warning.

    And, like so many women in Victorian culture, she became legible to the public in ways that may have had very little to do with who she actually was.

    Which is exactly why she still haunts the imagination.

  • Pre-Raphaelite: Not a Look, a Movement

    Pre-Raphaelite: Not a Look, a Movement

    Somewhere along the way, “Pre-Raphaelite” became shorthand for a look: abundant hair, pale skin, some moody greenery. A woman who seems to have wandered out of a medieval daydream and into your Pinterest feed.

    I understand the appeal, but when we reduce the Pre-Raphaelites to solely an aesthetic, or a vibe, we miss the thing that made their work so unnervingly alive.

    The Pre-Raphaelites weren’t a hairstyle. They were a worldview.

    Their work shows us that attention is a form of honesty. That to really look at the details of, say, at a leaf, a thread, a stone, a face, was a form of truth telling. They treated nature not as backdrop but as a living language. A river wasn’t scenery; it was fate. A flower wasn’t decoration; it was biography. Objects carried consequence. Rooms held secrets. The world itself seemed to press in with meaning.

    And they treated stories the same way.

    Mariana, Sir John Everett Millais
    Mariana, Sir John Everett Millais

    Myths, legends, Shakespeare, Arthurian romance, these weren’t merely escapism. They were serious material, charged with warnings and longings. Their paintings don’t merely “illustrate” a tale; they interrogate it. Who is being sanctified? Or being punished? Who is being turned into a symbol instead of allowed to be a person?

    That last question matters more than ever, because the visual internet trades in symbols. A tragic girl. The beautiful woman framed as a mood, “Opheliacore,” the languid gaze, the hair like a halo. The Pre-Raphaelites gave us many of those visual templates.

    They also, if we’re honest, helped build the cage: the idea that beauty is virtue, that suffering is poetic, that women look best when they are luminous and still. Just look at Millais’ Ophelia, or Waterhouse’s The Lady of Shalott. Women suspended in a moment of aestheticized tragedy, turned into icons of doomed grace. (See Pre-Raphaelite Women at The Victorian Web and the Pre-Raphaelite Collection at The Tate.)

    The Lady of Shalott, John William Waterhouse
    The Lady of Shalott, John William Waterhouse

    Which is why we shouldn’t throw the aesthetic away. We should wake it up.

    If we love Pre-Raphaelite beauty (and of course we do!) we can love it with our eyes open, looking past the hair and ask what the painting is teaching you about desire, virtue, power, punishment, and the cost of being seen. Let the art be both gorgeous and complicated. Roses with thorns.

    Because that’s the real inheritance.

    Not the curls.

    The way of seeing.

  • A Guggums Ghost Story: The Laugh in the Stairwell

    A Guggums Ghost Story: The Laugh in the Stairwell

    A flat in Blackfriars, a winter evening, and a sound you can’t quite place… A Light in the Stairwell begins in the sort of domestic quiet that usually feels safe. But this is a Guggums ghost story, where the hauntings don’t arrive as shrieks; they arrive as details: it could be a glow where no lamp has been lit, a pause between footsteps, or a familiar corridor that suddenly seems to have learned your name. Step in gently, keep your hand on the banister, and follow the light upward, because whatever waits on the landing wants to make you look.

    The Laugh in the Stairwell

    by Stephanie Chatfield

    At Chatham Place the river was never content to stay outside. It crept into the rooms the way damp does, quietly, without apology, so that even on Christmas Day the air smelled faintly of coal smoke and wet stone, and the windowpanes held a film you could not quite wipe away.

    Punch, curled like a small ember on the rug, lifted his head and growled at nothing. It was not his usual officious bark, the one he saved for footsteps and knocking and the insolence of deliveries. This was lower, and doubtful. Something in the room had shifted a fraction, and he had noticed.

    1854lizzie

    Lizzie glanced up from the mantel where she was attempting, without much success, to arrange a sprig of greenery so it looked intentional rather than desperate. “It’s only the house,” she said, half to Punch, half to herself. But the words landed oddly, as though the house had somehow been listening and found them amusing.

    Gabriel, of course, paid no attention. He was at his table, ink on his fingers, a half written line pinned beneath his hand like a captive moth. He had that expression he wore when he believed the world must yield to him if he stared hard enough. Lizzie watched him with a fondness, knowing his penchant for perfection.

    christmas holly

    There was a knock at the door. Quick, insistent, cheerful.

    “Now that,” Lizzie said, brightening, “is not a ghost.”

    Gabriel opened it to Algernon Charles Swinburne, who swept in like a gust of scandal, his coat flung wide, cheeks pink from cold and eyes alight with mischief. He brought with him, as he always did, a sense that the day might become an event rather than a collection of mundane moments.

    “My dear sinners,” he declared, kissing Lizzie’s hand with theatrical devotion, “I have come to rescue you from domestic virtue.”

    “I was just about to become virtuous,” Lizzie said gravely. “You’ve ruined everything.”

    Swinburne’s laugh was sharp and delighted. He adored Lizzie’s dry humor; he treated it as an intelligence test the world had failed but she had passed. Punch, usually suspicious, allowed Swinburne a brief sniff of approval, then with renewed uneasiness, continued watching the corner by the stair.

    tea cup

    They had tea that felt thin, because everything in London was thin in winter except the fog; and Swinburne told stories. He had a talent for making even ordinary incidents sound like conspiracies undertaken by the Fates. Lizzie laughed, really laughed, her shoulders loosening, her eyes brightening. Gabriel watched with an expression that was both proud and oddly anxious. Joy in her was something he wanted to protect.

    It was while Swinburne was in full flight, recounting some absurd scene in Paris, his hands conducting invisible music, that the sound came.

    A laugh.

    Not Swinburne’s. Not Lizzie’s or Gabriel’s.

    A woman’s laugh, low and intimate, the kind that belongs in a room among friends, not an empty stairwell.

    It rose from the narrow space behind them, the little passage by the steps, Thin, breathy, almost tender, and then stopped too neatly. It seemed that whoever laughed cut herself off the instant she remembered she was not meant to be heard.

    The teacup in Lizzie’s hand paused halfway to her lips.

    Swinburne, remarkably, fell silent.

    Punch stood. Every hair along his small spine lifted. He did not bark. He stared.

    Gabriel’s face tightened. “Did you…”

    Christmas holly

    “Yes,” Lizzie said, and set down her cup with exaggerated care. A careless clink felt suddenly, absurdly impolite. The house demanded manners in exchange for whatever it had chosen to reveal.

    Swinburne recovered first. “Well,” he said lightly, “if we are to be haunted, let it be by a woman who appreciates wit.”

    Against her better instincts, Lizzie chuckled.

    Another echo of a laugh, then, fainter and farther, a sound of someone attempting to imitate Lizzie and failing.

    Lizzie’s stomach went cold in a slow, steady way. It was not the laugh itself. It was the timing of it; the way it arrived on cue, the way the house waited for Lizzie to laugh first and then decided it could do it better.

    Gabriel stood, abruptly. “This is nonsense.”

    He strode to the stair, candle in hand. The flame made a faint halo in the passage. The stairs rose tight and steep, disappearing into shadow. Nothing moved.

    “Hello?” Swinburne called, his fear already turning into another story he could tell. “Madame Ghost, are you in need of tea or verse?”

    Punch darted forward and then stopped, rigid, at the base of the first step. He whined once, quiet and disbelieving. His whine made Lizzie’s skin prickle more than the laughter had.

    Because Punch, for all his foolish pomp, did not whine unless something in the room had become wrong.

    Lizzie rose and went to Gabriel, her hand closing on his sleeve. “Don’t,” she said softly.

    He looked at her, impatient. “It’s…”

    But he didn’t finish, because the laugh came again, close now, right beside them, so close it seemed to brush their ears. And this time it was unmistakably Lizzie’s laugh. The exact cadence of it. The same quick, delighted intake at the end.

    Lizzie felt as if the floor dropped slightly beneath her feet.

    Swinburne’s eyes widened. “That,” he said quietly, “is in devilishly bad taste.”

    Gabriel lifted the candle higher, furious, as if his anger might force the unseen to become visible. “Show yourself.”

    Mirror

    The candle flame wavered.

    In the little oval mirror nailed beside the stair, a cheap, practical thing Lizzie barely noticed day to day, its glass deepened for an instant, like dark water.

    And Lizzie saw, not a face, but a gesture.

    A pale hand at the edge of the frame, fingers curled as though holding the mirror from the other side.

    Not reaching out.

    Holding on.

    It was her own hand, Lizzie realized with a shock of recognition. The same long fingers, the same slight bend at the knuckle.

    Her hand, yet not her hand.

    It wanted to be her. Or had already decided it was.

    Lizzie stepped forward with a decisive manner that brought Gabriel to a standstill.

    She didn’t raise her voice or argue. Instead, she did the simplest, most domestic thing imaginable.

    She took a small cloth from the table, an ordinary cloth, stained with tea in one corner, and covered the mirror.

    The laughter ceased at once, as if the house had been cut off mid-performance.

    Punch released a single sharp, triumphant bark, and having proved his point, trotted back to the rug and sat down with dignity restored.

    Swinburne exhaled a laugh that was only half real. “My dear,” he said to Lizzie, “you are far more practical than any romantic heroine deserves to be!”

    “I’m tired of romance,” Lizzie said, and surprised herself with how true it was. “It always wants too much.”

    Gabriel stared at the covered mirror. “You can’t just… cover it.”

    “I can,” Lizzie said, and her voice carried a quiet edge that made even Swinburne look at her with something resembling respect. “Because it wants attention. It wants us to fuss and stare and invite it closer. And I won’t.”

    Swinburne’s wit cautiously resurfaced. “Then let us be dull,” he declared. “Let us be painfully alive and ordinary. Let us eat and drink and offend all spirits with our unpoetic domesticity.”

    Lizzie smiled. Gabriel, after a moment, did too, reluctantly, smiling being something of an awkward concession.

    They went back to the table. Tea was poured again. Swinburne began a new yarn on purpose, louder than before, filling the small rooms with human noise, partially illuminating the gloom.

    And once, only once, Lizzie thought she heard it again: the faintest echo of a laugh from the stairwell, not mocking now, but sulky, like a bitter guest turned away.

    She did not look.

    She kept her eyes on Punch, warm and solid on the rug. On Swinburne’s animated hands. On Gabriel’s eyes, softened by the sight of her smiling.

    Outside, the river moved on, indifferent. Inside, the house settled into its small, stubborn life.

    The cloth remained over the mirror.

    Yet, something lingered behind it, jealously listening to the spirited sounds of the living.

    christmas bow
  • Color Harmonies, Explained (With Rossetti as Our Mischievous Guide)

    Color Harmonies, Explained (With Rossetti as Our Mischievous Guide)

    Color harmony sounds like a polite term, as if it should wear a waistcoat and speak softly in a museum.

    But in practice, it’s closer to a well orchestrated conspiracy: colors making private agreements in the corner of a painting, deciding who gets to glow, who must recede, and who will quietly ruin the mood.

    To keep it simple: color harmony is the way colors relate to each other so the image feels unified, even when the scene is tense, eerie, or emotionally unsteady.

    Today we’ll use two Rossetti paintings as our case studies:

    • The First Madness of Ophelia a bright, jewel toned stage where color plays court politics.
    • How They Met Themselves  a dark forest where color whispers, doubles back, and does something unsettling behind your shoulder.

    The Four Harmonies You’ll Actually Use

    Analogous harmony (neighbors on the color wheel)

    Colors that sit beside each other: like green/blue/teal, or red/orange/gold.
    Effect: calm, cohesive, “all from the same world.”

    Complementary harmony (opposites)

    Colors across the wheel: like red/green or blue/orange.
    Effect: drama, vibration, attention. It’s the visual equivalent of someone saying, Excuse me? in a drawing room.

    Triadic harmony (three evenly spaced colors)

    Think red, blue, yellow (or versions of them).
    Effect: lively balance, storybook clarity, controlled energy.

    Tonal harmony (one family, many values)

    A limited palette with shifts in light/dark rather than hue.
    Effect: atmosphere, unity, mood, like fog in paint form.

    The First Madness of Ophelia: Harmony as Social Theater

    In The First Madness of Ophelia, Rossetti gives you a scene that feels decorative on first glance (gold, blue, red, green) until you notice how carefully the colors are arranged, like people placed at a dinner table to cause maximum tension without anyone “making a scene.”

    madness of ophelia
    The First Madness of Ophelia; Dante Gabriel Rossetti

    What you’re seeing, harmonically

    A blend of complementary and triadic harmony:

    • Blue (Ophelia’s dress) acts as the emotional anchor; cool, steady, and a bit removed.
    • Gold/orange (the background) presses forward, warming and enclosing her. It’s rich, theatrical, almost airless.
    • Red accents (in clothing and details) spike the whole arrangement with urgency.
    • Greens (notably in surrounding garments) act as a mediator. Earthy, tempering, but also quietly ominous.

    Why it works

    Rossetti is balancing hot vs. cool and stillness vs. flare:

    • Blue vs. gold is a classic complement (cool/warm opposition).
    • The red notes keep your eye moving like gossip traveling across a room.
    • The gold ground unifies everything, like varnish on a secret.


    This painting is what happens when Blue tries to remain composed at a party, Gold keeps leaning too close, and Red keeps interrupting with scandalous remarks. Meanwhile Green stands by the wall pretending to be helpful while taking notes.

    Takeaway you can use

    If you want a composition to feel coherent but tense, try this:

    • Choose one dominant color (Ophelia blue)
    • Surround it with its warm opposite (gold/orange)
    • Add tiny red “alarms” to direct attention

    How They Met Themselves: Harmony as a Trap

    This Rossetti painting is a very different creature: a forest scene, dim and enclosed, where figures double and the atmosphere feels like it’s holding its breath.

    Dgr Metthemselves
    How They Met Themselves, Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1864) Two lovers walk through a forest and encounter their own doppelgangers.

    What you’re seeing, harmonically

    Tonal harmony with a controlled red/green complement:

    • The whole painting lives in a restricted world of deep greens, browns, and black.
    • That limitation creates tonal unity, everything belongs to the same air, the same hour, the same moral weather.
    • Then Rossetti introduces red in small but strategic places (trim, details), and suddenly the image has a pulse.

    Why it works

    When you limit hue, value (light/dark) and temperature become the drama:

    • The forest is a single harmonic “key”, like a piece of music that refuses to modulate.
    • The figures feel caught inside it, because the palette doesn’t offer an escape route.
    • Red becomes the signal flare: not enough to brighten, just enough to warn.

    Perhaps this forest is not merely a forest. It is a well trained predator wearing green. The reds are its teeth, kept politely out of sight until you’re close enough to notice.

    Takeaway you can use

    If you want mood (and mild dread) in your own palette:

    • Keep most colors in one family (greens/browns)
    • Push contrast using light/dark values
    • Add a small complementary accent (a controlled red) to make the image feel “alive”

    A Simple Way to Spot Harmony in Any Painting

    1. What color dominates? (the “boss”)
    2. What color opposes it? (the “argument”)
    3. What color connects everything? (the “glue”, often golds, browns, grays, or repeated neutrals)

    In Ophelia, the glue is that golden atmosphere.
    In How They Met Themselves, the glue is the dark green/brown tonal world.

    Try This: Two Quick Color-Harmony Exercises

    Exercise A (Ophelia style)

    Pick:

    • 1 dominant cool (blue)
    • 1 enclosing warm (gold/orange)
    • 1 small alarm accent (red)

    Use it in a mood board, a room palette, a graphic… anything. Keep red small.

    Exercise B (Forest style)

    Pick:

    • 3 related darks (greens/browns/near-black)
    • 1 tiny opposite accent (red)

    Make the mood work by shifting light/dark, not adding more colors.

    Rossetti understood that harmony isn’t the same as happiness. Sometimes harmony is how a painting locks a feeling in place, beauty arranged so perfectly it becomes a kind of spell.

    And if you’re thinking, That’s dramatic for a color wheel, well… that’s exactly the point.