New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-01
GENIUS AND DOMESTIC LIFE.
VERY HAPPY OR vERY UNHAPPY PARIS.
From The London Spectator.

Mr.. Leslie stephen, In his lecture upon Coleridge,
delivered yesterday week at the Royal lrsiitntiOn
partly borrowed and parsy mdtilated the crltlciSm
which Mr.. Trail passed upon womens danger IN
choosing of genius as husbands Ia ms lttle st'dy
Of Cocridge published in Mr.. John Morleys seTies on
" English Men OF Letters Mrs. Carlyle" said Mr.
Trai has left record her pathetic lament over me
fate of woman who marries man OF genius: Dut
man of genius Of the coldy selfish and eXaclng type
Of the Chelsea philosopher would probably be less
than the weak unmehod rresoute, shiftless being
that Colerldge had by this time $500 become After
the arrival of the SOutheys, Mrs Coerdge would IN
deed, have been than human If She had not looked
with an envious eye upon the contrast between her
sister Edlth's lot and her For this would give
her the added pang OF pelceivng that she was specially
unucky in the matter, and that Of genius could
cf they chose she would probably, though not
quite justly, have put ~ make very good hnsbahds
indeed II one poet could finish his poems and pay
his ,radesmen's bills. and work steadily for the pub,
fishers In his house. without the necessity OF periodical
fittings various parts Of the United Kingdom or the
Continent, why could another" But Mr.. LesHe
stephen appears II we may trust THE Tlmes's' re-
port, to have adopted only that part OF this criticism
tic light have told his audience to regard this
as the moral Of Colerldges caretr-" Never marry a
man Of genius don't his brothern-law his pub
Usher, or his editor. anything that Is his" That
truly trsnscendrnal general cation from Coeridges
career, and we had always supposed tha' MT s,ePheh
ing that Mr. Trail had pointed ont the marriages
of two sisters with men Of genius produced so marked
q contrast Of results II think not quite reason
able in Mr. stephen to use the awful warning which
one of these marriages had furnished against choosing
to the example Of domestic happiness which the other
Of them had furnished. Indeed though IN MARRIAGES
with Of genius thsro IS always this for the
woman to consider that II the marriage Is not moro
than usually happy, IL Is more than probable thai "
WIN be more than usually unhappy yet s6e pTos I
pness far above the ought fairly to be taken
Into account balance the fear that may turn ont
Colcridges and Byrons marriages and Sheeys first
marriage certainly did turn out OF singular, II
not even calatnitous misery.
Men OF genius make either sngulariy good husbands
or husbands Of the most uncomfor able II not Of the
most disastrous kind. Scott, Southey and Wordsworth
evidently mado homes which regards the happiness
Of those who shared them were far fuller OF life and
fascination and delight than could have been extracted
from the experience OF a score OF average English
homes. But II IS OF course, equally true that Col
eridges marriage yielded real home for only about
six years out OF the thirtynne during which the poet
survived his marriage that Carlyles home OF
great and sometimes even )verwhe'm rg tr"Ghle
that Byron's was not homo at all. but source of
hoped 10 brighten n and that shelley was tho real
cause OF his first ws's suicide whatever excuses may
-Dlckenss marriage. for example. Is one In roInt-
II is clear that the genius OF the told
much against the happiness OF marriage al all events
with the particular wife chosen. Nor does II need any
particular discrimination 10 see that any quality not
purely Intellectual but full OF social consequences,
which separates man from all other men, must make
from the same relations Of ordinary men and change
those relations ether for good for evil Or, In some
cases. perhaps for both good and evil
But II Is obviously Just easy for man or woman
Of genius to have special genius for domestic ie as
II Is to have special genius for disturbing domeS &c
life Sir walter Scott for instance clearly bad what
may be called splendid genius for making his home
centre OF all kinds Of Interest and happiness and The
may be said In less degree OF the genius Of snch
men the American poet Longfeow or such women
as tho Swedish lady whose expression OF the highest
emotions through the medium OF music all EngliShmen
recognized and marveled at in Jenny Lind What Is
needfl. take ~. TO qualify unquesionable genius
for tho domestic sphere either It's combination with
very great magnanimlty and bonhomIe combined as
IN the case OF Sir Walter Scott. At the very least
moral elevation sufficient to control that sensitive
eeotism and self-wl which are so often and 80
naturally combined With genius and which. when not
so controlled almost to wreck domestic prsce
Genius In women. instead Of generating exacrng-
ness or multiplying The forms OF caprice has generally
rather zone to aid the self fo-getflness we'll 10
Increase the inslgh, which are for women al least,
the hest projections against s-ffwill and dctatOral
impulses snch rs stimulated the wayward lmpeiuous-
moss OF Shelley or the insane pride that utterly pos
sessed and degraded the carer ~ Byron pnt the
very fact that this Il shows most plainly that Mr.
Leslie Stephens maxim IS not founded anything
In the nature OF genius itself but solely he
Of special genius 10 stimulate m. sef-wiIl and
gance Of the more self wlled and arrogant Of he fwo
ssxes In all case wher~ genius Is ether command
ing % to BE- raised above egosn and vanity. % n
In Sir walter Scott or. again so fill Of prophetic
fire as to asy itself with the passion OF devotion. IL
evidently did, for instance In the ease OF The prophet
Ezekiel Instead Of spelling II has deepened and deep
ened nothing perhaps but this great gift could have
Asauanad tina fOrce OF domestic feeling