828
E4250
A51
1886
A 923,522

ARTES
31817
SCIENTIA
LIBRARY
VERITAS
OF THE
:
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
PLURIBUS UGUN
TUEBOR
SI QUÆRIS PENINSULAM:AMⱭNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
ī
32.8
4260
A 51
156
تعما
GEORGE ELIOT'S TWO MARRIAGES
GEORGE ELIOT'S TWO MARRIAGES
Two
AN ESSAY
BY
CHARLES GORDON AMES
It is better to stir a question without deciding it, than to decide it
without stirring it-Joubert
FOURTH EDITION REVISED
PHILADELPHIA
GEORGE H BUCHANAN AND COMPANY
1886
140
Copyright 1886 by
GEORGE H BUCHANAN AND COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA
828
E 4250
A 51
1886
پیتے
کمبو
?
GEORGE ELIOT'S TWO MARRIAGES
THE reputation of George Eliot has become pre-
cious. The general suffrage gives her a foremost
place among those writers of the second class who
address a far wider audience than the austere few
of the first class; and the kind of service she
has rendered already secures for her the seat she
coveted in
"The choir invisible
Of those immortal dead who live again
In minds made better by their presence."
For many of us the revelations of her inner life
made in the Letters recently published have in-
creased the sense of personal endearment, as if she
were one of our great ascended friends. This feel-
ing may operate as a bias to disqualify us for an
impartial judgment of her merits as a woman.
the questions raised by her two marriages, and
especially by the first, no longer concern her so
much as they concern modern society and the moral
health of the race. There is no more exact measure
But
6
George Eliot's Two Marriages
of human progress than the growth of delicacy
between men and women, and of purity and con-
stancy in their domestic relations.
One who is duly mindful of the sanctity of the
family would be obliged to say, that if George Eliot
had willingly violated that sanctity by a loose exam-
ple, this one fact would not only blast her reputation
as a woman, but would do vastly more harm than
all the wisdom and power of her genius as an author
could do good.
It would still be true that her writings should be
judged by their merits. Much excellent literary
work has been done by men who were not noble
nor pure; Seneca put better morals into his writings
than into his life. Rousseau was not clean; even
Dr. Johnson felt obliged to say, "I have written
well, but, ah, I have not lived well." Nobody ques-
tions the superiority of Raphael's pictures on account
of the stories that are told to his discredit. And if
we were obliged to read Marian Evans out of good
society, it would still be true that George Eliot's
books have adorned and enriched the 19th century.
But it shocks our moral sense to know that a
favorite author is wanting in personal rectitude; we
are obliged to forget him in order to enjoy his works.
We would gladly require of a writer just what we
have a right to require of a preacher :—that he be
as good as his word. It is well to require it, even
if the requisition is not always honored.
George Eliot's Two Marriages
7
Mr. Cross' Life of George Eliot gives the impres-
sion of one who, despite some weaknesses, was
greater as a woman than as an author. She has
created no character in fiction equal to this uncon-
scious portraiture of herself. While her relations
to Mr. Lewes are certainly open to question, it
would be a relief to many minds if this passage in
her history could truly be presented in such a light
as to clear our estimate of her womanhood from
misgivings; for all noble reputations are historic
treasures. It can never be so important to vindicate
a person as to clear up and establish a principle of
right. The main object of this paper, however, is
to consider whether this admitted irregularity of her
marriage should seriously impair our respect for
her character.
In 1854, Marian Evans, then in her 36th year, and
afterwards known in literature as George Eliot,
united her life with that of George Henry Lewes,
and this union continued for twenty-four years, till
his death in 1878. Their acquaintance began in
those common literary pursuits to which their joint
existence was afterwards devoted.
Were they married? They had no doubt of it;
for nearly a quarter of a century they lived together
in rare harmony, happiness, and helpfulness, though
shadowed by the sense of something like a social
tragedy. There was no formal wedding, no religious
or civil ceremony, no legal record or recognition.
8
George Eliot's Two Marriages
со
There could be none; for, in law, Mr. Lewes was
still the husband of another woman.
On some bearings of the case, in the absence of
anything like a legal or other inquiry, in the absence
of sifted and recorded evidence, it is not possible to
pronounce a confident judgment. No friend of the
first Mrs. Lewes appears in her vindication; and
Mr. Lewes preserved a prudent silence concerning
her conduct and his own; he may have been glad to
escape the scandal of a case in court for reasons
generous or selfish. We are relieved from the sad
confidences of both parties; yet rumors have survived.
So far as it can now be made out, the situation
was something like this: Mr. Lewes had married
early. An experiment in co-operative housekeeping
exposed both husband and wife to unusual tempta-
tions. She consorted with another man; he forgave
her and took her back; and when she repeated the
offence and left him finally and forever, and left also
their three children to his sole care, he had no legal
remedy. His condonation of her first offence worked
a forfeiture of his right of divorce for the second;
thus does the law punish the husband's magnanim-
ity!* It is also said that his wife's conduct was
*This statement is discredited by an American lawyer. But the
main fact remains, that a legal remedy was entirely beyond the reach
of Mr. Lewes. Thirty years ago, divorce could only be procured by
special act of Parliament, with preliminary proceedings which some-
times cost $10,000 in fees.
((
George Eliot's Two Marriages
9
not without his permission and sympathetic sanc-
tion," and that the whole story was known to
Marian Evans. This statement is extremely im-
probable, and the witness is an anonymous writer in
Temple Bar,* who discloses a malignant animus. It
is not so easy to discredit the uncontradicted reports
which make Mr. Lewes a London Bohemian of
doubtful precedents, and of no secure social standing.
He was a man of unattractive appearance, but with
wonderful eyes, and brilliant social powers. He had
also gained a fair literary reputation, was known as
the author of a four-volumed Biographical History
of Philosophy, and had now become the editor of
the Leader. Miss Evans saw in him what he after-
wards proved to be a strong and clear-minded
man, a serious student, whose affinities and aspira-
tions drew him toward higher levels. When their
acquaintance began, she was managing editor of the
Westminster Review, the organ of radical thinking, to
which he was an acceptable contributor. In respect
to religious and social traditions, they had both
reached conclusions which placed them in a minority
of the minority. She saw in him a wronged and
wifeless man, with unmothered children; she pitied
his deep, personal misery, while she respected his
manhood; respect and pity ripened into love-a true
and deathless passion; and, with her eyes wide open
* Anonymity is not here mentioned reproachfully. None of the
articles in Temple Bar are signed.
DorM
ΙΟ
George Eliot's Two Marriages
to the situation, she became his wife, the woman to
whom he was legally bound still living. Was it
right? The question itself is less simple than it
appears the answer may be a qualified one. We
shall at least educate our judgment a little by prac-
tice on a complication of facts.
Such a case brings into sharp contrast the various
theories of divorce:
1. The Roman Catholic theory, which forbids
divorce altogether, except in rare cases, and under
papal dispensation. Ever since the Council of Trent,
which was dominated by extreme sacramental ten-
dencies, the Church has held marriage indissoluble
except by death. Separation is permitted; but not
even the innocent party may marry again. This view
is not confined to Catholics. Frederic Harrison, the
champion of Positivism and Agnosticism, and the
personal friend of George Eliot and of Mr. Lewes, is
the stout advocate of the indissolubility of marriage,
even by death itself. Many accredited moralists hold
that the only way to dignify the marital relation and
to prevent hasty engagements, is by laying down
the principle that there shall be no absolute divorce;
i.c. no remarriage while both parties live.
2. The prevailing Protestant theory, resting on a
construction of the teaching of Jesus, (Matt. xix : 9,)
denies divorce, except for the single cause of sexual
infidelity. The English law, like that of New York,
permits divorce only for this offence; and if the
George Eliot's Two Marriages
I I
wife be the petitioner, she must also prove cruelty
or desertion.
3. A third theory affirms that marriage is nulli-
fied and divorce justifiable whenever either party has
committed a fatal breach of the contract. While
unfair constructions of this theory have opened the
door to dangerous laxity, its advocates hold it clearly
defensible on grounds of public welfare, of private
right, and of the highest morality.
The civil law, in recognizing and protecting mar-
riage, acts as the guardian of social order and of the
personal rights of husbands, wives, and children.
Its function is chiefly to define and declare. It can
declare the validity or invalidity of marriage, but can
do nothing to give it vitality. Least of all can it
restore to life a marriage which is dead. Divorce,
as an easy off-hand way of settling cases of ordinary
infelicity, is justly deprecated; yet it is the natural
and proper corrective of extreme evils which can
be reached by no other remedy. Laxity of marriage
is the real evil, originating in the frivolity of the
times and the superficial quality of our civilization.
So long as these extreme and ghastly cases, of
false and unreal marriages are frequent, separations
will be frequent; and if the law should refuse to
release such wretched couples by divorce, there is
a high degree of probability that something worse
than orderly remarriage will be very common. If
there was divine wisdom in the Mosaic legislation,
12
George Eliot's Two Marriages
which accommodated itself to the actual condition
of a semi-barbarous people, because of the hard-
ness of their hearts, may not the same wisdom still
frame laws suited to the imperfect condition of
humanity? Not the less, but all the more, should
the lovers of purity toil and pray for the redemption
of the race from all this profanation.
As guardian of the sanctities, religion speaks :
"What God hath joined together let not man put
asunder." But what of those whom God hath not
joined? or those from whose nominal union every
divine element has vanished? May it not be profane
to hold Heaven responsible for false, foul, unreal or
disorderly relations between men and women, inside
of marriage as well as outside? Not for light rea-
sons-not in haste even for heavy reasons—may
society consent to the destruction of a household
once formed; but there may be cases where it is a
sad wrong not to decree the separation which, for
sufficient reasons, has already accomplished itself.
Why not deal frankly and fairly with those condi-
tions which are just as fatal to marriage as death
itself, and hardly less repulsive than binding the
living to the dead?
The law of reason and right is not always hon-
ored by our harsh and arbitrary constructions; and
a false austerity is often the parent of laxity. Jesus
condemns the man who puts away his wife and
marries another; but this language does not describe
George Eliot's Two Marriages
13
the case where the woman withdraws herself, repu-
diates her vows and forms other relations. It does
not appear that the early Christians gave an ascetic
construction to their Master's teaching. If the
heathen spouse chooses to depart, says Paul, "a
brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases;'
but the believer who took the initiative in departing
was enjoined not to marry again. It is on this point
of marrying again that the main difficulty arises.
""
To understand and feel the profound shock given
to the moral sensibilities of the better classes in
England, by Marian Evans's non-legal relations
with Mr. Lewes, we must remember that for a thous-
and years the whole nation has been grounded,
schooled and trained not only in the Christian theory
that marriage is sacred, "for better, for worse,” but
also in the practice of that theory under religious
and legal sanctions. Nearly everybody has come
to think of the prescribed artificial formality as vital
to the relation; and who but the most reckless radi-
cal could dream of its dissolution being valid without
the law's consent?
For a time the Society of Friends was exposed to
cruel misunderstanding and persecution by its reso-
lute refusal to recognize the service of a minister or
magistrate. English opinion said that the union of
hearts, hands and destinies does not constitute mar-
riage; the Church and State must constitute it; and
what the Church has blessed and the State has
14
George Eliot's Two Marriages
recognized is marriage, whether there is a union of
hearts or not. When the Friends were relieved from
embarrassment by an act of Parliament, the prece-
dent was established that any scrupulous man or
woman, who have a right to each other, may marry
themselves. But no act of Parliament has ever
given to married people the right to unmarry. The
power of divorce rests alone with public authority.
An acute moralist might press this awkward ques-
tion: If the law of nature is sufficient for marrying,
why is it insufficient for divorce? But here come
in broad considerations of public order-the safe-
guards of the family, the rights of children-which
the acute moralist may not always weigh.
I only pause now to say, that questions of legislative
policy are not always questions of exact right; they
have two sides, and are always open to argument.
Mr. Hutton, an able and reputable English writer,
in an article on "George Eliot," pronounces her
union with Mr. Lewes "a grave step downward;
* * *
a breach with a moral law which the great
majority of men hold to be the essence of social
purity." Clearly it was a breach of the civil law;
but to make it also a breach of the moral law, must
we not convict the parties of something like wrong-
ful intent? What if on their part and in their own
minds it was simply a refusal to identify the moral
law with the law of Parliament? What if they
simply meant to affirm that where the fact of sep-
George Eliot's Two Marriages
15
aration is fully accomplished, the decree of separation,
however desirable, is not vital? Such a position
may not be tenable, but it is at least intelligible, and
might be held and acted on in perfect good faith.
If the general reason and conscience should ratify
the judgment of Mr. Hutton, a dark stain and shadow
must rest on the name of George Eliot. But let us
look at her conduct from all its human sides. Whom
did she wrong by taking Mr. Lewes to be her
husband?
Was any wrong done to the former wife? If the
facts are correctly given, she had no just claim to
wifehood, no moral right to it, and probably not the
faintest wish for it. It was all the same as if she had
been dead.
Was wrong done to this woman's children? The
three boys were motherless. George Eliot became
their mother in the deep, true sense. She
She gave them
her love and won theirs. She earned money for
their education, helped to bring them up in wisdom
and virtue, watched tenderly over Thornton's dying
pillow, had the satisfaction of seeing Charles become
an honorable scholar and husband and father, treated
him as a son in the final disposition of her property,
and was by him given in marriage to Mr. Cross, her
second husband.
Did she wrong Mr. Lewes? His love for her with
her love for him was like a spiritual rescue; it saved
him from misery and despair. In 1859 he wrote of
16
George Eliot's Two Marriages
his debt to Herbert Spencer: "It was through him
that I learned to know Marian-to know her was to
love her—and since then my life has been a new
birth. To her I owe all my prosperity and all my
happiness." Through their whole life together his
devotion was that of a lover. In all matters he was
her judicious counsellor and glad servant, and under
her encouragement, his own faculties as a student
rallied from depression and became powerfully
creative. He took a leading part in scientific
research and philosophic discussion; and reached
the high honor of being named in connection with
the Rectorship of the University of St. Andrews.
Did she wrong herself? The quickening effect of
her marriage on her spirits, character, and genius, is
among the beautiful marvels of soul-history. To
say that it made her happy would be no adequate
justification. There is a kind of happiness which
dishonors and degrades—the happiness of those
who love “downwards and not up." But it would
confound all our notions of moral order to discover
a single instance in which a false and debasing
marriage became the means of spiritual enrichment,
mental elevation, and enlargement of character.
If her own testimony may be accepted, her mar-
riage was like the coming of the summer's sun to all
her faculties. I will recite the inscriptions placed by
her own hand on the manuscripts of her successive
books, for they have a kind of monumental interest:
George Eliot's Two Marriages
17
Adam Bede: "To my dear Husband, George Henry
Lewes, I give this MS. of a work which would never have
been written but for the happiness which his love has con-
ferred on my life."
Mill on the Floss: "To my beloved Husband, George
Henry Lewes, I give this MS. of my third book, written in
this sixth year of our life together, at Holly Lodge, South
Field, Wandsworth, and finished 21st March, 1860.”
Romola: “To the Husband whose perfect love has been
the best source of her insight and strength, this MS. is given
by his devoted wife, the writer."
Spanish Gypsy: "To my dear-every day dearer-Hus-
band."
Middlemarch: "To my dear Husband, George Henry
Lewes, in this 19th year of our blessed union.”
Daniel Deronda: "To my dear Husband, George Henry
Lewes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
*
To her friend Barbara Bodichon-the only per-
son who penetrated the disguise of her anonymity—
she wrote in happy freedom about the encouragement
her husband had given to her earliest attempts at
fiction, and how he laughed and cried and rushed to
kiss her as she read to him from the manuscript.
“He is the prime blessing that has made all the rest
possible to me, giving me a response to everything
I have written *** a proof that I had not mis-
taken my work."
But for the powerful inspiration for good which
came into her life from her marriage, it is extremely
18
George Eliot's Two Marriages
doubtful whether George Eliot would ever have
found her true self; whether her genius would ever
have come to flower and fruit; whether we should
ever have heard of her as woman or author. Could
this inspiration for good have been the outcome of
conscious, willful sin?
((
The writer in Temple Bar is very prompt to
recognize and emphasize this dependence of George
Eliot's mind upon the support and stimulant of love
and sympathy. He finds in it a proof that she had
no strength of character; like other women, she
lacked originality or initiating power. He allows
that she had a great mind, "a superb intelligence,"
and characterizes her earlier books as shining
mountains;" but in what he calls the "meagre and
dreary" volumes of her Life and Letters, he sees
few signs of moral nobleness. She is greedy of
money, morbidly anxious for praise and fame, selfishly
"jealous and dependent." Her temporary refusal
to go to church is her " only recorded act of aggres-
sive conscientiousness;" her part in society is that
of a poseuse, posing for qualities which have no real
root in her character; in short, a much overrated
person, tricked out and presented to the public with
quite artificial glories by her two husbands.
Mr, Lewes is described as a resolute and success-
ful adventurer, who made a good "job" of his life,
and profited to the utmost in a worldly way by his
partnership with this intellectual prodigy, for whose
George Eliot's Two Marriages
19
Her
sake he suppressed himself, the more willingly be-
cause her productions proved marketable. George
Eliot's career is thus explained as a rare run of
fortune, rather than as a triumph of merit.
union with Mr. Lewes is made to appear as a common-
place falling in love of two persons who could not
marry, and so chose to live in chronic adultery.
They ran no great social risks, as she had no
reputation to speak of, and his was already lost.
This writer concludes by intimating that he could
tell a great deal more if he cared to, but the true
"story will never be known, for those who could
tell the truth will be silent, and those who do not
know it would not believe it, if told." Just how
much credit ought we to give to an unknown
witness who deals in insinuations, and who seems.
never to allow a worthy motive, if he can invent an
unworthy one? If, as he says, England was full of
gossips, who manufactured unreal glory for George
Eliot and made an idol of her, may there not have
been other busybodies who took delight in circu-
lating detractions and nasty lies? Such things
have been known.
A few scanty hints are enough to show that
George Eliot's irregular and informal marriage cost
her much mental suffering, despite its happy results.
She made no outcry; but in some of her letters are
allusions which let us know that she felt the hurt
of being cut and condemned by many former
20
George Eliot's Two Marriages
friends. She carried herself with quiet dignity; she
blamed no one for blaming her; but she was careful
to invite none to her house unless they first sought
the invitation; and once she draws aside the domes-
tic curtain far enough to let us know that her husband
and herself were tempted to declare they would
never have any more friends, only acquaintances.”
That stateliness of manner which was so impressive
to her company may have been due in part to an
under-consciousness that her position was ques-
tioned.
But she was too much absorbed in work to waste
time or strength in painful broodings. Besides, her
marriage was its own protection; she rested in the
love which surrounded her like an atmosphere; she
found in her husband a constant support and incite-
ment, a near and trusted counsellor, capable of clear
insight as well as of close sympathy; and this support
became more and more necessary to her life, as one
after another she brought forth her books with
anguish of travail, almost swooning with exhaustion
and ever falling into doubt and despair of doing
anything more. From childhood, she had dwelt
apart, solitary in society, her aspirations crippled by
self-distrust, yet craving and giving no end of love.
This profound reserve and withdrawal may help to
explain her non-conformity. She was not lawless,
but more than most women she lived out of the
reach of conventional influences and standards. She
George Eliot's Two Marriages
2I
could not hold the traditional theories of marriage
any more than of religion. But her non-conformity
did not spring from lawlessness, caprice or willful-
ness, much less from lower impulses. Her whole life
and character, every sign and trace found in her
letters and private journal, testify that she was
superior to any loose or base action. The Edinburg
Review which reprobates her marriage, yet says:
"She was a high-minded woman, with whom no
thought or inclination that was less than pure had
ever been connected. It is impossible but that she
must have thought over, and somehow justified to
herself, the tremendous step she took." Certainly
she counted the cost. She writes to Mrs. Bray :
"From the majority of persons, of course we never
looked for anything but condemnation.”
Her own theory of marriage itself-legalities
aside—was so lofty and spiritual that on this subject
she has become one of the teachers of mankind.
Even the cynic of Temple Bar says, “She wrote the
most eloquent defence of marriage in our language,
and vaunted its sacredness and quasi-indissolubility
in terms which would have satisfied a Roman
Catholic." She was shocked and disgusted at the
publication of the Byron scandal because of its
probable effect on the minds of the young. Indeed
her views of all human relations were of the most
exalted kind. She exacted of herself the most
rigid fidelity to the highest standard; rather, she did
22
George Eliot's Two Marriages
not need to exact it; her natural tastes and tenden-
cies made it easy.
We are told that in a class of cases, we must
judge the action by what we know of the man, and
not the man by a doubtful action. We must say of
George Eliot's marriage that no portion of her life.
was more completely justified to herself, or more
honorably carried out, or more blessed in its results
to herself and others. Whatever judgment we may
feel obliged to pass on the wisdom or the rightful-
ness of such marriages generally, we must, in this
matter, acquit George Eliot, entirely and uncon-
ditionally, of all wrong in her guiding principles,
her motive, her spirit. She regarded the former
marriage as dead, yet forbidden by law to be
declared dead. All the facts go to show that she
stepped into the empty place of wife and mother in
perfect good faith, from the most honorable prompt-
ings of her heart, and with the entire approval of
her reason. Why cannot Mr. Hutton have the
fairness to allow so much, even if he thinks she was
mistaken in her judgment? He does allow that both
before and after taking this "grave step downward”
there was no appearance of deterioration in her
character; and it is a remarkable fact that while at
the time most of her early friends fell away, her
home gradually became the centre and frequent
resort of many of the foremost representatives of
English culture, and that she and her husband were.
George Eliot's Two Marriages
23
honored with the friendship of Tennyson, Lytton,
Herbert Spencer, and many others of the highest
social standing. The writer in Temple Bar seems
annoyed that while "living thus [in adultery] she
was courted by the chief and most responsible men
of the time, and by the best and most strait-laced
women." He says they tried to make themselves
believe all sorts of myths, as fig-leaves to cover her
shame or disguise the real situation. But the more
generous view is the more just. This resorting to
her of the best people does not imply that they
acquitted her of indiscretion, but it does imply that
they acquitted her of intentional wrong; they did
not look on her as a dishonored or dishonorable
woman, or they would have shunned her house.
Mr. Harrison, for many years the intimate friend of
both, says:
He was a witness of the unbroken
happiness of their joint life, of their affectionate
performance of every domestic duty; of their
scrupulous observance of all that they recognized
as belonging to a pure and refined home." Yet he
deeply regrets that they could not pledge their lives
with his "to fortifying in every way the marriage
bond and making it indissoluble by law, indissoluble
even by death.”
We have yet to seek an answer for this most seri-
ous question: Did she wrong society by her irregu-
lar marriage? Some would reply: "No; society
wronged her and her husband by the tyrannical law
24
George Eliot's Two Marriages
against which their marriage was a costly protest."
But this may be a too hasty foreclosure. In the
tangle of human affairs, there is sometimes an ap-
parent contradiction between private and public
right. An act which springs from the best motives
and which is wholly approved as seen from within
and from the actor's point of view, may yet be in-
jurious to public interests, and therefore unsafe as a
precedent. Even if we may allow that strong-
winged and clear-seeing spirits can rise above con-
ventionalities and strike out clean, wide paths
through purer spaces, we must not forget that the
whole movement of human society is on lower levels
and along crowded ways, where the rule of the road,
"Keep to the right," though arbitrary, is necessary.
Every exceptional instance becomes an educator
to our moral sense, our discriminating faculty.
George Eliot excused those who blamed her, be-
cause she knew "how subtle and complex are the
influences which mould opinion." Perhaps she may
have need of the same just charity for herself.
The world was shocked by the execution of “old
John Brown." Why shocked? Had he not vio-
lated the laws of the land, dipped his hands in blood,
and forfeited his life? Yes; yet everybody was
obliged to look behind his act to the motive. The
worst that could be said was, that he was wrong-
headed, deluded to the over-doing of his duty.
Everybody saw that he was right-hearted, and that
George Eliot's Two Marriages
25
the act which was outwardly illegal was inwardly
humane and glorious. History is full of these con-
tradictions.
We must look at an act both from its inside and
its outside. We have looked at George Eliot's mar-
riage from its inside, and have found it sweet and
pure, so far as the facts are disclosed to us; we have
found it an ideal and idyllic union in its honorable
love, its spiritual clasp, its mutual satisfactions, its
inspiring power to qualify both parties for helpful-
ness to each other and to mankind. When we come
to look at it from the outside, it appears lawless and
disorderly, wrong in form and socially unfortunate.
It can never be justified on public grounds nor ap-
pealed to as a wise and safe precedent. Every simi-
lar case must be challenged precisely as if this case
had never occurred. Without staying to vindicate
or examine the local law of England, we must say
for marriage laws in general, that society can never
with safety consent to the removal or disregard of
those barriers which were erected because they were
necessary, as they still are, to resist the ever-rising
flood of disorders and corruptions.
If we allow that there is need of law at all to
define, regulate and protect marriage, we must also
allow that the law must express the existing and
prevailing convictions of society in any given coun-
try; and, while it is the right and duty of every man
and woman to agitate for the improvement of the
Dor M
26
George Eliot's Two Marriages
laws, only a case of extreme hardship and injustice
can justify a citizen in violating them. No thought-
ful person will say that the essence of marriage con-
sists in its legalization: every thoughtful person
must say that each instance of non-legal marriage,
like each instance of illegitimate parentage, tends to
disintegration and demoralization.
I cannot suppose that the discredit under which
George Eliot was placed in the minds of her friends
was due altogether to cowardice, or to mere tradi-
tional conformity. It sprang from a true instinct,
which is the product of many ages of moral culture.
In resigning herself to their censure, she acted so
far in the spirit of Socrates, who, though conscious.
of innocence, yet honored the court which con-
demned him to die for violating the laws of Athens.
Looked at externally, George Eliot's marriage
wore an ambiguous look which she must have deeply
regretted. It invited criticism; it exposed her to
unpleasant remark; it might be quoted by men and
women of loose principles as a sort of justification.
Why may not any man live with any woman who
consents, regardless of legal forms? To a class of
minds, even the beauty and happiness of George
Eliot's marriage supplies a plausible weapon for at-
tacking the safeguard which law has thrown around
a hundred million households. This very class, too,
has most need of the restraint of the law which she
defied.
George Eliot's Two Marriages
27
No one of us—no two of us—can have a right to
set up a world of our own and legislate privately for
our own lives, so long as we are dwelling in the com-
munity. We ought not to wish to escape from the
wholesome restraint which comes from the eyes and
the criticism of our fellows; we ought gladly to en-
large and enlighten our private judgment by the
breadth and radiance of the common mind, and cer-
tainly we are bound to adjust our relations and regu-
late our conduct in conformity with principles which
will promote the common weal.
To what conclusion does this inquiry conduct us?
What verdict does the preponderance of evidence
warrant? Where does it leave George Eliot and
her reputation? It leaves her womanly purity and
honor unstained and bright. It condemns her act
as inconsistent with the welfare of society. It ac-
quits her as we acquit Stonewall Jackson-a true
patriot from the stand-point of Virginia and of his
own conscience-a traitor for taking up arms against
his country. The country honors his character
while it condemns his act.
In one respect, George Eliot's marriage, like
Stonewall Jackson's military career, gives me un-
mixed satisfaction. It was a rare display of self-
possession and soul-courage. Having taken her
resolution deliberately, she stood by it and faced the
painful consequences without whimpering.
carried herself through the days of trial, as through
She
28
George Eliot's Two Marriages
the years of exhausting toil, with dignity, as if hid-
den in some secret pavilion from the strife of
tongues. Even an ignoble deed sometimes acquires
a certain lustre from its display of masterfulness.
Robert Browning has taught us that even in going
the wrong road we may as well set the foot down
firmly. All character collapses from doing things.
by the halves.
"The sin I impute to each frustrate ghost
Is the unlit lamp, and the ungirt loin.”
If one will live by the inward law, it will not do to
heed the popular noises. As we honor John Brown
for daring to throw himself against the citadel of
slavery, though in a Quixotic passion of humanity,
so may we honor George Eliot for her courageous
fidelity to her bosom counsel. High and holy in-
spirations may be quite independent of the correct-
ness of our judgment; and right in the midst of
disorderly conditions there may work a cosmic
principle, a redeeming power of good. There is one
rule to which we need make no exception: Having
chosen our path in the clearest light that is given,
let us travel it to the end, regardless of clamor.
Serenity and safety and success are only to be found
in minding our own business.
George Eliot's Two Marriages
29
What a curious questioning feeling people have
about second marriages! And the feeling increases
directly and with rapid intensity as marriages multi-
ply. A western widower was condoled with by his
neighbor on this wise: "I know what affliction
I am living with my fifth wife." And the
lone windower's face lighted up with a smile. A
New England woman expressed her indignation be-
cause the widow So-and-so was about to be mar-
ried a third time. "But," said her friend, “if your
house burns down, wouldn't you build another?"
means.
May-be I should," was the reply, "but if I'd been
burned out twice, I should think 'twas time to go
to boarding.'
A second marriage is sometimes justified by the
failure of the first. Oftener it is a strong testimony
to the happiness of the first. The survivor finds life
empty and desolate till the affections clasp another
object. George Eliot's marriage with Mr. Cross was
of this kind. It produced a revulsion of feeling at
the time among people who knew nothing about it,
but who were no less ready with their opinions and
guesses. Probably many of her friends were dis-
turbed, since Mr. Cross was not known and it
was feared that she had taken up with an inferior
person. In some ways he was not her equal; but
the wisdom and good taste he has shown as her
biographer have raised him to eminent favor.
appears as a gentleman in all the best senses.
He
His
30
George Eliot's Two Marriages
treatment of dead and living has been delicate and
magnanimous.
He was no new or hasty comer into George
Eliot's regards, and there was nothing frivolous in
their relations. She had known him for ten years;
there had been a pleasant intimacy between the
families, and they had been drawn closer by com-
mon trials, sickness and death. The man who had
been a trusted friend of her husband and herself, and
who had interested himself in their business affairs,
rendered kindly and generous service in her day of
dire weakness and need, when she felt herself "a
bruised creature, shrinking from the tenderest
touch," and his companionship and support became.
more and more necessary. The presence of this
strong man seemed to take out the numbness of her
pain and partially restore her lost life. She believed
in human guardian angels and needed them. He
was completely engrossed; she sufficiently interested
to find his companionship restful, healing, strength-
ening, restorative. She seems to have been sur-
prised at the renewal of her own life, "the re-open-
ing of the fountain of affection "-for she had almost
entered the grave with her husband. She was not
fickle to the old love; she confessed that "deep
down below there was a hidden river of sadness."
But she said, “I shall be a better, more loving crea-
ture than I could in solitude." To Charles Lewes
she wrote, "I was getting hard; and if I had de-
George Eliot's Two Marriages
31
cided differently, I think I should have become very
selfish. To feel daily the loveliness of a nature close
to me, and to feel grateful to it, is the fountain of
tenderness and of strength to endure." That is, she
married from gratitude to her rescuer-the man who
could help her bear life. In her depressed condition
she writes to Mrs. Congreve, "I have been cared for
with something much better than angelic tender-
ness." To Mrs. Bray she wrote of "this miraculous
affection that had chosen to watch over her,” as if it
had actually saved her life.
From her own accounts, she was never self-de-
pendent, always feeling after a human support and
leaning on it implicitly. Sympathy was necessary
as air; yet she was incapable of many intimacies,
suffered from exposure to much society, was obliged
to avoid mankind in order to serve mankind; and
yet was quite unable to live alone. This trait was
only intensified by her great loss. Her loneliness
was of no ordinary kind. She inhabited this world
without half living in it. In her widowhood, the
sound of her own fame must have been mournful
to her. Mrs. Browning makes Aurora Leigh cry
out-
"O, my God, my God!
Thou hast knowledge, only thou,
How dreary 'tis for women to sit still,
On winter nights, by solitary fires,
And hear the nations praising them, far off."
32
George Eliot's Two Marriages
<<
She had spoken of her former experience as her
one perfect love." There could be nothing of the
ideal in this second marriage—the union of a feeble,
failing woman of sixty with a man much younger-
a grouping which never makes a successful picture.
There was no room for romance, no feeling left for
it. She herself must have felt like one who in weak-
ness accepts the strong arm of one who is generous
enough not to exact what it was not in her power to
give. But she surrendered herself to the new life
with a sort of childish delight; and perhaps found
in the public wedding and the open recognition that
she was now a lawful wife a new and gratifying ex-
perience.
She was married May 6, 1880-five years ago to-
day, and died December 22, of the same year.
None can grudge her the bright little streak of sun-
light that gilded the hastening evening.
But this portrayal of her second marriage does not
present her at her best-hardly at her second best.
There is nothing to move admiration, much to pity.
We see her almost clutching in her weakness at out-
side support as if the inward resources had failed,
and contenting herself with receiving a kind of
idolatrous affection for which she could offer no
equivalent.
In the light of the memoir itself, I believe the
thoughtful reader must see a revelation of her de-
clining and almost exhausted life; a weakness
George Eliot's Two Marriages
33
partly to be referred to broken health and heavy
sorrow, but still more to the fact that she had
neglected and starved her own higher nature by pur-
suing too eagerly the career of literary productive-
ness. The peril of diverting the whole forces of life
to thought and expression, even in the highest form
of art, can hardly be exaggerated. The hypertro-
phy of genius may be the atrophy of the soul.
Along with this, in her case was the equal peril of
coming to depend on being loved rather than on
loving. Certainly she was loving and magnanimous.
by all her original instincts; but think of the possi-
ble perversion which might result from living long
in the atmosphere of adulation, where every wish
was anticipated and every condition shaped so as to
supply her a maximum of attentions and leave a
minimum of opportunity for everything except self-
culture and self-expression. What an excuse for
marrying—that one is losing the power to love!
Many persons far inferior to George Eliot in in-
tellectual resources have yet found unfailing support
against the pressure of loneliness and bereavement
in the spiritual powers and hope and trust stored up
in the interior of their life. May it be possible that
her entire loss of faith in any Power above the
human intellect and will, along with her inability to
hope for anything beyond this little life, had left her
inadequately supported from within? Here was rich
culture, noble activity, generous sentiment, stern
34
George Eliot's Two Marriages
If
ethical quality, fidelity to the highest accepted
standard: here also was honesty of disbelief.
there could have been true restful trust in a Perfect
Providence above and within her life and all life, and
in a larger destiny than what she calls "this troub-
lous little planet" allows to humanity, might she
have been spared the sombre and unsatisfying ele-
ment in her own history, and might we have missed
the mournful music-the pensive minor key—which
runs through her books, her letters, her character?
She could not help feeling that her heart and soul
were failing with her flesh. She was sincerely un-
able to believe in any God but Humanity. In
Humanity she did believe with all her might; and
Humanity she sought to serve "with clear-eyed en-
deavor," and with the consecration of her splendid
powers. And in her last days she could turn only
to Humanity,-alas, as weak as herself!
If, alas! this were all there is for any of us, we
might still have grace to make the best of it; and
since we could depend on this to last as long as we
do, we should need no "opium" to help us bear
our lot to the hastening end. But should we then
pity or envy those "deluded" ones whose spirits
seem to triumph over the crumbling form, as they
cry out, "My flesh and my heart fail; but God is
the strength of my life and my portion forever!"
PRESS OF GEORGE H BUCHANAN AND COMPANY
404 OCT 7
63-06T14

862 JAN 14

דיז
BOUND
DEC 3 1941
UNIV. OF MI
LIBRARY
BAR
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 03123 3334
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
PRINTED IN U.8.A.
23-520-002