1. Introduction (original) (raw)

Contents

Credits

Chapter 1 of the author's George Eliot and the Visual Arts, which Yale University Press published in 1979. It has been included in the Victorian web with the kind permission of the author, who of course retains copyright.

Directions

Numbers in brackets indicate page breaks in the print edition and thus allow users of VW to cite or locate the original page numbers.

Where possible, bibliographical information appears in the form of in-text citations, which refer to the bibliography at the end of each document.

Superscript numbers link only to documents containing substantial bibliographical information; the numbers do not form a complete sequence.

Clicking on superscript numbers brings you to notes, which will appear at the top of the left column; hitting the back button on your browser returns you to your place in the body of the main text.

Non-bibliographic notes appears as text links.

Click on images to enlarge them.

Notes

  1. The Letters of Gerard Manley Hopkins to Robert Bridges, ed. Claude Colleer Abbott (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), p. 267. Both this and the previous quotation from Hopkins appear in Josephine Miles, Eras and Modes in English Poetry, 2d ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964), p. 168. On Hopkins's theory and practice of ut pictura poesis, see Jerome Bump, "Hopkins and Keats," Victorian Poetry, 12 (1974), 36-38, and "Hopkins' Drawings," in All My Eyes Can See: The Visual World of Gerard Manley Hopkins, ed. R. K. R. Thornton (Sunderland: Ceolfrith Press, 1975), p. 80. See also Robert C. Wilson, "Hopkins and the Art of Painting," Thought, 51 (1976), 147-60.

  2. Henry James, The Painter's Eye, ed. John L. Sweeney (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1956), p. 90, and The Letters of Aubrey Beardsley, ed. Henry Maas, J. L. Duncan, and W. G. Good (London: Cassell, 1970), p. 61, quoted by John Dixon Hunt, "'Story Painters and Picture Writers': Tennyson's Idylls and Victorian Painting," in Tennyson, ed. D. J. Palmer (Athens: Ohio University Pressy 1973), p. 180.

  3. For recent descriptions of this interchange, see Hunt, p. 180; Peter Conrad, The Victorian Treasure-House (London: Collins, 1973), p. 134; lan Fletcher, "Some Types and Emblems in Victorian Poetry," The Listener, 77 (25 May 1967), 679; and Norman Page, "Visual Techniques in Hardy's 'Desperate Remedies,"' Ariel, 4 (1973), 70-71.

  4. See "L'Oeuvre et la vie d'Eugene Delacroix" (1863), in Oeuvres Completes de Charles Baudelaire, ed. Jacques Crepet (Paris: Louis Conard, 1925), II, 5: "C'est, du reste, un des diagnostics de retat spirituel de notre siecle que les arts aspirent, sinon a se suppleer l'un l'autre, du moins a se preter reciproquement." This passage is quoted in a slightly different translation by Jeffrey Meyers, Painting and the Novel (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975), p. 1.

12.Throughout this study I assume that Eliot and Lewes thought alike on important questions of aesthetic theory. Gordon S. Haight has challenged Alice R. Kaminsky for making the same assumption, but Bernard J. Paris seems to accept it; see Haight, "George Eliot's Theory of Fiction," The Victorian Newsletter, 10 (1956), 1-3, and Paris, Experiments in Life: George Eliot's Quest for Values (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1965), pp. 37-38. I have never seen it clearly demonstrated that Eliot and Lewes disagreed on any major issue, and anyone who reads the essays of both cannot help being struck by the many parallels of thought and phrasing.

  1. See Mario Praz, The Hero in Eclipse in Victorian Fiction, trans. Angus Davidson (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 319-83; Peter Conrad, The Victorian Treasure-House, pp. 39-40, 80-82, 105, 119; John Bayley, "The Pastoral of Intellect," in Critical Essays on George Eliot, ed. Barbara Hardy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970), pp. 200-04; Michael Squires, The Pastoral Novel: Studies in George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, and D. H. Lawrence (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1974), pp. 68, 75-77; and Ann Ronald, "George Eliot's Florentine Museum," Papers on Langaage and Literature, 13 (1977), 260-69.

For more sympathetic treatments, see John Goode, "Adam Bede," in Hardy, ed., Critical Essays on George Eliot, p. 22; William J. Sullivan, "George Eliot and the Fine Arts," Diss. Wisconsin 1970; Norma Jean Davis, "Pictorialism in George Eliot's Art," Diss. Northwestern 1972; and Bernard A. Richards, "The Use of the Visual Arts in the Nineteenth-Century Novel," Diss. Oxford 1972. For excellent illustrations of Eliot's life and works, see Marghanita Laski, George Eliot and Her World (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973).

  1. The dependence of Victorian novel-reviewers in general upon the vocabulary of painting is amply illustrated in Richard Stang, The Theory of the Novel in England, 1850-1870 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959). Por an impressive list of the terms which William Hazlitt adapted to literary criticism from art criticism, see Roy Park, Hazlitt and the Spirit of the Age: Abstraction and Critical Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 108-09.

  2. See Mario Praz, The Hero in Eclipse and Mnemosyne: The Parallel between Literature and the Visual Arts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974); Wylie Sypher, Four Stages of Renaissance Style: Transformations in Art and Literature 1400-1700 (New York: Doubleday, 1955) and Rococo to Cubism in Art and Literature (New York: Vintage Books, 1960); and Jean Hagstrum, The Sister Arts: The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).

For a method that is similar to Praz's and Sypher's, though more telegraphic in its exposition, see Marshall McLuhan and Harley Parker, Through the Vanishing Point: Space in Poetry and Painting (New York: Harper & Row, 1968). See also Helmut A. Hatzfield, Literature through Art: A New Approach to French Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1952).

  1. Praz, Mnemosyne, p. 29. For other expressions of distrust, see John Dixon Hunt, "Preface" to Encounter: Essays on Literature and the Visual Arts (London: Studio Vista, 1971), pp. 8-9; Jean Seznec, Literature and the Visual Arts in Nineteenth-Century France (Hull, Eng.: University of Hull Publications, 1963), pp. 4-5; and James D. Merriman, "The Parallel of the Arts: Some Misgivings and a Faint Affirmation," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31 (1972), 153-64, 309-21.

  2. See Giovanni Giovannini, "Method in the Study of Literature in Its Relation to the Other Fine Arts," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 8 (1950), 185-95; John B. Bender, Spenser and Literary Pictorialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 18-20; H. James Jensen, The Muses' Concord: Literature, Music, and the Visual Arts in the Baroque Age (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. xiv-xv; and Merriman, "Parallel of the Arts," pp. 154, 160. Thus I cannot follow Viola Hopkins Winner when she argues that "Henry James's style is Mannerist in the same sense as Tintoretto's, and compares "James's often tortuous, involuted late style" to "Tintoretto's twisted lines and tormented restless forms"; see Henry James and the Visual Arts (Charlottesville; The University Press of Virginia, 1970), pp. 89-93. Surely the similarity here is more in the critic's adjectives than in the things compared.

  3. See G. H. Ford, [review of The Hero in Eclipse in Victorian Fiction], Modern Philology, 54 (1957), 215-16. Praz defines Biedermeier as "both a style and a conception of the world," but he nearly always uses the term in the latter sense, to refer to "the whole bourgeois Weltanschauang" (The Hero in Eclipse, p. 118)

  4. In Spenser and Literary Pictorialism, John B. Bender has made an interesting attempt to update the theory of literary pictorialism by combining it with E. H. Gombrich's conception of the beholder's share in the perception of art and with Paul J. Alpers's affective approach to The Faerie Queene. Bender argues that a passage is pictorial not when its language reminds us of the visual arts, but only when its language imitates the psychological process of visual perception. He distinguishes three kinds of perception re-created in the poetry of Spenser: focusing, framing, and scanning.

The main weakness of Bender's theory is that it does not discriminate sufficiently between the visual and the pictorial. Many of the examples he cites, especially under the headings of "focusing" and "scanning," are visual but not in any strict sense pictorial; and conversely, many traditionally structured descriptive word-portraits he refuses to call pictorial because they do not mime perceptual processes. Nevertheless, Bender has provided useful definitions of three effects which literary pictorialism can create, and his terms will no doubt help students of the sister arts to speak with greater precision in the future. On framing, see also Winner, Henry James and the Visual Arts, pp. 72-77.

  1. On Fielding's pictorialism, see Sean Shesgreen, Literary Portraits in the Novels of Henry Fielding (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1972) and Martin C. Battestin, The Providence of Wit: Aspects of Form in Augustan Literature and the Arts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), pp. 179-92.

On Scott's pictorialism, see J. D. W. Murdoch, "Scott, Pictures, and Painters," Modern Language Review, 67 (1972), 31-43, and Marcia Allentuck, "Scott and the Picturesque: Afforestation and History," in Scott Bicentenary Essays, ed. Alan Bell (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1973),pp. 188-98.

  1. Alastair Smart, "Pictorial Imagery in the Novels of Thomas Hardy," Review of English Studies, 12 (1961), 263. On Hardy's pictorialism, see also Gunther Wilmsen, Thomas Hardy als im pressionistischer Landschaftsmaler (Marburg: G. H. Nolte, 1934); Carl J. Weber, Hardy of Wessex (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), pp. 26-27; Richard C. Carpenter, "Hardy and the Old Masters," Boston University Studies in English, 5 (1961), 18-28; James F. Scott, "Thomas Hardy's Use of the Gothic," Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 17 (1963), 363-80; Lloyd Fernando, "Thomas Hardy's Rhetoric of Painting," Review of English Literature, 6 (1965), 62-73; F. B. Pinion, A Hardy Companion (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1968), pp. 193-200; John Peck, "Hardy and the Figure in the Scene," Agenda, 10 (1972), 117-25; Bernard Richards, "The Use of the Visual Arts in the Nineteenth-Century Novel," pp. 171-209; Norman Page, "Visual Techniques in Hardy's 'Desperate Remedies"'; and Penelope Vigar, The Novels of Thomas Hardy: Illusion and Reality (London: The Athlone Press, 1974).

References

Benson, James D. "'Sympathetic Criticism': George Eliot's Response to Contemporary Reviewing," Nineteenth-Century Fiction 29 (1975), 434.

Conrad, Joseph. "Preface" (1897) to The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'. New York: Doubleday and Page, 1918.

Dowden, Edward [essay on George Eliot], Contemporary Review, 20 (1872); rpt. Carroll, ed., George Eliot: The Critical Heritage.

The Correspondence of Gerard Manley Hopkins and Richard Watson Dixon, ed. Claude Colleer Abbott. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.

Lewes, G. H. "A Word about Tom Jones," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, 87 (1860), 335.

____. "The Novels of Jane Austen," Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, 86 (1859).

Morley, John. [unsigned review of Felix Holt], Saturday Review, 21 (16 June 1866); rpt. George Eliot: The Critical Heritage, ed. David Carroll (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971), p. 252.

Oldfield, Derek. "The Language of the Novel: The Character of Dorothea," in Middlemarch: Critical Approaches to the Novel. ed. Barbara Hardy. London: The Athlone Press, 1967.

Richards, Bernard. "Ut Pictura Poesis." Essays in Criticism, 21 (1971), 321-23.

Ringe, Donald A. The Pictorial Mode: Space and Time in the Art of Bryant, Irving and Cooper. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1971.

Saintsbury, George. [review of Daniel Deronda] Academy, 10 (9 September 1876); rpt. George Eliot: The Critical Heritage, p.373.

Smalley, Barbara. George Eliot and Flaubert: Pioneers of the Modern Novel. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1974.

Stump, Reva. Movement and Vision in George Eliot's Novels. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1959.

Watts, Harold H. . "Lytton's Theories of Prose Fiction," Publications of the Modern Language Association, 50 (1935), 214.

decorative initial 'V'ermilion, saffron, white' is a brilliant stroke (that is a lie, so to speak, of Lessing's that pictures ought not to be painted in verse, a damned lie — so to speak)" (Hopkins, p. 61). The critic is Gerard Manley Hopkins, expressing his admiration not only for a line of R. W. Dixon's but also for literary pictorialism in general. " Wordpainting is, in the verbal arts, the great success of our day," Hopkins told Robert Bridges: ". . . wordpainting is in our age a real mastery and the second rate men of this age often beat at it the first rate of past ages."2 Hopkins was celebrating an assimilation between the Victorian arts of literature and painting which other contemporary observers also noted with approval. Henry James remarked that "we have invented, side by side, the arts of picturesque writing and erudite painting," and Aubrey Beardsley spoke with clever paradox of "story painters and picture writers." 3 James and Beardsley were alluding to the reciprocity of influence which impelled authors toward the picturesque as it drew painters toward the narrative and literary. 4 Baudelaire concisely summarized the working sisterhood which he saw everywhere among the contemporary arts in 1863: "one of the diagnoses of the spiritual condition of our century is that the arts aspire, if not to substitute for one another, at least to lend each other new strengths." 5

We know from the popularity of literary illustration that the Victorian audience liked to "see" its fiction, and novelists catered to the same taste by providing abundant visual description. Conrad was only reiterating a commonplace of Victorian aesthetics when he said [1/2] that the "task which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel — it is, before all, to make you see. (Conrad, x).

No writer supplied the demand for word-painting more successfully than George Eliot, whose early work capitalized brilliantly upon the popular fancy for Dutch, Flemish, and English genre pictures. The identification of her novels with such painting, which she herself encouraged in chapter 17 of Adam Bede, persisted in the public mind long after her pictorialism had extended its scope and diversified its effects. 'The popular notion about the excellence and brilliancy of the style of George Eliot's novels is that it is simply the excellence of a painter like Teniers," observed the Saturday Review in 1866 (Morley, 21); and as late as 1876 a reviewer of Daniel Deronda was still parroting the old praises of "the exquisite cabinet pictures to which George Eliot has accustomed us" (Saintsbury, 373). The stereotype was inappropriate, not because Eliot had ceased to present cabinet pictures in Daniel Deronda, but because the novel contains so many other pictures that are more important: literary portraits arranged in sophisticated thematic patterns, landscapes and architectural paintings representing a natural and historical order with which the characters have lost touch, ironic conversation pieces where the apparent happiness of the family group is belied by the absence of the unlawful father. In her later work George Eliot's pictorialism moves well beyond what the Saturday Review described as the "photographic reproduction of the life of midland dairies and farm-houses and apple-orchards" (Morley, 252). The complexity of her pictorial effects anticipates the art of Henry James.

Eliot herself considered word-painting to be one of the two main branches of the novelist's art. The other she called dramatic presentation while G. H. Lewes called it dramatic ventriloquism. (see Letters, II, 274, 406-07, and Lewes, "Jane Austen," 105). Description is indispensable to the novel precisely because fiction is not drama seen in a theater. According to Lewes, "the fact that in the novel the persons are described instead of being seen, renders it necessary that the author should supplement as far as possible this inferior vividness of presentation by a more minute detail, both physical and moral" ("Tom Jones," 335). Description, then, supplies the visual dimension of the drama which is otherwise missing to the reader in his [2/3] closet. Thus Lewes praised Mrs. Gaskell because her Life of Charlotte Bronte "paints for us at once the psychological drama and the scenic accessories with so much vividness" (Letters, II, 315).

It follows that failure to describe is a fault in a novelist, as Lewes argued in a little-known passage of his essay on "The Novels of Jane Austen" that has important implications for George Eliot's art. Austen, Lewes charged, skimps on visual detail:

So entirely dramatic and so little descriptive is the genius of Miss Austen, that she seems to rely upon what her people say and do for the whole effect they are to produce on our imaginations. She no more thinks of describing the physical appearance of her people than the dramatist does who knows that his persons are to be represented by living actors. This is a defect and a mistake in art: a defect, because, although every reader must necessarily conjure up to himself a vivid image of people whose characters are so vividly presented; yet each reader has to do this for himself without aid from the author, thereby missing many of the subtle connections between physical and mental organisation.

This last phrase betrays Lewes's bias toward a physiognomical reading of human appearance. He goes on to complain that in Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen does not sufficiently describe Mr. Collins.

As far as any direct information can be derived from the authoress, we might imagine that this is a purblind world, wherein nobody ever saw anybody except in a dim vagueness which obscured all peculiarities. It is impossible that Mr. Collins should not have been endowed by nature with an appearance in some way heralding the delicious folly of the inward man. Yet all we hear of this fatuous curate is, that "he was a tall heavy-looking young man of five-and-twenty. His air was grave and stately, and his manners were very formal." Balzac or Dickens would not have been content without making the reader see this Mr. Collins. Miss Austen is content to make us know him, even to the very intricacies of the inward man. It was not stated whether she was shortsighted, but the absence of all sense of the outward [3/4] world — either scenery or personal appearance — is more remarkable in her than in any writer we remember. [pp. 105-6; see also Watts]

This essay appeared in the same year as Adam Bede (1859) and echoes chapter 17 of that novel. We may assume that George Eliot agreed with Lewes's demand for full-fledged literary portraits that include a physical description of external appearances. She certainly took care to render such appearances in Adam Bede, as we shall see.

Modern readers are not likely to lament the paucity of physical description in Jane Austen's work. The reality that interests us in fiction is psychological, behind the eyes. In our pursuit of the psychological we tend to skip the descriptive passages in nineteenth-century novels (Ringe, pp. 2, 10, 15). Although modern criticism pays lip service to the idea that George Eliot balances the objective and the subjective, in practice most critics are interested in her exclusively as the great fountainhead of the modern psychological novel. "Her overriding concern," writes Barbara Smalley in a recent and representative study, "is not as with earlier novelists personality as it performs its drama in the outer world.... Her memorable portrayals are all studies of action that goes on inside the minds of her characters" (p. 9.)

Such a perspective is achieved only by shutting out a whole order of representation that George Eliot was careful to build into her fiction. Similarly, the recent studies of "vision" in Eliot's work tend to neglect its pictorial aspects and to stress instead a moral and psychological growth-pattern with correlations in an imagery of eyes, sight, mirrors, and windows (Stump, pp. 34-39). Even the critics who recognize Eliot's pictorialism are often uncomfortable with it, and characterize its effect as either sentimental and escapist, or distancing and alienating.16 We have, then, nearly lost sight of a dimension of George Eliot's art which she and her first readers valued highly. To recover that unseen dimension is the primary aim of this study and its illustrations.

That the Victorians liked to visualize George Eliot's fiction is suggested by the vocabulary of their reviews, a good deal of which comes from painting and art criticism. To be sure, such borrowing is often a symptom of poverty, mere dead metaphor and desperate [4/5] cliché revealing only that Victorian literary criticism still lacked a sophisticated terminology of its own. But surprisingly often the figures of speech reflect a genuine re-viewing of the book in question. For example:

When we have passed in review the works of that great writer who calls herself George Eliot, and given for a time the use of our sight to her portraiture of men and women, what form, as we move away, persists on the field of vision, and remains the chief centre of interest for the imagination? The form not of Tito, or Maggie, or Dinah, or Silas, but of one who, if not the real George Eliot, is that 'second self' who writes her books, and lives and speaks through them. [Dowden, pp. 320-21]

So strong was Edward Dowden's habit of visualizing novels that he could even "see" George Eliot's narrator. It is a habit we no longer cultivate, partly because we distrust its subjectivity and partly because we have come to rely upon the cinema to picture our novels for us. Although vestiges of the old painterly vocabulary linger in our criticism, it is probably impossible for us fully to recapture the Victorian sense of the literary text as a visual field (Oldfield, p. 85; see also Benson on "the metaphor of the portrait gallery . . . in Victorian reviewing" ).

A shift in modern taste is, however, taking place. Criticism today is more receptive to the nineteenth-century interchange among the arts than it has been at any time since the modernist revolution of 1908-14. The sensibility which has brought representational art back into fashion has also prompted a renewal of interest in mainstream nineteenth-century painting. Art historians are resurrecting Victorian pictures from the neglect into which they sank in the first half of the twentieth century, and we are finally learning to look at the salon work of the bourgeois romanticists and realists with something more than amused contempt. For its part, literary criticism is far more willing to entertain connections between the arts than it was only ten or twelve years ago, when formalistic explication of the text was the dominant method of literary interpretation. The trend in recent criticism has been to put literature back into touch with other intellectual disciplines — without, however, losing sight of what formalism taught us about the integrity of individual works of art.

But there is still no general agreement about what constitutes a [5/6] valid method in studies of literature and the visual arts. When is it legitimate to assert that a passage or an entire work of literature resembles a picture or a school of painting? The approaches used in recent studies range from the suggestive intuition of a common style among the arts of a given period (the method of Mario Praz and Wylie Sypher) to the detailed analysis of literary rhetoric that is carefully arranged to evoke the reader's pictorial experience (the method of Jean Hagstrum).20 Given the variety of procedures available, any new study of the sister arts is obliged to declare its method at the outset.

This study starts from the premise that correspondences based only on what Mario Praz has called the "air de famille . . . between the expressions of the arts in any given epoch of the past" are seldom to be trusted.21 Although the calligraphy of the Zeitgeist is doubtless visible everywhere in the artistic productions of a given era, the comparison of specific works from different media is likely to seem arbitrary and capricious unless the critic can provide some historical evidence of a connection between them. As Bernard Richards has said,

Once the critic has abandoned the guidelines of what poets and painters actually saw and read, he is in a wide-open and chaotic country, and there comes a point at which he is resorting to the 'soul adventuring among the masterpieces' approach.... A study of inter-relations in the arts looks slightly more valid when one follows the lines laid down by the artists themselves and pursues 'influences' from the other arts or the pervasive spirit of the times which they acknowledged and believed in. [321-23]

This is sensible advice. The present study attempts to associate George Eliot's work primarily with pictures and pictorial traditions which she knew. At a few points, most prominently, perhaps, in the discussion of typological symbolism, the parallels that are asserted depend more upon an intuition of the spirit of the age than upon any documentary evidence. But for the most part I have tried to verify influences before asserting them. For this reason, the first two chapters of the study seek to establish just what George Eliot did know and like among the visual arts.

A distrust of intuitive methods also makes me hesitate to transfer terms derived from the stylistic history of art to the analysis of literary style or structure. To say that a literary work is written in a Mannerist or Biedermeier or Impressionist style almost always obscures more than it clarifies. The media of the two arts are so different that terms which are useful in the analysis of one usually apply to the other only by a courtesy of metaphor.23 Often such terms are used to denote similarities of subject matter or sensibility rather than style. For example, when Praz applies the term Biedermeier to the work of a number of nineteenth-century English writers, he generally means either bourgeois domestic subjects or a pious-sentimental-humorous mode of regard.24 He is seldom referring to any specifically pictorial qualities in the literature he cites.

Claims of pictorial influence should be reserved for circumscribed literary passages whose language demonstrably evokes the reader's experience of the visual arts. "In order to be called 'pictorial,"' Jean Hagstrum writes, "a description or an image must be, in its essentials, capable of translation into painting or some other visual art . . . its leading details and their manner and order of presentation must be imaginable as a painting or sculpture" (The Sister Arts, pp.xxi-xxii). In other words, the pictorial consists of visual imagery ordered in certain ways. Not all visual imagery is pictorial, and not all passages which mime the processes of visual perception are pictorial. To be connected with the visual arts, a passage must overtly recall

The critic renders better service by explicating the local pictorial meanings of an author's language than by flying off in search of grand stylistic equations.

Literary pictorialism in the finite sense just outlined has a venerable history. As Hagstrum has shown, it came over into written literature from the oral traditions of rhetoric, and appears in the earliest surviving Greek poetry and prose fiction (Sister Arts, pp. 17-36). Pictorialism was a prominent feature of the English novel from its inception, and was especially well established in the Fieldingesque branch of the tradition which came to George Eliot through Scott.28 Eliot transformed that inherited pictorialism, as she transformed traditional characterization [7/8] , by raising it to an unprecedented level of complexity and sophistication. No novelist in English before her used pictorial devices so extensively, so diversely, or so subtly; and no major novelist after her was unaffected by her achievement. Henry James learned as much from her in this regard as he did in others, and his techniques in turn influenced those of many twentieth-century novelists.

This study of George Eliot's pictorialism will begin with a biographical chapter surveying her knowledge of art, artists, and the literature of art. The next two chapters will characterize her taste in painting and sculpture and discuss the role of painting in her theory of the novel — her version of the traditional doctrine of ut pictura poesis. These backgrounds having been fixed, the remaining chapters will focus upon the actual uses of painting in her fiction, examining the four principal genres that she loved to recreate: portraiture, sacred and heroic history painting, genre painting, and landscape. These chapters will find their unifying theme in George Eliot's Ruskinian emphasis upon accurate naturalistic representation as a medium of moral and spiritual vision. Particular novels or stories will be discussed in conjunction with the genres of painting that have colored them most distinctively. The penultimate chapter presents an interpretation of Frederic Leighton's illustrations of Romola, the only novel of George Eliot's to be illustrated in its first edition.

This book aims to challenge, on George Eliot's behalf, a claim made for Thomas Hardy by Alastair Smart: "It is questionable whether any other English novelist, with the possible exception of George Moore, possessed so intimate a knowledge of the visual arts; certainly no other writer of fiction has ever used such knowledge with equal skill or imagination."29 Without denying Hardy's knowledge or skill, we may affirm that in neither capacity did he surpass George Eliot, his mentor in pictorialism no less than in pastoralism. To support Eliot's claims, we turn first to the question of her knowledge.

Created 2000; reformatted 2007 and 14 April 2015
Last modified 2 January 2025