This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 70-6780 GEIBEL, James Wayne, 1936- AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH CRITICISM OF ^SEORGE ELIOT, 1858-1900,. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Language and Literature, modem University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan James Wayne Geibel 1970 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AH ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OP BRITISH CRITICISM OP Ie ORGE ELIOT, 1858-1900 DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctpr of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University . 37 . James Wayne Geibel, A,B., M.A, ****** The Ohio State University 1969 Approved by IvlBer Department of English ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the course of the composition of this dissertation a number of people have greatly aided me In my work. My sincerest appreciation goeB especially to my Advisor, James R. Kincaid, whose Interest and valuable criticism have gone far beyond the mere fulfillment of a professional duty. My thanks alBo go to John Gabel and Ford Swetnam, whose careful reading of the dissertation corrected many faults and provided new Insights into the compilation and organization of a bibliography of criticism. The nature of the dissertation forced me to rely heavily on the Interlibrary Loan facilities of The Ohio State University, and the cooperation and expert help I received from Jane Gatliff and her staff literally, made the completion of the dissertation possible. Finally, I wish to thank The Graduate School of The Ohio State University for awarding me a Dissertation Grant that allowed me to obtain items for the bibliography that otherwise would have been unavailable. iii VITA Merch 20, 1936 . Born - Parkersburg, West ^irglnia <u 1962 . ....... A.B., West Virginia University,' Morgantown, West Virginia 1 ^ 6 3 .......... Teaching Assistant, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 1 ^6 3 . M.A., West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 1 ^6 3 - 1 9 6 9 ....... Teaching Associate, Department of English, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY M^Jor Field: English Literature TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .......... Ill VITA ................ ................ IV INTRODUCTION ...... ........ 1 Character and Plot . ........... • • • 8 Realism........ 26 . Morality ........ 48 Footnotes . ........ 6l SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHY . 68 THE BIBLIOGRAPHY.......... 74 INDEX ........ ................... 249 INTRODUCTION iThe sheer quantity of printed material on George Eliot forces us to notice her public reception In the nineteenth century. .At the urging of George Henry Lewes* she began her career as a writer of fiction lnausplclously in 1857 with a series of three stories for Blackwood 's under the general title of Scenes of Clerical Life. These Btorles showed the promise she was so quickly to fulfill* but they went largely unnoticed by the critics* although the few reviews they did get from Important critical periodicals were high In their praise. With the publication of Adam Bede in 1859* however* George Eliot became the center of English literary attention. From that time through the rest of the century she was criticized* analyzed* gossiped about* and generally examined more extensively than any other Victorian novelist. The publica­ tion of one of her works came to be a major literary event. By the time of her death In 1880 she had achieved the status of England's greatest novelist and with it the image of a fascinatingly regal figure, a retiring* tender, unfortunately plain woman of artistic genius and overpower­ ing Intellect who lived'openly with another woman's husband. Thus, to the Victorians George Eliot presented an Intriguing personality* as evidenced by the extensive attention she 2 received, both personally and artistically, In the British press. The quantity of written material on George Eliot In her own century, however, Is not as Important as the quality and significance of the writing Itself. Every major Victorian periodical presented numerous essays on her art by the foremoBt literary critics of her day. Important writers like R. H. Hutton, Sidney Colvin, Leslie Stephen, George Saintsbury, E. S. Dallas, Frederic Harrison, and John Morley discussed and debated her merits as a literary artist In The Athenaeum, The Saturday Review, The Spectator, The Fortnightly Review, and every other significant Journal. Because of her controversial way of life, individualistic philosophical viewpoint, and striking creative technique, she was not a figure critics tended to be neutral about. In some quarters her fiction was viewed as a threat to established moral and artistic codeB, and In others it was applauded as the work of a visionary who combined: intellectual and artistic perception to a degree never before seen in English fiction. The battleground for the debate was quite naturally the press, and the various Journals usually reflect their individual editorial biases when dealing with her work. The London Quarterly Review, a staunch defender of religious and ethical orthodoxy, is, for example, quite skeptical of the moral quality of George Eliot’s fiction. The staunchly Tory Quarterly Review 3 and the conservative Catholic Dublin Review are Just as predictably negative toward her somewhat unorthodox philosophy and technique. The Times, conscious of Its Immense prestige, Is careful to be fair* but most often finds sufficient reason to praise her works. Thus, the 4 reception of her fiction provides a steady and clear-cut Insight Into both the critical approaches of the major Victorian critics and the editorial viewpoints of the most influential periodicals of the last half of the century.. Zn a brief discussion of a body of material that encompasses over four-hundred separate Items and stretches across forty-two years, some subjects must necessarily be omitted. Most of the significant biographical Information, for example, has been adequately summarized elsewhere, most extensively In Gordon Haights recently published biography George Eliot (Oxford, 1 9 6 8). A point worthy of note here, however. Is the attitude of the press toward the fact that George Eliot and George Henry Lewes lived together from 1854 until his death In 1 8 7 8. During this time the press maintained a discreet silence on the relationship. Lewes 1b often mentioned In articles on George Eliotrs work, and the fact that he had urged her to write fiction and was her most valued critic was well known. The living arrangement itself, however, was not discussed until after George Eliot*s death In 1880. Even then, the obituary 4 articles generally avoided the subject, unless they chose to defend the relationship. It was not until J. W. Cross’s •publication of George Eliot's life and letters in 1885 that the topic was widely discussed in the press. Detrac­ tors were predictably numerous, but defenders were surprisingly even more so. Those who disapproved.usually did so on orthodox grounds, but defenders were quick to point out that Lewes was tied to a sordid marriage by a technicality that prevented an otherwise obtainable divorce, and his relationship with George Eliot wat honest and respectable in all ways. The literary establishment was split between the opinion that Cross had done a wise thing by suppressing details of the relationship in his Life and Letters, and the conviction that full exposure would have allowed for greater understanding and consequent vindication of the action. For a representative sampling of public reaction to what Cross did Include in his biography, one should note the correspondence on the subject in The Pall Mall Gazette in January and February, 1 8 8 5. [Items 3^1, 3^9-352, 357] Another point of biographical interest that must be noted only in passing is the-comical business that resulted from George Eliot's initial desire to conceal her true identity. In 1859 Joseph Llgglns, an indigent Nuneaton resident, enjoyed a brief moment of fame by allowing 5 frlendB to 'believe he was the author of Adam Bede. The same year, Thomas Newby, a piratical London publisher, attempted to capitalize on the Instant success of Adam Bede by publishing Adam Bede, Jr., A Sequel. These two Incidents, plus several random guesses at her Identity, were Instrumen­ tal In forcing George Eliot to identify herself In order to clear up the confusion before she felt quite ready to do so. Other matters of essentially biographical interest cannot be discussed at length here. Biographical informa­ tion Is at times used In obvious critical contexts, most frequently In discussions of the effect' of her philosophical attitudes on her fiction. For the most part, however, the biographical detail in obituary articles follows a standard pattern of discussion of her childhood, early friends and Influences, life as a sub-editor for the Westminster Review, and publishing career. The full scale biographies of G. W. Cooke (1883), Mathilde Blind (1 8 8 3), J. W. Cross (1 8 8 5), and Oscar Browning (1 8 9 0) drew particularly wide critical attention, but served more to revive interest in George Eliot as an artist than to shed light on her as a person. The most complex and interesting material in this bibliography is that which attempts to evaluate George Eliot as a literary artist, and it is therefore this material that is moBt in need of extended discussion. Even in this area, however, there are critical tendencies that 6 must be viewed as fascinating minor issues rather than major concerns. The Insistently negative critical reception of the serialization of Mlddlemarch and Daniel Deronda, for example, suggests a developing view of the i ‘ ' ' ' ' . organic nature of fiction, but the objection Is never fully developed nor clearly related to other Issues and therefore does not constitute a major trend In nineteenth-century criticism of her work. The major critical considerations, then, the critical attitudes and subjects that seem most consistently a part of Victorian criticism of George Eliot’s work, are the subjects that will here command the most extended examina­ tion.