GE to Charles Bray, Richmond, 15 November 1857
Title
GE to Charles Bray, Richmond, 15 November 1857
Title
GE to Charles Bray, Richmond, 15 November 1857
Sender
George Eliot
Recipient
Charles Bray
Date(s)
- 1857-11-15
Place
Richmond
Letter Content
GE to Charles Bray, Richmond, 15 November 1857
MS: Yale. Extracts published: Cross, I, 471-474.
Park Shot | November 15. 57.
Dear Friend
It is pleasant to have a kind word now and then when one is not near enough to have a kind glance or a hearty shake by the hand. It is an old weakness of mine to have no faith in affection that does not express itself, and when friends take no notice of me for a long while I generally settle down into the belief that they have become indifferent or have begun to dislike me. That is not the best mental constitution; but it might be worse, for I don't feel obliged to dislike them in consequence. I, for one, ought not to complain if people think worse of me than I deserve, for I have very often reason to be ashamed of my thoughts about others. They almost always turn out to be better than I expected -- fuller of kindness towards me, at least.
I don't make out quite clearly what is the point on which you ask my opinion -- whether it is the desirability of republishing the Phil[osophy] of Necessity, or the degree in which I share its doctrines. To any one who is not bound to consider authorship from the pecuniary point of view, the question about republication is not -- [Will the book find a large public?] but [Will it find any public?] Your book has found a public, since the first edition sold at last, though slowly, and you have had indications that the book has been thought valuable by some earnest readers. I should not think a second edition would find a different kind of public, but it would very likely enlarge your circle of readers, especially if it were cheap. But that is an expensive mode of doing good. 1011
In the fundamental doctrine of your book -- that mind presents itself under the same condition of invariableness of antecedent and consequent as all other phenomena (the only difference being that the true antecedent and consequent are proportionately difficult to discover as the phenomena are more complex) -- I think you know that I agree. And every one who knows what science means must also agree with you that there can be no Social Science without the admission of that doctrine. As to the more detailed contents of the book, I have not any longer a vivid recollection of them, but I think it is very likely that I should be unable to agree with much that you say in relation to the religious ideas and the moral tendencies. For I dislike extremely a passage quoted by Sara 1012 in which you appear to consider the disregard of individuals as a lofty condition of mind. My own experience and development deepen every day my conviction that our moral progress may be measured by the degree in which we sympathize with individual suffering and individual joy. The fact that in the scheme of things we see a constant and tremendous sacrifice of individuals is, it seems to me only one of the many proofs that urge upon us our total inability to find in our own natures a key to the Divine Mystery. I could more readily turn Christian and worship Jesus again than embrace a Theism which professes to explain the proceedings of God. But I don't feel at all wise on these matters. I have a few strong impressions which serve me for my own support and guidance but do not in the least qualify me to speak as a theorist.
Mr. Lewes sends you his kind remembrances and will not like you any the worse for cutting him up. 1013 He has had to perform that office for his own friends sometimes. I suppose Phrenology is an open question, on which everybody has a right to speak his mind. Mr. Lewes, feeling the importance of the subject, desired to give it its due place in his History of Philosophy, and doing so, he must of course say what he believes to be the truth not what other people believe to be the truth. If you will shew where he is mistaken, you will be doing him a service, as well as phrenology. His arguments may be bad, but I will answer for him that he has not been guilty of any intentional unfairness. I dare-say I expressed myself very ill in my letter to Sara, for I had a bad headache then, and may have written nonsense, for what I know. But in anything I said about sectarianism I meant no [fling] at you, though I cannot except you from my general experience of phrenologists. With regard to their system, they seem to me to be animated by the same sort of spirit as that of religious dogmatists and especially in this -- that in proportion as a man approximates to their opinions without identifying himself with them, they think him obnoxious and contemptible.
It is amusing to read, from the opposite side, complaints against Mr. Lewes for giving too high a position to phrenology, and a confident opinion that "phrenologists, by their ridiculous pretensions, merit all the contempt that has been thrown on them." Thus doctors differ!
But I am much less interested in crusades for or against phrenology than in your happiness at Ivy Cottage. Happiness means all sorts of love and good feeling, and that is the best result that can ever come out of science.
Ever yours affectionately
Marian Lewes.
Do you know Buckle's History of Civilization? 1014 I think you would find it a suggestive book.
MS: Yale. Extracts published: Cross, I, 471-474.
Park Shot | November 15. 57.
Dear Friend
It is pleasant to have a kind word now and then when one is not near enough to have a kind glance or a hearty shake by the hand. It is an old weakness of mine to have no faith in affection that does not express itself, and when friends take no notice of me for a long while I generally settle down into the belief that they have become indifferent or have begun to dislike me. That is not the best mental constitution; but it might be worse, for I don't feel obliged to dislike them in consequence. I, for one, ought not to complain if people think worse of me than I deserve, for I have very often reason to be ashamed of my thoughts about others. They almost always turn out to be better than I expected -- fuller of kindness towards me, at least.
I don't make out quite clearly what is the point on which you ask my opinion -- whether it is the desirability of republishing the Phil[osophy] of Necessity, or the degree in which I share its doctrines. To any one who is not bound to consider authorship from the pecuniary point of view, the question about republication is not -- [Will the book find a large public?] but [Will it find any public?] Your book has found a public, since the first edition sold at last, though slowly, and you have had indications that the book has been thought valuable by some earnest readers. I should not think a second edition would find a different kind of public, but it would very likely enlarge your circle of readers, especially if it were cheap. But that is an expensive mode of doing good. 1011
In the fundamental doctrine of your book -- that mind presents itself under the same condition of invariableness of antecedent and consequent as all other phenomena (the only difference being that the true antecedent and consequent are proportionately difficult to discover as the phenomena are more complex) -- I think you know that I agree. And every one who knows what science means must also agree with you that there can be no Social Science without the admission of that doctrine. As to the more detailed contents of the book, I have not any longer a vivid recollection of them, but I think it is very likely that I should be unable to agree with much that you say in relation to the religious ideas and the moral tendencies. For I dislike extremely a passage quoted by Sara 1012 in which you appear to consider the disregard of individuals as a lofty condition of mind. My own experience and development deepen every day my conviction that our moral progress may be measured by the degree in which we sympathize with individual suffering and individual joy. The fact that in the scheme of things we see a constant and tremendous sacrifice of individuals is, it seems to me only one of the many proofs that urge upon us our total inability to find in our own natures a key to the Divine Mystery. I could more readily turn Christian and worship Jesus again than embrace a Theism which professes to explain the proceedings of God. But I don't feel at all wise on these matters. I have a few strong impressions which serve me for my own support and guidance but do not in the least qualify me to speak as a theorist.
Mr. Lewes sends you his kind remembrances and will not like you any the worse for cutting him up. 1013 He has had to perform that office for his own friends sometimes. I suppose Phrenology is an open question, on which everybody has a right to speak his mind. Mr. Lewes, feeling the importance of the subject, desired to give it its due place in his History of Philosophy, and doing so, he must of course say what he believes to be the truth not what other people believe to be the truth. If you will shew where he is mistaken, you will be doing him a service, as well as phrenology. His arguments may be bad, but I will answer for him that he has not been guilty of any intentional unfairness. I dare-say I expressed myself very ill in my letter to Sara, for I had a bad headache then, and may have written nonsense, for what I know. But in anything I said about sectarianism I meant no [fling] at you, though I cannot except you from my general experience of phrenologists. With regard to their system, they seem to me to be animated by the same sort of spirit as that of religious dogmatists and especially in this -- that in proportion as a man approximates to their opinions without identifying himself with them, they think him obnoxious and contemptible.
It is amusing to read, from the opposite side, complaints against Mr. Lewes for giving too high a position to phrenology, and a confident opinion that "phrenologists, by their ridiculous pretensions, merit all the contempt that has been thrown on them." Thus doctors differ!
But I am much less interested in crusades for or against phrenology than in your happiness at Ivy Cottage. Happiness means all sorts of love and good feeling, and that is the best result that can ever come out of science.
Ever yours affectionately
Marian Lewes.
Do you know Buckle's History of Civilization? 1014 I think you would find it a suggestive book.
Signature
Marian Lewes.
Citation
George Eliot, GE to Charles Bray, Richmond, 15 November 1857, Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://www.georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/92158