GE to John Morley, London, 14 May 1867
Title
GE to John Morley, London, 14 May 1867
Title
GE to John Morley, London, 14 May 1867
Sender
George Eliot
Recipient
John Morley
Date(s)
- 1867-05-14
Place
London
Letter Content
GE to John Morley, London, 14 May 1867
MS: L. W. Smith Collection, Washington's Headquarters, Morristown, New Jersey. Extracts published: IV, 364-365.
The Priory, | 21. North Bank, | Regents Park.
May 14. 67.
My dear Mr. &unknown;Morley&unknown; 750
Thanks for your kind practical remembrance. Your attitude in relation to Female Enfranchisement 751 seems to be very nearly mine. If I were called on to act in the matter, I would certainly not oppose any plan which held out any reasonable promise of tending to establish as far as possible an equivalence of advantages for the two sexes, as to education and the possibilities of free development. I fear you may have misunderstood something I said the other evening 752 about nature. I never meant to urge the "intention of Nature" argument, which is to me a pitiable fallacy. I mean that as a fact of mere zoological evolution, woman seems to me to have the worse share in existence. But for that very reason I would the more contend that in the moral evolution we have "an art which does mend nature" -- an art which "itself is nature." 753 It is the function of love in the largest sense, to mitigate the harshness of all fatalities. And in the thorough recognition of that worse share, I think there is a basis for a sublimer resignation in woman and a more regenerating tenderness in man.
However, I repeat that I do not trust very confidently to my own impressions on this subject. The peculiarities of my own lot may have caused me to have idiosyncrasies rather than an average judgment. The one conviction on the matter which I hold with some tenacity is, that through all transitions the goal towards which we are proceeding is a more clearly discerned distinctness of function (allowing always for exceptional cases of individual organization) with as near an approach to equivalence of good for woman and for man as can be secured by the effort of growing moral force to lighten the pressure of hard non-moral outward conditions. It is rather superfluous, perhaps injudicious, to plunge into such deeps as these in a hasty note, but it is difficult to resist the desired to botch imperfect talk with a little imperfect writing.
The "Spectator" article 754 is a grandiose speciman of what a journalist can do when not "stating his thoughts in a manner below his capacity" -- for misrepresentation and wriggling.
Alas, for the inarticulateness you mention. One would like to know, for consolation, what it was exactly that St. Paul referred to in saying that his speech was "contemptible." 755
Always yours sincerely
M. E. Lewes.
By the way, it was not Mr. Capes 756 who wrote the article on Blank Verse.
MS: L. W. Smith Collection, Washington's Headquarters, Morristown, New Jersey. Extracts published: IV, 364-365.
The Priory, | 21. North Bank, | Regents Park.
May 14. 67.
My dear Mr. &unknown;Morley&unknown; 750
Thanks for your kind practical remembrance. Your attitude in relation to Female Enfranchisement 751 seems to be very nearly mine. If I were called on to act in the matter, I would certainly not oppose any plan which held out any reasonable promise of tending to establish as far as possible an equivalence of advantages for the two sexes, as to education and the possibilities of free development. I fear you may have misunderstood something I said the other evening 752 about nature. I never meant to urge the "intention of Nature" argument, which is to me a pitiable fallacy. I mean that as a fact of mere zoological evolution, woman seems to me to have the worse share in existence. But for that very reason I would the more contend that in the moral evolution we have "an art which does mend nature" -- an art which "itself is nature." 753 It is the function of love in the largest sense, to mitigate the harshness of all fatalities. And in the thorough recognition of that worse share, I think there is a basis for a sublimer resignation in woman and a more regenerating tenderness in man.
However, I repeat that I do not trust very confidently to my own impressions on this subject. The peculiarities of my own lot may have caused me to have idiosyncrasies rather than an average judgment. The one conviction on the matter which I hold with some tenacity is, that through all transitions the goal towards which we are proceeding is a more clearly discerned distinctness of function (allowing always for exceptional cases of individual organization) with as near an approach to equivalence of good for woman and for man as can be secured by the effort of growing moral force to lighten the pressure of hard non-moral outward conditions. It is rather superfluous, perhaps injudicious, to plunge into such deeps as these in a hasty note, but it is difficult to resist the desired to botch imperfect talk with a little imperfect writing.
The "Spectator" article 754 is a grandiose speciman of what a journalist can do when not "stating his thoughts in a manner below his capacity" -- for misrepresentation and wriggling.
Alas, for the inarticulateness you mention. One would like to know, for consolation, what it was exactly that St. Paul referred to in saying that his speech was "contemptible." 755
Always yours sincerely
M. E. Lewes.
By the way, it was not Mr. Capes 756 who wrote the article on Blank Verse.
Signature
M. E. Lewes.
Citation
George Eliot, GE to John Morley, London, 14 May 1867, 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/92811