This remarkable observation was recorded on this date, Nov. 1, in 1888. I share the speaker’s admiration for Eliot, of course. A lifetime of reading tells me she, Tolstoy and Henry James eclipse all others in the nineteenth century, the century of the novel. But even the most charitable or gentlemanly of observers might question the speaker’s description of her as “the cutest of all women.” Given the date and the sheer weirdness of the sentiment, make an educated guess: Who said this of the author of Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda? The answer is Walt Whitman, a well-known connoisseur of feminine beauty, as recorded by Horace Traubel in With Walt Whitman in Camden, Vol. 4 (1953), one of nine volumes of the poet’s conversation in his later years.
Elsewhere in Traubel’s recollections, Whitman is
recorded saying Eliot is “a woman of genius.” Five days after the passage
quoted at the top, Whitman says: “Have you ever seen a portrait of George Eliot
that impressed you as being adequate? I never have. I have seen portraits but
they don’t look probable: they are heavy, torpid, inert.” A devoted follower of
phrenology and other crackpot vogues, Whitman seems to be suggesting that a
woman’s physiognomy corresponds to her moral or imaginative qualities. To put
it crudely, the outside ought to look as good as the inside.
An all together more reliable American
observer of Eliot is Henry James. On May 10, 1869, at the age of twenty-six, James
visited Eliot, then fifty years old, in London. In a letter to his father,
James reports, in a small masterpiece of portraiture, that “she is magnificently
ugly, deliciously hideous.” The budding novelist adds:
“. . . in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a
very few minutes steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end, as I ended,
in falling in love with her . . . I don’t know
in what the charm lies, but it is thoroughly potent. An admirable physiognomy—a
delightful expression, a voice soft and rich as that of a counseling angel -- a
mingled sagacity and sweetness – a broad hint of a great underlying world of
reserve, knowledge, pride and power – a great feminine dignity and character in
these massively plain features – a hundred conflicting shades of consciousness
and simpleness – shyness and frankness – graciousness and remote indifference –
these are some of the more definite elements of her personality. Her manner is
extremely good tho’ rather too intense and her speech, in the way of accent and
syntax peculiarly agreeable. Altogether, she has a larger circumference than
any woman I have ever seen.”
We can be certain James in his final
sentence refers to Eliot’s intellectual and emotional qualities, not her anatomical dimensions.
3 comments:
Surely in 1888 "cute" still used to mean "acute, clever"? OED seems to suggest even in US the "pretty" meaning didn't come in till later. Eliot is so wise & perceptive, at least in the great novel, Middlemarch, & James was too (& , I would argue to a lesser extent, Tolstoy). Nevertheless, I feel uncomfortable to have Flaubert left out of truly outstanding 19th century group, not to mention Dickens, whose approach to the novel was very different, I recognise, from that of Eliot or James. Then, much as I detest him, I have to ask, "What about Dostoevsky?", plus Turgenev (although, to my shame, he bores me, I'm sure one day will be the right day for me & him) & Gogol, who paved the way, in many respects for much 20th century fiction, I think. Hardy deserves to be in the pantheon too, in my view, as well as Balzac & Stendhal - again, while they seem dull to me a lot of the time, I recognise they are worth great respect. How odd - I've just realised I have no one to offer from
Italy.
Try Portugal, zmkc, and Eca de Queiros - you won't be sorry...
Synchronicity - Eca de Queiros is also the suggestion of Mr Kurp.
Post a Comment