GE to Sara Sophia Hennell, Richmond, 5 November [1856]
Title
GE to Sara Sophia Hennell, Richmond, 5 November [1856]
Title
GE to Sara Sophia Hennell, Richmond, 5 November [1856]
Sender
George Eliot
Recipient
Sara Sophia Hennell
Date(s)
- 1856-11-05
Place
Richmond
Letter Content
GE to Sara Sophia Hennell, Richmond, 5 November [1856]
MS: Coventry City Libraries. Hitherto unpublished.
Park Shot | November 5.
Dear Sara
Mr. Lewes has read your passage on Design and finds a difficulty in expressing his opinion on it because he does not know the plan of your book. If you are simply expressing the view you yourself adopt, you are of course at liberty to say that "The right method of science is to discover how things exist and not why." But he reminds you that the position would be denied by the majority even of great scientific men. There is one objection, however, which applies to the whole passage whether meant as a statement for others or for yourself; namely, that you begin by denying the validity of inferences as to design, and then proceed to affirm their validity. Kant and everyone else who rejects the design argument would deny that "to say the eye was designed to see is a safe affirmation." Again, Mr. Lewes says he doesn't see the bearing of what you say about the different kinds of eyes. Perhaps if you reconsider the passage by the light of these cavils, you will be able to bring out your meaning better. I can see no flaw in the extract from the preface. It is perfectly clear.
I'm so sorry you should be teazed with the procrastinations and uncertainties of Mr. Baillie. 755 But don't let your determination to publish depend on him. Work honestly done must not be shut up in a drawer. Some good will come of it.
I was so glad to see Mr. Bray looking beamingly happy and healthy. Best love to Cara.
Yours,
Pollian.
MS: Coventry City Libraries. Hitherto unpublished.
Park Shot | November 5.
Dear Sara
Mr. Lewes has read your passage on Design and finds a difficulty in expressing his opinion on it because he does not know the plan of your book. If you are simply expressing the view you yourself adopt, you are of course at liberty to say that "The right method of science is to discover how things exist and not why." But he reminds you that the position would be denied by the majority even of great scientific men. There is one objection, however, which applies to the whole passage whether meant as a statement for others or for yourself; namely, that you begin by denying the validity of inferences as to design, and then proceed to affirm their validity. Kant and everyone else who rejects the design argument would deny that "to say the eye was designed to see is a safe affirmation." Again, Mr. Lewes says he doesn't see the bearing of what you say about the different kinds of eyes. Perhaps if you reconsider the passage by the light of these cavils, you will be able to bring out your meaning better. I can see no flaw in the extract from the preface. It is perfectly clear.
I'm so sorry you should be teazed with the procrastinations and uncertainties of Mr. Baillie. 755 But don't let your determination to publish depend on him. Work honestly done must not be shut up in a drawer. Some good will come of it.
I was so glad to see Mr. Bray looking beamingly happy and healthy. Best love to Cara.
Yours,
Pollian.
Signature
Pollian.
Citation
George Eliot, GE to Sara Sophia Hennell, Richmond, 5 November [1856], 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/94105