She committed two major ‘crimes’ that made her unpopular with the Establishment and the public alike during her lifetime. The first was that she dared question the veracity of Christian dogma. The second was that she lived openly – although monogamously – in an adulterous relationship with a married man to whom she stayed faithful until his death. Both these ‘faults’ interest me since they both echo my own tendencies, but it’s the second that most illustrates a point of some concern to me.
It seems that adultery was commonly practiced and widely tolerated in Victorian England. What so scandalised society and caused Elliot’s father to disown her was not the act, but the fact that she practiced it openly. In other words, the concept of morality was readily bent to suit sexual proclivities. Doing it was all right; being honest about it wasn’t.
So, what price Victorian values? And, more to the point, what price morality?
8 comments:
George Eliot happens to be one of my favorite writers and personalities as well. Have you ever seen the movie "Impromptu" with Judy Davis about her love affair with Chopin, with Hugh Grant? I loved the movie and the way she was portrayed. What do you think about Oscar Wilde btw? And Happy New Year a day late to you, Jeff. I look forward to getting to know you better in 2011.
I have to plead ignorance on all counts, Wendy. I've never read George Eliot (though I should, because she has connections with where I live,) I knew nothing of any affair with Chopin, and I know little of Oscar Wilde, apart from the famous quotations. Sorry, I'm hopeless. But I was struck by the fact that Ms Evans and I seem to have quite a lot in common.
Yes indeed, same back.
The Victorians didn't invent the taboo against adultery, you big silly man! When humans lacked effective methods of birth control, laws against fornication were necessary so that men could have confidence that they were raising their own children and not the bastards of other men.
A man truly at ease with his own lifestyle choices wouldn't be complaining about how he would have been judged by the Victorians. Has any authority stopped you from being as promiscuous as you want?
Your assertion regarding adultery might have some merit, Chantelle, but it is quite irrelevant to the point of the post. You also credit me with a concern I never expressed or implied. My point is that morality breeds hypocrisy, and it operates on a more insidious level than straightforward authority. Further, the Victorians were certainly excessively, if not exclusively, moralistic, and the extent of their subsequent hypocrisy should serve as a salutory lesson.
Interesting. I wouldn't condone adultery but I wouldn't condemn what she did as much as what the man did to his wife. It certainly wouldn't stop me from reading her work.
I gather he and his wife had an 'open' relationship, not uncommon among radicals of the time. She. apparently, had children by other men during the course of their marriage. The simple solution would have been divorce, of course, which I gather was what he wanted. But we know what moralists think of divorce.
And I have to come back to the salient point. The excessively moralistic culture of Victorian England tacitly condoned adultery whils demonising those who were honest about it. That's hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Behind closed doors! I think in a sense that attitude still prevails on some levels. As I'm pondering now morals are another way of keeping us fragmented, they exist only when what is good or bad is defined. The danger with good or bad is that we end up denying and suppressing certain parts of ourselves and that spells TROUBLE.
I'm sure you're right, Mel. I find the whole concept of morality, at least as it is most rigorously defined and understood, quite nasty and destructive. And the horrors it can bring in its wake hardly bear thinking about.
Post a Comment