New-York tribune., 1881-03-23
THE LATE GEORGE ELIOT.

HER OWN VIEW OF HER SOCIAL POSITION.
LETTER FROM PROFESSOR LITTLE, OF DICKINSON
CoLLEGE-INNER LIFE OF THE GREAT NOVELIST.
To the EditOr of Ths TrfbWnG
SIR: Ever since George Eliot's death, and the
consequent discussion OF what Mr. Coyer vaguely but
deity the "shadow upon her later lfe, have
been hoping that somsone else might point out the
danger which lies in this constant reference to the ex
ceptonal life Of great genius, without once auding
to the aspect in which she herself regarded It,
George Eliot felt herself-rghtly wrongly is not
the quesOn-o be in every sense OF the word
the wife Of George n Lewes. In letter addressed TO
OF her orrespondents-publlshed few weeks ago
in THE TRIBUHE-she net only signed herself NJ Il.
Lewes, but twice referred to I" my husband" In the
text. She took precisely the view Of Mr. Lewes's
relation to his first wife that John Milton did of his re-
latlon Mary Powell when the latter had abandoned
him.
Both John Milton and George Eliot would have
scOrned the plea fooshy made for the latter that
genius Is excepted from ordinary moral law. When
Milton asked Miss Davis to live with him as Marian
Evans lived with George H. Lewes he put 1t upon the
ground that the law falling to make timely provision
must bear the censure Of the consequences" Had
George Eliot lived in the London OF the seventeenth
century, of that of the the great Pur
tan poet might have found soul, In more than one
sense followed with his own. But perhaps mott for
Mllton's case very mild compared with that
Rochester's dissoute. mad wife BY we'll
toned conhagratiOn; real life, however, is awkwardly
stubborn, and facts must be dealt with as We find
them Even so pure spirit ArchdeacOn Hare. In his
attempted VindcatiOn OF Luther aud Melanetnon Ior
their completely In the bgamOus marriage OF Fhp OF
mesS gavey arEIss .st a% Cy
then George Eiot-hOweVer much her cenduct
Is 10 be condemned Obiectively-is not 70
- accused Of deliberate and conscious rom ner
ideal by those who still pantaln lne etnleai erAh
of the Monk OF Wttenbeg and the Defender OF the
English Commonwealth.
Those who have studied with any care that powerful
vvisectOn of tho marriage relation, :, Middemarch
have been struck with its marked contrast 10
Geethe's Elective AiDitics" Divorce IL spontaneously
suggested in the latter as the natural @ soucon on
DOrohea and Lydgate both accept their 0t with
desperate resgnauon aud fulfil It, In spite OF nnch-
ing, TO the bitter end.
Now is everybody 80 sure that George II. Lewes was
such charming companion that no Dorothean heroisa
was required from his far superior wife . Did
fidelity to him exact no strain Are the stories
thoroughly authenticated, and little inconsistent
with her NATURAL recence. that the readers OF " ko-
mOla Z" Mddlemarch are never TO suspect, even
in Wow OF her marriage 20 Mr: cross, tnas
secret aud somewhat heavy chaint She clune
TO ber chosen life without murmilr, save
Her retcence IL now confirmed in everlasting silence:
As without authentic portrait OF ner outward
seeming So tOO We destitute alas OF any lfellke
picture OF her inward being Her secrets nave passed
disclosures to shame our human judgments INTO
confessed defOrmy. Hers not tho KIND OF nature
to defend itself IN Confessions" IKE ROlsseaus
or transhgured "reminiscences ike GOcthes Irutn anu
Poetry" She too just to her ellow-creatures 10
attempt Justify herself but this ber deliberate aDhe-
CATION OF defence hardly warrants us IN the nasty ner
cncc she condemned In her own eyes az utterly
"lapsed from her own IDEAL" G. j.
Carlisle, Penn. March 8. 1881.