A STUGY OF THE PERIODICAL RECEPTION
OF THE NOVELS 0F THOMAS HARDYfl
GEORGE GISSING. AND GEORGE MOORE

Thesis Ior flu Deqm of DB. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

James Raymond Hodgim
1960

I h 5518

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of the Periodical Reception of the
Novels of Thomas Hardy, George Gissing,
and George Moore

presented by

James Raymond Hodgins

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Rh, 2, degree in English

fl/Wfl»

Major professor

Date February 25. 1960

0-169

 

AAA

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

  
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF
THE PERIODICAL RECEPTION OF THE NOVELS OF
THOMAS HARDY, GEORGE GISSING, AND GEORGE MOORE

BY

JAMES RAYMOND HODGINS

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1960

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to Professors James D. Rust and Elwood P.
Lawrence of the English Department at Michigan State University
for their supervision of this study. They shared with me their
scholarshipwand their knowledge of Victorian literature.

I owe my thanks to the library staffs at Michigan State
University, the Michigan State Library, the University of Michigan,
and Central Michigan University for their kindness in locating
obscure novels and materials for me. , In particular, I should like
to mention from the last-named institution Professors Catherine
O'Connell and Mary Garvin, who, along with Mrs. William Redmond,
gave freely of their time.

It is unjust to omit but impossible to list the names of all
those who have made helpful suggestions; and it would be equally
unjust were-I to omit expressing my gratitude to my wife, who,
through her great assistance, has shown unflagging interest in this
study from its inception to its completion.

********

ii

VITA

James Raymond Hodgins
candidate for the degree of

Doctor of PhilOSOphy

Final. Examination: February 25, 2:00 to 4:00 P. M. , Morrill Hall

Dissertation: A Study of the Periodical Reception of the Novels of
Thomas Hardy, George Gissing, and George Moore

Outline of Studies:

Major Subject: English Literature
Minor Subject: American Literature

Biographical Items:
Born, July 2, 1919, Decatur, Indiana

Undergraduate Studies, Bachelor of Arts, Central Michigan
University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 1934-1938.

Graduate Studies, University of California, Berkeley,
California, 1939; Master of Arts, University of Detroit,
. Detroit, Michigan, 1946-1947; Michigan State University,
1949-1960.

. Experience, Teacher of English and languages in Michigan
public schools in CarsonCity, 1940-1942; Lapeer,
1942-1946; Highland'Park Junior College, 1946-1947.
Instructor and Assistant Professor, Central Michigan
University, Mt- Pleasant, Michigan, 1938-1939,
1947-1960.

iii

A STUDY OF
THE PERIODICAL RECEPTION OF THE NOVELS OF

THOMAS HARDY, GEORGE GISSING, AND GEORGE MOORE

BY

JAMES RAYMOND HODGINS

AN ABST RACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1960

Approved

 

ABSTRACT

The great novelists of the Victorian era had died before 1870 or
else had produced the bulk of their works by that time. While often
chafing at the restrictions imposed by the censorship of Mudie's and
Smith's libraries, they had, nevertheless, generally fashioned their
novels to please the subscribers to the lending-library service.

With some notable exceptions, the novelists furnished characters and
ideas appealing to the insular morality of nineteenth century England.

They created, for example, modest, demure, reserved, middle-
class heroines reflecting their readers' idealization of women. They
created bold, ambitious, active, and dutiful heroes whose moral
earnestness always prompted right behavior and decisions. Further-
more, their language, both in narrative passages and in the dialogue
of their heroines and heroes was edifying; they reserved sub- standard
dialogue for villains and lower-class characters. The master
novelists also omitted from their narratives scenes describing sexual
activity or sex as a motivating force. They emphasized the Victorian
belief in Optimism by showing their characters trimnphing over inner
feelings as well as over external circumstance. Finally, to satisfy
Mr. Podsnap, they eschewed the continental technique and philosophy
of naturalism. The critics of the seventies, eighties, and nineties
learned as children to recognize as standard these aspects of the
foremost novels.

- After 1870, new writers found that they needed to pattern their

work afterthat of the masters or risk critical condemnation.

Thomas Hardy, George Gissing, and George‘Moore deliberately

chose the latter course. Hardy, for example, frequently made his
heroines'physically attractive, his heroes observant instead Of active.
He permitted sex tomotivate his characters, allowing adultery and
infidelity to infiltrate his stories. While his language demonstrated
reasonable care, his critics carefully pointed out flaws. Hardy defied,
too, the spirit Of Optimism by writing of despair and suicide and by
shoiwing man in the gripof an uncaring environment. Though he denied
any belief in naturalism in literature, periodical critics reproached
him for his lapsesrfrom traditional standards.

Like" Hardy, Gissing displeased most reviewers, at least with
his early novels. I His heroines came from the lower classes; his
heroes, pensive and meditative, achieved worldly success only by
sacrificing integrity. Careful with language, Gissing escaped the
critics' sting. He did, however, write Of prostitutes and mistresses,

, thereby upsetting the widely-held Opinion that novels shouldignore sex.
‘ Alsoflike Hardy, Gissing permitted despair to triumph and'avoided
happy endings, at least until he acceded to reviewers' demands for
romantic narratives. He, too, denied the existence of naturalism.

Moore announced his intention to be a naturalistic writer, but
later insisted that he despised naturalism. He had, however, offended
his critics by portraying heroines who openly sought or abandoned
husbands and by presenting unambitious heroes who refused to act as
society wished. He blundered in language, allowed sex to permeate
his novels, and emphasized despair and pessimism.

. The critics, nurtured‘as they were on early Victorian standards,

used the term naturalism to describe the novels of Hardy, Gissing,

andiMoore. These three, however, denying the charge, differed
among themselves in all but one Of the features so enraging to their
reviewers. What they held in common was their belief in man‘ s
weakness and his inability to overcome internal or external forces.
TO nineteenth century reviewers, who did not define their terms, the

pessimism and deepair illustrated in the novels signified naturalism.

TABLE OF CONTENT S

CHAPTER Page
Acknowledgments ..................... . . ...... . . . . ii
Vita ............................................. iii
Abstract ..................................... . . . . iv
I INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
II PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF HARDY, GISSING,

IH

IV

VI

- AND MOORE .................................

0 9

THOMAS HARDY AND THE PERIODICAL CRITICS. . . 51

GEORGE GISSING AND THE PERIODICAL CRITICS. . 110

GEORGE MOORE AND THE PERIODICAL CRITICS . .
CONCLUSIONS .................... . ....... . ..... .

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................. . ................

viii

151

178

186

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

. A striking thingabout the last three decades Of Queen Victoria's
reign is that three novelists as divergent in their attitudes and
achievements as Thomas‘Hardy, George Gissing, and George‘eMoore
were each called naturalists by reviewers in contemporary periodicals.
To discover the reasons for the reviewers' doing soois the ultimate
purpose of this study, but the method used for revealing this will also
uncover much information about the author' sepinions and techniques
as well as the criteria of the reviewers themselves. It will show that
the reviewers used the standards of an earlier day for judging the
literary merit and the morality Of a novel, that the reviewers were,
in fact, of a reactionary stripe. Finally, the study will reveal what
naturalism meant to the reviewers and how it most offended the tenets
of the Victorian middle class.

- Almost all the critics discussed the novels from the same
aspects, namely, the individual author's presentation of heroines and
heroes, emphasis on sex either in or out of marriage, language and
style, espousal or denial of pessimism, and adherence to realism if
not naturalism itself. The authors also wrote about those topicssin
letters, diaries, magazine articles, and certain autobiographical
materials. By comparing the authors' views and practices with the
critics', one will be able to- learn to what extent the novelists
deliberately defied their judges.

Other novelists besides Hardy, Gissing, and Moore were also
berated by the critics, but these three have been selected for Special
scrutiny because their work must be and is recognized in any discussion
Of English naturalism. Furthermore, since all were publishing during
the eighties and nineties, one can discover if the critics' Opinions
changed during these decades. The novelists lend themselves well to
the study: Hardy because he began his novel-writing career before
naturalism or snapected naturalism became the criterion of criticism
and ceased writing long prose fiction without conforming to the critics'
taste; Gissing because he began his career as a supposed naturalist,
changing to more romantic works shortly before. his death in 1904;
and Moore because he deliberately identified himself with foreign
naturalists but later rejected Zolaism, as the critics called naturalism.

By the time Hardy published his first novel, DesPerate Remedies,

 

the great Victorian novelists were producing almost nothing. Indeed,
Thackeray and the Brontes were dead, Dickens died in 1870, and
George Eliot wrote only two more novels. Trollope, having completed
the Barsetshire chronicles, made less important contributions, while
Meredith was not generally to be appreciated until the nineties. 1
Thus, new writers were needed to replace the literary giants just
named.

Most Of the novelists Of the seventies attempted to duplicate the
masters' works and transmitted to a new generation ideas taken from
the great masterpieces of fiction. In this, they received encouragement

from England' 8 most influential booksellers, Mudie's and Smith's,

 

1Amy Cruse, After 129 Victorians (London, 1938), p. 173.

 

which for-many years had distributed only those books they deemed
innocuous. . Finding no reason to abandon their profitable formula,
they aided in perpetuating Victorian literary and moral standards.

To ascertain these standards presents little difficulty. In the
first place, a novel had to be didactic. Giving pleasure alone was not
enough. While earlier fiction had been didactic, the nineteenth century
appropriated the novel for its own purposes, namely, to promote
bourgeois ideals and to instruct the young. 2 The Victorian custom of
reading aloud within the family circle encouraged novelists to write
forlisteners of all ages. Thus, all members of a household, including
the children, heard the latest chapters of a current serial novel since
watchful parents insisted that books and magazines brought into the
home edify and never embarrass.

Assuming that the reviewers of the seventies, eighties, and
nineties were reared and read to in such family gatherings, as children
they learned the qualities of a heroine: she had an abundance of
maidenly reserve, was always demure, was never an object of desire.
Viola Klein, (a twentieth-century scholar) would add delicacy to the
above list of attributes} Ordinarily the heroine was portrayed as
neither daring nor witty, neither exuberant nor boisterous. .As in real
life, she probably had little formal education to prepare her for a
career. Indeed, the heroine was not expected to gain her own livelihood
since her father and her husband would provide for her. In return she

 

j W

2Walter Houghton, '_I'___he Victorian Frame of Min—g, 1830-1870
(New Haven, 1957), p. 102.

’Viola Klein, "The Emancipation of Women: Its Motives and
~ Achievements, " Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians, ed. Harman
Grisewood (London, 1949). 13.2 23 . Hereafter cited as I_d____eas.

would grace their homes by her presence and her efforts to make their
homes sanctuaries. Serving as a foil to her intellectual and more
worldly mate, the Victorian heroine lived a placid life once she
achieved marriage:

The typical Victorian novel was a happy- ending wedding-
bell stereotype; there was a cult of the home then, and family
prayers, family magazines, bO—v'vdlerisedShakespeares, the
family photograph album, the annual family holiday were
standard family equipment.‘

~ While learning that a heroine's good and dutiful behavior culminated
in a happy marriage, children in a family reading circle also discovered
a hero's characteristics. His duties to God, the Queen, and his home
he performed with moral earnestness, the source of all his virtue.
This quality elevated him above his fellows, helped him financially, and
gave him strength in adversity. Most important, it caused him to act
decisively and unhesitatingly. He certainly was neither bookish nor
contemplative; on the contrary, he was rugged and ambitious. Cheerfully
optimistic, he overcame all odds, acquired a fortune, married the
heroine, and proved that material success derived from morality.’

Both heroine and hero entered matrimony without previous sexual
experience, as far as readers knew. Their marriage followed a court-
ship characterized by platonic love. While the beautiful heroine may
have caused him to lose his heart to her, novelists ignored normal sexual
desire as a powerful motivating force. Because fictional couples had
remained sexually pure, their marriages would never be threatened by

infidelity or divorce.

 

‘H. L. Beales, "The Victorian Family," Ideas, p. 347.
5Houghton, p. 192.

'Victorian children, the future reviewers'among them, acquired
other ideas from novels. They learned heroes and heroines spoke
polished, if not elegant, language while lowerclass figures expressed
themselves in dialect and colloquialisms. Ostensibly, nofictional
character knew profanity, strong oaths, or coarse-words. , Children
learned at home, therefore, to model their language on that of the
heroes and heroines. I

While providing models for self-improvement, most novels
encouraged both adults and children to embrace the idea of constant
progress. In real life, science promised the world knowledge necessary
to overcome obstacles once thought insuperable; fiction, showed that a
better world lay within the reach of the morally upright. Readers.
therefore, enthusiastically observing great technological advances,
felt man had discovered the necessary weapons for controlling natural
and environmental forces. And in spite of the warnings of some
intellectuals, the idea of progress was the most central, the most
characteristic idea of the Victorians.‘

, The'literature of the great Victorian novelists furnished many

examples of the Optimistic approach to life. Happy endings catered to
the readers' desires. . Even in novels dealing with depressing tOpics or

peOpleu-Silas‘Marner, DavidCOpperfield, or "£113 Newcomfs, for

 

 

instance--first-rate authorsvmade happy endings important.
Even, more important as a witness tolthe spirit of Optimism,
though, was the interior nature of the fictional character. Children

learned from novels that a character remaining cheerful before

 

~_‘John Bowle, "Origin and-Development of the‘Idea of Progress, ”
Ideas, p. 33.

overwhelming odds had real greatness, for despair or pessimism
marked weakness. The novel, therefore, provided an excellent means
of escape from worrisome reality into a pleasant world; and the. gospel
of good cheer asinterpreted and spread by Mudie's to an ever-growing
list of subscribers prevailed.7

To be Opposed to Optimism in life and literature was tantamount
to declaring oneself Opposed to all good things, and therefore, all
things, British, for the Mr- Podsnaps of the era looked askance at the
doings of other nations. Pleased by his countrymen's novels, the
middle class-.Englishman saw no reason for new trends in literature.
What he already had was wholesome, moral, and Optimistic; what he
might read, if imported novels came his way, would probably differ in
these aspects. He especially feared-French literature, forhis
Puritanism had long ago convinced him that France was the devil's
home.8 Literary naturalism as an export of immoral France was,
therefore, bound to be accused of traducing British insularmorality;
and no parent would risk exposing his child to French novels since
"French novels. meant vice and immorality. "9

, From this brief and general summary of the most common

standards of early Victorian novels, we can proceed to outline the
pattern which ordinary novelists followed in the lastthree decades of
the nineteenth century and which pleased most reviewers. In‘ the first

place, the novelist needed to reward virtue and punish wrongfdoing.

 

V—rfiT—

7Robert A. Colby, "The LibrarianRules the Roost, " Wilson
Library Bulletin, XXVI (1952), 625.

8Hugh Walpole, "Novelists of the 'Seventies, " The Eighteen
Seventies, ed. Harley Granville-Barker (New York, 1929), p. 24.

9Cruse, p. 56.

Reviewers liked to see poetic justice at work. Secondly, the novelist
needed to exalt the well-born and stress the weaknesses of the lower
classes. Reviewers wanted novels to substantiate a belief that material
wealth resulted from inner strength and devotion to duty while poverty
resulted from a lack of these qualities.

Next, the novelist needed to write so that no member Of a reading-
circle would be embarrassed. Reviewers wanted no offensive language
at any time, no matter whether a speaker be good or evil, rich or poor,
young or Old.

Also, it was best if the novelist drew his heroines and heroes
from the upper classes, source of all ennobling practices. Reviewers
wanted heroines and heroes who could be emulated for prOper behavior
at all times. Protagonists like these would instill and perpetuate the
public's approval Of itself while disparaging the challengers of
society's edicts.

The novelist would also prove this an era of Optimism and cheer-
ful attitudes. Reviewers would permit him to describe a character dying
at the end of the story if he had earlier shown that personage so moral
that death merely Opened the way to heaven. Reviewers preferred
sentimental scenes.

Finally, the ordinary novelist would eschew foreign literary
techniques or philosOphies. Reviewers feared foreign novels,
especially French novels, since these we re supposed to lack all moral
standards and to have contributed to France's comparative weakness.

Hampered by these restrictions, ordinary novelists plied their
trade. Fortunately for the literature of the late Victorian period,
certain novelists broke away from the inherited standards. Hardy,

Gissing, and Moore were among those declaring themselves opposed

to earlier ideas of fiction and deliberately illustrated in their novels
principles and convictions which more timid novelists shunned.

What those principles were and how they were presented are the subject

Of the next chapter.

. CHAPTER II

PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF HARDY,
GISSING,- AND MOORE

One question which immediately poses itself is this: What ideas
did Hardy, Gis sing, and Moore entertain which violated the. standards
of literary taste postulated in the preceding chapter? An examination
of their comments regarding heroines and heroes, sexual relationships,
language, Optimism and pessimism, and realism and naturalism will
reveal that their beliefs were revolutionary for the nineteenth century.
- And then by finding in their novels illustrations of their exPressed
ideas, we shall be able to see how they disregarded conventional novel
standards.

While these novelists disagreed with one another on certain
aspects of literature, they did agree on two things: the bad taste Of
the British reading public and the bad judgment of critics. Regarding
the first, Hardy blamed the poor quality Of English fiction on the public's
demand for emasculated literature. 1 Gis sing stated that ". . .the public
which reads in any sense of the word worth considering, is very, very
small; the public which would feel no lack if all book-printing closed

"3

tomorrow, is enormous. Moore maintained that the literature of the

pe0ple was idiotic stories.’

 

1Thomas Hardy, "Candour in English Fiction, " Life a_n_c_l Art, ed.
Ernest Brennecke (New York, 1925), p. 76.

zGeorge Gissing, Private Papers _O_f Henry Ryecroft, ed. Paul
Elmer'Moore (New York, 1918), p. 57.

3George‘Moore, Confessions gig Young Man, ed. Floyd Dell
(New York, 1917), p. 102.

 

 

10

Their contempt for critics also reveals similar attitudes. Hardy

questioned the honesty of one critic. who had condemned Tess of the

 

D'Urbervilles:

A smart and amusing article; but it is easy to be smart and
(amusing if a man will forego veracity and sincerity. . . . How
strange that one may write a book' without knowing what one
puts into'it-uor rather the reader reads into-it.‘

To Gissing, critics seemed to be ". . .unutterable, long-cared asses'."’
Moore, constantly the recipient of the critics' barbs, wrote, "Being a
writer of fiction myself, I am not deceived by those superficial like-
nesses which are gathered by shallow critics and flung in the face of
contemporary writers. "‘ If they reveal nothing else, these statements
show that the novelists were aware that what they were writing was
neither what the critics approved of nor what they wanted to give the
public.

One may also wonder in what regard the novelists held each other.
Judging from the letters exchanged between Hardy and Gissing, one can
conclude that Hardy and Gissing respected the literary efforts of each
other. In a letter to Hardy in 1886, Gissing wrote:

I have not been the least careful of your readers, and in your
books I have constantly found refreshment and onward help.
That aid is much needed now-a-days by anyone who wishes to
pursue literature as distinct from the profession of letters.

. . . The misery of it is that, writing for'English peOple, one
may not be thorough: reticences and superficialities have so
often to fill places where one is willing to put in honest work.’

 

‘Florence E. Hardy, The Later Years of Thomas Hardy (New York,
1930), p. 6.

’George Gissing, Letters 3f George Gissing t_9 Members of Iii:
.Family, collected by Algernon and» Ellen Gissing (London, 1927): p. 204.

‘George Moore, Mpressions and Opinions (New York, 1891),. p.11.

. 1'Florence E. Hardy, The Early Life of Thomas Hardy (New York,
1928). p. 239.

 

11

Other letters similarly reveal that Hardy was interested in Gissing.8
However, neither Moore nor Hardy reapected each other. It wasiMoore
who gleefully wrote to Mr. Barrett H. Clark:

Have I told you my epigram on Hardy? George Eliot's
miscarriage:9 '

Hardy's notebook referred to George Moore as "that ludicrous blackguard"
when the latter had ridiculed a portion of his work. 1° Neither Gis sing
nor Moore commented on the efforts of the other, but we can assuredly
put Gissing in Hardy's camp from the evidence available. Despite the
severity of the remarks quoted above, however, the revolutionary zeal
of these three novelists serves to join them. And even some of their
principles regarding heroines and heroes, sex, language, pessimism,
and realism and naturalism place them closer together than Hardy or
'Moore would have been willing to admit.

Hardy, for example, was to be scorned by certain critics for his
presentation of women as active human beings and as objects of desire--
a presentation which did not conform to the code Of the libraries.
Nevertheless, his Observations reveal what he thought to be the essential
qualities of womanhood, and his Observations are realized in the women
he created in his works. Hardy once observed to himself that "Every

now and then, each woman, however interesting, puts on her battle

 

face, " and every reader of Hardy can immediately recall women

characters who, discarding the Victorian ideal of duty to someone, chose

 

aGissing, Letters, pp. 242-244.

9Joseph Hone, The Life Of George Moore (London, 1936),
p. 376. —

 

1",Thomas Hardy, Thomas Hardy's Notebooks, ed. Evelyn Hardy
(London, 1955), p. 104.

 

12

to follow their own wills. 1‘ One thinks Of Elfride in A Pair 9!. Blue, Eyes

 

 

or'Sue in-gliggtllg Obscure, who, while dissimilar in other respects,
were alike in this.

Just as important, too, was his emphasis on the physical aspects
of the women he created. In one of his notebook entries, he described
four village girls according to certain marks of beauty: themere
prettiness of one, the red hair of a second, the flaxen curls of another,
the rich color and clever dimple-making of still another, the last girl,
as his wife suggested, possibly the model for Arabella. 17'. The natural
attractiveness of these unspoiled girls is contrasted in his own mind
with the artificiality of city women whom he Observed at a soirée: "But
these women'. If put into rough wrappers in a turnip field, where would
their beauty be ? "13 Observing on another occasion a fashionably-attired
woman, he remarked, ". . .if held up by the hair and slipped out Of her
clothes, carriage, etc. , etc. , aforesaid would not be much larger than a
skinned rabbit, and Of less use. "1‘ A comparable point of view was

reflected in his comments regarding a woman Of the upper classes:

She is one Of the few, very few, women of her own rank for
whom-I would make a sacrifice; a women too of talent, part
of whose talent consists in concealing that she has any. 1’

. More interesting to him were some street singers whose faces, seen in

a dim light "were what Nature made them, before the smear of

 

“Hardy, Early Life, p. 239.
‘ “Hardy, Early Life, p. 239.
”Hardy,.Early Life, p. 239.

 

 

 

“Hardy, Early Life, p. 239.
”Hardy, Early Life, p- 279.

 

l3

civilization" had sullied their existences. ‘6 But of the many women
characters whom he created, Hardy singled out Sue in _.‘I_t_1_c_l_e_ t_:_h_¢_e Obscure
for special coMent: "Sue is a type of woman which has always had an
attraction for. me, but the difficulty of drawing the type has kept me
from- attempting it till now. "1'

. From these remarks, one can ascertain what Hardy's views on
women were. . In the first place, he believed that women could make
decisions for themselves. Secondly, he found women physically
attractive. Thirdly, he'was more interested in women of the lower and
middle classes than he was in women of high-social standing. - Furthermore,
a reading of his novels indicates that these ideas regarding women are
incorporated in his stories, especially when one realizes that he usually
selected women from the lower classes to be his heroines. Willful,
active, and physically beautiful women play the leading roles in the Hardy
novels in direct contradiction of the ordinary Victorian belief that
heroines should be dutiful, passive, and rather nondescript women from
the upper classes.

Gissing's idea of how a woman should appear in novels differed
sharply from‘Hardy' 8. He paid little attention to the physical attractive-
ness of his characters, concentrating rather on their attitudes of heart
and intellect. He regarded them generally as held in bondage, slaves
to the conventions of Victorian society, with only one opportunity to
free themselves. This Opportunity could come through education alone,
which conferred the ability to earn a living. Thus, ina letter to, his

brother'Algernon, Gissing wrote, " It becomes a woman to have

 

“Hardy, Eat-1y Life, p- 216.
-17Ha-rdy,. Early Life, p. 42.

 

14

knowledge of the world, and not tO be a helpless puppet. ".13. This idea
he partially illustrated in The Emancipated and more fully in The Odd

 

 

Women, where he presented three women whose meager education
placed them at the mercy Of the world in contrast to those women who
were being educated to earn a living. .As a writer who equated evil
with ignorance, he told his sister:

If you only could know how much Of the wretchedness of
humanity is occasioned by the folly, pig-headedness, ignorance
and incapacity of women you would rejoice to think of all these
new opportunities for mental and moral training. - For the
cultivation Of the mind goes a very long way towards the form-
ation Of a good character. . . . I have vast faith in imaginative
literature Of all kinds. If the choice had to bemade, I would
rather have a girl well acquainted with Dickens, George Eliot,
Shelley and. Browning than with all the science in the textbooks. 19

The kind of informed woman illustrated here appeared in several

Gissing novels. The lovely HelenvNorman inVWOrkers in the Dawn, his

 

first published novel, was erudite above all else; the intellectual Ada
Warren in Isabel Clarendon served as a foil to the society matron, and

although she found no wedded bliss, she did have the knowledge and

 

courage to admit to herself that happiness is not inextricably associated
with marriage.

In his semi-autobiographical work, The Private Papers 9f Henry

 

Ryecroft, appearing late in his career, Gissing was inclined to place
less emphasis on the intellectual woman in favor of one ruled more by
her heart. The latter type he saw in his housekeeper who ". . . is such
an old fashioned person that the mere discharge of what she deems a

duty is in itself an end tO her, and the work of her hands in itself a

 

ll'Gissing, Letters, p. 127.
”Gissing, Letters, p. .107.

15

satisfaction, a pride.” In fact, in his last years Gissing objected to
the modern. career'woman because he thought her outside her proper
sphere. The unfortunate'Alma Rolfe, from- one of the‘last novels,

The‘ Whirlpool, was a fine example of what could happen .to a woman who

 

strayed from her‘husband and home because she could not resist the
urge to show her accomplishments; and the later perceptive comments
inR ecroft, in which‘Gissing objected to the lionhuntress and. her
prospective novel containing ”the true note of modern vigour, " showed
his. complete scorn for a woman who did not find herself in the tradi-
tional role assigned to womankind.21

The Gissing women characters, therefore, must be regarded from

two points-of-view. Thewomen receiving our admiration (and Gis'sing' s)
in the early novels are women Of intellect whomake decisions un- A
emotionally. Their‘lot is tragic if they do otherwise. In the later novels,
however, the attractive women are those who do indeed act from the
heart instead of from intellect. The chapter on the criticism of
Gissing's novels will show which type appealedemore to the critics
during the 'eighties and the 'nineties. The first chapter has already
provided us withenough- material to-make us realize that Gissing's
women characters, educated and unemotional, were not typical of the
day.

Moore cared. little for intellectual women as. both his autobio-
graphical works and his novels show. . The-English girls at the studio
in. Paris described in his. Confessions; 2f EXPE‘EEE} as ". . .young
\

”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 74.

~- “Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 38.

l6

and. . . so interesting to the eye--the gowns, the hair lifted, showing
the neck; the earrings, the sleeves Open at the elbow, " appear'in his
A Modern 112111;.“ When contemplating a story of his cousin's
1mistress, Moore found her quite acceptable because she was both
pretty and kissable.23 He did not add here that she appealed to him
also because she had sinned, sinfulness being most necessary to his
heroines. His dislike of Mrs. Kendal, the actress, rested precisely
in her respectable devotion to her family, and it is clear from

-‘ iMummer's‘Wife that Kate Ede is a nonentity until she becomes a

 

decadent.“ Throughout the Moore novels, the women are treated with
contempt, with the possible exception Of Esther Waters, modeled as

she was on a slzavey whom Moore had interviewed at length. His interest
in all his characters waned, as does ours, whenever he ascribed con-
ventional behavior to them, and this is esPecially true of the women he
portrayed.

. Moore's women characters were always unusual in that he removed
from them all the veneer that society had bestowed on them. Their
animalism in contrast to intellectualism became the subject Of his
character studies. Even in- Evelyn Innes, when the heroine is indoctri-
hated with Balzacian ideas by Asher, her feminine instincts engage

our attention most, for Moore convinces us that the heroine does not
rea.11y hear what is being said, that she acts as she does because that
is the true nature of woman. His portrayal of women was bound to

enrage the ordinary novel reader of the day because in a mocking manner,

\
zzMoore, Confessions, p. 14.

5George Moore, Hail 3:251 Farewell, "Ave" (Leipzig, 1912), p. 30.

3‘Moore, Confessions, p. 142.

COX

ps
In
I‘-

17

he stripped them of every characteristic which a chivalric code had
granted them.

The heroes in the Hardy novels are at their best when they are
shown to be from the lower class. The middle class Knight and Smith
are almost indistinguishable from each other, but such men as Gabriel
Oak, Diggory Venn, and Giles Winterborne are individuals to the very
last. Rising a little above their social group, they assume the mantle
of the hero because Of inner strength. These are not dashing heroes
from the typical romance Of the era; rather they are passive under most
circumstances. Like many peasants, they seem to Observe the scene,
commenting to advance the narrative. The Hardy male becomes a hero
as if to illustrate this entry in the novelist's notes:

It is not by rushing straight towards fame that men come
up with her, but by so adapting the direction Of their path to
hers that at some point ahead the two must inevitably intersect.35

The novelist justified his use Of the lower—class man as a center
Of interest in a story when he refuted the argument of a critic who
contended

. . .that novels which depict life in the upper walks Of society
must, in the nature Of things, be better reading than those
which exhibit the life Of any lower class, for the reason that
the subjects of the former represent a higher stage Of develOp-
ment than their less fortunate brethren.“

Hardy dismissed this idea, widely held by those who sought models in
literature, with these words:

. . .the physical condition of the characters rules nothing of
itself one way or the other. .All persons who have thoughtfully

\

”Hardy, Early Life, p. 102.
z“Hardy, Life and Art, p. 72.

 

 

18

compared class with class--and the wider their experience
the more pronounced their Opinion--are convinced that edu-
cation has as yet but little broken or modified the waves of
human impulse on which deeds and words depend. . SO that in
the portraiture of scenes in any way emotional or dramatic--
the highest province of fiction--the peer and the peasant stand
on much the same level. 27

. Here, then, is evidence that Hardy knew what the conventional
hero was supposed to be and that he deliberately chose his characters
from the lower classes, not merely because they interested him, but
because he was sure that the mate rials for a novel could be found in
every stratum of society. By reserving for himself the right to use men
from all ranks, he could justifiably create a Jude or a.Henchard, a
Coggan or a. Sergeant Troy, a hero or a villain.

Gissing's writing is so inextricably linked to his personal
philosophy that it is an easy task to find out his Opinions on the role a
man should play in a novel. In the first place, he wanted hisocharacters
to know how to sacrifice physical needs to intellectual needs. Gissing
was a heroin his own eyes when he recalled that he went without food
to buy a book.28 . He was a hero when he replaced a lost sixpencei which
a destitute child had lost: "I put my hand into my pocket and wrought
a sixpennyworth Of miracle. "‘9 He found heroic any man who would
use his reasOn to create happiness for others.”

Arthur Golding was the first Gissing hero to illustrate these

objectives. Golding, poverty-stricken, intellectual, and self-sacrificing,

 

"Hardy, I:_i_f_e_ 3133.3, p. 73.
”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 30.
z"Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 9.
”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 28.

l9

devoted much of his time to the poor. Kingcote (in Isabel Clarendon)

 

bookish and reserved, served as the foil to the athletic sons of Mrs.
Stratton. "Admirable Britishyouths'." Gissing scornfully called them.’1
Biffen and-Reardonare other characters of the heroic type in Gissing's

novels. These two write rs in New Grub'Street sacrificed health-and

 

 

comfort to an ideal while their rival, J asper‘Milvain, acceded to the
public's demands in fiction, thereby becoming the villainous destroyer
of his own moral integrity. . Always Gissing's interest lay in such
theorists and intellectuals as-GodwinPeake (B253 1:11 E_:a_d_.l_e_) and Harvey
Rolfe (11h: Whirlpool) who might become villains if they should. conform
to someone else's standards.

Intellectuality was as desirable for Gissing's males as it was
for his females. The two-fisted, rugged man Of action, Mutimer in
.. Demos, for instance, suffered a tragic end. . In summary one can say
that the man true to himself by being true to his mind was Gissing's
choice for the role of hero; the man of sentimental and emotional mien
suffered defeat.

The key to understanding the male characters IMoore created
lies in. his statement that ". . .the prejudices of our time [are]. . .that
a man's frailties should not be writtenlabout. "32 However, the novelist
centered his work around these forbidden frailties. The‘Moore hero
wasvnot ’given to self-sacrifice whether he was poverty- stricken like
Lewis: Seymour or a man with twenty-thousand like Owen-Asher.
What united them was self-indulgence. But Moore's tolerating this

 

31George Gissing, Selections Autobiographical and Imaginative

from t_h_g Works if George Gissing, ed. Alfred C. Gissing (New York, ‘
1929),. p. 63.

' ”Moore, "Ave, " p. 31.

 

20

was not what Victorians desired in their novels. . Instead of disapprov-
ing of selfishness, he upheld a man's right to Obey his own wishes:

. . .there is a tendency in us all to look askance at the man who
likes to spend his evening alone with his book and his cat, who
looks forward to lonely holidays. . .pleasantly conscious of
himself and of the 'great harmony of which he is a part.”

The unsocial behavior condoned here is minor‘compared to the unsocial
activities whichMoore permitted elsewhere, in the bohemianism-of
Mike Fletcher, for instance. However, the novelist insisted always
on the right of his men to behave as they pleased without conforming
to any dictum Of society.

In his. Confessions 2f 3 ME in which he introduced himself

 

under the guise of the hero, Dayne, Moore stated that his soul had

been formed by self-will and an impetuous temperament.” His descrip-
tion of his years'in Paris, his complete lack of self-discipline, and

his boasting about his decadency help to complete the picture of the. kind
of manzMooregave his public.

Moore insisted that his men he unconventional enough to attract
attention, and any uncommon trait could satisfy the author. He be-
lieved any man with ten thousand a year could not possibly be a subject
of art; therefore, he constantly referred in Evelyp Innes to Asher's

 

income of twenty-thousand.” This amount was unusual enough to

satisfy Moore, and it could, perhaps, have middle class readers who

 

i’Moore, "Ave," p. 156.

“Moore, Confessions, p. l.

 

”John Freeman, A Portrait p_f_G G______eorge Moore i_n a Stu d O_f His
_W____ork (New York, 1922), p. 106.

21

admired men of money accept Asher; but the novelist coupled wealth
with sensualism, a distasteful combination for readers wanting to
believe devotion to duty was rewarded financially.

Finally, Moore created impractical men. The solitary reader
has been mentioned above, but there were others. Lewis Seymour
was an artist; Dick Lennox was an actor without roots, and, Of course,

the betting men in Esther Waters were the most impractical of all.

 

Obviously none Of these men could satisfy the Victorian desire for a
hero to emulate, and at no time did Moore give such a hero to the
public. But even worse Moore failed to support conventional view-
points by pointing a finger of shame at these men.

. The three novelists resembled each other in their belief that
they should be permitted to employ whatever language best suited their
narratives. Hardy defended his presentation Of peasant dialect in more
than one article, particularly in one provoked by a charge that he was
inaccurate in transcribing the Speech of his peasants:

. . .if a writer attempts to exhibit on paper the precise accents,
Of a rustic speaker, he disturbs the prOper balance of a true
representation by unduly insisting upon the grotesque element;
thus directing attention to a point of inferior interest and
diverting it from the speaker's meaning, which is far the

chief concern where the aim is to depict the men and their
natures rather than their dialect forms.“

A second charge was just the Opposite: that he had been so accurate
in reproducing dialect that his peasants were unintelligible. This, of
course, he denied, and insisted that an examination of his works would

exonerate him.” By assigning major roles, however, to lower class

 

”Hardy, Life 329 Art, p. 113.
”Hardy, Life grid Art, p. 114.

 

22

peOple, Hardy was unable to answer the Victorian demand for exemplary
language and at the same time remain true to his artistic principles
which demanded that a character use language suitable to his position.
Gissing was, according to his son, a man who "could revel in
a sentence of noble English, whilst remaining oblivious of its still more
noble significance, " and this perhaps more than anything else accounts
for the unreality and stiltedness of some of the dialogue in his novels,
especially conversation among the literate.” , In the scenes containing
slum characters, however, the dialogue follows this advice: "But as
the world is, an honest and wise man should have a rough tongue.
Let him speak and spare not'."’9 This alone will account for the un-
polished language of Mutimer in the early pages of Demos and for the
conversation between the potato vendor and little Arthur Golding in
Workers i_1_1 t_h_e' Dawn. Gissing' s strongest plea for the right of the

 

novelist to be as realistic as he chooses appeared in TEEUnclassed when
'Waymark and-Casti discussed their literary plans and the former
declared that his novel would be so real in every aspect that it would
awaken the British public. About his novel, Gissing wrote to his
brother,

. . .my characters -must speak as they would actually, and I
cannot be responsible for what they say. You tell me I need
not have chosen such peOple; ah, but that is a question of an
artist's selection.“

In this way Gissing could excuse the violent language of Slimy the slum
dweller and the rude language of Mrs. Sprowl. Gissing's characters

 

”Gissing, Selections, p. 186.

 

”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 97.
“Gissing, Letters, p. 140.

23

were not recruited from the rural areas but from the city; but like
Hardy, he attempted to make the language fit the character.
Moore carried his aestheticism into the realm of language. His

liking for Marius t_h_e Epicurean led him to say that this book was the

 

first iannglish prose that gave him genuine pleasure in the language
itself.“. Elsewhere he stated his appreciation of other types of
language, however. While visiting a music hall, he was pleased to note
that there was

not any affectation of language, nor that worn-out rhetoric

which reminds you Of a broken winded barrel-organ playing
a che la morte. . . --but bright quips and cracks fresh from
the—haC—k-yard of the slum. . . .42

He was, then, able to appreciate either the magnificent English of Pater
or the roughEnglish Of the slums; however, by his own admission

reproducing either variety invariably gave him difficulty. He found

that his English, "rotten with French idiom, " made his style impossible.

His continual revisions Of his works serve as witnesses to the fact
that this was more than an attention- getting statement. But mastering
English dialogue caused him more trouble. Of this he said,

. . .for strange as it may seem, it is nevertheless true that the
moment we sit down to write dialogue we immediately become
changed beings, and the most original [works] are at once
possessed by comic relief, and happy endings.“

Despite these‘language problems, Moore succeeded in his la'nguagezi.

usage. - But what worried him was the type of error he might make.

 

“Moore, Confessions, p. 185.

 

“Moore, Confessions, p. 154.

 

”Moore, Confessions, p. 159.

 

“Moore, Impres'sions, p. 245.

 

43

24

‘Insisting that he was not a purist, he stated that an error of diction
was acceptable if it were not the usual, thercommonplace‘." Even this
kind of error, however, was intolerable to the readers whosought in
novels good model prose. A

- Like the other-two novelists, Moore was forced by his‘artistic
principles to-present sub- standard: English when he introduced characters

from thelower classes. In=Esther Waters, for example, the lahguage

 

of thepub patrons and the bettors attempts to suggest the innate crudity
of the-characters, even though there‘is notprofanity or slang, either of
which the Victorians would have abhorred. , And despite his insisting on
the literary artist's freedom to write as he‘pleased, inEsther Waters
and his other novels, he avoided Offending his readersby carefully
omitting coarse language at least.

- All three novelists wrote about theirbeliefs regarding the treat-
.ment of love, sex, and marriage in literature. Hardy believed that one
of the first glimmers of woman? s enfranchisement would arise from her
not becoming the chattel and slave of her seducer, anidea developed in

T_es_s_.‘“ But even more opposed to Victorian standards was his idea,
illustrated ingflg, that marriage was abominable under certain
circumstances: A

I have already said many times, during the past twenty
orthirty years, that I regard-Marriage as a union whose terms
should be regulated entirely for the happiness of the-community,
including primarily, that of the parties themselves.

I can-only suppose, in a general way, that a marriage should be

"Moore, Confessions, p. 46.

 

“Hardy, EarlyLife, p. 204.

25

dissolvable at the wish of either party, if that party prove
it to be a cruelty to him or her. . . .4

This theme of marital unhappiness and the desirability of divorce
permeates theHardy novels “and?! extends from_ Desperate Remedies

to Jude t_1§~0bscure. Furthermore, Hardy knew his treatment of

 

marital unhappiness was unusual in novels. In a letter to J. T. Green

he wrote:

You have probably observed that the ending of the story
[[113 Woodlanders]--hinted rather than stated--is that the
heroine is doomed to an unhappy life with an inconstant husband.

, I could not accentuate this strongly in the book, by reasoniof
the: conventions of the libraries, etc.‘8

 

He knew likewise that he was offending his readers as well as the

libraries. He pleaded for the reader's understanding in this passage

from "Candour in English Fiction":

Life being a physiological fact, its honest portrayal must be
largely concerned with, for one thing, the relations of the sexes,
and the substitution for such catastrophes as favour the false
colouring best expressed by the regulation finish that 'they
married and were happy ever after, ' of catastrOphes-based upon
sexual relationship as it is. To this expansion English society
opposes a well-nigh insuperable bar.‘9

. Hardy's. attacks on home and rmrriage were no mo re unusual in
the novels of the era than was his treatment of love and courtship. He
had made his women objects of physical desire, weakening thereby the
1'eader's belief in platonic love. While he did not elaborate on the
alubject by painting detailed scenes of passionate love, his tales. did not

inIlist that his characters marry in a state of virginity. On the contrary,

\

"Hardy, Life a_.1_1_d Art, p. 120.
“Hardy, Earleife, p. 289.
”Hardy, Life and Art, p. 78.

26

Tess's and Jude's pre-marital sexual experiences became leading
motives for later develOpments. . Apart from the sexual asPects of
courtship, Hardy violated in still another way the usual love treatment:
he portrayed his young women as falling in love as a result of their own
wills, that is, without first obtaining their parents' consent. One of

his early novels, 41*: Pair of Blue. Eyes, showerlfride loving two men,

 

marrying a third, and having been indirectly responsible earlier for

the death of a fourth. , Far from_the Madding Crowd and Return of the

Native similarly contain plots which show that love was no panacea.

 

Gissing's treatment of love, sex, and marriage was in some
respects similar to Hardy's, but he added a new element: prostitution.
- In a day when society declined to mention the word prostitute and in-
vented such euphemistic terms as the pretty horsebreaker, Gissing
dared to draw sympathetic pictures of shadowy women. Thus, in a

slum scene in his early The Unclassed, he presented a'. dying woman,

 

a prostitute who had taken to the streets when her husband had died
"and her father had disowned her. This commentary on the social scene
automatically disgusted anyone believing that novels should offer only
pretty stories.
The novelist certainly disagreed with those who thought love,
once found, was a permanent catalytic agent binding together a man and
Woman for all time. About this he wrote:

Even love, in the largest and purest sense of the word, is no
safeguard against perilous irritation and sensibilities inborn.
And what we re the durability of love without the powerful
alliance of habit ?5°

”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 76.

27

Even the home, he found, was not necessarily a sanctuary of love:

Inmansion, as in hovel, the strain of life is perpetually felt--
between the married, between parents and children, between
relatives to every degree. . . . They debate, they dispute, they
wrangle, they explode--then nerves are relieved, and they
are ready to begin over again. . Quit the home and quarrelling
is less obvious, but it goes on all about one.”

The‘ideas here presented we re illustrated again and again in
Gissing's novels. The bitterness existing between Golding and his wife

in Workers i_n t_h_eDawn provides an early and prime example. . A later

 

example, one equally striking, is the marital unhappiness described-in
'_I'_h_e 9_d_d Women, an entire book devoted to showing that even ‘1
unmarried women could achieve happiness.

Gissing did not subscribe to the ideas of sexual morality then
current. . He contended that the greatest British vice was self- righteous-
ness in matters of sex:

The word hypocrisy is perhaps most of all applied to our

behaviour in matters of sexual morality. . . . Multitudes of

- Englishmen have thrown asideethe national religious dogma, but
very few indeed have abandoned the conviction that the rules of
morality publicly upheld in-England are the best known in the
world. ~ Anyone interested in doing so can but easily demonstrate
that English social lifeis norpurer-than that of most countries.
. . . The streets of our great towns nightly present an exhibition
the like of which cannot be seen elsewhere in the world. . Despite
all this, your average'Englishman takes for-granted his country's
moral superiority, and loses no chance of proclaimingit at the
expense of other peoples. . . . He may, for-his own part, be
gross-minded and laxnof life; that has nothing to do with the
vmatter; hibelieves in virtue.52

 

”Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 78.
In“Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 234.

3.8

The novelist, however, contented himself with suggesting sexual
relations instead of describing them. One reads'in ThenUnclassed, for
example, of a deceived child who frequently cannot sleep‘in her-mother's
bed because supposedly theparent is sick; but wiserthan theechild, the
reader knows in reality the bed is the-mother's place of business.
Lending more horror-to this discovery is. the information that the: mother
‘had fallen from themiddle class. Gissing, it can be seen, defied
the Victorian code of courtship'and marriage-in every respect: he
vminimized love, he portrayed prostitutes sympathetically, hecast doubt
on the institution of marriage, and he showed that not all mothers are
wells of virtue.

Moore's preoccupation with sex was the talk of all his acquaintances,
according to one biographer who reported that the novelist regarded as
hypocritical any person unwilling to discuss sex. ’3 Moore maintained
that everyone was interested in sex:

I havemixed in the great hurly-burly ianngland ands-France,
and can vouch for it that, outside of the daily work, the one
interest and occupation of men and women is sex. - Even the
“Evangelical is. interested in sex, and avails himself and herself
of the white slave traffic as a subject of conversation, and .many
members of thevigilant societies have had to go to gaol fora
tooindiscriminate enjoyment of sex.“

= Although he stated this toward the end of his career (1918), there is
' little doubt that he subscribed to‘it long before. In his: Confessions he
heped that "by looking‘without shame andvaccepfing with~love‘the-£lesh, "

) I

he might elevate it tothe position held by the soul.”

‘

”GeorgetMoore, Letters of George‘sMoore, ed. J ohns-Eglinton
[Pleudonym for William Kirkpatrick-Mageel (Bournemouth, England),
P. 10,

“Moore, Letters, p. 43.

”Moore, Confessions, p. 47.

29

The key words for Moore's treatment of sex are to be found in

that passage, especially in the words without shame and with love,

 

for it was thus that he treated sex in his novels. In A Modern M,
for example, three women became the mistresses of the protagonist:

it is doubtful, however, if anyone can discover how the fleshis elevated
to a soul-high position here. Grossly sensual is the entire novel; and
since the theme is the degradation of the hero, the sexual tone could
have seemed to the Victorian neither shameless nor‘lovely.

Moore's complete rejection of the ideal of home and family is
developed elsewhere. . Again assuming that mocking superior‘tone in
evidence throughout his reminiscences, Moore described the young
physically attractive’girl who, instead of giving him pleasure, could
offer him only the duty a married man has to his children. Marriagein
the eyes of the young man was only bondage; what he needed was a

mature woman of thirty for his mistress. This, Moore believed, was

the. sine qua non for a young, refined man. “

Here was the essential idea of Evelyn‘lnnes, although the refined

 

'Asher was ‘ scarcely young in this novel. - However, the book does serve
.to illustratethe disregard whichvthe novelist had for the middle 'class
ideal of marriage. Even though Asher offered tomarry Evelyn when
he thought he was about tolose her, the damage had been done. . She
hadrsurrendered herself tohim with a minimum of mental anguishonce
the-couple had arrived in Paris. . Evelyn was not the young maiden led
astray but a mature woman; and no ordinary reader could have tolerated
this defiance of the code of sexual morality.

Moore believed, contrary to Victorian novel standards, that love

Was possible only befOresmarriage, that marriage destroyed love

\

5‘Moore, Confessions, p. 65.

30

because of constant intimacy. 57.. A good illustration of this theory is

to be~foundin~_A_. Mummer's Wife, that story of a woman who deserted

 

her-husband because she was infatuated witha more excitingnman.
Eventually marrying him, she found his attraction forher-to havebeen
replaced by jealousy; thus her degradation began. The story can. be
interpreted as an essentially moral one, but a reader who lived inan
era when divorce was spoken about, even by adults, in hushed tones
would have had to regard the novel as shocking. Furthermore, the book
indirectly criticized romantic love.

Young girls and their supposedinnocence constantly annoyed
Moore. Inan extremely bitter attack on-middle class life andron the
rigid censorship‘which Victorian mothershoped to exercise on literature
for-their-marriageable daughters, the novelist pointed out that censor-
ship was in vain, since what mothers thought they were barring from
the home actually gained entry:

Turn your‘platitudeprettily, but write no word that could
offend the chasternind of the. young. girl who has spent her
morning reading the ColinACampbell divorce case; so. says. the

'age we live in. The penny paper that may be bought everywhere,
that is allowed to lie on every table, prints seven or eight
columns of filth, for no reason except that thepublic' likes-to
read filth; the poet and novelist must emasculate-and destroy
their work because. . . .Who shall come forward-and .make
answer? Oh, vile, filthy and hypocritical century, I at least
scorn you. 5°

. :3 Drama in-Muslinportrayed young girls who pretended innocence.
,In‘this novel the action of which-issplayed before a backdroP-of Ireland's
' difficulties, the novelist scornedmatrons who, disregardingall else,

-’7Moore. Cdniésm! 13-99..

 

”Moore, Confessions, p. 183.

 

31

spent their time in‘ keeping their daughters in the marriagemarket.

. And the young Women? With too much modesty, they insisted that all
men were obscene animals. Themaidens' hypocrisy and prudery ‘were
unmasked as would be that of all mothers and daughters so engaged if
thenovel were to enter the Victorian home.

Moore's question, "I wonder why murder is considered less
immoral than fornicationin literature?" 'was never answered to his
satisfaction. ’9

~ The Victorians did not regard highly his efforts to make sex a
fitting topic for novels. Indeed, even by acknowledging it as a motivat-
ing force, he offended readers who hypoc ritically insisted that all was
well in love, the family, and the home.

The Optimism of nineteenth century England to which themiddle
classes desperately clung received repeated blowsfromw— Hardy, Gissing,
and ~Moore. . Each of these produced novels. in which the happy- ending
was absent, in which the protagonists were victims: of an intolerable
situation or in which a problem remained unsolved. They were not the
sole writers who cast doubt on. the optimism‘ of the age which was infected
with'a gnawing fear that everything was not going to be better. But
certainly people who believed'that a novel should entertain and not
disturb could findlittle basis for an optimistic view of the world in the
novels of these three chroniclersof despair.

Hardy's first novels, Degerate Remedies and Under the-Greenwood

—
v

 

Tree, the former melodramatic and the latter almost idyllic, presented
, 1little that can be regarded as an attack on or disbelief in Optimism.
’ é Pair c_>_f Blue Eyes, however, diminished the reader's belief in

 

\_

”Moore, Confessions, p. 196.

32

Optimism by its omission of a happy ending. Similarly, Far frem the .

 

Maddingm could leave the reader only with a less than joyful feel-
ing because even though Oak eventually married Bathsheba, it was not
the same as: if he had won her when he first prOposed marriage. Hardy's
notebook entry, written afterthe novel appeared, helps to account for
the sombre note: "The sudden disappointment of a hOpe leaves a scar
which the ultimate fulfilment of that hOpe never entirely removes.‘o
Other Hardy novels also offered tragedies of ordinary individuals
instead of romantic characters far above the reader. In 1878, the year

of The Return o_f :11? Native, Hardy wrote:

.A Plot, or Tragedy, should arise from the gradual closing in

of a situation that comes of ordinary human passions, prejudices,
and ambitions, by reason of the characters taking no trouble to
ward off the disastrous events produced by the said passions,
prejudices, and ambitions."1

However essential this idea might be to a novelist explaining his art to
himself, it was not to the liking of novel readers.‘2 In the first place,
Eustacia's ambitions and hOpes were destroyed. Her every action
resulted only in her being worse off than she had been: her marriage
produced unhappiness for herself and-Clym; her elepement ended in her
death and-Wildeve's. But though these tragedies seemed-at first glance
the product of a willful, undisciplined girl, the tragedy did not follow so
closely Hardy' s formula of tragedy-producing passions and ambitions
as one might assume. . Rather, Eustacia was the victim of both her own
Selfish‘passions and of Egdon Heath, the latter-the tyrant representative
Of all nature. In this lay the depressing aspect of the story: the ..

“Hardy, Early Life, p. 153.
“Hardy, Early Life, p. 157.
“Carl J. Weber, Hardy o_f Wessex (New York, 1940), p. 74.

 

ha

[I

He

3C

a:

.Phk

33

inability of the girl to overcome her passions and environment. ~ And,
of course, succumbing to nature instead of overcomingit was to the
Victorian a concession to pessimism.

In 1885 the novelist added the just-mentioned idea to his former
definition of tragedy by declaring that it is a "state of things in the
life-of an individ " which causes catastrOphe.“3 No longer did an
individual's weakness bring about failure. The new definition of
tragedy allowed internal or exteer nature to initiate destruction.

. Several novels written after this date illustrate the theme of a
hostile environment making fruitless the attempts of the individual to

succeed. The Mayor o_f Casterbridfle affords at least two examples of

 

Hardy's latest theory: the tragedy of price-destroying fair weather
occurring just when Henchard was trying to corner the grain market,
and then, as if to make Henchard's plight unbearable, the weather turn-
ing bad and enriching the enemyrw Throughout this novel and others,
2333, for example, uncontrollable forces conspired to thwart the
ambitions of both good people and evil peOple, the Victorian belief in
Optimism being especially weakened when the righteous were afflicted.

~ In a romantic novel by a conventional author, the discovery of
the name D'Urberville would have foretold major happiness for those
who carried the plain name of Durbeyfield. Hardy made this event,
however, produce absolute ruin for Tess's vainglorious father as well
as for the simple heroine. The entire novel is a series of coincidences
conspiring to defeat Tess. Circumstances never permit the heroine
to rise, and on the one occasion when she hOped, her confession of

her past further defeated her.

 

“Hardy, Early Life, p. 230.

34

'Jude fared little better. Heredity had given him a good mind
and a capacity for love; life gave him a poor environment. Together
these forces defeated him at every turn and prevented his rising above
his station. Furthermore, his death as a result of nature's unkindness
can be-regarded only as contributing to the pessimistic idea which
permeates the novel.

. All of these tragedies showed man a hOpeless victim of himself
and Of his environment and in no way could they be regarded optimistic-
ally. -’Even the reader of the day who might have attempted to demonstrate
that the difficulties resulted from immoral behavior would be forced to
admit that the misfortunes were the work of either an avenging- Godor
'a‘ Malignant Fate, the former already under attack and the latter too
horrible to contemplate--and neither conducive to Optimism.

The question remains, then, "Was‘Hardy a pessimist?" He him-
self said on this subject:

PeOple call me a pessimist; and if it is pessimism to think
with‘SOphocles that "not to be born is best, " then‘l do not reject
the designation. I never could understand why the word
"pessimism" should be such a red rag to many worthy people.
And I believe, indeed, that a good deal of the robustious,
swaggering optimism of recent literature is at bottom cowardly
and insincere. I do not see that we are likely toimprove the
world by asseverating however loudly that black is white or at
least that black is but a necessary contrast and foil without which
white would be white no longer. That is mere juggling with the
metaphor. But my pessimism, if pessimism it be, doesnot
involve the as sumptionthat the world is going to the dogs and
that Ahriman is winning all along the line. Onthe contrary, my
philosOphy is distinctly meliorist. What aremy books but one
plea against "man's inhumanity to man"--to woman-a-and'zto the
lower animals ? . . . . Whatever-may be the inherent good or evil
of life, it is certain that men make it much worse than it need
be.' When we have got rid of a thousand remediable ills, it

35

will be time enough to determine whether the-ill that is
irremediable outweighsvthe good.“

. Although, asthe-above quotationsuggests, he. may have regarded his
work as a plea against man' sinhumanity toman, one must note that
Hardy was fully aware that in the minds of his readers he was a
pessimist. I

Unlike Hardy's first published novel, Gissing's first, Workers-i_n
EgDawn, was full of pessimism; and even though he insisted that one of

his aims was to show the world how it could better'itself, in this respect

he failed miserably."9 Indeed, he heldout little hOpe, for at the end

 

of the story the principals who had been struggling against economic
forces were dead, the hero by his own hand. Theschool for the poor
girls was bound to disband; the workers' societies were already disinte-
grating. It is a wonder-that the public had purchased as-many as
twenty-nine copies of this novel, withinLthe first three‘months, since it
could have no other than a depressing effect on the reader."6
Gissingwas an avowed. pessimist at the beginning of his career.
His brother wrote to him: "I shall ever regard you in' error until you
change this Opinionnthat the only reason for existenceis that‘the sum
of happiness should exceed the sum of misery. "‘7. Evenan Optimist
could subscribeto this idea, but Gis sing did not permit happiness to
outweigh misery. Instead, by picturing a world of misfortune, he
indicated that death‘is preferable to'life beset by invincible troubles.
In this-way, he attacked the Victorian belief that this world exists in

orderto try mankind. It is apparent from the little-read first novel

fiWilliam' Archer, "Real Conversations, " Academy, LX
(March 23, 1901), 240. ‘

“Gissing, Letters, p. 83.
6‘Gissing, Letters, 13. 89.
"Gissing, Letters, p. 49.

36

that Arthur'Golding held Gissing's theory, and after totaling up the
sums, found no reason to continue his desperateexistence. Suicide
commonly occurs in Gissing's early novels. :

Despair was illustrated inrother ways, too, for Gissingsintended
to show the unpleasantness of life. In 1887, he wrote in a letter,
". . .all my work is profoundly pessimistic as far as mood goes. "“
His novels ended with the-main characters dying unsentimentally:
Helen Norman, Kingcotc and‘Reardon from illness; Mutimer from the
action of a mob; and the philanthrOpic Snowdon from age. A Death, of
course, was not new in the Victorian novel, but Gissing always treated
it uns entimentally. . Readers could have concluded only that the dying
had never known any joy in living.

. Despite Gissing's continual asseverations that his work was bound

'to be gloomy because of the nature of his-material, maturity found him

writing in a different vein.69 The Town Traveller indicated his break

 

with pessimism. Though still appearing, the satiric passages were now
less vitriolic. The reasons for this changein attitude are not known.

If one can believe that T113 Private Papers o_f liens! Ryecroft reflect

the author'sOpinions of his last years as his son, amOngothers,
suggested, the following statement may help to. account forithe change:
"The mind which renounces, once and for ever, a futile hOpe,‘ has‘its

compensationin ever-growing calm. "7° Having seen. that his efforts

m
——r or . , ._. f fin"?

“Gissing, Letters,p. 193.

‘f’As late as 1891 he wrote tohis sister, ". . .my ideas are
negative, and on the whole I confine myself to giving picturEs of life
as it looks tosmy observation of it. The outlook, certainly, 'is not very
Cheerful; impossible for'me to see the world in a rosy light. "‘ Gissing,
Letters, p. 318. ' "

~7°Gissing,. Ryecroft, p. 54.

37

had effected no change in the world he so bitterly detestcd, he apparently
resigned himself to this state of affairs, letting his resignationattest
to aninternally-felt pessimism.

Gissing's denial of the spirit of Optimism-was-one of his strongest
characteristics. :Hisewriting does not urgevthat a greater love between
members of the human race will produce happiness fortheworld. His
distrust of democracy (in=I_)_e__n_1_o_s andin-Ryecroft) and his dislike of the
peeple whom he described elsewhere reveal him asone having little
faith in the future.

Insl930 George Moore candidly stated, "But thenrl am~ a natural
pessimist. "7‘ This statement would not have surprisedany of his readers
during the period under study, for'his books, with the exception of
Esther Waters, reveal his anti-optimistic spirit. Beforehe had written
his first work, he wrote of himself, ". . .thoughts of love and death,
and the hOpelessness of life, were in active fermentation withinme and
sought for utterance with a strange unintermittingness of appeal. "'3
- An early utterance of the hOpelessness of life appeared in_A_l Modern
.W' The pessimism here took no strange color. The black of the
beginning. of the story became only blacker. No attempt was made-to
‘ show that an external or even an internal forceproduced the downfall
of the characters. The story contained merely a groupof characters
degenerating. . I

In thesame way Mooretreated the story of the degradation of
Kate and Dick in A Mummer's V.\_f_i_f_¢_a. The reasons for theirdownfall

 

were never explained. The: author did not suggest that life could have

—_

"Moore, Letters, p. 86.

”Moore, Confessions, p-25.

 

38

been better for them. Kate's abandonment of her husbandlproduced no
good for-her, providing only ameans-whereby Moore could show her
downfall. The descentsintomisery presentedin these two stOries
were, if nothing else, matter-of-fact. The novelist made no point of
informing his audience that these characters were struggling‘against
forces greater than their own. It was the reader's responsibility to
recognize that here wereweak people who surrendered easily and did
not try to overcome their sexual instincts.

Moore relied on one device to show the hOpelessness of existence:
suicide. This seemed to him~ a prOper solution for the troubles‘in

-Mike Fletcher and in VainFortune. In neither case, though, is there

 

the poignancy of the death-of LittleFather'Time (in Jude) nor of Biffen
(in New Grub" Street). The degradation of his charactersiMoore-merely
rounded off with suicidal acts.

Onemight suspect after reading ImPressions and ginionsthat

 

Moore would have employed in his novels an idea acquiredfrom- Ibsen:
". . . we learn that though there be no gods to govern us, that nature,
vast and unknown, for ever dumb to our. appeals, holds usin thrall. "”
His subsequent novels reject this idea, however: inEsther Waters he

did not make his heroine suffer at the hands of fate as Hardy made Tes s

 

 

suffer; there were no misplaced letters or confessions to deprive
Esther of happiness. In fact, the novel ended on a note of happiness
and the tragedies of the earlier period were not duplicated. 7‘
Moore did not entirely relinquish his pessimistic ideas with this
book, however. - EM i_n_n__es and~~§_i£t_e_r Teresa illustrate a different
form of pessimism. The beautiful singer, erstwhilemistress of

-—._

”Moore, "Note on 'Ghosts,"' 'Mpressions, p. 224.

 

 

39

Sir Owen-Asher, left her paramour to enter a convent. To ‘Moore,
whose anti-Catholic feelings were as strong as those of Owen, this was
a kind of suicide." Baker informs us that "Moore even coquetted with
the idea of suicide in the convent pond as a termination. "7‘ And as the
original ending of the story went, Evelyn found no peace of soul because
she was neither nun nor mistress, possibly a suggestion of the idea
that a suicide finds no resting place; her suicide, of course, was her
denial of the inner self.

Obviously Moore held no brief for Optimism. His later remarks
concerning the evil that Esther Waters did to him--". . .here is a case
of a thoroughly healthy book having demoralis ed its author [ by supplying
him with enough money for luxurious living]"--indicate that the popular-
ity of this novel was due to. its ending on a note of hopefulness and
Optimism. 75 The common trait of the other novels was pessimism.

t The views of Hardy, Gissing, and Moore on the subject of
literature and the aims of the novel led each one into commenting on
realism‘ and naturalism. The first of these novelists denied that
naturalism in fiction was a possibility, because, as he pointed out in
his essay, "The Science of Fiction, "

The most devoted apostle of realism, the sheerest
naturalist, cannot escape, any more than the withered old
gossip over her fire, the exercise of Art in his labour or
pleasure of telling a tale. Not until he becomes an automatic
reproducer of all impressions whatsoever can he be called
purely scientific, or even a manufacturer on scientific
principles. If in the exercise of his reason he select or omit,

 

"Ernest A. Baker, History of theEnglish'Novel: The Day Before
:Xlesterday (LondOn, 1938), p. 177.

75Moore, "Ave, ” p. 85.

 

 

 

40

with an eye to being more truthful than truth (the just aimtofr.‘
Art), he transforms himself into a technicist at a move.“

Obviously, Hardy believed that the mere selection of certain details

from all the details in the world prevented any author from becoming

a naturalist. Furthermore, Hardy pointedout that even Zola recog-
nized the weakness of his own theory when the Frenchsnovelist main-
tained "that the novel should keep as close to reality as it <_:_§_._I_1_.""
Hardy's underscored words here would have permitted him to regard
himself as a realist, if he chose, for he saw granted in them the freedom
to choose discriminately whatever details he might wish to record; for,
as he said in regard to those three underscored words, "if we grant
"that, we grant all. "73 ,

The term "realism" greatly disturbed Hardy because of its
ambiguity. He objected to its being used by some as a synonym for
cOpyism and by others as a synonym for pruriency, and, of course,
Hardy would never admit to his work being an examPle of either.W
Nevertheless, he did not deny that he achieved a reality or truth which
surpassed that of those writers who would call themselves realists.

He insisted that as an artist selecting and distorting observable details,
arranging them to suit the purposes of narrative, he could produce by a
false thing the effect of a true, animpossible feat for realists whose
formulae prevented their tampering with or heightening pictorial

detail. so

 

"Hardy, I_.i__f_e 31351135}: p. 85.
"Hardy, Life a_n_d§_r_t_, p. 86.
"Hardy, .I:_i_f_e aid-fit, p. 86.
"Hardy, Life and-Art, p. 87.

”Hardy, Early Life, p. 299.

41

It is, of course, a major difficulty to discover the details that
Hardy tampered with or invented in his attempt to make real the
romances, but one may assume that whenever he failed to conceal his
art, for example in the obvious coincidences, he was exercising his
imagination and insisting on prerogatives of artists. The losing of the

earrings in}: Pair (if Blue Eyes, the misplacing of the letter in Tess (if

 

 

the D'Urbervilles, and in Far from tie-MaddingCrowd Fanny Robin's

 

 

 

showing up for her wedding at the wrong church are just three of the
many apparent coincidences which may have resulted from the author's
conscious.treatment of his materials.

These obvious coincidences were not what outraged such readers

as the Bishop of Wakefield, burner of Jude the Obscure; he acted because

 

Hardy had presented details which made the book appear pornographic

to him. .It was not the coincidences in Tess that caused dinner-table

 

fights, but the question of morality and the author's right to relate
frankly his tale of adultery and murder.81 But Hardy's comments regard-
ing the duties of an artist prove him displeased with naturalism and
realism as he defined them; his stated goal was to suggest reality by
the refining process of art.

Invhis last years Gis sing stated that as a child he had enjoyed
black and white prints more than paintings and that duringrhis early .
manhood he had preferred nature as represented by art to nature 1
itself. 82 It takes little effort to see that it was this black and white of
the steel engravings which underlay his pictures of London slum life

¥

81Hardy, Later’Years, p. 6.

82Gissing, Ryecroft, p. 68.

42

and the life of the lower middle classes, for here was an artist who
strove by remaining as neutral as he could to avoid coloring his work.
His- statements about his universe are worth noting:

The world is for'me a collection of phenomena which are to
be studied and reproduced artistically. In the midst of the
most serious complications of life, I find myself suddenly
possessed with a great calm, withdrawn .as it were from the
immediate interests of the moment, and able to regard every-
thing as a picture. . . .the afflictions of others are to me
materials for observation. . . . What has that to do with me,

if a fact ?83

Here was the author's creed for his earliest work, and dominating all
else was his belief in the necessity of remaining objective in his
descriptions. In his earliest novels his attempts to remain objective

and disinterested were only partly successful. Workers, for example,

in the gruesome tenement scenes gave details of poverty and atmosphere
that were almost unbearably unpleasant. The death of Golding's father
Gissing treated with no compassion at all. Not a bit of his own sentiment
appeared. But unfortunately for the theory of objectivity, the author
could not refrain from commenting on the society which-allowed such

misery. The Unclassed, writtensafter Gissinghad verbalized the creed

 

given above, was still notmore objective than Workers in the Dawn.

The novelist fully knew that readers saw in him- an-English‘Zola,

 

for after the first novel appeared in 1880, Gissing's good friend
Frederic Harrison wrote to him:

. . .I especially hate the so-called realism of Zola. But your
painting of dark life seems to me asgood as his and to have
a better social purpose-net least I hOpe so.“

83Gissing, Letters, p. 128.
a‘Gissing, Letters, p. 77.

43

"Regardless-of the social purpose, Gissing continued to write novels
following his theory of objectivity as best he could. - Although his'many ‘
letters are interlarded with‘French-phrases and lists of French books

read or'intended to be read, he did not mention E'RemmiEqérmgntfl

 

as-a. source of his work nor of his technique. New Grub Street contained

 

a passage in which Gis sing contrasted his results with‘Zola's, however:

Zola writes deliberate tragedies; his vilest figures become
heroic from the place they fill in a strongly imagined drama.

I want to deal with the essentially unheroic, with the day-to-day
life of that vast majority of peeple who are at the mercy of
paltry circumstance.”

One doubts if any nineteenth-century reader could have read the
successive novels of Gissing without noticing certain changes in his
attitudes. In the first place, the reader would have noticed, starting

-with‘I_s_1.Ee_l Clarendon and‘Demos, that the slum scenes were de-empha-
sized. Secondly, he would have noticed that the latter of these novels
had plot as well as social purpose. Thirdly, he would have noticed that
more and more Gissing entered himself into his work in order. to
comment on society's weaknesses. Finally, he would be forced to see
the naturalistic tendencies give way to more romantic fiction.

The announcement of this last change came in 1895 when Gissing
belabored naturalism and the current applicationof the term realism
to all disagreeable novels. He regarded literary naturalism as realism
plus science and claimed that it was a protest against conventional

literature, which in its revolutionary vigor adopted unpleasant subject

 

‘—r pawn!

”George Gissing, New Lrub Street, p. ISO.“ See also the state-
ment of William Frierson in L' Influence du Naturalisme Fra’niais sur
les Romanciers Anglais_ de 1885a l_2_00: Comme nous avons tenté de le
montrer, l'idée que se fait Zola de la brutalité des masses a probable-
,ment influence Gissing dans sa description des habitants dés quartiers
pauvres. . . .,p. 212.

 

 

 

44

matter. Besides, Gissing thought, realism had become identified with
pessimism to its own disadvantage. The novelist's task, as he saw it
now, was to work subjectively with his own ideas of the world and to
breathe life into those ideas. There was no science of fiction possible,
he insisted, because science concerns itself with demonstrable facts
whereas artistry must select only part of the actual and combine the
selection with an emotional effect. He continued

Realism, then, signifies nothing more than artistic sincerity
in the portrayal of contemporary life; it merely contrasts with
the habit of mind which assumes that a novel is written

'to please peOple, ' that disagreeable facts must always be
kept out of sight, that human nature must be systematically
flattered, that the book must have a 'plot,‘ that the story
should end on a cheerful note, and all the rest of it. 86

_ Thus Gissing, like Hardy, could be a realist in all his works. He could
not rightly be called a naturalist, he would have insisted, because
artistry does not admit the possibility of combining science and art.

1 Again like Hardy, he could remain a realist if he would but remain
sincere and true to artistic principles, selecting any subjects which had
an appeal for him and not necessarily those which were by nature
depressing. . Still a realist by his own definition, Gissing could treat

humorous or romantic tOpics in The Town Traveller or in Veranilda.

 

Moore' s discovery of naturalism came when he was. in Paris'in
his formative years:

One day. . .I took up the Voltaire. , It contained an article by
M. Zola. Naturalisme, la vérité, la science, were repeated
some half-a-dozen timesT—Hardly able to believe my eyes,

I read that you should write, with as little-imagination as
possible, that plot in a novel or in a play was illiterate and
puerile. . . . 87

 

8‘Y’C‘vissing, Selections, p. 220.

 

8"Moore, Confessions, p. 72.

 

45

The great difficulty for him‘at the time, however, was that he had
written no novels of any sort. But when he returned to Englandand
wrote his first novel, it was as'Zolaesque as he knew how to make it.
Moore chose a tapic which-was no more sordid than the topic of Zola's

L'Assommoir which had impressed him so deeply. The theme of

 

gradual degradation he developed asthoroughly in his first novel,
A Modern Lover, as he did in his second,._A_ Mummer's Wife.

Bothsbooks he wrote in the style of Zola, that is, with careful, im-

 

 

personal, and detailed observations. The latter novel, however, added
the ingredient of heredity as a determining and invincible force which
contributed to Kate's downfall asmuch as did anything else; the first
novel, Moore later explained ”was the work of a young man who in a
moment of inspiration hit upon an excellent anecdote and, being without
skill, devised an uncouth text out of memories of Balzac, Zola and
Goncourt. . . . "88

A Drama ill-Muslin showed Moore attempting something new in his

 

naturalism. Here he changed his topic from the depiction of lower class
life to a presentation of upper classIrish society with peasant poverty
always in the background. The naturalistic tendency of documenting
and reporting and describing were still evident, as were the objectivity
and impersonality of the novelist; but most striking was-Moore's
attempt to-penetrate the minds of his characters, especially Alice
Barton's, by detailingsphysical surroundings. But he soon announced
this washis last naturalistic novel.

- The announcement of his break with Zolaism appeared in many

forms. His- Confessions revealed in many places-that a mere dislike

 

 

”Freeman, Portrait, p. 80.

46

of naturalism had turned into a hatred for it. Here are found such
scornful phrases as "the putrid mud of naturalism, " "the naturalism
of a coloured photograph, " and in reference to Zola himself, F'the
simple crude statements of a man of powerful mind, but singularly
narrow vision. "89 These statements and others scattered throughout

the Confessions did not suffice to convince readers that he had broken

 

with naturalism. To one of his biographers he complained-later that
peOple kept associating his name with'Zola, even after'Esther Waters

was published."0 An alert reader should have differehtiated 'betWeen

 

-Esther Waters and any of the previously mentioned novels, one of the
most obvious differences being the triumph of Esther over her environ-
ment. Besides, the former technique of aloofness had disappeared;

it was only the choice of a woman from the servant class and her
sordid surroundings that could have suggested a comparison of Kate

with‘Esther, of _A_ Mummer's Wife with Esther Waters.

 

In still another statement Moore also rejected-Zola. In a review
of I;e_ 1214:, he pointed out what he regarded as a major weakness of
'Zola's novel: "M- Zola has never attempted to grapple with mental
problems, or to follow the strange and complex mysteries of the» mind's
mechanism. . . . _"91 But this feat Moore had attempted much earlier in

:15: Drama i_p Muslin. Obviously, after his first two novels, he was no

 

longer following his supposed master'spractices.
Moore insisted that "no man will ever be born who will write

more than two, at the most three, naturalistic novels, the naturalistic

”Moore, Confessions, pp. 82, 146, 74.

 

”Hone, George Moore, p. 208.

”Moore, Impressions, p. 128.

 

4?

novel being the essence of a phase of life that the writer has lived in
and assimilated. . . . "93 But despite this statement and the others, and
quite‘possibly because he made constant references to France and
.French authors, the nineteenth century kept associating him with
naturalism-and its hated content, sordid realism; and pessimism.

The preceding summary of the beliefs and practices of Hardy,
. Moore, and-Gissing permits us to see what their views onwomen, men,
language, the relations between the sexes, pessimism, and naturalism
were; by comparing and contrasting their individual views, we shall
see to what extent the novelists generally resembled each other in
these phases of their novels, the phases which the periodical critics
also discussed.

- Within the limits of the narrative, Hardy emphasized the physical
attractiveness of his female characters. Gissing's women were more
inclined to be attractive because of their intellectuality. To him the
women who acted from, emotion seemed less appealing than those who
acted from reason. His later novels, however, reflected a change in
his attitude toward their intellectuality. but even then their physical
appeal wasminimized. Moore's women characters were sensual
creatures, their animalism taking precedence over any other character-
istic as a motivating force. Only after-he abandoned his strict
naturalistic formula did he inject spiritual qualities into his female,
characters. Thus the three novelists with their divergent points of
view created women who did not illustrate the ideals of Victorian
womanhood.

. Similarly they created men who differed from the standard heroes

of the day. Hardy and Gissing chose their heroes primarily from the

 

92Freeman, Portrait, p. 115.

48

lower classes'and endowed them with whatever intellectual and emotional
characteristics their stories needed. - Selecting a hero from the lower
'classes was not the best technique for. pleasing readers, but keeping
‘:‘the.heroes there even at the end of the novel was a real violation of

the code for heroes. Furthermore, Gissing made his heroes bookish,
learned, and impractical, in constant conflict with their surroundings.
Again, however, Gissing changed in. his last works. Moore, on the other
hand, cared little-whether his characters came from the upper or‘lower,
educated or illiterate classes; the important thing was that they be uncon-
ventional in one aspect or another. ,

‘A close bond between the three novelists appears in their common
respect for good, grammatical language. Their letters and diaries
show the care with which they recorded their own thoughts. In that
era, furthermore, when the asterisk and dash‘were ubiquitous in every
realistic novel, the three novelists were forced to refrain from using
language which could offend any reader. . Each author, however, pro-
tested against the publishers' restrictions and tried to create his
realistic language effects within the limits imposed upon him.

-Another bond between the three novelists appearedin their hatred
of the conventionswhich denied them their right to speak frankly about
the sexual aspects of life. ‘ Illegitimacy, prostitution, rape, fornication,
and adultery were all presented, but the authors differed in their
attitudes toward these. Hardy compassionately tolerated the weaknesses
of the individuals. involved. Gis sing was outraged that society had
progressed so little that such things still occurred. - And Moore, at
least in the early novels, cared little, insisting. only that these were
frailties of mankind and as such worthy of being written about. These

three did not regard marriage as the key to happiness, and they did

49

not consider the home with its family a bastion protecting its inmates
from the world. ~ Divorce was presented as a possible solution to
marital difficulties. As for love, Hardy was inclined to make it a
dominant force even when he did not romanticize it; Gissing relegated
it to a position of minor importance; and Moore ridiculed or denied it,
substituting sexual attraction in its place. Their beliefs in the roles
of love, sex, and marriage indicated divergent points of view. Not
one of the authors, however, treated these subjects to the satisfaction
of a reading public which had been led to believe that such tOpics were
unsuitable in novels.

The most unifying feature of their writings and philosophy was
their accent on pessimism, or if one prefers, the lack of Optimism.
~ All of the novelists employed suicide as a device to emphasize the
hopeless plights of their characters. . All three showed how dismal
the world of their stories was by having their principal characters die
in squalid surroundings. Most characters raised above their-misery
soon found themselves in even more de8perate situations. The gloom
in Hardy's stories was equalled only by Moore's and surpassed only by
Gissing's. These novelists were indeed chroniclers of despair and
hence hostile to Victorian thought.

The novelists were less allied in their literary practices,
. although each claimed that he was a realist. Neither Hardy nor Gissing
insisted on their naturalism as did Moore, the latter rejoicing that
he had discovered and emulated hismaster, Zola. We saw, however,
that this was only a temporary phase in Moore's career, for he rejected
Zola with as much vehemence as he had earlier embraced him.
Hardy denied the possibility of naturalism, but he insisted that he was

a realist because his artistic ability gave him the power of creating

50

reality for his public. Like Hardy, Gissing was unable to be objective
in his novels but he too insisted that it was his art that made whatever
he created seem real to his readers. We may speak of all of them as
realists if we‘limit the term to its meaning of making their stories
credible at the time of reading; we may not, however, call them
naturalists unless that term is used to signify the revolt against the
romantic extravaganees which so pleased the Victorians and. so annoyed
serious novelists, for Hardy and Gissing both denied the possibility of
the science of fiction andMoore flatly rejected*Zola.

The authors' statements about their work furthermore indicated
that they knew they were producing art of a revolutionary nature. They
indicated their awareness of their public's limited artistic sense and
their publishers' insular taste. The next three chapters will be devoted
to an examination of the literary taste of the reviewers in prominent
periodicals of the day. From theirmany criticisms, we shall see what
they thought naturalism was and why they classified these three

novelists as naturalistic.

CHAPTER III

THOMAS HARDY AND THE PERIODICAL CRITICS

One of the outstanding pieces of Hardy scholarship is the dis-
sertation of Donald Winslow entitled Thomas Hardy's Critics. In this

 

study Professor Winslow traced the reception of Hardy's work not only

in England but also in America. While his chapter on the periodical
criticism was quite adequate for his purposes, the present study demands
many more excerpts and a closer analysis of the reviews themselves.
Thus, we shall be able to discover what the critics had to say about
Hardy's treatment of women, men, the relations between the sexes,

his language, pessimism, and realism and naturalism. By comparing
the critics' comments here with those made about Gissing and Moore in
the ensuing chapters, we shall have a real insight into the critical mind
of the late Victorian era.

In Chapter II, which dealt with the principles and practices of
Hardy, Gissing, and Moore, evidence was presented which indicated
that Hardy knew that his women characters were not usual for the novels
of his time. Furthermore, his remarks revealed that he wanted to
emphasize the physical attractiveness of his women and to show that
whether of high or low degree, they were inwardly quite similar to one
another. His efforts to illustrate these beliefs did not escape the

periodical critics at any time. When Desperate Remedies appeared,

 

the Athenaeum critic, unsure of the identity and the sex of the author,

 

51

52

remarked upon the novelist' s familiarity with and the careful detailing
of the female toilette and suggested the novel was the work of a
woman. The critic thought thetcharactersfwere. exceedingly good

and almost worthy of GeorgeEliot. The one element which prevented

the reviewer from stating flatly that Deeperate Remedies was the work

 

of a woman was a certain coarseness which forced him to believe .
the work could not have "come from the pen of an English lady. "1
The important thing, however, is that Hardy's women were noticed from

the very beginning. A After A Pair o_f Blue Eyes appeared, the Athenaeum

 

 

seemed more sure of itself in speaking of 1\_Ii_1_'. Hardy and his feminine
ideal, which appeared to the critic, at least, as "not lofty, though
perilously attractive. "2 Here also was praise for the distinctive
character of Elfride Swancourt and the individuality of the other peOple

in the novel. Two things must be remarked from these early Athenaeum

 

criticisms: first, the critic's belief that an English lady was innately
incapable of being coarse in any way; and secondly, that Hardy's attitude
toward and presentation of women was different enough from the Victorian
standard to bring his novels to the attention of reviewers.

Paula Powers in A Laodicean was not regarded sympathetically
by the Saturday Review, which found her character insufficiently ex-
plained. It found her lukewarm and almost lifeless.3 But the Saturday
Review was generally unenthusiastic about Hardy. For example, the

periodical's reviewer of Two on a Tower complained that there was too

 

much incongruity in Hardy's treatment of his characters, that there

 

lupeaperate Remedies, .. Athenaeum, LIX (April 1, 1871), 399.
2"A Pair of Blue Eyes, " Athenaeum, LXIII (June 28, 1873). 820.
’HA Laodicean, " Saturday Review, LIII (January 14, 1882), 53.

 

 

 

53

was too little explanation of his characters' motives, and too little
reconciling of seeming discrepancies in them. To the reviewer these
weaknesses resulted from ". . .the trick of attempting analytical dis-
cussion of mental processes--a trick which is but too apt to lead to
vdulness. "‘ By this method of indicating its displeasure with all of
Hardy's characterization, it avoided comment on the physical appear-
ance of the women.

. Havelock Ellis was most impressed by the women in Hardy's
tales. , Commenting on Hardy's "An Indiscretion in the Life of an
Heiress, " the reviewer had this to say: "Geraldine Allenville, except
in the one decisive action of her life, has little of the demonic element
that slumbers in most of Mr. Hardy's heroines. "5 Besides revealing
this facet of the Hardy heroine, he complimented .the novelist for his
careful presentation of women, and at the same time denied that George

eEliot could have been responsible for the anonymous Far'From the

 

Madding- Crowd. He wrote as follows:

 

The high position which the author of 'Far from the'Madding
Crowd' holds among contemporary English novelists is now
generally recognized. . . .- No woman could have created a
series of heroines of so persistently narrow range and such
consummate fascination within that range.‘

, Ellis,cou1d, hOwever, understand why some people had thought a.-..
woman had written the novel: it had shown minute and delicate observa-
tion, and while making the matter of love the one important business of

life, the author had displayed a "charming reticence in its delineation, "

 

"'Two on a Tower, .. aturday Review, LIV (November 18, 1882),674.

F’Havelock Ellis, "Thomas Hardy's Novels, " Westminster Review,
CX'IX (April 1882), 172.

,‘Ellis, p. 194.

 

54

a not unusual comment when one considers the era's liking for romantic
love stories and the vast number of women engaged in the writing of
these.7 Furthermore, the critic stated that English fiction, unlike
French fiction, had in most recent times been most successful when
written by women. Nevertheless, Ellis insisted the'female

characters in Hardy's works had no equals in the writings of any other
author, for Hardy had "added a fresh delight to certain aspects of
Nature, " a compliment, indeed, since we have seen that Hardy wanted
to present physically attractive women.8 Ellis particularly admired
Hardy's position in showing that all women, whether of high or low
degree, were actually sisters. Their vivacity, practicality, capricious-
ness, and instinctive self- respect endeared them to the reviewer. He,
for one, was not content with the usual role assigned to the Victorian
heroine. Comparing the Hardy technique in presenting women with

the usual methods used, he stated:

Mr. Hardy's way of regarding women is peculiar and dif-
ficult to define, not because it is not a perfectly defensible way,
but because it is in a great degree new. It is, as we have
already noted, far removed from a method, adOpted by many
distinguished novelists, in which women are considered as moral
forces, centripetal tendencies providentially adapted to balance
the centrifugal tendencies of men; being indeed, almost the polar
Opposite to that view. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that it is
equally removed from the method of those who are concerned to
work out Tertullian' 8 view of woman as janua diaboli. Mr. Hardy's
women are creatures, always fascinating, made up of love and
admiration, who can never help some degree of reaponse when the
satisfaction of those instincts lies open to them. They are all
untimately that; but with what intelligence, what an innate grace,

 

731113, p. 164.
8131113, p. 164.

55

at once delicate and frank, these instincts are manifested, any
one knows who has followed the history of Elfride Swancourt or
- Anne Garland. Thecharm of woman for‘Mr. Hardy is chiefly
physical, but it is a charm which can only be interpreted by
subtle observation. Generally, he is only willing to recognize
the psychical element in its physical correlative. This dislike
to usethe subjective method or to deal directly with mental
phenomena is. a feature in Mr- Hardy's'psychology which has
left a strong mark on his art.9

Obviously Ellis succeeded in discovering that Hardy's women were dif-
ferent from those whom readers were accustomed to find in novels.
The motivation of the women, as the reviewer constantly pointed out,
is the instincts which are common to all women. Recognizing these
instincts as commonplace, Hardy was not obligated to delve into thought
processes, spiritual behavior, and intellect-produced actions. To do so
would probably have evoked more Saturday Review‘charges of dullness.
Other reviewers did not appreciate so fully the Hardy heroine and
her creator. ~A reviewer in Spectator, in fact, believed the "novel-
ist's attitude toward women, despite other fine artistic qualities such as
faithfulness to nature, high imagination, splendid literary workmanship,
and excellent description of human emotions, was the author's greatest
liability. "It is the low view of womenipervading all of Hardy's novels
that robs him, and will continue to rob him, of the full sympathy of his
readers. "10 Even when Hardy had attempted to draw them as kindly,
virtuous, and anxious to do no harm, the reviewer saw drawn around
them- ". . .' a sense of moral squalor which is often little less than re-

volting. "11 There followed a‘ bitter, vituperative attack on Hardy's

 

,9E112ls, P. 165s ,
lo"Groupof Noble Dames, " Spectator, LXVII .,(August 1891). 163.
u"Noble Dames, " p. 163.

56

heroines, with only one of the noble dames being toleratedu-Marty

South. Grace, in The Woodlanders, like Eustacia Vye in The Return

 

 

2it_l_1_e Native, was regarded by the reviewer as a mere animal, although
he‘conceded sheiwas of a gentle nature; But he denied there .1

could be heroines in any of the novels because "the women have no Spark
of nobility of feeling, and no faintest touch of heroism. "12 The reviewer
pursued the point further by stating that Hardy did recognize the mean-
ing of heroism as the sacrifice to the highest idea of duty, and that he
recognized the existence of nobility in human nature, at least as far as
men are concerned. But what worried the critic most was this question:

Why did Hardy refrain from creating noble women?

The too obvious answer, but not true one is. . . he is a
cynic who takes a low view of women, and who will not paint
what he cannot see. It is far more likely that Mr. Hardy is
one of those novelists who find it extremely difficult to realise
those inner female characteristics which must be relied on if

. a novelist is to depict an heroic woman. . . . It is far easier to
draw an Elfrida Swancourt than a female Reddleman, and an
artist who felt himself weak in women would soon realise
this. 13

The reviewer here demonstrated that he subscribed to earlier standards
which held that a heroine vshould possess a nobility derived from self-
sacrifice and duty. Since Hardy's women acted without these two con-
siderations, it is small wonder that the critic registered a complaint.
One should note, though, that'it is Hardy's art which receives the
blame; for as was shown in the second chapter, Hardy was an innovator
in his depiction of women. He did not aim at the conventional standard

and miss; he deliberately gave his readers a new type of heroine.

12"Noble Dames, " p. 163.
13"Noble Dames, " p. 164.

57

~ Sometimes signed criticisms were less condemnatory than the
unsigned article just referred to. . A study by Janetta Newton- Robinson
appeared in 1892, after the novelist had become well-established.
Her study did not uphold the belief that Hardy failed to understand
women. On the contrary, she insisted 'E'Mr. Hardy's heroines ‘are
.14

no less successful than his humorous bucolic portraits.‘

In reference to-_A_ Pair o_f Blue Eyes, the critic saw also that Hardy

 

 

truly understood women, who, in his novels, are often led away by
passion against their better judgment. (It is noteworthy that where
Miss Robinson saw these women as passion-led, Ellis had seen them
asinstinct-led and that neither saw them as reason-led.) Although a

reader scarcely sympathizes with the heroine in The Hand o_f Ethelberta,

 

 

here was a critic who believed the novelist excelled in creating
Ethelberta. - And as for the portrait of Tess and her friends in Tess o_f

22 D'Urbervilles, Miss-Robinson stated,

 

 

Tess of the D'Urbervilles develOps a conception of woman as
simple— yet- general in type as that of Venus or Diana, for though
Mr. Hardy's genius is eminently modern, there is, nevertheless,
something of the Greek spirit in the large and typical handling of
his characters. The chorus of love-lorn dairy-maids in this book,
is however, rather of the Operatic than the Hellenic stage. 1’

 

 

, Nor would the critic. have agreed that Tess failed to do her duty, for the
heroine did submit to the demands of her worthless father that she visit
the distinguished family; furthermore, she submitted to her husband's -
will on most occasions. The critic saw no weaknesses in Hardy's

portrayal of women; indeed, she had special praise for his art in

 

“Janetta Newton- Robinson, "Study of Mr. Thomas Hardy, "
Westminster Review, CXXXVII ,(February 1892), 154.

- ”Newton-Robinson, p. 162.

 

58

presenting such women as: Eustacia Vye with her stormy grandeur and
Mrs. Yeobright with her sternness and grim tenderness. Obviously,
though, Miss Newton-Robinson was not the ordinary unsigned critic
who subscribed to the ordinary code of heroines.

Tess did not fare so well at the hands of the anonymous reviewer

for Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. In the first place, the reviewer

 

flatly stated that Hardy was not one of his favorite authors; he saw a real
artistic failure in the novelist's attempt at making Tess credible since
the heroine, having passed just the Sixth Standard, was full of such
great erudition. The critic illustrated this point, and possibly demon-
strated his own knowledge of literary affairs, when he referred to
Tess's knowledge of the prOphecies of Ezekiel and her description of

the devil as possessing a three-pronged fork, the devil as he occurs in

"the Inferno, but in no more papular reading. "‘6

However, the reviewer
did not doubt Hardy's general understanding of women; only Tess was un-
satisfactory. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the reviewer was
condemning Hardy for elevating a woman above her assigned station in

life.

 

Like the Blackwood's reviewer, the critic for the Fortnightly
Review believed Hardy had not successfully depicted Tess as a credible
woman. . She was unbelievable for the same reason: she showed too much
erudition for one having had so little formal schooling. Besides, it
appeared that the author had injected himself into her philosophical dis-
cussions, for example, in giving her reasons for refusing to study
history. "Tess, it is true, as‘Mr- Hardy continually remarks, had
passed her Sixth Standard; but even agricultural girls of the Sixth Standard

 

 

'1,"'Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine,
CLI (March 1892), 465.

59

are scarcely yet credible with a 'criticism of life' of this calibre. "17

The Quarterly Review also reviewed Tess but did not object to

 

 

Tess's great learning nor did it complain about Hardy's inability to de-
pict women. What is did object to was Hardy's making Tess physically
attractive:

Poor Tess's sensual qualifications for the part of heroine
are paraded over and over again with a persistence like that
of a horse-dealer egging on some wavering, customer to a
deal, or a slave-dealer appraising his wares to some full-
blooded pasha. 18

Again one must notice that Hardy's unusual way of presenting women
attracted the unfavorable attention of a reviewer. Hardy's success

in creating women was questioned by the reviewer in Harper's New

 

Monthly Magazine. Tess was found unreal and not of the nineteenth

 

century because of the generally quaint and archaic tone of the novel.
But most appalling to the reviewer was the discovery that the novel's
illustrator had put the milkmaid on the wrong side of the cow. He could
conclude only that this was a literary milkmaid or one created for a
moral purpose. 19 More than once do we find a reviewer condemning a
book without wishing to state why; but possibly because he did not wish
to enter into a discussion of the literary efforts of the novelist, the
critic attempted to destroy with scorn and ridicule.

The Athenaeum reviewer found Tess a credible, sympathetic

 

creature, an imperfect, nobly- planned woman. Indeed, he felt for Tess

 

”Francis Adams, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Fortnightly
Review, LVIII (July 1892), 21.

18"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Quarterly Review, CLXXIV
(January 1892), 325.

19"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Harper's New Monthly Magazine,
LXXXIV (June 1892), 152.

 

60

exactly as he had for "the most lovable of Mr. Meredith'e women" and
found that his interest remained constantly with Tess the woman, not
with Tess as a sinner or a victim of a sinner.”
The novelist's powers of observation in creating female characters
and especially Tess were not at all praised when the Saturday Review
commented on this controversial novel. In fact, his too faithful des-
cription of Tess's physical qualities brought out this angry comment

from the reviewer: "It is these side suggestions that render Mr. Hardy's

story so very disagreeable, and Tess is full of them. "21 Here was

 

another reviewer who could not believe literary theory justified ’
the novelist's method of describing women.

Tess o_f t_1_1_e D'Urbervilles was so popular with the Westminster

 

 

 

Review that in the same year two issues carried critical comment on it.
In March the periodical praised Hardy because he had given Tess such
a beautiful character.” In December it praised Hardy because he had
so ably described Tess's sleep of exhaustion after she had committed
murder. 23
D. F. Hannigin, the author of this last statement, always supported
Hardy. He regarded the Hardy heroine as an ideal or an idealized type
rather than as a portrait from real life. He saw her not as "advanced, "

to use the nineteenth century equivalent of "uninhibited, " but as

 

“"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Athenaeum. 10 (January 9. 1892).5°~

21"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " aturday Review, LXXIII
(January 16, 1892), 73.

2“""Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Westminster Review, CXXXVII
(March 1892), 347.

23D. F. Hannigin, "The Latest Development of English Fiction, "
Westminster Review, CXXXVIII (December 1892), 657.

 

 

 

61

essentially feminine. He considered the novelist a worshipper of the
ideal woman, the woman without masculine traits. In fact, if the
author erred at all, according to Hannigin, it was because he did not
present average or below average women:

He has shrunk from the portrayal of commonplace women--
if we except the case of Arabella in his latest novel [Jude the
Obscure]--and the charming creatures around whom the interest
of Far From the Madding Crowd, The TrumPet Major, and
nearly all his other works, including Tess of the D'Urbervilles,
centres, seem like etherealised beings-~fay-sj—3-irens, who die--
guise themselves as farmeresses, parson's daughters, uncon-
ventional heiresses, bish0p's wives, schoolmistresses, or
agricultural working girls.“

 

 

 

As for Tess herself, ' Hannigin found her also the exact opposite of
commonplace:

Hers is a rich, voluptuous, daring, downright nature,
such as old Babylon might have produced in spite of her prosaic
surroundings and her squalid miseries. . . . The physiognomy
of character, which defies external circumstances, has been
recognised by Mr. Hardy, and he alone, amongst living English
novelists, has fully realised the great truth that Cleopatra may
be found toiling on a Wessex farm, that the soul of a .Mary
Stuart may animate a nineteenth-century middle-class girl.”

Without realizing it, Hannigin had uncovered one of the important
principles which underlay Hardy's literary theory: the desire to show
that women of high and low degree differ only externally.

But not all signed critics regarded Hardy's women characters

favorably. Mrs. Oliphant, of whom we shall hear more later, did not

 

3"D. F. Hannigin, "Mr. Hardy'sLatest Novel," Westminster
Review, CXLI (April 21, 1894), 136.

25Hannigin, "Hardy's Latest Novel, " p. 137.

62

at all like Hardy's presentation of women. She even concluded that
Hardy's motive in writing lug: th_e Obscure was to show what ruinous
and destructive creatures women really are, especially when they are
contrasted with "glorious" Tess.“ Robert Tyrrell, who, it will be
seen, was kind to George Moore, disliked Hardy's’Arabella. This
character, who seemed to the critic to act without motives, he blamed
for the "lapses (of dramatic fitness which pervade the book.”

After Hardy's last novel had appeared, George Douglas in an
article for the Bookman discussed the Hardy heroines. He saw them
lacking in only one feature--variety. Granting that only Shakespeare
had outdone Hardy in depicting women, he classified them here as young
men's women: appealing to the eye, fascinating and enthralling the
spirit, maddening by the suSpected passion they contain. He pointed
out, nevertheless, that little change or develOpment occurs in these
women as they grow older; they never learn .that maturity should make
them able to be affectionate and consoling. Even mother-love was
foreign to them; in both Mrs. Yeobright and Mrs. J ethway, what could
have been love was primarily selfish possession. One had to content
himself, Douglas insisted, with the fact that Hardy typically offered a
Dream of Fairest Women.28

The reviewers for the several periodicals were not entirely

pleased by what Hardy made of his women characters; but they were

obviously unusual enough to draw comment. Reviewers unaccustomed

 

”M. O. W. Oliphant, "The Anti-Marriage League," Blackwood's
Edinburgh Magazine, CLIX (January 1896), 137.

 

P”Robert Tyrrell, "Jude the Obscure, " Fortnightly Review, LXV
(June 1896), 860.

“G. B. s. Douglas, "The Well-Beloved, .. Bookman, x11 (April
1897L 12.

63

to finding women in novels differing from the standard as outlined in
the first chapter of this study were appalled to find a novelist emphasiz-
ing the physical attractiveness of young beauties. Furthermore, they
saw no reason for denying the distinctions which made'women of the
upper classes more heroic than those from the lower. They wanted
women to balance the forces of evil to be found in. man, as was typically
done in novels, but this, as; Ellis pointed out, was not done in Hardy'
works. In short, the reviewers who attempted to understand Hardy's
art approved of what he did; those who wished to condemn had only to
judge from inherited standards and conclude from these that Hardy's
novels were unsuitable.

The men in the novels fare somewhat better than do the women,
buffeted about as they were, first by fortune and later by unsympathetic
reviewers. HavelockeEllis, who saw Hardy's women as clever,
practical, and fascinating, saw different qualities in the Hardy hero;
veracity, simplicity, and rectitude. Of the hero he stated, "In general,
he is a sensitive being, gentle and pure as a woman, characterized by
nothing so much as his receptivity. "'9 Although this statement appeared,
to be sure, in a review written long before the appearance of £123 th__e
Obscure, the same adjectives would certainly apply to the hero there,
except perhaps the word "pure. " Ellis found less appealing the secondary
characters, for example, Boldwood inf}: from t_l_1_e Madding mg.

 

In fact, Boldwood's mad, crude, unrealistic, and exaggerated passion
for Bathsheba tended to produce a discordant note, the critic believed.3°
The Spectator reviewer found the Hardy heroes most attractive

because they sacrificed themselves to the highest idea of duty.

 

z"Ellis, p. 168.
”Ellis, p. 169.

64

‘Among the men honored for self-sacrifice were Venn in The. Return if

the Native, Gabriel Oak in 123 from £1_1_e_' Madding-Crowd, Giles

 

Winterborne in The Woodlanders, and John Loveday inThe Trumpet

 

M. The novelist's artistic sympathy, according to this reviewer,
lay with the male roles; with Hardy constantly striving to contrast the
heroic nature of the men with the animal nature of the women. Thus,
the reviewer could assign the Victorian attribute of duty to heroes alone;
and finding it absent in women, he assumed this was the'rsason

for the lack of heroines. He was pleased by the heroes, however, to
the point of wishing Hardy would write. aibook'.’ with men as. his

subject, thereby giving the reading public an antidote to his m o_f

Noble Dames. Nevertheless, when Hardy wrote a book with a male as

 

the leading character [._I_ud_e_ the Obscure], the Spectator was no happier
with the result. But for this early book it did concede that the men were
"true knight-errants with no touch of romantic unreality. "31

' The Athenaeum found the male characters quite to its lildng in
_T_e_s_s, although it believed Angel Clare to be a thought too perfect and
that his name bestowed was a touch of Hardy's satire, especially
since neither the author nor Angel himself objected to the latter' s
activities. There was praise for the description of AleoD'Urberv-ille as
"the most boldly designed of villains, the very embodiment of a reckless,
passionate 'child of the devil."'” There was praise for Hardy's under-
standing of the sensual man, as illustrated by the narrative showing

~Alec' s conversion from virtue to vice; and there was especially strong

 

”"Group of Noble Dames, " Spectator, LXVII (August 1391). 164-

”"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 49.

 

 

65

praise for Hardy's 816111 in creating Sir John ,D'Urbeyfield, Angel
Clare's pious Calvinist father, and even the dairyman. The periodical
contended that each role was designed to make the poor heroine more
understandable, but it saw a great defect in Hardy's depiction of Angel
Clare. It could not understand why Angel did not know as much of
Tess's background as we know. This lack of knowledge on Angel

Clare's part forced the Athenaeum to call it "the one fault of con-

 

struction in the novel. "33
The role of Angel Clare in Tess displeased other reviewers,

too. The Gentleman's-Magazine reviewer found this sometime hero

 

unconvincing, e8pecially in the final scene when he stood "hand-in-hand
with his future wife, the sister of the woman who had died for him. "3‘
One su8pects that the fault-finding resulted less from weakness in the
portrayal of Angel Clare than from general dissatisfaction with the
novel, for the reviewer did not elaborate on the poor presentation of
the hero.

Several things about Angel Clare disturbed the Blackwood's

 

reviewer: first, he was appalled that Hardy had created anyone so
incongruous as a harp-playing farmer; second, he found the hero's
name itself unconvincing and distasteful; third, he found incredible the
hero's ignorance of Tess's past since all her activities had occurred
within a short distance of the locale of the story. But these objections
were as nothing when compared to his dislike of Hardy's sympathy for
his agnostic, unforgiving, and pitiless hero. To create an uncom-

passionate hero was most unusual, but even more unusual, the reviewer

 

3.3"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 50.

 

“"Tess of theD'Urbervilles, " Gentleman's Magazine, IL
(September 1892), 321.

 

66

thought, was Hardy's registering no disapproval of Angel Clare.
Certainly in Victoria's day God-fearing heroes were best, and that
this agnostic hero should escape unscathed the difficulties of life or
that Hardy should have attempted such an oxymoron as an agnostic
hero could have been nothing if not disturbing.”

A review signed by J anetta Newton- Robinson took a position
Opposite to the one above. She Openly admired Hardy's objectivity
and attitude toward his creatures since he "does not glow with active
benevolence towards his fellow men, but gazes at them with a saddened,

"36 Furthermore, she unstint-

compassionate wonder, a tender irony.
ingly praised Hardy's ability to create believable men. She admired

him for creating in the characters Of The Return (if the Native the

 

 

various moods of the heath: the steadfastness as illustrated by Clym;

the relief and local color as demonstrated in Grandfer and Christian
Cantle. . She eSpecially liked Hardy's characters because they were made
to be living peOple, not examples of virtues. Michael Henchard in

The Mag c_>_f Casterbridg_e seemed to this critic eSpecially well done

 

 

because he was, to illustrate her theory, "a powerful study of a strong
and concentrated nature. "37

The same magazine published in its next issue an anonymous
review Of '_I‘_e_§_§. Agreeing only in part with Miss Robinson, the critic
stated: "His personages are creatures of flesh and blood like ourselves--

not pantins, personifying theories. "38 The earlier critic had, of course,

 

”"Tess, " Blackwood's. p- 472-

 

36Newton--Robinson, p. 157.
3"Newton-Robinson, p. 164.
38"Tess, " Westminster, p. 348.

 

67

found nature personified in the characters; but the present one believed
theoredibility'efHardy's heron resulted from the. novelistfil ins
grained sympathetic attitude toward humanity and not from some under-
lying principle which sought expression in the hero' 8 characterization.

In an attempt to link Hardy's attitude toward his characters with
Angel Clare's attitudes toward the other persons in the novel, the critic
insisted that Angel Clare' 8 doctrinaire theories forced him to deny his
natural pity and natural affection, whereupon his cruelty appeared. The
critic contended that since Hardy viewed his characters with sympathy and
compassion, he was not acting or writing according to some theory,
because "nothing is so cruel as a theory. "34

The Athenaeum reviewer who discussed a volume of criticism Of

 

Hardy's work objected to the Hardy hero. The reviewer found it notes-
worthy that Lionel Johnson had neglected to discuss the shortcomings of
the male protagonists; Johnson had had "nothing to say of the rather
monotonous repetition of the faithful lover, of the Giles, Gabriel, and
Diggory Venn type throughout Mr- Hardy's works. "4° This is the sole
article, however, which commented on this supposed flaw in character
portrayal, an indication that most critics expected the hero to be faith-
ful as well as dutiful.

» Robert Tyrrell, reviewing for Fortnightly, found Hardy's male

 

characters unconvincing because they were dramatically deficient;

for example, the carter in Jude the Obscure was seen to have sentiments

 

prOperly belonging to a man of culture, not a workman. Jude himself,

although endowed by nature for a certain career, lacked the powers and

 

”"Tess, " Westminster, p. 348.

”"The Art of Thomas Hardy, " Athenaeum, CIV (October 27,
1894), 560. '

 

 

68

resolutions which would have helped him achieve his goal. Since Hardy
had denied him both of these aids, the reviewer labeled the hero
uninteresting. The reviewer found Jude ridiculous as well as unin-
teresting because he also recited the Nicene Creed in Latin in a public
house. Even if Mr. Tyrrell disliked Jude, the carter, and Arabellals
publican, whom he dismissed as poorly conceived, one character he did
like: "the Oxford Head who gave some very good advice to the priggish
young mechanic. "‘1 One can conclude that this reviewer seemed not to
like workingmen and the uneducated in principal roles, especially when
these could not rise above their stations.

Jude's attempts to enter the University brought praise, on the

other hand, from the Westminster Review. Indeed, the reviewer des-

 

cribed the scene as intensely interesting and pathetic, even saying that
"Sam Johnson would have found it hard to keep back his tears at this
portion. "‘2 But the praise in this review extends far beyond an
individual character. In comparing the novelist to George Meredith, the
critic continued,

Mr. George Meredith's epigrammatic cleverness cannot stone
for his poverty of invention, his lack of incident, his fantastic
system of misreading human nature, and if the word novelist
means a writer of human history, Mr. Hardy is incomparably
superior to his supposed rival.”

The Spectator, which disliked so intensely Hardy's efforts to reveal
women's feelings, did, however, like his ability to portray "with an un-

erring hand" the male characters.“ Not so the Athenaeum. This

 

 

“Tyrrell, p. 857.

“Hannigin, "Latest Novel," p. 138.

“Hannigin; p: 139:

“"Life's Little Ironies, H Spectator, Lxxn (April 21, 1894), 538.

69

periodical attacked Hardy and Jude the Obscure viciously. First of

-

 

all it maintained the character of Jude prevented any tragedy in
the novel: the: critic complained that Jude could not arouse sympathy,
and that "without the sympathy at least of human fellow feeling, there
is no tragedy possible. "5 Besides, the reviewer discovered no
individuality in Jude, who was merely a tool to show Hardy's moral,
even though themoral was not stated in the review. Like Sue's, Jude's
behavior was considered not tragic, but only ludicrous. If the
reviewer found anything noteworthy in the. creatiOn of the characters,
it was only in the depiction of Phillotson and‘Arabella's father, the
latter Of whom he called striking. On the whole, though, the critic
blamed Hardyfor cutting out me regpaper marionettes.46
. Some two years later theperiodical became less vituperative in
its judgment. Here, at last, it credited the novelist with imagination
because it thought he had recorded "a temperament which we believe
to be that of the great majority of male human beings-Fnay of male
beings Of every Species. "7 In no apologetic vein, however, the

magazine correctly surmised that this novel, The Well-Beloved, was

 

an earlier.‘work [it was written in 1892 but not published until 1897]
and that its publication at this late date would help restore Hardy to
the good graces of his readers. But this article did not retract the

unkind and harsh comments published about Tess and Jude. One can

 

 

only wonder if the periodical was passing judgment on itself in its

1899 review of Hardy's-Wessex Poems. when it averred that Hardy's

 

 

45"Jude the Obscure, " Athenaeum, CVI (November 23, 1895).
710.

 

“"Jude, "Athenaeum, p. 710.

 

‘7"The'WelleBeloved, " Athenaeum, CIX (April 10, 1897), 471.

 

70

personal utterances, voicing a matured and deliberate judgment on
life, gave Offense to the narrower minds."8

For themost part the Hardy hero received praise from the
reviewers, if one excepts the rather vehement criticisms of Mrs.
Oliphant and Mr. Tyrrell. These two, completely blind to Hardy's
'motive in utilizing men of all ranks and completely contemptuous of
the things they seemed not to understand, could not tolerate the author'
refusing to judge his-male characters. Their rage possibly resulted
from Hardy's too forceful delineation of his peOple; but, to Hardy's
credit, even these two reviewers were impressed by his innovations.
An unusual notecrept into the Tyrell criticism of the men in the novels,
unusual because of all the reviewers he alone uttered it: a note of
snobbishness. Just as- Francis. Adams had condemned Tess forher
nobility of sentiment when her" Sixth‘Standard education was an in-
sufficient base for‘her loftiness, Tyrrell decried the workingmen, and
praised only the headmaster, a minor character indeed. Only Angel
Clare and'Jude, however, received the full scorn of the reviewers; the
others‘were singled out primarily for some minor fault.

In the-following pages devoted to the relations between the sexes,
we shall discover the critics' views toward what they would call the
morality of Hardy's novels. In chapter two, the novelist's comments
were concerned with three aspects Of the relations between the sexes,
namely, love, marriage and the place of sex within and outside of
marriage. Unlike Hardy, the critics rarely separated their ideas
about these several aspects of human relations, preferring to make
sweeping generalizations about Hardy's treatment of moral questions.

a.

‘9"Wessexpoems and-Other'Verses, " Athenaeum, CXIII
(January 14, 1899), 41.

 

71

It has been necessary, therefore, to leave much of the criticism intact,
lest a separation of the integral parts destroy the total effect of a given
review. It will be obvious also, since these relationships involve the
heroines and heroes just discussed, that another aspect of their
characterization was being subjected to the critics' scrutiny.

Much of the criticism directed at Hardy resulted from his daring
to treat love'and sex as dominant forces; in fact, many of the reviewers'
judged the novels according to their Opinions concerning a novelist's
license to write about sex, unconventional love affairs, or dissolved
marriages.

When early reviewers thought that "Thomas Hardy" was the pen-
name of a woman writer because the early novels treated love as the

one business of life, an article in the Westminster Review refused to

 

consider Hardy a woman, even though it did not deny that love was the
dominant theme. Instead, it preferred to believe that it was the admirable
treatment of the love theme that would rank him with the other great
novelists who had previously illustrated it, namely Jane Austen, Charlotte
Bronte, and George Eliot."9 Havelock Ellis, the author of the article,
praised Hardy unstintingly:

There is something very fresh and delightful, turning
from the writers with whom love is only interesting from the
moral problems it may involve, or is at most the history
of a passion, to find a writer of such distinct genius who has
little or nothing to say about either morals or passion, and
yet thinks love is the chief business of life, and can devote
himself as frankly to the rendering of its devious ways.”o

There was one flaw, however, which Ellis called to the attention of

his readers: the repetitious situation in each of the novels in which

 

4"12111:, p. 164.
”Ellis, p. 174.

72

a woman is in love with two men, both of whom she accepts in spite

of the consequences. Ellis, however, was not passing moral judgment
on the novels but indicting the author for relying constantly on the
same theme.""1

The anonymous reviewer in the Athenaeum had noticed an unusual

 

quality in the Hardy treatment of love almost a decade before Ellis

wrote, however. When he reviewed _A_ Pair 9_f Blue Eyes, the unknown

 

 

critic saw Elfride Swancourt, the charming heroine, subject to an
"impulsiveness in all that concerns the tender passion, " the latter a
precious euphemism, indeed}z Later when it reviewed Two 92’s; Tower,

the critic found even more unusual Hardy' s presentation of love:

The courtship of a mere lad by a woman some years his senior
is not a familiar theme in English fiction, nor by any means an
easy one to develOpe, least Of all when the heroine is already

a married woman. But Mr. Hardy passes, it must be admitted,
with a very skilful tread over the hazardous ground he has
selected.“3

Love was not banned in the novels of Victoria's day, but one can
easily see why Hardy's treatment of it occasioned comment. First, he
allowed his heroines to fall in love without prOper parental guidance;
and secondly, he allowed the heroine to do the courting, an action
properly reserved for the hero.

Ellis was not the sole player in the game of discovering the love-

affair formula of the early Hardy novels. The Saturday Review

 

described its action in _A_ Laodicean: "It is a peculiarity of Mr. Hardy's

 

heroines never to accept a lover at once, and Paula, the Laodicean who

 

"Ellis, p. 176.
”HA Pair of Blue Eyes," Athenaeum, LX111 (June 28, 1873), 820.
”"Two on a Tower, " Athenaeum, LXXX (November 18, 1882),

 

658.

73

is neither cold nor hot, certainly seems somewhat cold in the permission
which she gives Somerset to love her, and in her refusal to give him

any further assurance. "5‘ Paula Powers was, readers will'recall,

one of the Hardy women who apparently could not make up her mind
about love.

J. M. Barrie was another critic who played the game of discover-
ing the love-affair formula. Carefully analyzing Hardy's novels, he
discussed them primarily on the basis of success or failure in character
presentations, concluding that the men and women were equally
irresolute in matters of love and mriage. Elaborating on this thesis,
Barrie wrote:

Mr. Hardy's maidens, "husband-high, " are persons who
think marriage a terrible thing to contemplate, engagements
not quite so fearful, and arrangements to get engaged presently
comparatively safe. . . . They think they would like to marry,
but are not sure when they arrive at the altar. They hesitate
about becoming engaged lest they should then cease to love;
they marry in secret, get engaged in secret, and even ask the
gentleman whom they engage to get engaged to by-and-by to
keep it to himself. They are seldom sure Of their own love
unless there is ground for believing that it is not returned, and
the only tolerably safe thing to predict of them is, that first
they will have two lovers and marry a third. After marriage,
we may suppose, they become more conventional.”

One should note that even at this late date some critics adhered to the
earlier Victorian theory that marriage with its stabilizing influence
solved all problems.

The reviewers Of the nineties could never have assumed Hardy's

characters would find happiness in irrarriage, for during this decade

 

“"A Laodicean, " Saturday Review, LIII (January 14. 1332). 53-

55J. M. Barrie, "Thomas Hardy; the Historian of Wessex, "
Contemporary Review, LVI (July 1889), 64. '

 

74

two novels appeared which treated marriage most unconventionally.

The first Of these, Tess o_f the D'Urbervilles, aroused the reviewers,

 

 

to be sure, but the sexual license so enraged them they usually over-

looked the marriage question.

Jude the Obscure they regarded, in some cases at least, as a

 

polemic against marriage. Mrs. Oliphant was one who believed Hardy
was attacking marriage because the entire novel showed it was that
institution which kept Jude from accomplishing his ends.“

Equally apprehensive about Hardy's aim in writing a story which
seemingly attacked the institution of marriage was Robert Tyrrell,.
Regarding Sue's refusal to marry Jude, the reviewer asked

If Marriage is no better than a 'license to be loved on the
premises,' as she calls it, does the absence of the license
mitigate the coarseness of the connection? She has no sense
of the dignity of womanhood and motherhood, and so all her
relations with the other sex become impure in her morbid
imagination. 57

Thus the critic accounted for Sue's occasional frigidity toward
Jude, but even more important for this study is Tyrrell's stubborn
insistence on the Victorian ideal Of womanhood and motherhood.

While the Athenaeum did not deny the permanence of the marriage

 

tie was an appropriate subject for a novel, it saw Jude the Obscure as a

 

farce instead of a tragedy. The double remarriage made the novel
ridiculous, it believed, just as the behavior of Sue and Jude made it
ludicrous.58 It insisted, furthermore, if Hardy were going to use the

subject of marriage for a novel, it was his duty to dignify it; hence,

 

“Oliphant, p. 141.
5"Tyrrell, p. 860.
5811Jude,“ Athenaeum, p. 709.

 

75

the liberality of its Opinion that a novelist should be free to select
marriage as a tepic was denied by its prescribing how it should be
treated.

The foregoing reviews of Jude th__e Obscure show no essential

 

difference existing between the attitudes of the reviewers in the nine-
ties and the attitudes of the earlier Victorians as outlined in chapter
one. The reader will recall society had held that marriage provided
haven for men and women alike, that its effect on the married couple
was ameliorative, and that its dissolution was an occasion for scandal.
The reviewers in the nineties revealed their thinking to be identical with
that of an earlier day.

Not only Jude the Obscure made the reviewers believe Hardy

 

catered to the morally lax. The earlier novels, it has been pointed
out, contained women who were physically attractive as more than one
reviewer noticed; but Hardy's reputation as a writer of prurient novels

was firmly established with the publication of Tess o_f th__e D'Urbervilles.

 

Of this novel, Blackwood's stated: "We prefer cleanly lives,

 

and honest sentiment, and a world which is round and contains every-
thing, not 'the relations between the sexes' alone. ”59

The Quarterly Review writer also found fault with Hardy's

 

emphasis on sex. He even ascribed to Hardy the theory that the re-
lations between the sexes must be the basis for all imaginative
literature. Outraged by I‘_e_s_s_, the reviewer asked, "Does everybody
then think and feel that seduction, adultery, and murder have their

basis in the heart of things, that they are the essential laws of Nature? "6°

 

5""Tess, " Blackwood's, p. 465.

 

‘°"Tess, " Quarterly Review, p. 174.

 

76

He could see only that the novel, a clumsy, sordid tale of brutality and
lust was ". . . such as no clean-minded reader can get through without
disgust. ”‘1

The Athenaeum adopted a more cautious tone in its appraisal of

 

Tess's relationships with men. It suspected Hardy was probably
challenging criticism needlessly by labeling Tess a "pure" woman:

His business was rather to fashion (as he has done”. being of
flesh and blood than to propose the suffering woman's view of
a controversy which only the dabbler in sexual ethics can
enjoy. Why should a novelist embroil himself in moral techni-
calities? As it is, one half suspects Mr. Hardy of a desire to
argue out the justice of the comparative punishments meted to
man and to woman for sexual aberrations.‘z

The Hardy treatment of the relationship between the sexes was not
to pass unnoticed by Mrs. Oliphant, the critic who, as we have seen,
regarded .1251: th__e Obscure as an attack on marriage. Commenting on
the sexual aspects of the novel, she wrote,

. . .nothing so coarsely indecent as the whole history of Jude

in his relations with his wife Arabella has ever been put in
English print-~that is to say, from the hands of a Master.
There may be books more disgusting, more impious as regards
human nature, more foul in detail, in those dark corners where
the amateurs of filth find garbage to their taste; but not, we
repeat from any Master's hand."3

One should note at this point the undertone of nationalism in Mrs.
Oliphant's criticism. And despite her referring to Hardy as a master,
there remains her contention that no decent Englishman would write

frankly of sexual matters.

 

“"Tess, ” Quarterly Review, p. 343.

 

62"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 50.

”Oliphant, "Anti-Marriage, " p. 138.

 

77

In contrast to this position, D. F. Hannigin took a more liberal

attitude regarding the morality of Jude the Obscure. Recognizing that

 

the novel had been condemned by "certain critics of the didactic school

. . . on the ground of its outSpokenness and its flagrant disregard of

Mrs. Grundy's tender feelings" [his reference here is Specifically to
Hannigin's enemies, Andrew Lang and James Payn "who worship Scott
and prefer romance to realism"], he insisted on the right of the novelist
to deal fearlessly with all the facts of life."4 He praised Hardy for
writing candidly and not sacrificing his art, as Sir Walter Besant did,
by writing merely for the edification of the young. Indeed, he found
Hardy, better than any other contemporary English author, was capable
of exhibiting the mysterious fascination of woman on man. Unlike Mrs.
Oliphant, who believed the novel would appeal only to the lover of filth,
Hannigin believed those who called the relationship between Jude and
Sue impure were readers with brutish minds. Were it not "for the
miserable priggery of this tail-end of the nineteenth century, " the critic
complained, even the first part of the novel would receive the critic's
acclaim.“ Unable to find anything prurient in the novel, Hannigin
labeled it human, intense, and artistic. And completely disagreeing
with Mrs. Oliphant in her high regard for books which would uphold the

British standards of morality, Hannigin insisted Jude the Obscure was

 

sufficiently great to merit for Hardy a place beside such writers as
Balzac, Flaubert, Turgenev, Dostoievsky from the continent and George

Eliot and Fielding from England itself.

 

MHannigin, "Latest Novel, " p. 136.
65Hannigin, ”Latest Novel, " p. 136.

78

Richard LeGallienne agreed with Hannigin and scolded Mrs.
Oliphant for her attitude. Her attack he called exceedingly pointless
and clumsy, and LeGallienne even suggested she had deliberately

distorted the purpose of the novel:

Her insinuation--to put it mildly--that Mr. Hardy has deliberately
catered for unclean appetites, and that he published an expurgated
edition of his story first in Harper's, just to whet such appetites
for the complete book, (when as everyone knows, that first
truncated publication was a condition of the magazine editors
which cause Mr. Hardy no little pain and worry), is either very
malignant or very mistaken, and should certainly be libellous.
There is no need further to allude to the pitiful spleen of
'M. O. W. O.‘ except to warn the reader against it, and all such
outbursts of grandmotherly prejudice. Nesdtmbt. Jude-
'is not meat

For little peeple or for fools, '
it is as Mr. Kipling said of Mowgli's marriage, 'a story for
grown-ups,' and it will only be the childish or second- childish
among these whom it can possibly offend. It handles delicate
problems and situations with infinite delicacy and tenderness,
and if in depicting certain aSpects of country life, Mr. Hardy' s
realism is a little 'coarse, ' well, country life is coarse, so what
would you have '2“ -

Robert Tyrrell saw Jude as a treatise on sexual pathology and as

 

a scientifically inaccurate one at that, inasmuch as Hardy drew the data
from imagination. On this thesis he stated,

If we consider broadly and without prejudice the tone and
scepe of the book, we cannot but class it with the fiction of Sex
and New Woman, so rife of late. It differs in no wise from the
I"hill-tap" novels, save in the note of distinction and the power of
touch which must discriminate Mr. Hardy at his worst from the
Grant Allens and Iotas at their best. In method, indeed, The
WomanWhoDid is superior to Jude, inasmuch as it deals-far
more sirE-ei'eTy— with free love as a practical institution.

Mr. Hardy's work cannot but emit occasional sparks, which

 

“Richard LeGallienne, "Jude the Obscure, " Idler, IX (February
1896), 115.

79

sometimes glow into sustained splendor; but even an enchanted
palace would be vitiated by a whiff from the atmOSphere of the
Pot—Bouille or Germinal, and the airs from the "hill-tep"
would infect the Delectable Mountains themselves. Mr. Hardy
is here and there as picturesque and delightful as ever, but
(to parody a well-known couplet)--
'You may paint, you may perfume the scene
as you will:
But the stench from the 'hill-top' will hang
round it still. "7

 

The Saturday Review did not object to the Hardy treatment of the

 

sexual affairs of men and women. It suggested even that the reviews
which attacked Hardy's novels did so because the pendulum was swinging
away from "New Woman" fiction and other novels which had depended upon
sexuality for their interest. It saw a reading public now in the process of
rejecting books wholely and solely for their recognition of sex, however
incidental that recognition might be. Thus, complained the magazine,
reviewers whose function it is to provide acceptable reading for their
editors' public, have had to change from "a chorus praising 'outSpoken
purity' to a band of public informers against indecorum. "68 This being
the case, continued the magazine, no novelist could assume himself

safe against the charge of morbidity and unhealthiness; it saw, cepecially
in the other periodicals, evidence of a struggle to find suggestions of
decadence in all novels:

One scarcely dares leave a man and woman together within the
same corners for fear of their scandal; one dares scarcely
whisper of reality. And at the very climax of this silliness,
Mr. Hardy, with an admirable calm, has put forth a book in
which a secondary, but very important, interest is a frank

 

"Tyrrell, "Jude, " p. 858.

“"Jude the Obscure, " Saturday Review, LXXXI (February 8.
1896), 153.

 

80

treatment of the destructive influence of a vein of sensuality
upon an ambitious working man. . . . Only as a modifying
cause does the man's sexuality come in, just as much as
and no more than, it comes into the life of any serious but
healthy man. 69

The theme of glide according to the Saturday Review was not, then,
sexual immorality but rather an exPosition of the working of a sensual
streak upon a character. And since Jude was no better off at the end
of the story than at the beginning, the periodical insisted the novel was
essentially moral rather than im:rnoral."'o
The Bookman also regarded Hardy as a champion of orthodox
morality in his novels. It believed [egg especially supported and en-
forced the idea that the woman must pay eventually for any defiance of
~the sexual code. It did, in fact, agree with Hardy that the novel was a
story of a pure woman, adding that the book would provide nothing for
the lax and prurient since at no time did it "seek to deny the reality or
the terror of the inevitableness of the transgressor‘s penalty. "71
The preceding selections from the critical reviews of Hardy's
works certainly indicate the nineteenth century periodicals were aware
of the role of sex in the novelist's characterizations. It was his empha-
sis on sex which disturbed many critics, some of whom saw it as the
sole basis for his writings. From these came the charge of immorality.
Other critics regarded Hardy's treatment of sex as a mere adjunct

to the central plots while still others contended Hardy's use of sex and

the punishment meted out to violators of the Victorian sex code helped

 

‘9"Jude, " Saturda)t Review, p. 153.

 

7°"Jude, " Saturday Review, p. 153.
"”Tess of the D'Urbervilles, .. Bookman, I (February 1892), 179.

81

substantiate commonly-held beliefs.

Although many reviewers commented onHardy's treatment of
sexual relations, several merely contented themselves with appraising
his work on less controversial issues. Few could resist commenting

on the novelist's language. The Athenaeum review of Desperate

 

 

Remedies, although somewhat disturbed by the possibility an. English

 

lady novelist could have written a novel which contained what it termed
coarseness of expression, nevertheless complimented the then-unknown
author for the reproduction of west-country dialect, which seemed to

it not at all caricatured. The review found only a few faults of style

and grammar, which, as with the coarseness, it could "hardly
particularize. "72 It was relieved, too, to find this coarseness only in
expressions and not in the behavior of the principal characters of the
tale, who, as we have seen, were to represent the highest British ideals
of the day. The reviewer's advice to the author was as follows:

If the author will purge himself of this [coarseness], though
even this is better than prurient sentimentality with which
we are so often nauseated, we see no reason why he should
not write novels only a little, if at all, inferior to the best of
the present generation.”

Some three years'later the magazine again reproached the novelist
for the coarseness‘it believed still disfigured his work and repelled the
reader. While conceding Hardy was a shrewd observer of the speech
and habits of the Somersetshire rustics, the reviewer felt jarred by
some of the expressions, e. g. , "Passably well put, " which ". . .we

simply cannot believe possible from the illiterate clods whom he

 

73"Desperate Remedies, " Athenaeum, p. 399.

 

”"Desperate Remedies, " Athenaeum, p. 399.

 

82

"7‘ In addition to this supposed fault, the reviewer found

describes.
distressing what he called Hardy's monstrous periphrases, e. g. ,

"a fair product of Nature in a feminine direction, " to the reviewer a
disgusting sample of the "worst penny-ia-liner's language. "75
Nevertheless, he felt in his language Hardy occasionally" showed touches

of genius, ill-regulated though they might be.
The Saturday Review also praised Hardy for his ability to record

 

the speech of rustics, but it objected to what it called the stilted
language of the narrator. The reviewer became indignant also about

Hardy's use of ". . .the odious mongrel word double-entendre where he
8. n76

 

evidently means arriere-pensé It would seem almost impossible

 

for any writer to escape condemnation in the face of such minute and
exact criticism, but the reviews were not above belaboring such errors.

In its discussion of the same novel, A Laodicean, the Academy
protested for art's sake against the realistic language which Hardy
ascribed to the farmers. Preferring artiticiality of language to the
actual sort Hardy attempted to suggest or even record, _ it stated,

It is very likely that coarse and vulgar natures would discuss
the matrimonial and domestic arrangements of a great heiress
in the language reproduced by the author, but it’ is surely no
part of the functions of art to make use of such dialogue."

. Havelock Ellis found much to praise in all of the early Hardy
novels, but like other reviewers, he found when Hardy spoke in his own

person, there was an evident want of strength and precision. But in

 

""Far from the Madding Crowd, " Athenaeum, LXVI (December 5,
1874), 747. '

""Madding— Crowd, " Athenaeum, p. 747.

 

 

7,5"A Laodicean, " Saturday Review, p. 54.
""A Laodicean, " The Academy, XXI (January 7, 188 2), 5.

83

the dialogue, Ellis enjoyed the succinct, delightful, and even epigram-
matic expressions."8
, There was no pleasing all of the reviewers. The Spectator,

indeed, disliked the far-fetched and unpleasant similes in The Mayor o_f

 

Casterbridgg; it upbraided the novelist for his inability to reproduce

 

dialect exactly. - As a remedy forethis fault it prescribed putting the
peasants' language into "Educated English" and thereby improving the

work.” One should note at this point that a later objection to Tess was

 

the heroine' 3 too polished language and phi1080phy, an objection

registered by Blackwood's.so

 

Some six years later the Athenaeum complimented Hardy on his

 

suave and supple style. Nevertheless, without giving Specific examples,
it complained of an excessive use of scientific and ecclesiastical
terminology. 81

. Among the many objections which the Saturday Review had to Tess

 

was Hardy's grammar or lack of it. The reviewer was impatient both

with the novel and the confusionwhich resulted from Hardy's failure

to place his modifying clauses in their preper positions within a sentence.

His terse summary of this complaint must be recorded: "These things

ought not to be. "87'
The Quarterly Review could not refrain from upbraiding Hardy

for a certain pomposity of language ascribed to such characters as

 

”Ellis, p. 176.
”HMayor of Casterbridge, .. Spectator, LVI (May 29, 1886), 711.
m"'Tess, " Blackwood's, p. 467.

 

81"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 50.

 

82"Tess, " Saturday Review, p. 74.

 

84

Angel Clare. . About the language from the scene in which Tess begs
Angel to forgive her and is asked, "How can forgiveness meet such a
grotesque prestidigitation as that?" the magazine stated, "Considering
all the circumstances of the scene, we take this to be one of the most

"83 Not coarseness

unconsciously comical sentences ever read in print.
in language, then, disturbed this reviewer but rather over-refinement:

Coarse, it is not, in the sense of employing coarse words;
indeed he is too apt to affect a certain preciosity of phrase
which has a somewhat incongruous effect in a tale of rustic
life; he is too fond--and the practice has been growing on him
through all his later books--of writing like a man'who has been
at a great feast of language and stolen the scraps, ' or in plain
English, of making experiments in a form of language which
he does not seem clearly to understand, and in a style for
which he was assuredly not born.“

The same issue in its book review section accused Hardy of producing
a work crammed with inartistic blunders and improprieties, disfigured
by a grotesque jargon. 8’ Both sections of the periodical thus found
Hardy guilty of using language which did not contribute to the Victorian
desire of finding in fiction model prose to emulate. Too much polish
and elegance seemed just as distasteful to the Quarterly Review as too
little.

 

The Spectator also disliked Hardy's style. Specifically it objected

to what it called pedantic phraseology in various parts of Tess.

 

This style reminded the reviewer of "George Eliot in her scientific

mood, " but it found nothing coarse in the language itself.“

 

”"Tess, " Quarterly RevieW. p. 320-
“"Tess, " Quarterly Review, p. 325.

”"Culture and Anarchy, " Quartegy Review, CLXXIV (January
189ZL 343.

8""Tess," S ectator, p. 122.

 

 

 

85

*Andrew Lang, never a great advocate of Hardy, believed Hardy's
style was pellucid enough, but he could not resist pointing out that
the language contained an odd mixture of science and literature."
.. Hardy's reliance upon his earlier readings in science and, of course,
his training as an architect must certainly have provided him with a
language and a style different enough to attract the attention of his
reviewers; obviously, however, the critics did not want this.

- Some reviewers, however, found little wrong with‘Hardy's language.
The Bookman, invariably friendly to the novelist, described his style as
sweet, various, and noble.88 JanettaNewton-Robinson alsopraised the
novelist for his picturesque and precise language. - She insisted it was
"terse and even epigrammatic without loss of lucidity and fulness of
suggestion. "89 She believed that Hardy's choice of words brought to
life themists, meads, and streams of the valley of the Froom with a
kind of latter-day pantheism, admitting all the while, though, to being
startled by rather strong metaphors, like the famous "the sun was
resting- on the hill like a drop of blood on an eyelid. "9° She found his
sentences aglow with inner fire and rejoiced that his technique called
neither for amplitude of phrase nor reproduction of elaborate detail.
But most of all she admired his ability to record rustic methods of
expression, especially since he avoided aphonetic spelling of the Wessex
dialect and because he used characteristic words and idiOms common to

the dialect. Indeed, she contended-Hardy's language had greatly

 

”Andrew Lang, "Literature, " New Review, VI (February 1892),
248‘.

”"Tess," Bookman, p. 179.
”Newton-Robinson, p. 153.
”Newton-Robinson, p. 155 ff.

86

Mproved since the publication of Deeperate Remedies (1871) with its

 

faulty style and comparatively few beautiful sentences.91

Just what would have pleased all the critics in regard to the re-
production of dialect cannot be ascertained. While the preceding
criticism praises Hardy for his efforts, the criticism of Francis Adams
condemns Hardy's dialectal inconsistencies. To illustrate, he pointed
out that while the Durbeyfields at home spoke with too great polish, the
other peasants in the novel usually talked a rather strong dialect.
But Adams nobly assumed for himself and other critics of the era some
of the blame for this artistic blemish and others because their earlier
criticism had been faulty in praising Hardy for had work and not making
him face genuine criticism and a genuinely critical public.92

In contrast to its earlier complaint of too much elegance, the

S ectator praised Hardy's language in its review of Life's Little Ironies:

 

. . .but whatever he writes, Mr. Hardy's control of the English
languagetmust always arouse genuine admiration. Polished,
terse, keen, and flexible, where every word tells, his style
is like a smooth, well-tempered steel blade in the hands of

an accomplished swordsman."3

The appearance of Jude provoked less criticism of Hardy's
language, probably because the peasant occupied less space in the novel
and because it was, after all, the peasant who was most frequently
singledout for comment in the preceding novels. However, the
‘Athenaeum, differentiating between the earlier, feebly bad books and
this "titanically bad" book, objected to the too cultured dialogue, which

 

 

"Newton-Robinson, p. 155 ff.
”Adams, "Tess," p. 20.
93"Ironies, .. Spectator, p. 539.

87

it saw contributing to the exceedingly ridiculous nature of the
characters.“
The Fortnightly Review, too, also saw indistinctly-conceived
characters resulting from bad reproduction of dialogue. Jude himself
was accused of talking like Gibbon or Johnson, but more often like
Herbert Spencer; Sue was condemned for sounding at times like George
Eliot under the influence of science and at other time 3 like a maid of
all work. (It is interesting to note that the objection to an attempted
mixture of science and literature had been made at least once before
by the Spectator,” substantiating the Victorian belief that the two--
one material, the other spiritual--cou1d not be combined.) More
specifically, though, the periodical protestedHardy' s penny-a-lining
style in which. he erroneously wrote "predicate" instead of "predict, "
"evince" instead of "show, " and."during a lengthened period" instead
of "for a long time." To the reviewer this journalese suggestedtMarie
Corelli at her worst. The reviewer further objected to what he regarded
as affectation of scholarship, the introduction of Greek words ["wrongly
transliterated, " the reviewer insisted] and the coining of the name
Tetuphenay for (the Oxford "Head. On the whole, the periodical found
Hardy' 3 language not only unattractive but also irritating, for it believed
Hardy had written a novel as though it were a scientific treatise."
Almost in summary, the charges against the author's language

appeared some three yearslater in the Athenaeum review of Wessex

 

Poems where they were repeated for the poetry as well: needlessly

 

9"'J’ude, " Athenaeum, p. 709.
93C£e p. 840 '
?"'Jude, " Fortnightly Review, p. 862.

88

inflated diction, improper dialogue, and a minimum of dialect. Only
the poet's vigorous and unworn provincialisms received praise."

Few reviewers, indeed, accepted Hardy as a master of language.
While they did not accuse him of employing coarse or foul words, they
nevertheless could not regard him as a writer of model sentences or
as a prose stylist. They were only too anxious to discover minor
violations which they could use to illustrate their own vast knowledge
of linguistic niceties. A And throughout the reviews there is an under-
lying objection to the novelist's employing scientific terminology in
literary works. While Hardy was at times praised for his dialect, at
other times he was condemned for permitting unsavoury characters to
speak standard English, which in the Victorian tradition was to be
assigned to peeple of obvious virtue.

- While the periodical criticism of Hardy'} language is quite
specific, the general attitude of the reviewers toward the basic philoso-
phy of pessimism is less so. One frequently suspects the reviewer of
questioning Hardy's philosOphy but of directing the criticism at a more
or less obvious weakness in construction, possibly in order to avoid
philos0phical arguments in the pages of magazines devoted to other
tOpics.

In illustration, the early Athenaeum review of Desperate Remedies

 

 

found the novel disagreeable and unpleasant because it is full of crimes.
It did not ask why there are crimes, whether the crimes are related for
some sensational value, nor whether the author's attitude suggests the
crime is justifiable only when desperate remedies are called for. Nor
did it debate the'issue of whether crime is a suitable topic for literature.

 

”"WessexPoems and Other Verses, " CXIII Athenaeum,
(January 14, 1899), 42.

 

89

It contented itself with stating the story was powerful but disagree-
able.98. To a modern reader of the novel, this criticism seems
inapprOpriate for the time at which it was written becauserDesperate
Remedies does have the traditional happy ending for the heroine; but a
closer examination reveals that the refusal of all the characters to
reform before the narrative ends could leave the Victorian reader with
the idea the tale is pessimistic and therefore disagreeable.

More than a decade later the Westminster Review excused-Hardy

 

for publishing the sensational, pessimistic Desperate Remedies because

 

of his youth and immaturity. Tracing further'Hardy's develOpment as

a writer, Havelock Ellis detected in A Pair o_f Blue Eyes a kind of tragic

 

irony which appeared in the form of "a series of impossible coincidences

and situations, connected sometimes with a pointless cynicism. "99

But like other reviewers, Ellis did not inquire into the cynicism nor into
why Hardy used these impossible coincidences, if they were, indeed,
that. Nor did he investigate the Hardy attitude toward the role of the
forces which shape men's lives nor the inability of the characters to
overcome these forces--the true basis of Hardy's pessimism.

He admitted to being puzzled by Hardy's view of life, calling it
"singularly hard to analyze, " all the while realizing Hardy's work was
out that the approaching catastroPhic storm was hintedrat by the toad,
the spider, the dog, and the sheep, and that only man was incapable of
recognizing imminent disaster. But instead of pursuing this suggestion

 

9.8"Desperate Remedies," Athenaeum, p. 399.
”Ellis, p. 166.
'°°Enis, p. 171.

 

3"”. .. ’

90

of pessimism, of mankind's comparative weakness, he stated-Hardy was
actually a kind of nature-worshiper since he ". . .is never more reverent,
more exact, than when he is speaking of forest-trees. "I”

The Athenaeum review of Tess, more thoroughly than any other,

 

sought to find the philos0phy the novelist was illustrating. _ In Hardy' s
theory, it saw a kind of fatalism based on the accident of birth and the
untowardness of circumstances which constantly conspired‘to defeat or
deflect the protagonist. It saw the emphasis invariably placed on the
unhappiness in life, since immanent misfortune threatened the heroine
at every turn. It concluded thatlthe Wessex peOple not immediately in-
volved in an episode had apparently learned already the lesson Tess was
constantly being taught by an unsympathetic teacher--the lesson that all
human endeavor is to little avail--and that it was thus the peasants could
say fatalistically, "It was to be. There lay the pity of it. "103 But unlike
the reviews which condemned the author for writing a novel illustrating

this attitude toward life, the Athenaeum, while not upholding the theory,

 

felt itself forced to praise the author for his- successful presentation of
this anti-Victorian, depressing philosophy", '

._ According to the Saturday Review, the tale was only depressing
and dreary. Had it not been for the cows and the dairy farm, the
reviewer believed, there would have been no sunshine anywhere in the
f book. The novel was dismissed as an unpleasant story told in an un-
pleasant way. The periodical did not attempt to inquire into the reasons

for this sunshine scene, did not ask if the cows were content because

 

“isms, p. 177.
.1°z"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 49.

1",3"Tess, " Athenaeum, p. 49.

 

 

91

they did not oppose the dictates of uncontrollable forces, nor did it
suggest a bovine existence was not suitable for'mankind; it merely found
the novel cheerless and depressing. ~ Its only words of praise were
directed at Hardy's ability to deal "with scenes taken direct from
nature. . . . "1“

Several of the reviewers sought to relate the pessimism they found
in-Hardy to traditional theology. . Among these was the writer for» the
Bookrnan. He stated that in. T335 Hardy had attempted to explore the
questions of theology and philosOphy, but he did not attempt to list the
results of Hardy' s eaqalorations beyond saying the aim of the novel was not
the affirmation nor the denial of any theological system. . In fact, the
Bookman believed the novel to be quite conventional because poetic
justice was meted out to violators of laws. . Furthermore, the reviewer
found the novel to be reflecting contemporary attitudes because Hardy
was subscribing to the-woman-pays, double standardof morality.'1°"’

To anyone who could entertain this idea, the book must have appeared as
a case for Optimism, but overshadowing all was the hanging of an un-
repentant murderess, certainly not a desirable fate for a Victorian
heroine.

The-Spectator also discussed Tess‘in terms of theology. It be-
lieved Hardy had failed miserably in achieving his goal of writing a novel
to illustrate his thesis that "there is no Power who guides and guards
those who are faithful to their best lights"; instead, like the Bookman,

 

it found Hardy actually illustrating conventional morality by showing

that the transgressor must be held responsible for his actions. 1°“

 

m"'Tess, " Saturday Review, p. 73.
‘95”Tess, " Bookman, p. 178.
1"_6"Tess, " Spectator, p. 121.

 

92

Furthermore, while conceding that the novel was of unrivalled power
because of the descriptive passages and peerlessrinsight into character,
the reviewer found the novel could be read only with difficulty because
"themind shrinks from an untrue universe so blank and godless. ""7

In an era when faith was being attacked from all sides, its denial in

a novel was bound to be noted; and here was a reviewer'attempting to
discredit the essential pessimism of the novel by searching for anything
which would uphold conventional beliefs.

The lengthy Newton- Robinson study did not agree Hardy was an
apostle of pessimism; rather it {regarded him as an author who looked
upon: life non- committally but who saw his characters needing the
sympathetic and compassionate feeling he held for them. . And yet,
despite this compassion which'Mrs. Newton-Robinson saw everywhere
evident, she observed that Hardy' 8 basic idea was that ". . . every human
being has been more or less dwarfed by circumstance, that our natural
price of life has been hindered in its blooming by our necessities. "1°“

. She believed, in fact, one of the novelist' 3 great powers rose from his
being able to show how familiar'events of life inWessex could have
their prOper value as tragic arbiters of human fate; but she was unwill-
} ing. to concede that pessimism was inherent in Hardy's novels.

Blackwood's saw Hardy as a pessimist and a confused atheist who

 

disclaimed the existence of God, meanwhile railing against Him:

Mr. Hardy' s indignant anti- religion becomes occasionally
very droll, if not amusing. . Against whom is he so angry?
Against "the divinities, " who are so immoral--who punish the
vices of the fathers on the children? Against God-~who does
not ask us'whether we wish to be created; who gives us but

 

r'1°.7"Tess," fiectator, p. 121.
”“Newton- Robinson, p. 159.

93

one chance, etc. But then, if there is no God? Why, in that
case should Mr. Hardy be angry '21”

It also found him Opposed to the idea that reconstruction and progress
constantly occur in both the moral and material world.

So enraged was the Quarterly Review with Hardy' 8 view of life
that it recommended he be read only as a representative producer of
unimportant literature in an era when most literature was of little
importance. Specifically, it objected to Hardy's embracing the idea
that Nature is unconscious of laws framed as social expedients by
humanity, which, the magazine maintained, have their basis in the
heart of things just as much as do seduction, adultery, and murder.
Like the periodicals which saw despair triumphing over religious faith,
the Quarterly objected to Hardy's despairing over the laws instituted
by British society. In either case, pessimism was the feature most
obvious to the reviewers.

Sylvanus Urban, (the name which the Gentleman's Magazine had

 

long used for its book critic), disliked the unhappy ending of 1‘23.
’While wishing that Hardy had stuck to his former English style and had
preserved the heroine, Sylvanus Urban found the ending a failure in

its bid for sympathy, at least as far as Angel andaTess's sister were
concerned. - Admittedly, the critic stated a more romantic appeal to

the emotions would have afforded him greater pleasure. It is interest-
ing to notevthe word "English" in the above criticism; one must conclude
especially since the critic had already referred to what French novel-
ists were producing, that a spirit of nationalism prompted him to

believe that Hardy' s pessimism was un-English. 110

 

-1°.9"Tess, " Blackwood's, p. 474.

 

noSylvanus Urban, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Gentleman's
Magazine, IL (September 1892), 321.

 

94.

The reviews of Life's'Little' Ironies in, 1894 might have led some

 

to think subscribing to a doctrine of pessimism was no longer objection-

able. The'Athenaeum, for example, while finding the Hardy philosOphy

 

unpleasant, couldonly praise him for remaining "faithful to his mission
of unmasking Providence. "1" It agreed the virtues of honor, love,
self-sacrifice, pride of birth, etc. could not subdue the ironical swing
of circumstance which, according to what it saw asHardy's thesis,
man could not control. . Despite an aversion to this thesis, the reviewer
generously praisedsHardy' s ability to convey the tragic aspect of life. 112

. Similarly, the Spectator review of the same work explained Hardy's
thesis as one in which his characters are victims of their own passions
and desires, which cannot be resisted or overcome and which lead to
terrible and unforeseen catastrOphes. The reviewer, though depressed
by the feeling that nothing can stop the controlling power of circumstance,

lauded Hardy for stern, impersonal directness. Unlike the Athenaeum

 

reviewer discussed above, the Spectator reviewer did not request from
the author a humorous instead of a morbid book. 113
This: little lull in the storm of protest was followed by new out-

cries against Hardy' s pessimism. The Athenaeum,among the first to

 

speak against £1133 th_e Obscure, labeled the novel and its underlying
philosOphy completely intolerable. The novel, the reviewer complained,
, was impossible because the author's theory of the universe was im-
possible, a theory that fate is "not a mere blind force that happens at

times to upset men's calculations and to turn their strength into

 

11."'Ironies, " Athenaeum, p. 367.

.11211Ironies' H Athenaeurn, p, 367.

 

 

n"'Ironies, " Spectator, p. 538.

95

weakness, but rather a spiteful Providence, whose special delight it is
to scare off men, and whose proceedings make anything but absolute
quietism an absurdity. "1“ This same theory had earlier prompted the

Athenaeum to praise Life's Little Ironies; but in this review of Jude,

 

 

 

it labeled the theory "primitive, " "grotesque, " and ”inappropriate. "“5
Robert Tyrrell seemed determined to aid in the battle against
wand at the same time destroy Hardy by refusing to take the author
and his works seriously. He saw Hardy as a slave to a fixed idea, and
maintained this thraldom made the novelist appear so very angry.
Besides, he insisted the novelist merely pretended to be at odds with
the universe and that a novel written to illustrate the tragedy of unful-
filled aims could only result in triteness. 116

Others, too, refused to take Hardy seriously. . An unsigned

article reprinted from Temple Bar in the Eclectic Magazine told of a

 

 

visit the critic had made to Wessex and of some interviews he had had
with certain Wessex inhabitants who knew the novelist. While not be-
littling Hardy as a craftsman, these residents doubted Hardy really
held the ideas presented in the novels and therefore could only question
his sincerity. 111

Hardy was not, however, completely without sympathizers.
As we have seen, J anetta Newton- Robinson attempted to exonerate him
from the charge of pessimism by stating he looked upon life either

compassionately or non-committally. ~ Francis Adams, while objecting

 

1141'Jude, " Athenaeum, p. 709.
115'1Jude, " Athenaeum, p. 709.
up‘Tyrrell, "Jude, " p. 893.

 

 

11""In Thomas Hardy's Country, " The Eclectic Magazine, CXXVI
(June 1896), 776.

96

to certain supposed weaknesses in the author's Work (dialectal incon-
sistencies and conventional style, for example) had no quarrel with
Hardy'smotives in writing T331. Instead he praised the treatment of
human beings as the natural reflection of their surroundings and
admired Hardy's ability to show these people in a vain struggle against
unjust fatality. "8. D. F. Hannigin was also sympathetic to the Hardy
point of view. He regarded 1333 as a high point in- English fiction, as
a novel presenting truth on each page. » In comparing it with Adam Bids,
he found I‘_e_§_s_ a much more impressive narrative of crushing facts. 119
Richard LeGallienne was among the critics who supported £323
as astatement of Hardy's pessimism. He considered the novel an English

statement of LesMiserables, one in which Jude, like Valjean, was

 

cursed with bad luck from beginning to end. To‘Le Gallienne the novel
seemed to be a reaction to the older optimistic novel in which a reader
could hOpe for and find a happy ending. He saw the story as an' attempt
to show a malignant fate pursued Jude and Sue at all times, even when
they acted according to wisdomand not according to passion. .For him,
thiswas the tragedy of the novel, and while conceding the events led
the reader'into the realm of unreality, he carefully pointed out that
here was anisolated instance of fate in a destructive mood and that the
reader should not regard the entire human race as the sport of a
malevolent force, despite the fact there may be those individuals whose
lives seem to be primarily a series of unrelieved misfortunes.

. Disagreeing with Mrs. Oliphant who, as we have seen, believedHardy

was indicting man-made rmrriage laws, Le Gallienne saw Jude as an

 

,. “8"T688, H Fortnightly Review, p. 21.

 

“9Hannigin, "Tess, " p. 657.

97

indictment of the laws of the universe which in this instance made Jude

and Sue miserable because of their character weaknesses. 120

The Saturday Review also upheld Mr. Hardy, but it could not see

 

that the story sought to indict the universe. It championed the novel-
ist because he had shown society to be at fault in its treatment of the
working-man, and it rejoiced because someone had dared to show how
desperate life can be for the poorer classes:

. For the first time in English literature, the almost intolerable
difficulties that beset an ambitious man of the working class--
the snares, the obstacles, the countless rejections and
humiliations by which our society eludes the services of these
volunteers--receive adequate treatment. 121

Of all the reviews, this one alone thought £513 a novel of the proletariat,
a novel dealing with a class instead of an individual member of that
class. And although the essentially pessimistic theme of the novel did
not escape the reviewer, he regarded as beneficial its publication.

It is obvious the critics of the works of Thomas Hardy were dis-
satisfied with his attempts to point out the evils which beset mankind
during the nineteenth century and that they found his novels depressing
if not actually pessimistic. Only those critics, of course, who could
support him on any controversial issue justified the many unhappy end-
ings in his novels. Other critics objected to Hardy's presenting such
grim pictures of life. And underlying all these objections was the
critics' fear the novelist was attacking the Victorian Optimistic idea
of progress in all matters.

For many reasons the reviewers regarded Hardy as a naturalist.

Recognizing here an author who was accomplishing much that was not

 

noLt Gallienne, "Jude," p. 114.
In"Jude, " Saturday Review, p. 154.

98

in the British tradition, they sought to ally him with Continental authors
who were also outside the revered, conventional, romantic tradition.

To them, it will be seen, the words realistic and naturalistic were

 

synonymous.

One of the first British critics to notice a sharp divergence
between Hardy's novels and the traditional novel was Havelock. Ellis.
In his lengthy study of Hardy, he recognized the novelist's reliance on
activitiesrmotivated by instinct alone: this feature ledEllis to believe
no other author created such fascinating characters. He remarked, at
least as far as the women were concerned, "What we see in them then,
is the individual and egoistic instincts in a reaction with circumstances
which is only faintly colored by an altruistic consciousness, . Morals,
observe, do not come in. "132 Although Ellis did not at any time use the

word naturalistic in his serious study of the works, at least he recog-

 

nized the Hardy technique differed from the more familiar one in which
will, and not instinct, motivated the protagonists. In fact, still discuss-
ing characterization, Ellis wrote of ". . .a yielding to circumstance

that is limited by the play of instinct, "123 Thus, in this early critic we
find suggestions of those features which later caused reviewers to be-
come most angry: the author's respecting both instinct-produced and
will-produced actions; the author's allowing circumstance to triumph
over planned events; and, ofmurse, the author's refusing to condemn
immoral activity.

One reason why the Spectator was so enraged with Tess was that

 

it saw Hardy attempting to illustrate the idea "that impulse is the law

 

123E11is,p. 165.
19531113, p. 165.

99

of the universe, and that will, prOperly so-called, is a non-existent
fiction. "I“ This, the magazine held, resulted from Hardy's pan-
theistic conception of the universe and could be accounted for in no

other 'way.

 

. Still avoiding the term naturalistic, ‘Franci‘séAdamsattempted in
his review of the same novel to show the characters were just as-much
apart of nature aswere the cattle and the landscapes. Furthermore,
he complimented the novelist for his successin making his people one
with his places and for allowing his novels to present a.."single
harmonious growth of spiritual and natural circumstances. "“5
, Comparable to-Adams' theory was that of J anetta- Newton- Robinson,
who-also admired Hardy for his ability to relate the animate of his
characters to the inanimate of nature. This, she maintained, produced
the poetical atmosphere of the novels and gave them superior strength. 1“

, One of the first critics, however, to link-Hardy's name and work
with the hated~French naturalists was. Mrs. Oliphant whose belief
that Hardy purveyed filth we saw in the discussion of sexual relation-
ships. "7 . She prefaced her remarks on the subject with these words:

The present writer does not pretend to a knowledgeof the
works of Zola. . . . :13

Her naming the French novelist can suggest the only ideashe enter-
tained concerning naturalism-«the idea that naturalism concerns itself
with sexual activity. Obviously she cared little for the philosophical
basis for naturalism, hoping wistfully no decent English author. would
subscribe to it.

 

- “‘"Tess, " Spectator, p. 131.
-",’Adams,. "Tess, " p. 21.
mNewton--Robinson, p. 164.
1mm. p. 94.

ni'onphamt. p. 133.

100

Hannigin, on the other hand, upheld Hardy's right to deal with
any subject. But like Mrs. Oliphant, this British critic did not discuss
any principles of naturalistic literature, merely advising his readers

that the publication of Jude tl_13 Obscure had merited for its author a

 

position comparable to those held by England's and EurOpe's best
novelists. ‘ And daringly enough, he mentioned by name two French
novelists, Balzac andFlaubert. 129

. As shown in the discussion of Hardy's treatment of sex, other
critics too thought this tOpic provided the link between Hardy and
Continental novelists. Robert Tyrrell pointed out the relationship in his

admonition that Jude was most suggestive of Zola's Pot-Bouille and

 

Germinal. no It was Tyrrell, after all, who found the novels of Zola
disgusting rather than alluring and who said

Mr. Hardy has long been creeping nearer and nearer to the
fruit which has been so profitable to the French novelist, but
which till quite recently his English fellow-craftsman has been
forbidden to touch. The Woodlanders, A Pair of Blue E_y___es,
and above all, T__e_ss, have shown Mr. Hardy's eminent skill

in going as near French lubricité as a writer can venture with-
out awakening the non-conformist conscience in our strangely
constituted society, in fact hoodwinking the not very
perspicacious Mr. Podsnap and Mrs. Grundy. ”1

 

 

 

Few, indeed, were the critics who discussed Hardy objectively.
J. M. Barrie, however, saw Hardy as the only realist worthy of con-
sideration among the novelists of the era. His justification for discuss-
ing Hardy, while objecting to others whom the public considered

realists, lay in his approval of Hardy's choosing as settings the

 

129Hannigin, "Latest Novel, " p. 136.
13"Cf. p. 97.
131Tyrrell, "Jude, .. p. 858.

101

provincial towns and villages and aiming at nothing more than being
true to life, even though obligated to show that in real life, comedy
often has a tragic end. Discussing the other realists' failures, Barrie
stated,

The professional realists of these times, who wear a giant's
robe and stumble in it, see only the seamy side of life, re-
producing it with merciless detail, holding the mirror up to
the unnatural instead of to nature, and photographing by the
light of a policeman's lantern. 1”

But deepite the apparent high regard which Barrie held for Hardy, no
tenet of naturalism appealed to him; he merely likedHardy's picture of
the Wessex countryside and villages. To Barrie this meant realism,
especially if comedy turned into tragedy.

The last nineteenth-century Spectator criticism of Hardy's prose
still dwelt on what it called the gruesomeness and repulsiveness of his
work. No longer connecting him with the French naturalists, Zola and
Flaubert, as it had done earlier, the magazine now saw him as an
Ibsenite, one who chose "the kind of subjects which almost tempt one to
think that the imagination can beat the passions in multiplying the horrors
of life. "”3 Because it believed Hardy was competing with Ibsen and other
writers in promoting and stressing the horrible, the Spectator advised
F.E.H. M. Henniker, with whom Hardy had collaborated, to seek a more
judicious literary counselor. 1“

. What they thought of as the naturalism of Thomas Hardy was never
well-defined by any of the periodical critics. They were quick to point

out any lapses or supposed lapses from British morality in order to

 

132Barrie, "Historian of Wessex, " p. 59.

1”"In Scarlet and Grey, " Spectator, LXXVII (October 31, 1896),
593.

13"'Scarlet and Grey, " Spectator, p. 593.

102

associate Hardy with the French naturalistic school, but at all times
they avoided saying that any given feature of the novels was strictly
naturalistic. They chose not to discuss the objectivity of naturalism,
the animalism of naturalistic characters, the documentation of events,
so integral a part of the naturalistic technique, nor the philosoPhy of
naturalism. Instead, they merely labeled naturalistic any unattractive
features of the Hardy novels.

In 1897 there appeared in book form an earlier novel, The Well-

 

 

Beloved. Now the bitter criticism which Tess and Jude had inepired

 

 

became tempered. No longer did danger to English morality lurk in
the pages of Hardy's works, for the guardians of this morality had not
only uncovered all attacks upon it but had additionally condemned the
novelist so mercilessly he chose never to write another novel. The

Athenaeum, however, could not refrain from reminding its readers that

 

The Well-Beloved had been written by the same author who had given

 

 

Tess and Jude to the world, even though it admitted there was little of

 

 

an offensive nature here. Furthermore, the review denied instinct
prompted man to good or evil action. It was rather "not instinct--or
temperament if you like to call it so--but hard reason, aided in certain
cases by the policeman, [which] alone can persuade the normal man to
monogamy. "135 It dismissed all of Hardy's novels by saying they merely
resulted from the fact that in each of his characters, duty and inclination
never point the same way.

At the beginning of the new century George Douglas examined in
retrospect the Wessex novels and his conclusions are worth noting since

they seem to indicate a change in the British book- reviewers' attitudes.

 

13_5""The Well-Beloved, " Athenaeum, p. 471.

 

103

Believing Hardy was a conscientious laborer and a finished artist in

the best traditions Of the English language, he cited the author as a
master Of English‘prose for these reasons: 1) his exhibiting the con-
trast between the power Of circumstance and event, with (the impassive
permanence Of Nature, and the fleeting ineffectual character Of the
suffering race Of mortals; 2) his presenting essential truth and vitality
in his characters; 3) his powerful dealing with adult character, passion,
and tragedy; 4) his creating "a company Of girls and women probably the
truest tO womanhood and the most irresistible to manhood. . . since
Shakespeare";“‘ 5) his having written the "finest novel in the English
language-~21: Return 9_f the WWI” 6) his describingarch and
piquant scenes. . Douglas was aware Of certain flaws, tOO, flaws such as

the inadequate motivation in Under t_lr_1_e_ Greenwood Tree, the artificiality

 

Of the drawing- room characters in _A Laodicean, andrHardy's refusal to

take his own plot seriously in Desperate Remedies. But tO a novelist

 

who had been so severely criticized during most Of his career, these .
objections must have appeared minor when measured against Douglas's

elaborate praise.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

As the Opening pages Of this chapter pointed out, Thomas'Hardy
was aware his female characters were unconventional. - The critical
discussions Of almost every novel refer to-Hardy's great talent for

bringing his women to life. The early novel, Desperate Remedies, at

 

a time when the novelist's sex was unknown, was attributed to a woman.

 

136G. B.. S. Douglas, 1"Wessex Novels, " Bookman, XVII (January
1900), p.‘ 110.

13."Douglas, "WessexNovels, " Bookman, p. 110.

104

A principal reason given for this conjecture was that the novelist had
paid so much attention to the details of the feminine mind and the
feminine toilette that it would have seemed strange, indeed, if a man
doubt about the author's sex still persisted, but the praise for his
creating the distinctive character of Elfride Swancourt, impulsive and
tenderly passionate, was unreserved. Even in the reviews Of
A Laodicean, scarcely well-received by the critics, it is around the
heroine, Paula Powers, the criticism revolves. The lack Of the usual
Hardy heroine's demonic element disturbed Ellis in his discussion Of
Geraldine Allenville; but Ellis contended no other novelist had created
such delightful female characters. In fact, Hardy's depiction Of Elfride,
Eustacia, and the other female roles served as the basis for many ideas
which Ellis later discussed. J. M. Barrie, tOO, was impressed by
the women, so impressed he was able to work out a plot formula for
Hardy's novels on the theory that all the women would have two lovers
but marry a third.

Not liking the roles to which Hardy assigned his women and Object—
ing to the author's refusal to enter the female mind, another reviewer
anonymously attacked the artist. But these Objections could remain of

little value after the Newton- Robinson insistence that the women were

 

passion-led, elemental, and heroic. When Tess o_f 13.133 D'Urbervilles

 

appeared, the heroine was not attacked for being stuporous or languid;
on the contrary, it was her being portrayed as such a lively and active
woman, so active she constituted a danger to public morality and the

institution Of marriage, which provoked the wrath and enmity of many
reviewers. Had she appeared a lifeless creature, a mere type rather

than an individual, the reviewers would not have worried her creator to

105

the degree they did. The vast amount of criticism the novel evoked was
in reality a tribute to the author's art in giving to the world Tess the
woman. 9

The same comments can be made regarding the criticism Of Jude.

 

Here, in a novel which purports tO chronicle the desperate attempts Of
a working-class man to rise above his condition, the scorn of many
reviewers turned on two women, Sue and Arabella. Sue was not just
one Of the sO-called "new-women, " but was a reasoning, semi-
intellectual person. Arabella was her foil. Together these two indi-
viduals prompted such critics' phrases as ruinous and destructive,
coarse, and insensitive to the dignity Of womanhood and motherhood.
Like Hardy readers Of today, the critics Of the late nineteenth century
remember his women characters by name, their activities fading into
unimportance because Hardy assigned actions to them primarily to help
the reader understand better the individual' 3 character; . Thus, the
importance he placed on the role of women in his novels became a focal
point for many Of the critical discussions of contemporary periodical
reviewers. The reviewers were astonished to find heroines among
lower-class women and amazed to discover that these women, led by
instincts and passions, were allowed ‘to move, unchecked by society's
dictates, through the novels. The Hardy women truly disturbed the
reviewers.

Similarly, they were disturbed to find that the most successful of
Hardy's-males also came from the lower classes. The heroes were
rarely of the swashbuckling type; rather, in defiance Of the Victorian
and romantic tradition, they were inclined to be pensive onlookers.
Exceptions exist, of course; but even such a man as Michael Henchard

was only a part-time hero, his villainous deeds overshadowing any

106

good ones. With few exceptions, the male role was secondary in the
Hardy novels. But the men were individuals rather than representatives
Of a type. One does not regard Jude as a typical worker, nor Henchard
as a typical mayor. As with the women, the change Of circumstance and
event brought the character to life, the actions diminishing in interest
as the characters' inner nature became revealed.

Generally Speaking, the critics praised Hardy's heroes as illus-
trative Of veracious, uncomplicated, and direct men, although this very
directness might have led tO actions which would diSplease a morally
righteous reviewer. Thus, while the hero was regarded as credible, the
novelist was blamed for refusing to pass judgment on a particular deed.
SO arose many Of the complaints against the morality Of the novels.

Another aSpect of the novels which prompted the reviewers to
criticize was Hardy's language. They liked the reality resulting from
the everyday, earthy Speech of his farmers, complaining only when they
thought he had forgotten to reproduce the dialect of the Wessex peasants
exactly. They objected to his making his heroic peOple, when they came
from the lower classes, talk as if they were well educated. They dis-
liked the formality and the pretentiousness in the speech Of his drawing-
room characters; but most Of all the critics disliked the rhinestone style
of the narrative sections when the author Spoke for himself. More than
one critic reprimanded the novelist for artificiality of expression as well
as for imprOprietieS Of grammar and vocabulary. What the Victorian
critic hOped to find in a novel was a model for Speech and for writing,
but Hardy disappointed them for the most part.

It may at first seem strange so many critics saw Hardy as a pro-
moter Of sin. The relations between the sexes do serve as a theme in

the novels and the love element is omnipresent. But for all this, a

107

twentieth-century reader could scarcely classify the tales as porno-
graphic Or erotic. Nothing in Hardy can be compared to Maugham's

Lize gf Lambeth (to select a British novel of Tess's era) and its

 

descriptions of the heroine's lapses from chastity; nor does Hardy
contain such descriptions Of sexual activity as one finds in Zola, the
naturalistic author to whom he was most compared. What disturbed the
critics most was Hardy's permitting his young women to choose their
prOSpective mates without prOper guidance or to wonder about the
desirability of choosing any husband at all.

Many Of the critics who condemned Hardy did so because he
permitted adulterous relationships. They saw the Henchard-Mrs.
Henchard-Newson affair, the Eustacia-Clyrn-Wildeve affair, the Alec-
Tess-Angel affair, and the Jude-Sue-Arabella affair as attacks on the
institution Of marriage and the family, so idealized by the novel-reader

of the day. That this was all Hardy could write about was Blackwood's

 

contention as it was also the Opinion Of Mrs. Oliphant. . It remained for

Hannigin, Le Gallienne, and The Bookman to Show how the novels

 

illustrated great morality Since the wrong-doers were always punished
in accordance with the principles Of poetic justice. But most Of the
critics believed the mere inclusion of such adulterous affairs in a novel
was scandalous.

The impossibility for a character to overcome his fate disturbed
many reviewers, and even those who did not analyze the stories to see
where the actual conflicts lay reported the Hardy novels were depressing.
Throughout the novels recurs the theme that man is no match for circum-
stance, that his will tO act is puny when set against the forces Of nature
and society. . Any occasional success was temporary at best; circumstance

and coincidence were only waiting to beat him down and shape him to

108

their own liking. Thus, the Victorian belief in progress and a consequent
Optimism regarding the future was not to be found in Hardy. On the con-
trary, the novels served as chronicles Of deSpair from first to last.

In _A_Pair 9_f Blue Eyes, the death of the heroine, who had never knoWn

 

 

the joys Of home and family, was bound to be depressing. The hanging of
Tess, the suicide Of Jude's child, and, of course, the death of Jude
himself could have pleased no reader who expected novels to offer
repentant souls and bright, happy endings. Nowhere in the novels does
Hardy encourage those Victorians who saw their religious beliefs under-
mined; On the contrary, Hardy never showed faith or belief to be
efficacious in the struggle of man against circumstance. His only con-
cession to traditional belief came in the form Of poetic justice--
punishment for the wrongdoers--and even these were usually the leading
characters in the books.

Because he was SO completely outside the pale of the traditional
romantic novel, critics regarded him as a naturalistic writer. Mrs.
Oliphant was one who found him much like Zola, even when she proudly
boasted she had not read the works Of the French naturalist. Tyrrell
insisted Hardy was an English Zola, striving to bring indecency to
English literature. Hannigin, also finding Hardy a disciple of Zola and
de Maupassant, rejoiced because England too had a naturalistic novelist.
Sylvanus Urban (pseud.) also saw naturalistic ideas and thought the
English novelist had bettered the French naturalists in that he had
presented truth while avoiding coarseness and nastiness Of detail.

Other critics chose not to mention naturalism or were unaware of it as
a literary force in the closing years of the century. But strangely enough,
even those strongest in their accusations did not attempt to define

literary naturalism. They merely selected some detail which was

109

disPleasing to them and labeled it naturalistic, a term held in constant
readiness for imported French novels.

That Hardy's novels were considered controversial for a lengthy
period is evident; the great praise he received for his depiction of
natural phenomena was countered by the criticism he received for his
pessimism; the praise for dialectal reproduction was countered by the
criticism of his stilted dialogues and narrative tone; the occasional
admiration for his skill in creating physically beautiful women was
diminished by Objections to his 1mheroic heroines who were at times
immoral; favorable comment on his ability to depict village life
realistically was countered by unfavorable comment on his supposed
naturalism. Hardy was not, however, the sole writer to be treated so

harshly by the periodical press as will be seen in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

GEORGE GISSING AND THE PERIODICAL CRITICS

George Gissing, like his contemporary, Thomas Hardy, was also
attacked by reviewers who objected to what they called his naturalism.
Gissing, regarded during his lifetime as a writer Of promise rather
han Of achievement, seemed deliberately to antagonize his reviewers
by announcing his revolutionary ideas and then by illustrating them in
his novels. Furthermore, it is doubtful the anonymous reviewers would
accept kindly the replies Gissing made to them in the novels themselves.

In New Grub Street, for instance, the depressing story Of a writer Of

 

 

promise, who, like Gissing, refused to bow to the critics' taste (one
editor insists that the protagonist was actually Gissingl), Reardon is
made to say, "Curse the reviews, " when the heroine was worrying
about the reception a forthcoming novel would have.

Even more harmful to his reputation than his continual war on his
reviewers was his rejection Of current and pOpular ideals. In Workers
E13113 M, his first published novel, "he came before the public as a
constructive and informed critic Of contemporary life, assuming a role
which was to be his throughout his career and giving us, at the same

time, the indiSpensable key to his whole develOpment. "z A disciple Of

Dickens, he presented the reading public with his views on current

 

lGeorge Gissing, New Grub Street, ed. Harry Hansen (New York,
1926), p.‘ x.

zGeorge Gissing, Workers i_n this Dawn, ed. Robert Shafer
(New York, 1935), p. xxii. Hereafter cited as Workers.

 

110

111

problems; a rebel and innovator, he refused to romanticize or soften
these views merely to please his readers. "Villainy does not prOSper;
but neither is the heroine finally crowned with happiness; nor the hero,
who struggles and endures only to see life turning to ashes, emptied
Of all meaning and worth. "3

In other ways, tOO, he violated the Victorian code; he rebelled
against religious faith; he doubted the idea of prOgress; he wrote his
novels ”not. . .for women and children, but for thinking and struggling
men. "4 With as much realism and candor as were permitted to him, he
set out to present to the novel readers Of his day the world as he saw
it; but they did not like it nor his daring to Show it to them. The excerpts
from the reviews will Show this conclusively.

It is sometimes forgotten Gis sing was a scholar who read widely
the literature of several languages. The uninitiate, knowing him for
possibly one or two productions, are inclined to picture him as a poverty-
stricken author who wrote only autobiographical material. While it is
true his early career was one Of hardship, his later life was one of
ease if not luxury, a life wherein he could pursue scholarly interests
and produce his critical study Of Dickens. But even though he was
acquainted with the literature Of the continent, ". . .he was never
seriously tempted tO become an English Balzac or anEnglish Zola. . . . "5
Nevertheless, the reviewers who were diSpleased with Gissing's novels
and their indictments Of nineteenth-century society allied him with the

naturalistic School.

 

3Gissing, WOrkerS, p. xxxviii.
‘Gissing, Workers, p. xx.

5Gissing, Workers, p. x1.

Workers i_n th__e Dawn appeared in 1880, and in its review of this

novel, the Athenaeum discussed most Of the points which we traced in

 

the study of the Hardy periodical criticism; it omitted only a discussion
of naturalism. It pointed out, however, how Gissing defied the taste of
the British in this and later novels. In the first place, the review
objected to the heroine, who, although she possessed a serious and
sweet nature, was an ideal Comtist and an intellectual, both repugnant
to novel-readers who could not reconcile intellectuality with ideal
femininity. . Secondly, the review objected to the hero, who attacked
established political and social institutions, deserted his wife, and
committed suicide. Thus, Gissing demolished the theory that heroes
must be capable Of overcoming all Odds and get along well within the
framework established by society. Thirdly, the review objected to
marriage being regarded as a source Of unhappiness and to a principal
character's indulging in an illicit romance. Next, the review saw the
author as a pessimistic realist devoted to "Sparing no graphic detail

Of the miseries Of the vicious and the poor, " a phrase suggestive Of

6

the smug complacency of the era. And finally, the review saw

Workers in the Dawn as a novel something less than ennobling in its

 

language and style .

The same periodical reviewed The Unclassed, a Gissing novel Of

 

1884. It questioned the right Of a novelist to use disagreeable material
as subject matter and at the same time objected to the women in the
story, who were "shadowy" creatures living in a dim moral atmOSphere.7

It stated that Gissing was quite unable to analyze a woman's character.

 

6"Workers in the Dawn, " Athenaeum, LXXV (June 12, 1880), 758.
'"The Unclassed, .. Athenaeum, LXXXIV (June 28, 1884), 820.

 

 

More likely, however, the review was passing judgment on an author
who recognized the existence Of prostitutes, and even more, a
prostitute who could be the close, platonic friend of the hero. This
was the era, one must remember, when prostitution was called the
social evil; and the introduction in 'a novel Of a virtuous prostitute was
too great a contradiction for either reviewer or reader.

The Spectator review of the same novel also objected to novels
dealing with social problems and thereby minimized all of Gissing's
efforts. AS for Ida, the heroine who inherited a vast sum of money,
reformed, and became noted for her sweetness and charity, the reviewer
contended the role She assumed as a means "of wiping out her degraded
past is almost absurdly fanciful. "8 Victorian convention was not Opposed
to a woman's demonstrating her Sweetness through visits to the sick
and parties for poor children, but Ida in this novel was usurping the
prerogatives Of the Victorian young lady who had never strayed from
righteous behavior.

When Isabel Clarendon appeared, the reviewers still thought

 

Gissing' s works showed promise, even though they blamed him for pre-
senting unconventional women. Isabel herself evoked no criticism, for
She was decidedly the model of feminine prOpriety: modest, self-
sacrificing, dutiful, erring only in her devotion to the innocent pleasures
of high society. NO reviewer found anything amiss in Gissing's creation
Of this woman. Isabel Clarendon's ward, however, diSpleased the
critics. Shocking all by announcing publicly "I am an atheist, " she
became the Object Of the critic's venom.9 The unfavorable reception

accorded this novel may be partly ascribed to the heroine's atheism,

 

8"The Unclassed, " Spectator, LVIII (July 10. 1836): 58-
9”Isabel Clarendon, " Saturdal Review, LXII (July 10. 1886). 58-

 

114

but; her independence, her intellectuality, and her refusal to enter her-
self in the marriage market made one reviewer at least wish Gissing
"would adhere more closely to natural types and models. "1° The anony-
mous reviewer in the Academy, found Ada Warren,» the ward, appealing.
Indeed, he called her ”an imaginative triumph" in a book which he could
recommend " to that cultivated class Of readers who seek in fiction what
Mr. Matthew Arnold says is to be found in good poetry--a 'criticism of
life.'"11 Here, then, after six years Gissing received some acclaim for
his work, although he defied conventional standards in his depiction Of a
young girl.

- Also appearing in 1886, though anonymously, was Gissing's novel

Demos. Only two periodicals, the Saturday Review and the Athenaeum

 

 

noticed it, and neither commented on the heroine. Readers will recall 9
that the heroine is conventional, that She married in accordance with
her mother's wishes, that She was a dutiful wife, that she finally found
love when‘she was beside her husband after he had been mortally wounded
by an enraged mob of workers. Nothing in the actions of this young
woman could have offended a reader. The critics had to accept even
the lesser female characters: the husband's mother, who knew her
prOper place; the husband's Sister, who foolishly tried to buy re3pect-
ability, and the husband's former betrothed who relinquished all claim
to him when he married for position. There was nothing offensive about
any Of the women in the novel.

When Thyrza appeared in 1887, the Athenaeum reviewed it

 

sympathetically. It liked Thyrza for her "thoroughly natural feelings"

 

1°"Isabe1 Clarendon, .. Athenaeum, LXXXVII (June 19, 1886), 809.
""Isabel Clarendon, .. Academy, xxx (July 10. 1886). 24.

 

115

and admired her for her stoicism when circumstances in the narrow
streets Of Lambeth succeeded in keeping her down. 17‘ Similarly, the
Spectator liked Totty Nancarrow‘, the girl Of the laboring classes,
because She remained, in Spite Of unpleasant surroundings, self- reliant
and "always self- reSpectful. ”13 One can only conjecture about what the
reviewers would have said Of this novel if these two girls had attempted
to raise themselves above their station. But accepting their misfortunes
uncomplainingly, they were not a disturbing element.

For several years the reviews of Gissing's ensuing novels said
little or nothing about his women characters, probably because the
stories featured men. It is rather surprising, however, that Amy Reardon

of New Grub Street received so little attention from the reviewers Since she

 

was portrayed as a woman who could not live with poverty, ennobling as

it might have been in Thyrza. A Denzil Quarrier and Born i_n Exile also

 

 

 

gave women secondary roles. Even The Odd Women reviews devoted no

 

 

Space to a discussion of Gissing's presentation of women.

. Sleeping Fires (1896) was met with a general indifference, although

 

the'Saturday Review hOped the novel‘indicated a change Of (attitude on
Gissing' S part, since the widowed heroine in the novel eventually dis-

covered happine S s . 1‘

This was not, indeed, a typical Gissingdenoue-
ment; but as the later novels indicate, there was to follow a change in
their generally depressing tone. The Victorian desire for novels in which
the heroine became satisfied and pleased with her future would soon be

gratified.

 

lz"Thyrza, " Athenaeum, LXXXIX (May 7. 1387). 605-

 

13:1Thyrza," Spectator, .LX (June 25, 1887), 868.
“"Sleeping Fires, H Saturday Review, LXXXI (January 11, 1896), 48.

 

116

When Dolman' s lengthy article on Gissing was published, the
novelist's presentation of women received much attention. Dolman re-
marked that Gissing made lower-class women the heroines Of his novels,
an unusual feature in the ordinary novels of the era. , Dolman pointed out
that instead Of ascribing heroic activities only to women Of the upper
classes, Gissing saw heroic strength in the efforts Of his unfortunate
girls merely to survive, let alone attempting tO rise above circumstances.
The critic admired Thyrza in particular,

. . .the story Of that rare figure in fiction--a heroine Of the London
working-class. . A mere factory "hand, " with little or no education,
Thyrza Trent is nevertheless a girl whom Gissing succeeds in
making very real and interesting to us. . With much natural refine-
ment, uniting an imaginative temperament and a personal beauty

Of the Spiritual rather than the sensual type, the develOpment of
her life and character'amid the squalid surroundings of a back
street in Lambeth becomes in Mr. Gissing's hands a narrative in
which the interest, though absorbing, is more psychological than
dramatic. 15

The Spectator in the same year reviewed The Whirlpool and com-

 

_plained because Gissing invariably omitted the element Of nobility.

Citing the heroine as an example Of this defect, the review objected to

her impulsiveness and her-trivial ambitions. The sole redeeming

feature of the novel, it maintained, came at the end, because there Alma

, Rolfe was punished for her overs-ambitious nature. The demand for poetic
justice was thus satisfied, even though the heroine was not acceptable. “

When The Crown c_>_f Life appeared in the last year Of the century,

 

the Bookman seemed almost indifferent to the novel, but: reflected a change

 

'i‘Frederick‘ Dohnan, "George Gissing's Novels, " National Review,
(XXX (October 1897), 201.

 

l.‘"The Whirlpool, " Spectator, LXXVIII (April 24, 1897), 596.

117

in attitude toward the pOpular heroine of the era. Perhaps because the
'nineties had seen such exciting creatures as Tess in Hardy's novel

and Liza in Maugham's, the reviewer disapproved of Gissing's heroine,
"a nice, clever, serious-minded girl whom we like--outside a book. "17

In general, the reviewers. disliked Gissing's female characters: 1
they found them too intellectual, too independent, and too lifeless.
Furthermore, they too frequently were drawn from the lower classes
where women of great virtue and distinction were assumed not to be
found. These were not women to be emulated, unless like Thyrza Trent
they were to serve as models for the prOper poor.

From the beginning, Gissing's portrayal of male characters
caused the reviewers to comment, for, as we have seen in his treatment
of women, the novelist implied that any class could furnish heroic
behavior. Workers in tie 2333' for example, had a working-man hero
who devoted himself to the alleviation of poverty and social ills. But,
asWalter Houghton pointed out, the typical Victorian held that
"nobility of purpose and self-sacrifice to an ideal is the property of the
noble and well-born. "18 Golding was neither of these, nor was he

acceptable to the Athenaeum. ‘9 He came from the slums, associated

 

with radicals, and worked against established institutions.

The Unclassed had a different type of hero. No outspoken advocate
of democracy, he contented himself with righting wrongs in his own
circle of acquaintances. Furthermore, he had been born the son of a

businessman, was thecharge of a well-to-do landlord, and served as a

 

- 1.7"The Crown of Life, " Bookman, XVII (December 1899), 89.
18Houghton, Victorian Frame o_f Mind, p. 283.

19"Workers, " Athenaeum, p. 758.

 

 

118

schoolteacher. Given this background of reSpectability, Waymark
could easily take to heart the miseries of the unfortunate without defy-

 

ing convention. Thus the Athenaeum could state that Gissing's
"analysis of masculine character‘reveals considerable. grasp and
penetration. "2° As for'Slimy (the drunkard whom the review erron-
eously referred to as Smiley), the Spectator could not refrain from
calling him "exceptionally well-drawn. He is realistic without being

"21 The appreciation-of this character, however, rested in

revolting.
his illustrating the Victorian belief that bad conduct could lead only
to a horrible end and in his doing no permanent harm to the hero.

The same periodical found Kingcote, the hero of Isabel Clarendon,

 

unbearable because he did not live up to the era's criteria for heroes.
In the magazine's words, ”His hero [is] . . . a dreaming, morbid book-
hunter who cannot discover his true position in the economy of things.
. . . "32 On the other hand, (the innocuous clergyman, Mr. Vissian, also
a book—hunter and harvester of literary trifles, received the reviewer's
praise. One can assume the review was ignorant of the double standard
it was establishing or else that the amiable, Optimistic clergyman
illustrated theVictorian belief in good cheer and so preserved his
acceptability to the reviewer.

. Another reviewer was baffled by Kingcotc. While admitting
Gissing had studied his characters diligently and laboriously, he was
not sure he could understand the nature of this Gissing hero. ". . .whose

capacity for self-torment seems to have in it a touch of insanity. "23

 

' 3°"Unclassed, " Athenaeum, p. 821.

 

21”Unclassed, " Spectator, p- 158.
ain"Isabel Clarendon, " Spectator, LIX (October 23, 1886), 1420.
~z.3"Isabel Clarendon, " Academy, p. 24.

119

Nothing could appear more incongruous to the Victorian than an insane
hero.

Demos was well enough received by the two periodicals choosing
to review it. This novel, one will recall, also had a working-class
hero, who like the hero in Workers i_n £13 9333' fought for workers'
rights. But in Demos, the hero was a victim of the mob he had tried

to help; and as an exponent of radical ideas, he satisfied the Athenaeum

 

with his death. 3‘ In fact, the periodical praised the unknown novelist
for destroying the hero and the vicious ideas simultaneously. The other
review of Demos similarly saw the author as the possessor of a judicial
mind and thought him incapable of misdirected enthusiasm.25
The Victorians liked heroes they could understand. Just as it had

objected to-Kingcote, introspective hero of Isabel Clarendon, the

 

Spectator praised Gilbert Grail of Thyrza because his character was

uncomplicated.26 Grail pleased the Athenaeum also because he was "an

 

enthusiastic man attempting for himself and others to work out the
higher life under unfavourable circumstances. . . . "27 Although Grail
was not a dashing hero of romantic fiction, he was a decided contrast
to his counterpart, Egremont, whose "nobility of nature is rendered
ineffective by a latent element of weakness. "28 For these two periodi-
cals, at least, heroes needed to be simple and persevering, always

unwavering in pursuit of their goals.

 

 

a"'Demos,"'4.1‘Ltlareztiaiqum, LXXXVI (April 10': 13,36). 43.5
”"Demos, " aturday. Review,'LXII (August 21, 1886), 261.
z""Thysrza, " S ectator, p. 868.

”"Thyrza, " Athenaeum, p. 605.

28"Thyrza, " Athenaeum, p. 605.

 

 

120

The hero's lack of strength aroused the Athenaeum critic of

 

The Emancipated, the novel which centered itself around women who

 

had thrown aside the shackles of obedience. ‘The reviewer, however,
instead of objecting to the emancipation of women, placed the blame for
such flaunting of male superiority and authority onReuben Elgar, the
husband of an emancipated woman. . It objected specifically to his allow-
ing her to dominate him and to his acting according to his emotions.”
Another review dismissed the Gissing characters in this novel by
stating ". . .they are as it were for ever feeling their own pulse. "3°

In order to satisfy these reviewers, a hero could not be addicted to
acting emotionally norsto examining his own motives. He needed rather
to be direct, strong, and firm with those around him.

Gissing's characters made the reviewers unhappy with New Grub

 

M. Jasper'Milvain, whom Gissing treated unsympathetically, was
the author who found a public. . Milvain, of course, was never heroic
but was invariably successful. The idealistic Reardon, however, could
never please the public with his works and was bound (to be regarded as
a failure. This situation upset reviewers promoting Victorian ideals,
for evensat the novel's end, nothing indicated right behavior to be better
than bad behavior.31 Nor did the reviewer like thetmales. It referred
to' Reardon as "sensitive, imaginative, low in vitality, " most certainly
32

undesirable characteristics for a leading man.

. Born inExile had no better reception thanNew Grub Street

 

 

 

although five periodicals noticed it. In common, each condemned the

 

29"TheEmancipated, " Athenaeum, XCV (April 12, 1890), 466.

”"The-Emancipated, "'Westmins‘ter Review, CXXXIV (September
1890), 333.

31"New Grub Street, " Spectator, LXVI (May 30, 1891). 764-
32"New Grub Street, " Athenaeum, XCVII (May 9. 1891). 601-

 

 

 

121

book because the hero, Godwin Peak, became a clergyman only because
he hoped thereby to gain station and reapectability. The Saturday
Review called him "the most unlovable creation that ever appealed to
the misdirected sympathies of a reader, " and later objected to his
ignoring "his poor old widowed mother, who has pinched herself to pay

for his schooling. . . . "33 The Athenaeum, too, thought him "scarcely a

 

hero over whom one can become very enthusiastic. "3‘ The S ectator
obviously disliked Peak when it stated:

With all his intellectual vivacity, Peak is a depressing com-
panion, and the whole book. . .is one of those presentations of
life which are thoroughly depressing, because utterly devoid
of any feeling for the simple human hOpes and enthusiasms and
affections which give to life its interest and charm."

The Academy, the least critical of the hero, merely called him

"unsatisfactory. "35 The Westminster Review best explained its con:-

 

demnation in terms of the ideas of the era:

His hero is utterly unsympathetic from first to least. No
generous impulse, no warm-hearted, unselfish emotion is '
ever recorded of him. His resolute and persevering efforts
to rise in the world are in themselves worthy of all respect,
for they aim not solely, nor even chiefly, at the acquisition "
of wealth, but at self-culture and admission to the society of
refined and educated peOple. But they are so mixed up with
what is base and unworthy, with such malevolent feelings
both for those above him and those below him in the social
scale; he advances towards his ends by such tortuous ways,
that his honourably ambitious struggles assume the aspect of
sordid machinations, and the reader has no feeling for him
but hostility.”

 

31""Born in Exile, " Saturday Review, LXXIII (June 11, 1892), 688.
3“"Born in Exile, " Athenaeum, IC (May 28. 13921: 693°

 

”"Born in Exile, " Spectator, LXVIII (June 25, 1892), 883.
3,‘"Born in Exile, .. Academy, XLII (July 23, 1892), 67.

3""Born in Exile, " Westminster Review, CXXXVIII (November
1892), 571.

 

122

Several years elapsed before the critics again discussed the

Gissing hero. Denzil Quarrier, after all, presented a hero who re-

 

formed; The O_d_c_1 Women and The Emancipated had few men at all.

 

However, 121139 2311; o_f Jubilee introduced three males of diSpleasing
mien. One, according to the Spectator, was given to dissipation on
account of a dull brain and not on account of strong passion; the second
was "an accumulating machine which makes money and makes love
with the same revolution of the wheels"; the third was a dull, sen-
tentious fool.38 As we have noted above, these qualities were not
conducive to making a critic admire a Gissing character or book, a
viewpoint supported by the derogatory tone of the entire review. Only

the Bookman, rarely given to adverse criticism, could find the hero

admirable and an artistic success.39 The Athenaeum found no hero at

 

all.“ In Eve's Ransom, the first of the Gissing novels to receive

 

favorable comments from the Spectator, the periodical found a hero who
behaved rightly and even nobly. While it objected to Hilliard's Spend-
ing money to gratify his senses, it excused this moral weakness
because Gissing had not chosen, after all, to present the highest type

of humanity; Hilliard was not a man from the upper class.‘1 The
periodical seemed to deSpair of ever finding in Gissing a hero meeting

all the critic's standards. Moreover, in reviewing The Whirlpool, it

 

resignedly insisted that ”He [Gissing] will have none of the glamour of
romance, and never portrays a character which inapires anything

a'PPI‘Oa-Ching to unqualified romance. "‘3

 

38"In the Year of Jubilee, " Spectator, LXXIV (173131313er 9. 1895): 205-
39"In the Year of Jubilee, " Bookman, VIII (May 1895). 54-
“"In the Year of Jubilee, ” Athenaemn, CV (January 12. 1395): 45-

 

“"Eve's Ransom, " Spectator, LXXV (September 14, 1895). 345.
4'2"Whirlpool, " Spectator, p. 596.

123

H. G. Wells, Gissing's strOngest advocate, greatly admired the
novelist's men, esPecially Rolfe in The Whirlpool. He called the hero

 

"singularly inert" and saw him "unchanging in a world of change. ”‘3

. What Wells appreciated most, however, in direct contrast to the unsigned
critics, was Gissing's creating such a critic of contemporary society:
"He reflects, he does not react. He has, in fact, all the distinctive
inhumanities of what one might call the 'exponent of character, ' the
superior commentary. "“

It is almost as if Wells' criticism signaled a change in the critics'
attitudes toward Gissing's men, ‘as if for the first time Gissing's
portrayal of lower middle class personages was regarded as artistically
acceptable. For example, the Spectator, instead of condemning

The Town Traveller, found the men actually quite prOpe r, even though

 

it had not changed its own point of view regarding the qualifications for
heroes. The reviewer's statement that "Gissing has relentlessly in-
sisted on the middle-class world, [and]. . . has illustrated their [his men's]
Opportunities and capacity for enjoying themselves" might well have been
written years earlier, for the Victorian insistence upon a man's recogniz-
ing his proper station receives support in both the novel and the
periodical's criticism of the novel}; There is, indeed, no Moses-type

leader in The Town Traveller; Gissing's earlier works had contained

 

these, much to the discomfort of the reviewers.

In a similar vein, the periodical reviewed The Crown o_f Life,

 

again bestowing praise on Gissing for his character study of Piers Otway.

It liked the novel because ". . .we are called on to witness the gradual

 

”H. G.- Wells, "The Novels of George Gissing, " Contemporary
Review, LXXII (August 1897), 197.

“Wells, p. 197.

 

45"The Town Traveller, " Spectator, LXXXI (September 3, 1898).
312.

124

upbuilding of Piers's self-respect, the slow but final victory of spirit
over flesh, the motive-power all along being the hero's hOpeless
attachment for a pure and good woman. "‘6 Nothing could have afforded
a Victorian reader greater pleasure than a hero saved from himself,
especially when perseverance accomplished that end.

This discussion of the reviewers' ideas concerning the Gissing
male has indicated clearly the general displeasure of the critics. They
did not like novels containing men given to meditation rather than to
action.) men who» married for position instead of for love, men who had
friendships among members of the lower classes, and ignobly born
-men who attempted to lead others to encroach upon the prerogatives of
the high-born. Only when the novelist ceased rebelling against the
spirit of the era and created men of a more tn ditional stripe did the
reviewersadmire them.

- Also contributing to the general disfavor with which Gissing's
work was received was the novelist's upholding sexual relations. as
suitable content for a novel, and in connection with this aspect the
critics condemned some of the women mentioned earlier. But even
apart from the dislike of Ida and other women of easy virtue, they dis-
cussed furtively the Gissing emphasis on sex either in or outside of
marriage. ‘

The earliest published novel, Workers 2. SE 22.33, had only one
woman whose sexual activities Gis sing wrote about: the wife of the hero
who! deserted her husband and became a prostitute. But since she died

in poverty and thus released her unfortunate husband, the‘Athenaeum

 

review appeared satisfied with the outcome of this episode."

 

“"Crown of Life, 1' pectator, LXXXIII (November 4, 1899), 661.

‘7"Workers, " Athenaeum, p. 753.

 

125

The Unclassed, however, was a novel filled with ideas of sexual

 

immorality. It contained both a prostitute heroine and a woman who
left her husband in order to associate with lower class peOple. This
novel appeared in an era when the introduction in a novel of a virtuous
prostitute was too great a contradiction in terms for either a reviewer
or a reader. Besides, this prostitute was a platonic friend of the hero,
and such a friendship could never be tolerated. . Any woman who left
her husband, no matter what the circumstances, was certainly to be
condemnedby Victorian standards, capecially when she resisted all his
efforts to redeem her.

This novel, The Unclassed, reviewed by the Academy, caused the

 

periodical to .mention that Gissing was attempting here to satisfy the
cravers for dirty fiction and that the book was designed to shock many
readers. While admitting the book had power and vigor, the review,
nevertheless, hOped future novels from the author "--or rather authoress
[as the periodical insisted], " would omit such sordidness.‘8
The same novel caused some pain for the Spectato .. . Acknowledging
the fact Gissing was treating here a serious social problem, the review
seemed to equate the moral law of the era with sexual behavior alone.
Displeased with writers who are either rebels against the moral law or
"know not what the moral law means, " the review wanted novelists to
49

leave social problems for discussion elsewhere than in fiction.

Even by the time The Unclassed appeared, Gissing had been

 

acquiring a reputation for salaciousness. Punch upbraided the novel-

 

ist thus:

 

“"Unclassed, .. Academy, xxv (June 28, 1884), 454.
‘9"Unclassed, " Spectator. 13- 158-

126

0 ye demigods and little GISSINGS, did anyone ever hear
the like of this [Gissing's charge that Thackeray had sold his
soul to Mrs. Grundy's taste]? Not all the waters of Gissingen
can do much for anybody who Openly prays that the public taste
may "come round" again to the Open coarseness of Tom Jones;
the vice of an age as much as our age has its own, which
THACKERAY, one of the cleanest-minded writers who ever
lived, points out in that same preface to be happily out of date.
. All the world knows what that preface meant, save and except
GISSING, who thinks that THACKERAY's artistic conscience
suggested Dirt, and his art demanded it, but that he was afraid
of losing money by it'.'. Had he been but true to his conscience
and his tastes, his receipts would have gone up in time, for
GISSING would have bought his boOks. But THACKERAY be-
trayed his trust; (ye gods'. THACKERAY'.) by being sweet and
pure, though it is a "hard thing to say. " It should have been
not only hard but impossible, GISSING. As for our living novel-
ists, they are disgusting GISSING by "doing the same every day. ”
Well, they are, GISSING; and speaking with some knowledge of
them, we do not altogether regret it. We regret that GISSING
cannot get the reading he likes, except by going back to more
conscientious days; and we do not wholly like Mrs. GRUNDY.
But we like her taste in books better than GISSING's. We will
do all we can to help you to your desired celebrity, GISSING.
though we care not to be gissing who can have brought you up.
Praised be the gods for thy foulness, GISSING'. but also that,
as we findly hope, there are not very many like thee.so

 

The capitals in the repeated references to Gis sing in the above article

must certainly have attracted attention to the novelist' 3 works, because

after this time his novels were usually reviewed by several periodicals,

even though less mention was made ,Of Gissing's treatment of sex.

Isabel Clarendon, of course, did not violate the sex code, except,

 

possibly, in the introduction of an illegitimate girl whom the Spectator

called cold and eccentric--"' a study in human oddity.

"51 But by making

 

5°"Gissing the Rod, " Punch, LXXXVIH (January 3. 1885)! 1°
5"‘Isabel Clarendon, " Spectator, p. 1420.

127

her thus and omitting any scenes of sexual activity, Gissing escaped
the wrath of Mrs. Grundy everywhere.
» The anonymous Demos and the subsequent Thyrza were written

with no references to the sexual question. The Emancipated, however,

 

opposed the double standard in sexual affairs. The Westminster Review

 

rejected Gissing's daring to oppose traditional morality and believed
he was either not to be taken seriously or that he had been, in fact,
taken in by "such phrases as 'the modern ideal of life, ' 'the altered
relation of the sexes, ' 'the complex modern woman, ' . . . . "52

The Emancipated was Gissing's first real attempt to reveal life as

 

it existed for peOple emancipated from formerly-held ideas regarding
religion, morality, and sex. The novel was generally well-received in
spite of certain threats to Victorian standards, because the emancipated
women deem their newly-achieved positions unrestful and so seek (and

find) contentment in marriage. , As the Athenaeum put it,

 

To tell the truth, the former classes [the emancipated women]
are a good deal nicer than the latter [the unemancipated];
though when they enter the bonds of matrimony after one
emancipation, they are generally the nicest of all.53

Similarly, the Westminster Review regarded the heroine Miriam Baske,

 

who, after liberation from the Puritanism of her family, accepted a new
yoke in the form of love. The resulting submission to her masterful
husband was the antidote to her former freedom and concurred with the
Victorian convention. Her new course mollified this reviewer who
worried lest Gissing's expounding on the emancipation of women might

harm an unprepared reader.“

 

52"Emancipated, " Westminster Review, p. 333.

 

53"Emancipated, " Athenaeum, p. 466.

 

5""Emancipated, " Westminster Review, p. 333.

 

128

The Emancipated was eventually reviewed by the Spectator,

 

which disapproved of the heroine's traveling around with a man until
he should marry her. Furthermore, the review disagreed with her that
she was entitled to "an equal freedom to exercise all her powers, to en-
rich her life with experiences of joy" if denied "natural solace, "
Gissing's euphemistic term for matrimony. 55

_ These three reviews of the same novel emphasize the stress
critics laid on marriage as a panacea for all of woman's ills; additionally,
a new reason. for criticizing Gis sing arose from his sympathy for the
so-called new woman.

The Bookman was diSpleased by Denzil Quarrier because Gissing

 

did not make a clandestine union and its immorality answer for the hero's
downfall but instead. wrote so "catastroPhe is brought about by external
and all but incredible villainy. "56 The reviewer thought a commonplace
moral resulted and that the book failed because the incompatibility in
the unsanctioned liaison did not induce disaster.

Whether Gissing wrote about the married or the unmarried, he

could not satisfy his critics. The Odd Women, one will recall, contained

 

the tale Of a young and vivacious girl who married an elderly gentleman
in order to obtain material comforts. Ignoring love, she sought to escape
her miserable, wretched surroundings and the pitiful fate of her un-
emarried sisters. One periodical approved the accuracy and truthfulness
of Gissing's description of the courtship and the ensuing wedded life of

the lovely Monica and the jealous Widdowson, but would have preferred

 

55"Emancipated, " Spectator, LXXIII (August 110 1394). 183.
s""‘Denzil Quarrier. " Bookman, 1 (March 1392). 215-

129

a more romantic story, since the author's truthfulness left "a vague
feeling of dissatisfaction. "57
. As far as the unmarried were concerned, the unfriendly

Saturday Review objected not so much to scenes of seduction as to the

 

introduction of such scenes when the novelist had neglected to prepare

the reader for them. To illustrate, its reviewer of In the Year9_f

 

Jubilee wrote about Tarrant's seducing Nancy:

No doubt Nancy would have yielded herself to such a fellow easily
enough, and perhaps the inevitable asterisks which conceal the
inevitable seduction in the inevitable sylvan retreat have a right
to be printed after she has exchanged a few words with him on
half a dozen occasions; it is possible that Tarrant might have
married her next day, all very handsomely, in real life, though
'Mr. Gissing does not make this convincing.58

But even more remarkable for the era, the reviewer justified the above-
mentioned seduction. He stated:

It is natural enough that a girl like the heroine, out of such a
household as' Mr. Gissing shows us, should be ready to fall
avictim to the first touch of passion, the first show of a state
and culture superior to those around her.59

One can assume from this that seductive scenes were to beltolerated
provided the seduced be from the lower classes. The Sp‘ ectator,
however, would have none of this and made the novel the source of its
bitterest attack. , Specifically it hated the women Gis sing portrayed:

Among the not numerous prominent characters area divorced woman;
two girl victims of seduction, --if indeed the phrase be not

misapplied to lapses from virtue which have hardly waited for
temptation. 6°

 

57"Odd Women," Spectator, LXX (May 27. 1893). 703-

5311111 the Year of Jubilee, .. Saturday Review, LXXIX (January 19.
1895), 100.

min the Year of Jubilee," Saturday Review, p. 100.

 

 

“In the Year of Jubilee, " Spectator, p. 205.

130

With such characters as these, it is little wonder the reviewer despised
the. novel; thus we have evidence that even the nineties hesitated to accept
sex or sex violations as suitable material for fiction.

Only the Saturday Review tolerated a woman's lapse from virtuous

 

conduct. In its review of Eve's Ransom, also a novel of the ’nineties,
it excused a situation ordinarily repugnant to it by virtue of the
characterization of the woman herself:

Eve Madeley is a real and credible woman, fundamentally mean
as is the way of women, with a sweet, intellectual face and an
inherent refinement and seriousness that extort our respect,
and with just one dash of sordid romance with a married man to
vary her dull life of work and parsimony.61

A real change in attitude is obvious here, the excusing of an extra-
marital affair. The other reviews, nevertheless, were not at all lenient
or tolerant of Eve. One thought Gis sing held a low Opinion of women,
because in the novel he had the heroine marry for security."2 This kind
of marriage, secretly desired by Victorian parents and Openly Opposed
by the readers of rOmantic novels, was exactly the element which had

disturbed the. Spectator reviewer of The Odd Women. 63

 

H. G..Wells, who, we have seen, supported Gissing forwhat he
regarded as excellent male characterization, again demonstrated his
affection for the problem novelist when he reviewed the novels from the
standpoint of literary merit, disregarding completely the morality or
immorality of the stories. The critic was not at all displeased with the

novel (The Unclassed) which dealt with the so-called "daughters of joy, "

 

 

61"The Depressed School, " Saturday Review Supplement, LXXIX
(April 27, 1895), 531. A review of Eve's Ransom.

 

63"Eve's Ransom," Spectator, p. 183.
63Cf. p. 128.

131

but felt such a novel was a necessary reaction to the Victorian insistence
on woman's morality. What he did object to was Gissing's "pathetic
endeavour to prove that these poor girls are-~young ladies. "64 (This
statement reminds one of the attacks on Hardy as a result of his call-
ing Tess a "pure" woman. The difference between the stories, however,
lies in the fact that Tess was an unwilling victim of masculine attention.)
When Dolman wrote in 1897 about all the Gissing novels, he devoted
much Space to the novelist's treatment of sexual relations. Unlike most

of the anonymous reviewers who discussed In the Year (if Jubilee, The

 

Emancipated, and Eve's Ransom, Dolman insisted the constant Gissing

 

 

theme was the problem of sex and not the problems of lower middle class
society, that Gis sing was perhaps only following the fashion of the time
in catering to the public' 8 demand for sensational literature:

. . .in what was, I believe, Mr. Gissing's first novel [the critic
erroneously believed that the first novel was The Unclassed
instead of Workers in the Dawn] much was anticipated of that
which has since beer: said in fiction respecting the relations of
the sexes- These other novels, too, have been written with
considerable independence of thought and originality of view.
With a daring in idea which has hardly been equalled in any of
the novels of "sexual interest, " to use the phrase of their
hostile critics, that have since become pOpular, and a delicacy
of treatment which has certainly not been excelled, Mr. Gissing
made the heroine of The Unclassed a courtezan. . .whilst at the
same time claiming for her the fullest sympathy and admiration
of his readers.65

 

 

_ While admitting it is hard to tell exactly how Gissing viewed sex, the
critic was inclined to believe the novelist disassociated sex from moral-

ity. He believed instead the novels constantly reiterated the idea that

 

“Wells, p. 197.
MDolman, p. 263.

132

". . .truly immoral man. . . is still in the bondage of formulae, and his
sin consists in the conscious violation of principles which in his heart
he believes ought to guide him. "66

. Agreeing with the Gissing implication that a woman's surrender is
not necessarily fatal to her moral character, he saw the novelist
countenancing the idea that an ideal union between a man and a woman
may be one of freedom. To substantiate this idea, he quoted Rhode Nunn
in 113352.19. Women:

In real life, how many men and women fall in love ? Not one in
every 10, 000 I am convinced. Not one married pair in 10, 000
have felt for each other as one or two couples do in every novel.
There is the sexual instinct, Of course, but that is quite a dif-
ferent thing; the novelists daren't talk about that. The paltry
creatures daren't tell the one truth that would be profitable.

The result is that women imagine themselves noble and glorious
when they are most near animals.”

. It does not surprise us, therefore, that Gissing's contemporaries, and
particularly his reviewers, should have been so fearful of a writer who
upset their traditional, conventional ideas of sex and morality.

The preceding survey of the reviewers' comments regarding
Gissing's treatment of the relations between the sexesindicates his was
an unconventional attitude for the novels of his era. In the first place,
romantic love was not the subject of his novels, according to most critics.
Besides, certain critics objected to what they regarded as a cheapening
of love in the story of a hero' 8 platonic love for a prostitute. . Secondly,
Gissing did not show marriage as a panacea for all of a woman's dif-

ficulties: he sometimes put women in unbearable marital situations

 

“Dolman, p. 263.
6"Dolman, p. 263.

133

and attempted to whitewash their adulterous activities; he even indicated
that desertion could solve the problem of an unhappy marriage. - And
finally, his portrayal of illegitimacy, the seduction of poor girls, and
the ability of some women to find happiness outside of marriage made
critics question the propriety of including the unpleasant subject of sex
in any novel.

. While many of the novels escaped condemnation because the re-
viewers ignored or were unaware of the sexual overtones apparent to
Dolman, another asPect of the novels produced cries of rage from the
very beginning. Like Hardy, Gissing was accused of promoting pessimism

in an era of pOpular optimism. The unhappy ending of Workers i_n th_e Dawn

 

caused the Athenaeum to review the novel unfavorably.68 Its review of

 

The Unclassed was also unfavorable because Gissing had dared to write

 

about a depressing subject: life in the London slums.” The Spectator

 

too found the book unpleasant and said Christian hOpe would eliminate the
problems Gissing had raised, even predicting Gissing could become a
success only if he would avoid problem novels or else write about
Christian tenderness."

The Westrninster' Review saw a pessimistic attitude promoted by

 

The Emancipated when it stated

 

. . .the moral suggested by his book is that, if advancing civili-
sation implied the indefinite multiplication of such unrestful
and tormented beings as most of those who figure in his pages,
one would, to use Professor Huxley's forcible words, "hail the
advent of some kindly comet which would sweep the whole
affair away. "71

 

6[8"Workers in the Dawn, " Athenaeum, p. 758.

 

59"Unclassed, " Athenaeum, p. 820-

 

7°"Unclas‘sed, " Spectator, p. 158.

""Emancipated, " Westminster Review, p. 334.

 

134

Readers of New Grub Street were warned they might not enjoy

 

 

this novel in which ". . .Mr. Gissing holds a brief for pessimism. "
Conceding the story was vigorous, the Spectator review continued to
describe it as "depressing, " "full of unrelieved melancholy and an
atmosphere of sordid misery. " all of which have their "effect in lower-
ing the Spirits of the reader. "72

The Athenaeum advised prOSpective readers thus:

 

The lower walk of "letters" may, not, perhaps, smile on the
reader, nor be the path he would wish to follow--it is dreary,

a little grimy even. . . . Life in "New Grub Street" may be sad
enough, with few redeeming features-~many‘ go under, few rise
above the surface--there is privation, disappointment, mean-
ness; still, day by day more plunge intoit. It has its fascinat-
ing time, its hours of glamour; but of these Mr. Gissing shows
few or none."

The pessimism Of Born in Exile led another periodical to blame

 

 

Gissing's attitudes for his failure to please his readers. The review
thought it saw with each successive novel a greater emphasis on Gissing's
belief in pessimism,

. . .a pessimism which robs the moral atmosphere of all its
invigorating ozone. It is a little curious--or rather it would
be curious we re it not so easily explainable--that the value
and glory of life are most depreciated by those who might be
expected to exalt and celebrate them, the men and women who,
doubtful or despairing Of any guarantee of an existence beyond,
should surely feel with special intensity the worth and interest
of the narrow span of being that lies between the cradle and the
grave. . . . [Gissing] offers instead no quickened appreciation
of the joy'of life, but rather makes it a thing that is dull and
chill and grey!"

 

7,3"New Grub Street, " Spectator, p. 764.
73"New Grub Street, " Athenaeum, p. 601.

 

""Born inExile, " Spectator. p. 383-

135

The Academy, too, regarded the novel as a brief for pessimism
and doubt; and while admitting Gissing had written well about intellectual
scepticism, it found that "the whole result is unsatisfactory" and that
"the story is almost necessarily a melancholy one. "75

. The Odd Women produced divergent views on Gissing's-pessimism.

 

One found the novel something less than enchanting but still possessing
" an element of hope, a something that encourages the idea that with
time and effort the baffling problem of the Odd women may be success-
fully solved. "76 . Another view, presented by the“ Spectator, contended the
whole novel was "coloured by his pessimism" and that " it is a good novel
to get away from. "77

This periodical did not change its attitude toward Gissing's

Athenaeum and the Saturday Review were resigning themselves to the

 

 

idea the novelist would continue to emphasize the hOpeless aspects of

life. i The first-mentioned periodical questioned the need for books which
treated the sordid aSpects of life and concluded. ". . .his treatment may be
challenged on purely artistic grounds by critics who would treat its fatal-
istic pessimism as an indifferent thing for which they have neither

approval nor condemnation. "73 The Athenaeum, on the other hand, admired

 

"his usual uncompromising fashion" in describing a life that ". . .is gen-
erally unlovely and often hideous" but which". . . rises at times to a

genuinely tragic level. 3'” Besides, it saw certain aspects of Optimism

 

7,5"Born in‘Exile, " Academy, p. 67.
”"Odd Women, " Athenaeum, CI (May 27, 1893), 667.

 

""Odd'WOmen, " Spectator, p. 708.
7,9"In the Year of Jubilee, " Spectator, p. 206.
”"In the Year of Jubilee, Athenaeum, p. 45.

 

136

in the novel, especially in those parts where the heroine seemed about
to obtain happiness. . Similarly, the Saturday Review found a quiet
humor making the book bearable, since- "Mr. Gissing indulges in no
splashes of bright cOlour, gives us no crime, little mere blackness:

all is grey and brown and sombre, and the stamp of convincing un-
exaggerated truth is over the whole. It is as horrible and impressive a
presentment of sordid unlovely life as we have ever, had. ”so

Almost cOntradicting itself, the periodical asked of Eve's. Ransom:

 

Is this harsh greyness really representative of the life of
the lower-middle class? Or'is it that Mr. Gissing-is colour-
blind. . . ?81

Besides, the review contended, the novelist fell short of artistry because
he failed to interweave any flash of joy or humor into life's gloomiest
tragedies. 82

By the time Sleeping Fires was published, the Saturday Review was

 

_so-inured to the Gissing pessimism that his change of attitude-in this
short novel puzzled the reviewer. He believed the novelist guilty of an
artistic lapse because the book was so, different from the earlier ones.”

, The Athenaeum, which hadattempted to find in the earlier novels some

 

elements of Optimism, seemed not to notice anything unusual about the
lack of pessimism here, insisting it liked the book because Gis sing had
allowed old-fashioned morality to prevail.“ Unfortunately, the-S ectator
ignored the novel, so one cannot know if it enjoyed the absence of

pessimism.

 

”"111 the Year of Jubilee, .. Saturday Review, p. 100.
81"The‘Depressed School, " Saturday Review Supplement, p. 531.

 

' 82"The'Depressed School, " Saturday Review Supplement, p. 531.

 

'3.’"Sleeping Fires, " SaturdayReview, p. 48.
“"Sleeping’ Fires, .. Athenaeum, cvn (January25, 1896), 116.

 

137

'It also ignored the light, humorous Paying-Guest. When it once

 

again reviewed a Gissing novel, one in which Fate stalked the heroine,
it resumed its attack on pessimism:

That he should not have achieved a pOpularity in proportion to
his great ability need excite no surprise. He is too uncompro-
mising a delineator of human nature, too relentlessin his
exposure of the skeletons that are concealed in the most reput-
able of cupboards. What is more, Mr. Gissing concerns him-
self almost entirely with the tragedies and the tragic-comedies
of middle-classlife, and it is for this reason. . .that he is never
likely to become a fashionable writer. as

g H. G. Wells, however, was not displeased by Gissing's pessimism
any more than he had been by Gissing's treatment of sex. In his appraisal
of several of the novels, he wrote:

At the outset we encounter an attitude of mind essentially ideal-
istic, hedonistic, and polite, a mind coming from culture to the
study of life, trying life, which is so terrible, so brutal, so
sad and so tenderly beautiful, by the clear methodical measure-
ments of an artificial refinement, and expressing even in its
earliest utterance a note of disappointment. 86

, Dolman, too, realized Gissing's pessimism was actually spawned
by idealism: his philosophy ". . .may be briefly summed up as im-
patience with the present competitive phase Of society, with itsmad
striving for wealth on the one side and its painful struggle for subsistence
on the other. "87, Though cognizant of the author's point of view, he
charged pessimism was Gissing's besetting sin:

The pessimism is almost morbid. . In other hands, the scenes
between the poverty- stricken literary men [Specifically in
New Grub" Street] . . .would have been full of humour, grim,

 

 

,

 

~95"Whirlpool, " Spectator, p. 596.
”Wells, Contemporary Review, p. 197.
8"Dolman, National Review, p. 266.

 

138

no doubt, but genuine for all that; as it is, only one or two poor
gleams Of wit relieve the gloom of their distress. In none Of
Mr. Gissing's books are we more conscious of that deficiency
in the sense of humour which, with their pessimism, has
hitherto made their other fine qualities so unacceptable to men
in the street. 88

. Only once did the critic know of Gissing's Shedding a pessimistic atti-
tude, namely in The Odd Women, when "Mr. Gissing puts off his

 

pessimism and becomes the enthusiast in face of the principle of equal-
ity between husband and wife, "89
. Even for his short stories Gissing was regarded as a pessimist.

Hisr Human Odds andeEnds led the Academy reviewer to state:

 

 

"Mr. Gissing is as remorseless, as deliberate, as logical a pessimist
as ever. His indictment of things is as brave and as comprehensive. "9°
Even here, whenever he permitted some touches of humor, he im-
mediately counteracted them with irony. The result did not please the
critics.

The Spectator finally joined the admirers of Gissing when The Town

 

Traveller appeared, stating quite frankly that the pessimism of the

 

earlier novels had alienated it:

We had long ago given up‘Mr. George Gissing as an in-
corrigible pessimist, but the unexpected has happened, and in
The Town Traveller he has not only given us a story with a happy
end-ing,- but one which is in the main suffused with cheerfulness
and occasionally mounts to the plane of positive hilarity. » Into
the causes of thismomentous deviation we do not propose to enter,
beyond hazarding the surmise that Mr. Gissing's recent sympa-
thetic study of Dickens, may have contributed to his conversion.91

 

 

”Dolman, p. 262.
”Dolman, p. 264.

9°"Human Odds and-Ends, " Academy, LII (December 18, 1897), 125.
91"Town'Traveller, " Spectator, p. 312.

139

The critics' respect for the Dickens tradition was apparent in still
another review which believed Gis sing introduced a lighter touch as a
resu1t of the recent monograph.” Only the Academy found the book
"revolting" because of its "remorseless delineation of sordid miseries. "93

The last Gissing novel of the century found the Spectator com-
pletely on the side of the novelist. The change, however, was not so
much the periodical's as it was the author's, for here the protagonist,
beaten down by parentage and environment, rebuilt his life and self-
respect. Thus, the Spectator stated its position on Optimism versus
pessimism in novels: "We welcome Mr. Gissing's tardy adhesion to the
ranks of mitigated Optimists. . . . ”9‘

That Gissing was regarded as a pessimist during most of his
career and that this pessimism was not to the liking of periodicals in an
era of Optimism is most apparent. While some realized the Gissing
novels featured a pessimistic theme to be read as social criticism, the
Gissing attacks on society were not welcomed. The Spectator, indeed,
held back its praise from the author until he wrote Optimistically. And
even the Bookman, often less given to carping criticism than other
periodicals, rejoiced when it believed Gissing would henceforth present
an Optimistic, more Dickensian point of view. The romantic tradition
of the happy ending still persisted as a desideratum of Gissing's age.

We have noted that Hardy's language plus his pessimism and gloom,

unromantic heroes and heroines, and outspoken comment regarding sex

 

92"Town Traveller, " Bookman, XV (October 1898), 19.
93"Town Traveller, ” Academy, LIV (September 10. 1898). 245°
94"Crown of Life, " Spectator, p. 661.

140

caused him to be susPected of naturalistic tendencies. Gissing, on the
other hand, received only one unfavorable comment concerning his
language. ~7Without giving examples, without stating its Objections
Specifically, the‘Athenaeum saw him as "not quite a master of. . .the

Queen'saEnglish. "95. Although Denzil Quarrier Spoke roughly, his

 

language abuses, though noticed by the Bookman, did not compel the
periodical to condemn the entire novel.96

_ Praise for the dialogue appeared in a review of The Odd- Women.

 

It was called " of the right sort--natural and to the purpose. "9' But the
novel presented no characters whose Speech could possibly offend; no
character needed to be rough- Spoken during any episode.

More praise came for the language ofln the Year 3f Jubilee.

 

As one reviewer said,

He has caught the lower-middle-class dialect in dialogue in an
exceedingly clever way, while, when he is Speaking in his own
person, one reads without noticing the words--which is always
a Sign of good writing.98

. Even the usually unfriendly Spectator commented favorably on
Gis sing' a language:

He deals neither in purple patches, superlatives, padding, nor
flaming rhetoric. He has got rid of a certain trace of literary
artifice noticeable in his earlier work, and his style is now
admirably terse, expressive, and adapted to the matter in hand. 99

Only one other review remarked on the language in the novels.

The'Academy review of The Town Traveller praised Gis sing for

 

 

9,’"Workers in the Dawn, " Athenaeum, p. 758.
"menial Quarrier, .. _B_qq___kman, I (March 1892), 215.
9['"Odd'x Women, " Athenaeum, p. 667.

98"1n the Year of Jubilee, " Saturday Review, p. 100.

 

 

 

99"Whirlpool, " Spectator, p. 596.

141

recording accurately the Speech of his characters.100 Obviously, then,
Gissing's language did not enrage his critics; as a matter of fact, with
the one exception noted. above, they agreed about his skill as a writer
and inventor of prose models. No room for condemnation existed on
this score.

To see why Gissing was received unfavorably and why he was
regarded as a naturalist, one must examine other portions of the
periodical criticism. This study has shown that his pessimism, in
defiance of prevailing taste, angered certain critics. More angering,
however, were his descriptions of London low-life, regarded by critics
as the essence of naturalism, and the implication that a complacent
society was somehow at fault. His judges, therefore, he provoked into
calling him a naturalist, or equally damaging, into associating him with
continental philosophers and writers. AS a result, Gissing's aims,
methods, and conclusions were always suspect.

The Athenaeurn- was disturbed from the very beginning. Throughout

 

its review of Gissing's first novel ran the names of Schopenhauer, Comte,
and "foreign authors, " the first two being accused of strongly influencing
the novelist‘to scorn religion and to rouse the passions of the poor, the
last group of "foreign authors" prevailing on the heroine to do likewise.101
The-periodical apologized half-heartedly for Gissing-on the grounds of
his social inexperience, but it could not excuse his "making the horns
and tail of his béte 1.19339 so very grotesque as to take from the seriousness

of the contest. "10: . A modern reader of the novel will recall the scenes

m

lo""TovirnTraveller,"Academy, p. 245.

1"1"Workers, " Athenaeum, p. 758.

 

loan-Workers, H Athenaeum. p. 758.

 

142

of inhuman cruelty and poverty at the beginning of the story and will

certainly disagree with the Athenaeum's verdict regarding the serious-

 

ness and realism of the novel. However, the possibility exists the
periodical preferred to regard the London slums in an ostrich-like
fashion.

.1 Its Opinion of The Unclassed was no higher; it even went so far as

 

to suggest disagreeable Subjects be omitted from literature and recom—
mend that Chapter III of the third volume [a particularly sordid descrip-
tion of slum life] be excluded. This led it to condemn the book on the
- supposed grounds that it had no central narrative, was badly arranged,
and did not illustrate the virtue of self-repression. 103

The Academy review saw a connection between Gis sing and'Zola
which reflected the English attitude toward the French advocate Of
naturalism:

The author--or rather authoress, for the work plainly
shows a female hand--of The Unclassed has written a tale of
lower middle-class life inTondon in the manner of M.- Zola
and his disciples. We say in the manner, for the manner of the
naturalist school is to give sufficient prominence to the
shadows of life to produce a picture of powerful effect. The
Spirit of the modern French realists differs in no way from that
of generations of French write rs in every branch of literature.
. . . The Spirit of The Unclassed is not the Spirit of Zola, as the
book is not prurient; but the manner of the book is realistic to
a degree which will shock many readers. For the rest, the
author has not sufficient control over her imagination to bring
her characters and incidents into thorough harmony with nature.
The story abounds with situations in which verisimilitude-is
sacrificed for effect. 1“

 

 

 

103"Unclassed, "Athenaeum. p. 820-

 

'1“"Unclassed," Academy, Po 454-

143

‘Some of the same defects struck the reviewer of the innocuous

Isabel Clarendon and led him to call Gissing "advanced, agnostic, anti-

 

Optimist, and antagonistic to social conventions, " any of which epithets,
like the word "realist, " were suggestive of, if not synonymous with,
the word "naturalist. "105

The same harmless novel Spurred the Spectator on to a discussion
of English naturalism and to a patriotic defense of its countrymen:

Certainly Mr. Gis sing, although we should say that he
has rather a liking for the discussion of social and even sexual
questions, cannot be accused 8.8M. Zola, is accused by Mr.
Stevenson, of "dwelling complacently in f0ulness.. " Such com-
plaint as we have to make against Mr. Gissing is, as we have
said, on the score not of realism, but of unreality.1°6

(Later the periodical would so classify Zola himself.) It would have
been strange, however, if ordinary readers of reviews had not begun to
associate the names of Gissing and Zola in Spite of the periodicals'
insisting the two novelists differed greatly. Why, one might wonder,
did the name of Zola appear so frequently in Gissing reviews if no
relationship existed?

Zola was not the sole contemporary European author with whose
name or ideas Gissing was associated. The Bookman believedM
Quarrier had several flaws in it, which, it felt, were produced by
Ibsenism: "Perhaps we have Ibsenism on the brain, and, unreasonably
jumping to the conclusion that Mr. Gissing has the same, proceed to
interpret his foreshadowings of fatein an Ibsenish Spirit. "1°7- What dis-
pleased the reviewer most, however, subsequent statements revealed,

was his discovering "a tragedy of circumstance, not a tragedy of

 

10"""Isabel Clarendon, " Saturday Review. P- 58-

 

'°,‘Hlsabel Clarendon. " Spectator. p- 1420-
lo""Denzil Quarrier, " Bookman, p. 215.

144

character. "”3 This, of course, was in the best naturalist tradition and
was the basis for much Hardy criticism; and because this philosophy
of a relentless fate ran counter to the Victorian belief that man can
triumph over all adversity, it is no wonder the critic was displeased
withGissing's so-called Ibsenism.

. Again calling Gis sing an idealist and again linking his name to

Zola's, the Spectator reviewer Of _I_n_the Year o_f Jubilee discussed

 

literary method and philOSOphy:

There is no error more frequent in contemporary appraise-
ments of art than the common assumption that any vivid pre-
sentation of the ugliness of life must needs be realistic. The
difference between idealism and realism is not a difference of
effects but of methods; the realist endeavours to present all the
facts, and to preserve their true prOportionate values; while the
idealist, consciously or instinctively, selects the facts, and
confers upon them a value of his own for the sake of achieving a
certain effect or impression. Generally, no doubt, the idealist
will strive after an effect of beauty, Simply because to the majority
beauty is more admirable than ugliness; but this choice is not
inevitable. - A distinguished critic has shown that M.. Zola, Often
Spoken of as the most relentless of realists, is, as a matter of
fact, a typical idealist. . . .in his most characteristic novels M.

~ Zola deliberately selects social features that are Specially ugly,
in order to combine them in a picture of ideal ugliness. The
ends of the two artists are Opposite, but the means they employ

1 are identical; and this identity of methods proclaims them members
of one artistic family.

Mr. George Gissing must therefore be regarded not as a
realist but as an idealist Of the new school. What is supposed to
be his realism inheres only in his renderingof detail which is
certainly characterised by remarkable knowledge and skill. . . .
but just as we know that there never was a living man or woman
so physically perfect as the Apollo Belvedere or the Venus de Milo,
so do we know that there never was a civilised community in which

 

10.3"Denzil Quarrier, " Bookman, p. 215.

145

human nature was solargely denuded of its attractive elements
as is the human nature of the community depicted in Mr. Gissing's
latest story. 109

The explanation of Zola's naturalism as-a form Of idealism. instead of
realism is possibly an attempt to exonerate Gissing from. the charges
leveled at him by other critics; one Should note, however, that the
reviewer here saw Zola and Gis sing employing the same methods whether
or not they were striving for the same goal.

. Other reviewers also contended Gissing failed as a realist. Among
these was the reviewer whorinsisted the novelist's-method of reporting
objectively and photographically resulted in his being color-blind, seeing,
that is, only the grayness in middle-class life. "The true Realism, we
hold, looks both on the happy and the unhappy. ”110 Thus, still admitting
that the results of the novels were unsatisfactory, the reviewers sought
to make an idealist of Gis sing and thereby make him more acceptable to
readers.

In the following year the periodical again commented on the novel-
ist'sttechnique, saw him allied to Moore, and wistfully hoped he would
"appeal to readers asmuch as he does to critics. "In The review
seemed to have forgotten its previous remarks about realism and Spoke
of the application of a police-court reporter'smethod to the details of
everyday life "in order that we xmay get an enhanced impression of
reality. ""3

The critics were at last coming to accept Gissing. No longer was
the suggestion of realism and naturalism or the Objectivity of these

anathema to them. On the contrary, "the mere fact of a digression

 

- 109.311 the Year of Jubilee, " _S ectator, p. 206.
"°"The~Depressed> School, " Saturday Review Supplement, p. 531.

-'""The Paying Guest, .. Saturday Review, LXXXI (April 18,
1896), 405. '
n2"TherPaying Guest, " Saturday Review, p. 405.

 

 

 

146

[on the author's part] condemns a novel to many a young critic. ""3
One of these diSpleased critics wrote of the novelist's introduction of
an analysis of human character and insisted it should have been omitted.
". . .Mr. Gissing is always ready to drag in irrelevant side-studies. "1“
However, another young critic, H. G.- Wells, could only praise
him for writing about a group of characters struggling against a social
force. This accomplishment, Wells insisted, served to put Gissing in
a category with Victor Hugo, Zola, Tolstoi, and Turgenev. “5 In an
earlier day, that classification would have ruined Gissing's reputation;
but now, Since he had written a few happy- ending novels and had won
over to himself a steadfast objector like the Spectator, this compliment
from Wells must have cheered him, indeed.
Never again during his lifetime was Gissing to be complimented so
warmly; nor did his critics again attack him so vehemently. He did not
disavow pessimism, it is true, but the later works contained elements

of humor, almost in answer to the expressed wishes Of early critics.

Even his last complete novel, Our Friend the Charlatan, based as it was

 

on a French sociological study, brought forth no bitterness from the
critics.

Only after his death did critics again link him with the French
naturalist. One Of these regretted-London had practically ignored Gissing
since "The Englishman does not like to be told too much about the naked
truth of things. ""6. That Gissing had been so ignored seemed shameful

 

11.?"The Paying Guest, " Saturday Review, p. 406.
“‘"Whirlpool’; 1* Athenaeum,.CIX (April 24, 1897), 536.
"51176118. p. 193.

".‘Arthur Waugh, "George Gissing, " Fortnightly Review, LXXXI
(February 1, 1904), 244.

 

 

. 147

tO'Waugh, for during-Gissing's-most productiveyears, "Theyoung
'French-enthusiastswere-hailinghim‘ as "le jeune-pmaitre, ' andcompar-
ingjhim~witthola. "1". However, the critic believed he could see an
important differencebetween, the approaches of the. two novelists: Zola
, concerned himself with-art. to promulgate a thesis while Gissing. desired
only tO- picture life. '

- The last word on~Gissingand the naturalistscame in .a sort of
eulogy inthetAthenaeum. -Here, among-such~adjectivesassincere
and forcible, the critic maintained ". . .that Gissingand- Zola looked-at
”life-in the: same spirit is a coincidence-and the result of thesame-Spirit. "

 

andthereby cast doubt onany idea that Zola. influenced.Gissing."“
. 111-summary, the. periodical spokethus of Gissing'scareer:

The Special characteristic of Gissingis that by a natural develop-
.ment his art went onimproving, until, towards'the end, _ it came
to bee remarkable, and for our country almost unique, example
«Of real realism‘and-natural naturalism-working-in their ownsur-

roundings, and drawingfromlegitimate- sources. 119

, CHAPTER SUMMARY

The: many excerpts from the reviews of Gissing's novels. show the
author waszat first unpOpular- with critics. While it is true some finally.
- accepted him, it is equally true this" acceptance-didnot occur. until. after
he started. to. follow some of their injunctions .

From- his earliest workltohislast, he criticised-society. .Anrim-
portant difference exists, however, between his social criticism in:1880

 

fir

n,"'GeorgeC.'tissing. " Athenaeum, I (January 16, 1904),, 82.
- u?"George~ Gissing. " Athenaeum, p. 82.

 

 

148

and .that offeredtin 1.1904. TheefOrmer criticized and gavethe reader no
.chanceatoi envisiona better. world; the latter still criticized but suggested
a wayto‘improve’social conditions. Thus, thewpessimism‘which'so dis-
pleased the reviewers was no longer apparent and could be! discounted in
his last works.
The female rolesin Gissing's work were not attractive to reViewerS
.becausethe novelists presentedatypical women. They did not fulfill the
Victorianideal of sweet, demure, protected women. They read widely
even-inthe works of foreign. authors. They foundemploymenthoutside the
home. They refused to marry without love. They became prostitutes or
-mistresses. They injected themselves: into the sacred precincts of alman's
world. Thelowerclass women even attempted to assume for. themselves
.the prerogatives. of the upper classes. - All of these things brought adverse

comment from theaunsignedreviewers', at least until'l‘he Whirlpool (1897)

 

when one of these bold, but fascinating, women was'punished forher
misdeeds. '

'The'men, ' too, fell short of the-Victorian ideal. -Ambitious on
occasion, they were; c‘Omplimented. . Defeated or depressed, they cast
doubt on society and were condemned. - Even. thoughthey might adhere
to high ideals, if, success did not attend-their efforts, they were dismissed

as being imprOperly drawn. .Not until The Whirlpool, inwhich'Gissing

 

presented a .man whoilongedfor the. good things of the past, did his. men
receive unqualified compliments. 6

The relations betweenthe sexes, aspresentedinthe novels, also
disturbedthe- critics. While some of the critics chose to. ignore the
sexual undertonesiinthe books, possibly because they did not understand
them~orxprobably-because" they regarded them as £01.11, others bravely

commented. ( Some wished.Gissing7would omit referencesto sex and to

149

unblessed marriages inasmuch as neither contributed to public morality
or artistic achievement. Other critics, namely Dolman and'Wells,
believed that here‘lay the key to understanding Gissing's work. However,

after The Whirlpool sex was-played down in all the Gis sing novels, and no

 

critic Spoke of it again.

. While the admission of the existence of sex~may have added greatly
to Gissing's unpoPularity, all the critical reviews discussed hispessimism,
a principal Gissing theme. -Anessential difference, however, exists be-
tween the pessimism of the first novel and that of the last. . The former,

. Workers in the Dawn, has no humor-and offers no hope; the last completed

 

novel, _O__\_1_r'Friend Eh? Charlatan, presents both. The-pessimism of
Gissing's books- produced the greatest amount of unfavorable criticism
during his lifetime; because of this, one can. assume the Victorian belief
in Optimism needed to be-illustrated in novels if they were to receive
favorable revieWS.

Whetheror not Gissing was actually a naturalist is not the question
here: many critics thought him one. Their disapproval of his depiction
Of sex'and slum~lifegoaded some into attacking himxas if he were a
naturalist. Other critics regarded himv as a "pure" naturalist, one who
did not deliberately strive to‘present prurient literature. . Still others,
seeing some link between him‘ianerola. or other continental writers, tried
to excuse him by mentioning his social inexperience, his idealismiinstead
of realism, or his-merely following the objectivity of a reporter. . It re-
mained for Wells to turn thesecondemnatory remarks into praise'and to
boast, even, that England hada writer who could be ranked alongside Of
Zola, Tolstoi,. and-Turgenev. The eulogies for Gissing followed Wells'
lead. '

- As wasstatedin theopening paragraphs of this chapter, Gissing

was generally regarded during his lifetime as a writer Of promise rather

150

than .as a writer of actual filfillment. His emancipating himself from
conventional restrictions attracted the attention of the reviewers; his
acceding to their demands late-in his career served only tomake his
last novels: mediocre-and now scarcely read at all. . Even had he con-
tinued to write bitter, pessimistic criticism, one doubts he would be
widely accepted today: the social evils he attacked haveat last received
some attention; sex, free love, and women's rights have-served as sub-
jects of more than one novel; and pessimism is not the stranger it once
was. His importance, then, liesin the fact that he treated these sub-

jects' in novels at a time when it was fatal to his popularity to do so.

CHAPTER V

GEORGE MOORE AND THE'PERIODICAL CRITICS

No one should be surprisedthat the novels of George Moore
antagonized the critics and led them to term him "naturalist, " for his
nineteenth century novels offended in exactly the same ways as had
Hardy's and Gissing's. He made heroines of lowerclass women, he
‘madeheroes of vulgar and decadent men, he justified illicit and adulter-
ous sex relationships while decrying the institution of marriage, he
helda brief for pessimism, and he included inhis novels scenes and
techniques favored by continental writers. Furthermore, in two ways
he; deliberately established himself as anEnglish naturalist in .the mind
of his public: he openly admired naturalism in his reviews of foreign
literature'and openly admitted he was influenced by Zola andFlaubert.
In a review of Zola's 1_._a_;.Débacle, whichMooreobviously enjoyed, he
stated

-War, M..Zola says, is necessary. .War is salutary. .Devour
or thou shalt be devoured is- a‘ law from which life can nomore
escape than animal life. I accept this reading-of life without

' reservation, but M.. Zola adds-a corollary [unacceptable to
Moore because-Zola held that war shOuld be-accepted gravely
and not, as: Moore would have it, gaily]. 1

- Agreeing with Zolaon even one thing was not conducive, we have seen

in earlier chapters, to the wooing of Victorian readers. But {one

 

- IGeorge'Moore, "LaDébacle, "Fortnightly ‘Review, LVIII
.(August 1, 1892),. 209.

151

152

biographer reportedthat Moore, on hearingof Zola's death, was sup-
posedto have said, "That man wasvthe beginning of me. "2

In other‘ways, too, did~~Moore identify himself with naturalism
or to the English, the- equivalent, salaciousness. He had supported

.Vizetelly in that causecélébre; and he also wrote'LiteratureatEirse,

 

, a pamphlet which bitterly attacked the circulating libraries for their
censorship.

Long before the end of the century Moore disavowed his earlier
naturalistic leanings, but not until his name had become, even more
thantHardy's or'Gissing's, the one to be most closely identified with

3 Not until after several of their'works-appeared were'Hardy

naturalism.
andaGissing'called naturalists; Moore's first novel gave him that dis-
tinction; and one of the reasons behind this was that he. had presented
women who couldnever'have been heroines of poetry or romancein the
"days of ~.Y_:3_a_s_1_:_ and Westward l_-I_o, " for-then there were "women of a
higher type thanany novelist who-is not to be contented withlmere success
would now venture to draw. "“ The two principal women in-Moore's-ifirst
novel were thus noticed by the-periodical becausethey fell short of an
ideal established by earlierfiction. ‘

- Another periodical conceded-Moore had drawn a very powerful

. character study of a womanineé Mummer's‘Wife, but it objected to his

 

showingthe degradation of a.lower:middle class womanand to hismaking
a heroine-out of her, a, criticism identical to those directedat both

~Hardy ande- Gissing.5 , The Saturday Review even more vehemently

 

.zHone, The Life o_f GeorgejMoore, p. 144.
9Hone, The'Life of George Moore, p. 130.

.4" A Modern Lover, " Spectator, LVI;(August 18, 1883), 1069.

_5"A Mummer's Wife, ” Athenaeum, LXXXIV (December 13,. 1884),
767.

 

153

denounced 'Moore's choice of "a pitiful drab, " as a heroine.6 Both of
these periodicals seemed to believe the best heroines should come from
the best classes. 4

The latter magazine reached a strange conclusion in its review of
5 Drama i_n Muslin: it suSpected Moore, as Hardy and— Gissing had been
on occasion, of not being a man. .And—asin the case of Hardy, for the
-same‘ reason: theauthor seemed to have too intimate an acquaintance
with "the thoughts and feelings of youngwomen and their conversation
whenno.men are present. It is by no means uncomplimentary to
"George'Moore' to suggest that he is not a man. "7 , Whether this be
praise for a male who had so. carefully depicted women or condemnation
for a. female who. revealed women's secrets (and thereby aided in explod-
ing. an ideal) is a mystery, but the sarcastic tone of the article left no
doubt about its. dislike of an- author who belittled the ideal Victorian
woman.

- Neither 1:11.153; Fletcher nor mFortuneproduced striking comments

regarding Moore's presentation of women. . Esther Waters, centered-as it

 

was around a woman, producedmany; and surprisingly enough, most of
the periodicals received the work favorably even though the novelist

made-a working—class girlthe heroine. . Although the-Athenaeum dis-

 

approved of the novel, it was not becauseEsther'waswithout heroic
efforts but because‘Moore seemed to. the reviewer to be so calculating
and dispassionatethat Esther never became a living person.8 The

'Bookman found-Esther truly heroic and did not object to her squalid

 

9"A Mumrne r's Wife, "Saturday Review, LIX (February 14,
1885), 214.

7"A Drama in Muslin, .. Saturday Review,. an (July 24,‘ 1886).

 

 

131.

 

9"Esther Waters, " Athenaeum.» CV (April 28' 1894)! 537'

154

background. The S ectator, indeed, based its entire approval of the
novel on the heroic element present in the love of the daughter for her
mother and in the love of the mother for her son, plus "a true nobility
of sentiment" with which the author endowed his heroine}. In fact, the
review admired "the strong, bull-necked servant-girl whose simple,
honest, wholesome and yet passionate nature, Carries her through‘ the
furnace of life. "10 Even though earlier a novelist was not permitted to
show a heroic lower-class girl, Moore, who-let Esther use the streets
only for walking, kept her in her prOper station. This, evidently,
satisfied the critics of the era.

Celibates, which should be classified more accurately as a col-
lection of three short stories and not as a novel, diSpleased the

Athenaeum reviewer. He objected to what he labeled the vulgar

 

character of the women as illustrated bytheir sordidnessin talk and
action. Furthermore, after objecting to the descriptions ofthe cloth-
ing these women wore, he admonished, "It may be well to warn the
patrons of'circulating libraries that the book is not 'pour lesjeunes filles. "'11
This is thesole ‘criticism against costume injany one~ of‘the reviews of
the period'under scrutiny and illustrates perfectly the fact thatzcritics
who were anxious to condemn did not hesitate to justify their condem-
nation by inserting criticism of the most insignificant sort. A
None of Moore's novels paid more attention. to the heroine's dress

than did Evelyn Innes; still, not one critic commented on it. Rather, each

 

Spoke of the author's ability or lack‘of ability to make Evelyn a living

being. The Athenaeum called Evelyn "the most living and successful of

 

 

9"Esther Waters, " Spectator, LXXII (June 2, 1894), 757.
10"Esther Waters, " ectator, -p‘.' 757. ‘

”"Celibates,"Athenaeum, CVI (July 13, 1895). 64-

 

155

his characters" and admired the novel because all the reader's atten-
tion was focused on the heroine. ‘2 On the other hand, the Bookman was
diSpleased because "she is a blur to one careful reader at least. "13
b After stating this, however, the reviewer continued to describe Evelyn
in such great detail that it seems to give the.lie to the charge of
obscurity. The critic reviewed her shabby life, her early lack of
ambition, her awareness of her great voice, her reception of Sir Owen's
rationalistic instruction, and her immense achievement as a singer in
almost as much detail as had Moore when he wrote the book. One must
conclude the reviewer disliked Evelyn not because she was carelessly
presented but for some other reason; and any one of the details just
listed could have Spoiled the Victorian idealization of a heroine.
Heroines were not supposed to be shabby drudges, but neither were they
supposed to be complacent, conceited, unsentimental creatures; nor,
above all else, were they supposed to be flashy and successful theatrical
personages. Nevertheless, here was a heroine who was all of these,
but whom the reviewer objected to ostensibly because she was not care-
fully presented.

Quiller-Couch Spoke in favor of the novel and its heroine whom he
called "a woman keenly alive to reSponsibility, " "a true women, " and
"a captivating and amiable woman. "14 Thus, a signed reviewer, compar-
able in at least one way to Hardy's Ellis and Gissing's Wells, ignored

the ordinary criteria for judging heroines and admired Evelyn.

 

l2""Eve1yn Innes, " Athenaeum, CXII (July 2. 1898). 31-

 

l3"Evelyn Innes, " Bookman, XIV (July 1898), 103.

14Arthur Quiller-Couch, "Evelyn Innes, " Academy, LIV (July 16,
1898). 69.

156

Themen in Moore's novels also diSpleased the critics. Just as
it longed for the type of women presented in earlier Victorian novels,

the Spectator in its review of A Modern Lover wished Lewis Seymour,

 

the self-engrossed hero, could have been given some of the "muscularity
and mauliness" of bygone days.15 Seymour, of course, was theexact
opposite of the ideal hero: he was weak, never given to. self-sacrifice,

penniless, affected, and conceited. Like Gissing's Kingcotc in~Isabel

 

Clarendon, he was intrOSpective, and introsPection was not the stuff of

 

which theideal Victorian hero was made.

While conceding the strolling playerinfz Mummer's Wife was

 

 

powerfully drawn, the Athenaeum said nothing at all about its like or dis-
like of a man without roots, an unexpected oversight on the part of the
periodical. 16

When‘Mike Fletchermade its appearance some six years later,

 

no doubt remained about what the Spectatorthought of such an unstable
man. The critic's inveighing against the novel must beattributed to the
character of the hero:

. .i.a tedious sort of psychological study of a more or less crazy
individual, who excites no sympathy at any point of his career,
and causes not the smallest regret when finally, by committing
suicide, hegives effect to the Opinion of the desirability of the
extinction of the human race, --as to which, were all its members
like him, there could not be a doubt. . An Irish peasant by birth,
vain, lying, cheating at cards, grossly material and disreputable,
he is an unmitigated cad and blackguard, deserving to have been
kicked out of any decent society. 17

 

1,5"A Modern Lover, " Spectator, P- 1069'

16"A Mummer's Wife, " Athenaeum, LXXXIV (December 13.
1884), 767.

 

1,7'Mike Fletcher, " Spectator, LXIV (February 8, 1890), 210.

157

Mike epitomizes, as can be seen from the above quotation, all the evils
which Victorianf-here called decent--society condemned. In no way
did this hero satisfy the reviewer. Low-born, Mike went through his
wasted life without honor, ambition, or nobility.

Moore attributed many of the same characteristics to the men in

Vain Fortune. - While Hubert Price is somewhat more gracious at times,

 

the Athenaeum saw him lacking in constancy and courage, both necessary

 

qualities for a hero. 18 Never again did Moore put such characters in his

novels, however. The men in-Esther Waters, though coarse and

 

selfish, were scarcely designed for emulation; in fact, their many vices
could only serve to perpetuate the Victorian admonishments against
gambling and loose living.

The decadent appeared in Evelyn Innes in the person of Sir Owen,

 

although some of the earlier novels had suggested, at least, that decadent
men existed. However, none of the reviews commented on Sir Owen.
Two answers to the question of why there were no criticisms of him
immediately present themselves: first, he was not the hero but rather
the villain who led the heroine astray, and secondly, the heroine's
rejection of her paramour seconded the Victorian's belief that thus any
hedonist should be treated.

Moore presented to his critics, then, a type of hero unsatisfactory
to the era. The heroes were not men of action who succeeded in achiev—
ing wealth through physical strength and nobility of conduct. On the con-
trary, they were either poverty- stricken and dis solute or wealthy and
dissolute, men whose selfish aims always destroyed any suggestions of
personal integrity. Therefore, themales created for his novels

brought severe criticism to the author.

 

18"Vain“Fortune, " Athenaeum, XCVIII (November 7. 1891). 614°

 

158

‘ Also contributing to the belief that Moore's influence was malign
was his daring to write about sexual relations. Like Hardy and Gissing
who had been received unfavorably because they wrote of men and
women violating the code of approved sexual behavior, Moore also pre-
sented lascivious males and fallen females, but in a manner and to a
degree which the other two did not approach. The depiction of the wily

Lewis Seymour in‘éLModern Lover indicated Moore's disavowal of

 

narratives in which love called for discussion rather than for action.
The first episode in the novel, the one "with which the story opens, that
of the first woman who sacrifices herself to save the penniless artist,"
must have disturbed those accustomed to reading novels ignoring the
sexual aSpects of life. 19 Another periodical, upset because a novelist
treated sex as a common denominator, insisted, however, that "For a
man who has evidently read a great many French novels. . . Mr. Moore
is notat all shocking. "20 This statement indicates the topic of sex was
assumed at least by one critic to be the Special province of French
novels and to be incompatible with the ideal British novel.

- A Mummer's Wife evoked further criticism on Moore's conception

 

of sex as a dominant force. Said the Saturday Review:

 

It is, we know, a foolish thing to wash one's foul linen in
public. How much more foolish is it to Spread out and sort
one's foul linen in public, not to wash it, but merely to
demonstrate how foul it is'.21

This accusation that Moore wrote about sex only for its sensational

effect was echoed in the Athenaeum's evaluation of the novel, when,

 

 

. l9"A Modern Lover, " S ectator, P- 1069-
20"A Modern Lover, " Athenaeum, LXXI (July 7, 1883), 13.

 

zluA Mummer's Wife, " Saturday Review, p. 215.

 

159

after'using such euphemistic phrases as "the faithful delineation of
filth, " and "the element of uncleanness, " it stated: "If the aim of the
novelist is to please, Mr. Moore has not succeeded. "27‘

The Academy, more Specific in its terminology, called A Drama

 

EMuslin "realism of the. . . decolletage order, " and regarded Captain
Hibbert, "before whose gentlemanly gaze 'skirts seem to fall, '" as
particularly lewd.23 Its entire attitude toward Moore and sex is best
summarized in its own words:

But if it is a compliment to Mr. Moore to say that it is daringly
and disgustingly suggestive, and descriptive of what ordinary
writers leave undescribed, he is welcome to it. It is full of
'sensual contemplation' and asterisks and blank Spaces, and
coarse scandal and girls' bedroom talk, and £333: 23.19.; One
wonders if this sort of thing has a market. 2‘

The’Athenaeum, sure that "this sort of thing" did have a market, be-

 

lieved Moore's unsavory taste had made his books attract more than
their just share of attention. This periodical took thecontent of the book
as a weapon with which to attack the author himself: ”He is on the look-
out to detect the baser impulses, and even in the outside view of things

a nasty detail has for him an irresistible attraction. "35. As for the novel
itself, the reviewer called it unfit for the drawing room until it Should be
translated into French}:6 This is not the first suggestion we have had
that French literature was regarded as a repository of immorality and

lewdn‘ess, and it will be even more evident when the reviews charging

 

zz"A Mummer's Wife, " Athenaeum, p. 767.

”NA Drama in Muslin, " Academy, xxx (July 17, 1886),, 40.

 

7""A Drama in Muslin, " Academy, p. 40.
1.5"A Drama in Muslin, " Athenaeum, LXXXVI (July 24, 1886), 110.

 

. zbnA Drama in Muslin, " Athenaeum, p. 110.

 

160

naturalism are discussed that this was a commonly-held idea.

Most dangerous, in the Opinion of another critic, was a young
girl's attack on the institution Of marriage. Her ravings, thought the
reviewer, "would be thoroughly disgusting if She knew what She was talk-
ing about and are in any case unbecoming in the mouth Of a young lady. "27
Again it charged the excessive coarseness in Moore's work was only an
embellishment to compensate for a reader's lack of interest in the story

itself.

Mike Fletcher repelled critics because Moore made a hero of a

 

rascal, but Mike was repulsive, tOO, because Of his sensuality and im-
morality. TO the Spectator he appeared to have no redeeming qualities
but was always "purely animal" in his pursuits. 28 This animalism again

received attention in a review of Vain Fortune, when a critic stated

 

One looks on at the love-contest waged amid the luxurious
surroundings of Ashwood as at the strife of a sackful of rats
in a sunshiny pit; but in point of courage and constancy these
so-called human beings would have to yield the palm to the
deSpised vermin of our Simile. Z9

, Esther Waters had rather favorable reviews, probably because

 

"In Spite of the squalid and degraded setting of his book, Mr. Moore does
not forget that man is a noble animal. Esther Waters is made to prove it
strongly and convincingly, for she acts instinctively. . . . "30 If Moore
could convince his readers that good conduct was natural and instinctive

and bad conduct was unnatural and contrary to instincts, he was bound to

 

z""A Drama in Muslin, " Saturday Review, p. 131.

 

28"Mike Fletcher, " Spectator, p. 210.

29nVain Fortune, " Athenaeum, p. 614.

 

30"Es’cher Waters, " Spectator, p. 758.

161

appeal to his contemporaries; and this he successfully did in-Esflfir
Waters. Even the scene in which-Esther remains unmoved when her
lover tells her he has always led a pure life did not Offend the reviewer.
A He dismissed the scene as threadbare and scarcely worth noting, for
he doubted Esther would have liked the lover in any event. The re-
viewer did not completely exonerate Moore from the guilt of having
introduced offensive scenes, however; assuming the role of arbiter

of literary taste and guardian of public morals, he stated:

One word more on the question of the fitness Of Esther Waters
for the general reading by the young person. There is nothing
in the book which could exert a demoralising influence on any
one, rather the reverse. At the same time, there are one or
two passages which must be called exceedingly coarse; and the
sensational, and in a certain sense exaggerated, description Of
the scene in Queen Charlotte's HOSPital is hardly the thing to
be put into a girl's hands.31 [This was the scene depicting
.Esther's confinement.]

By now, Moore's wo rks were considered morally reSpectable, and
no longer would he offend his critics by introducing illicit sexual affairs
which concluded happily for all concerned. In fact, starting with-Esther
Waters, some reviewers began to regard him as a writer of moral
literature.

Quiller-Couch, for one, regarded'Evelannnes as a book con-

 

tributing to both moral beauty and salvation. Though disturbed by
- Evelyn's lack of all instinct to be chaste, he stated, "She has the accus-

ing conscience afterward--and a plenty of it. "32 The St. James Gazette

 

alsoupheld its inherent morality:

 

"31"Esther Waters, " Spectator, p. 758.
”Quiller-Couch, Academy, p. 69.

162

There are peOple who think that any book~~except the Bible and
Shakespeare--in which an immoral act is mentioned is immoral
therefor. - In so far as Evelyn Innes has any Significance for
morals, however, it is a moral book, Since the end is the
triumph Of conscience over pleasure in the heroine's heart. 33

Walter Sichel alone was dissatisfied with Evelyn Innes but not

 

exactly because of its immorality. He was glad Evelyn abandoned her
life Of Sin as Sir Owen's mistress but questioned her motives at every
point:

Evelyn, a SCholar musician's daughter, is made to go astray

in order to perfect her voice abroad, a supposition unjustly de-
grading to an honourable profession. - She leads a life of wanton
luxury as prima donna without one compunction or aspiration.
But She was bred a Romanist and at the last this prodigal
daughter, more from satiety, it would seem, than remorse, re—
turns to her retreat which had sheltered her in better days. 34

Thus, though regardingaEvelyn as ignoble because of her actions, he
did not charge Moore with presenting a case for unchastity.

- A remarkable thing about the reviews of Moore's works is that
they do not blame the males contributing to the heroine's lack of chastity.

Lewis Seymour ing Modern Lover was certainly not regarded highly nor

 

was Mike Fletcher in the novel bearing his name; butother character
traits were considered just as destructive to their reputations as was
sexual looSeness. ~ Sir Owen, Evelyn Innes' paramour, was not once
mentioned as a roué nor censured for leading the heroine astray. The
only conclusion possible is that the critics adhered to a double standard

of sexual behavior, reproaching the woman in each affair.

 

33Quoted from_St; James Gazette in "Book Reviews Reviewed, "
Academy, LIV (July 16’, 1898), 69.

 

‘MWalter Sichel, "Romanism in Fiction, " Fortnightly Review,
LXXI (April 1, 1899). 621.

 

163

Some reviewers who did not choose to condemn Moore for his
attitudes on sexual morality and others who wished to condemn him
completely discussed his language. An early critic described his
sentences as "haphazard" and ”wanting in accuracy, " but even more
damaging to his reputation was the statement that "He passes too
abruptly from English into French, " implying» French was a language
for concealing indecency.35 , The same periodical which suggested that
an entire novel be translated into French for this purpose also main-
tained the author blundered in syntax and formed hybrid adjectives. 36

The close connection in a critic' S mind between an unpleasing
style and the inclusion of disagreeable subject matter can be seen in
the following excerpt, which makes one wonder if any language could

make a novel palatable:

In writing, he is apt to be careless about connecting links, and
narrates in a disagreeable, jerky, disjointed manner which is
not always easy to follow. . And though some of his pictures are
vigorous, yet vigour of delineation is but a questionable merit
in a painter whose gallery contains only what is repulsive and
in bad taste, and who evinces no consciousness of those defects
or wish to amend them. 37

; Arthur Symons, on the other hand, could dissociate style from

content. Symons called _A_ Mummer's Wife a masterpiece, yet of Moore

 

he wrote as follows:

He has a passionate delight in the beauty of good prose, he has
an ear for the magic of phrases, his words catch at times a
troubled, expressive charm. Yet he has never attained ease

 

35"A Modern Lover, " Spectator, Po 1069-

36"A Drama in Muslin, " Athenaeum, p. 110.

 

37”Mike Fletcher, " Spectator, p. 210°

164

in writing, and he is capable Of astounding incorrectnesses,
the incorrectness of a man who knows better, whois not
careless, and yet who cannot help himself. 38

, A reviewer of Vain Fortune quoted a few samples of what he called
"Mr. Moore's maltreatment of his native tongue":

In the lucid idleness of his bed his thoughts grew darker; the
Flau—sive and wilful SVVet-n—n-e-S-S—of life possessed him; his words
seeming to dropfrom the thick obsession of his dream; in a
moment the blonde calm—of the Saxon had dropped from him. . . .
If this kind of thing is literature, the great writers of English
fiction have-lived and worked in vain. But it is not; and when
the current craze-for unsavoury subjects clumsily presented
has wornitself out, it is to be hoped that the reading public will
oncemore find its pleasure in the saner themes and subtler

craftsmanship of Thackeray, Dickens, and George'Eliot.”

 

The. longing for both the masters' styles and the masters' novels still
exercised a powerful influence on the critics although each of the
novelistsnamed had by now been dead for several 'years and seemingly no
writer had appeared to replace them.

~ Theunre‘ality of the heroine's character, not the style of the novel,

disappointed the“ Athenaeum reviewer of Esther Waters. ' As a matter

 

 

of fact, regarding this "eminently moral" book, the reviewer wrote of
"exquisite'art . . ., innthe illustrative conversations, " "the achievement
of anaalmost faultless craftsman, " and the absence of "purple patches. "‘0
. Several conclusions as to why Moore's writing had become acceptable

to the Athenaeum after a mere lapse of four years suggest themselves:

 

Possibly Moore's writing. ability had improved, possibly the critics'
taste had changed, but probably subject matter and not language

had accounted for the earlier rejection.

 

38"Impressions and Opinions, " Academy, XXXIX (March 21.
1391),, 274.

' ”"VainFortune, " Athenaeum, p. 614.

 

A‘°"Esther Waters, " Athenaeum, p. 537.

 

165

The Bookman, too, commented uponMoore'S language at this
time. ' It Spoke of his "very plaindiction" and was pleased there was
"nothing grandiloquent either'in sentiment or expression. "‘1

The’ Academy review of Evelyn Innes devoted an entire paragraph

 

to the author's language, giving an example Of grammatical incorrect-
ness:

Verbal melody he generally misses, grammatical correctness
sometimes. "There is no place in Paris, " he will tell you,
"where you get a better petite marmite than the AmbaSsadeurs. "
His. sentences are frequently stiff and frequently jerky, too

short or too overloaded with coordination, but, and it is a big
but , he has learned to-paint, to visualise, to call up an image
not of the outlines merely but Of the atrnOSphere, Of a room,

Of a garden, Of an environment.“2

, The final remarks concerning Moore's language during the-period
under consideration came from Robert Tyrrell, the same critic who
had belabored Hardy so. Tyrrell liked‘Moore for not attempting to
write in an Irish dialect although he admitted it was odd for a day-
laborer to say, "I shall be reaping tomorrow" or for a colleen to ask,

"Are they not beautiful? " when I'll and ain't would serve better to lend

 

an air of realism.43

Instead of showing that Moore chose to write‘in vulgar or strong
language whichhas come to be considered as a hallmark of naturalism
in the twentieth century, the excerpts above indicate his style caused

critical comment becauseit was too elegant or tooyunmelodious or too

 

“"Esther Waters, " Bookman, VI (May 1894), 53.
12"Evelyn Innes, " Academy Supplement, LIII (June 25, 1898), 683.

f3RObert Y.- Tyrrell, "Mr.-- George Moore and Ireland's
Vocation, " Macmillan's, LXXXVIII (July 1903),. 209.

 

 

166

incorrect grammatically. , His dialogue was likewise objectionable
because of being overly precise and dialectically unrealistic. Thus,
he did not please the critics who remarked on his language.

To a lesSer degree than either Hardy or Gissing, Moore'was
accused of pessimism and morbidity from the beginning of his career.
. He-was accused of illustrating his cynicism by ignoring the elements-Of

romance in A Modern Lover, a novel illustrating a downfall of a

 

, character through unprincipled selfishnessand not as a result of a
Hardyesque catastroPhe.“ "Dreadfully futile" was the way the

Saturday Review described Moore's second novel.45 Mike Fletcher

 

himself illustrated the Objectionable pessimism in his quoting of .
SchOpenhauer, in his rather grim and sardonic humor, and especially
in his committing suicide.46 A The deSpair noted in these reviews

Moore further illustrated in— VainFortune, about which a reviewer

 

said:

NO Spark of genuine pity, no ray of real love, illumines its
dreary pages: all is flat and cold and grey, like a third-rate
picture at the Salon, the cheerless outcome of a morbid
pessimism, whose beginning is satiety, and whose end is
self-murder.“7

, Moore's next novel, Esther Waters, did not promotepessimism
even though it contained scenes of abject deSpair. Critics, however,
did not emphasizethese scenes because the heroine always extricated

herself from defeating circumstances. - Esther's ability to adjust to

 

“"A Modern Lover, " gectator, p. 1069.

”"A Mummer's Wife, " Saturday Review, p. 214.
iWMike Fletcher, " Spectator, p. 210.
""Vain‘Fortune, " Athenaeum, p. 613.

 

167

the sordidness of London slum life instead Of falling before it induced
the Bookman to say:

Well, Esther Waters is not an idyll exactly. But plunging
boldly into the harsh, unclean, tawdry, cruel life of London
squalor, he [Moore] has drawn up the essential reality, and
behold, there is nothing in it alien to heroism, of sturdy
growth and purity that is inherent. Honesty, courage, and
wholesome sweetness are hardy blossoms that stand and
endure, then blooms in poison air.“8

 

Sichel accused Moore of upholding the doctrine of pessimism in

Evelyn Innes which seemed "to hunt after the sordid even when it is

 

immaterial to the treatment. Mr. Moore appears to air the twang and
tawdriness Of Ouida without her redeeming tenderness and poetry. "9
The Bookman, too, having berated Moore for omitting sentimentality,
continued, "It is all very subtle, tired, melancholy, passionate
pessimism. "50 However, the other periodicals ignored this a8pect Of
the novel if, indeed, they saw any pessimism or morbidity present.

‘ While Moore certainly avoided in his novels, at least in most of
them during the eighties and nineties, any catering to a romantic,
happy-ending taste, his emphasis on pessimism was uneven. The early
novels showed his principal characters to bevictims of themselves, of

their surroundings, and of other characters. However, Esther Waters,

 

Moore's greatest popular success, presented a character who overcame
her misfortunes and illustrated the fact that Moore was quite capable of
writing Optimistic stories. - Earlier, though, he deliberately had set out

to defy pOpular taste as evidenced by a letter to his mother. TO her he

 

48"Esther Waters, " Bookman, p. 52.
”Walter Sichel, Fortnightly Review, p. 621.

 

5("'The Cloister and the Stage, " BOOMan, XX (August 1901), 149.

168

wrote: "1 have been working at my book. (A Mummer's Wife) and am

 

satisfied. I think I shall this time knock 1'école sentimentale head
over heels. "51 And his biographer believed he was, indeed,
successful:

. . .A Mummer's Wife . .. . was a genuine and successful attempt
to apply French Naturalistic method to a description Of English
life. And in fact Moore was the first real adventurer on this
ground, for the other English writers who sought assistance
from the Methods of the Naturalists shrank from carrying them
out to their logical conclusion. Gissing would never have
written of Kate Ede vomiting over her dress and the red velvet
seat of the four-wheeler. Courage was needed for this in the
high Victorian period. 53

 

Hone, of course, is a modern biographer regarding the period in
retrOSpect. Moore's contemporary critics, however, unable to see

the author in perspective, associated him with Hardy and Gissing among
his compatriots and with the Offensive Zola as well. And, indeed, two

wrote of his naturalism even before he wrote A Mummer's Wife. The

 

Athenaeum critic was the first to comment about Moore's following a

 

foreign trend: "For a man who has evidently read a great many French
novels, and who has an inclination towards naturalist literature and
impressionist art, Mr. Moore is not at all shocking, " a rather mild
condemnation, but still one which could cast suSPicion on Moore's
accomplishment by means of the terms "French novels" and "naturalist
literature. "53 The second critic, writing in the Spectator, attempted
to dissuade the author from writing any more novels in a naturalistic

vein:

 

51Hone, Life (if George Moore, p. 102.

 

 

szHone, Life ch George Moore, p. 102.

 

53"A Modern Lover," Athenaeum, p. 13.

 

169

. . . [the] realism which, while it is not coarse, and, unlike
the tone Of the "naturalistic" writers (for whom we susPect
Mr. Moore of an admiration much to be deplored), does not
Offend, takes the gilt Off the gingerbread of sentiment, and
ignores romance in a more thorough style than we are
accustomed to, except in the utterances of professed cynics.
The naturalism that Mr. Moore occasionally affects
does not come to him by nature. Certain passages of his
novel make us aware that he admires and would fain imitate
Zola and his odious school; but we venture to predict that he
will never succeed in doing this. He has to combat two power-
ful Obstacles to an achievement so much to be regretted; they
are the faith of a Christian and the instincts of a gentleman.
If M.‘ Zola, or any of the hogs of his sty could write such an
episode as that with which the story Opens, . . . we should have
,. as much hope for them as we have confidence in Mr. Moore's
. future-work;54

The above quotations Show several ideas these critics and other held.

First, they indicate realism was not necessarily offensive; secondly,

they indicate Moore's flirting with naturalistic literature would prove

unpOpular; and thirdly, they indicate the contempt reviewers had for

Zola and his followers.

Thus, whené Mummer's Wife appeared, the critics were ready

 

with their attack. Labeling Moore a Zolaphyte, the Saturday Review

 

charged,

Him, tOO, the "human document" delights; and for him like-
wise, that only is precious which is written On the dirtiest

of paper. In A Mummer's Wife he attempts to be as Offensive
as the master—himself. . . . But Zola is Zola, and Mr. Moore
is Mr. Moore; and Mr. Moore is only curious and disgusting.55

 

Still another periodical, believing it saw a difference between Moore

and his master, attempted to excuse the British novelist although

 

54"'A Modern Lover, " Spectator, p. 1069.

55"A Mummer's Wife, " Saturday Review, p. 214.

 

170

merely mentioning their names together sufficed to Show that Moore
was presumed to be Zola's disciple:

It is different in tone from current English fiction, but it would
hardly be fair to call it an eXperiment after the manner of

M. Zola, for, considering that realism has come to mean
chiefly the faithful delineation of filth, it is on the whole remark-
ably free from the element of uncleanness. 56

. Only one periodical named Zola in the reviews of Moore's next

novel, A Drama lift Muslin, but it also emphasized its displeasure when

 

it said, ". . .it is more of an imitation of M. Zola than anything Mr. Moore
has yet published. . . . But if it is a compliment to Mr. Moore to say that
it is daringly and disgustingly suggestive, and descriptive Of what
ordinary writers of fiction commonly leave undescribed, he is welcome
to it. "5"

- Arthur Symons attempted to diSpel the belief that Moore and Zola

were one in a review of Impressions and Opinions, a collection of

 

Moore's essays. Symons appreciated the essays as well as the novels
which had thus far appeared but insisted Moore was not the English
Zola and that the notoriety he had received derived from his attack on
the circulating libraries and, of course, from his having written for
adults. But if Moore had intended to introduce and maintain the canons
of continental literature, Symons insisted, he had not succeeded.58
However, as in the case of the other novelists so far considered in
this study, once a reviewer had hinted at the possibility of naturalism

in Moore's works, any stigma attached to this term remained to plague

 

5,6"A Mummer's Wife, ” Athenaeum, p. 767.

 

' 57"A Drama in Muslin, " Academy, p. 40.

5.8Arthur Symons, "Impressions and Opinions, " Academy, XXXIX
(March 21, 1891), 274.

171

him forever. AS an illustration of this, Moore wrote about an inter-
view with Turgueneff during which the two novelists discussed the

naturalism of L'Assommoir. They agreed the method was "vicious"

 

and that it made little difference whether Ge rvaise sweated under the
arms or in the middle of her back.59 From this, one may conclude
that neither was sympathetic to the .ZOla method of accumulating
details which serve no purpose except as details; and yet Moore could
not convince his critics he was not a great admirer Of the experimental
novel, even though his biographer insists that long before this, Moore
had resigned all allegiance to naturalism.6o
Still the relationship of Moore to Zola continued to serve as

the basis for reviews. . In 1891 a reviewer wrote as follows:

If Mr. George Moore's most recent work is in certain
reSpects less crudely Zolaesque than some of its predecessors,
it is none the less unpleasant and unwholesome. Its characters
exhibit that peculiar soullessness, that almost total lack of
moral sense, with which M. Zola's monstrous heroes and
heroines have made us painfuuy familiar}1

The Spectator omitted from its review of Esther Waters any
mention of Moore and Zola together until it started to point out weak-
nesses, eSpecially the weakness of a too elaborate description of
London streets:

A great deal of it is the mere common form of realism»
trivial details and semi-imprOper suggestions. . . . Before
realism went out of fashion in‘Paris, My Zola and his imi-
tators, when in doubt for COpy, invariable played this sort
of description of Paris.62 ‘

 

59George Moore, "Turgueneff, " Fortnightly Review, IL
(February 1, 1888), 238.

 

60Hone, Life o_f George Moore, p. 130.

61"Vain Fortune, " Athenaeum, p. 613.

 

62'Esther Waters, " Spectator. p. 758-

172

The Bookman regarded this novel as one which indicated Moore's
break with naturalism, ”not that he has forsworn all his former
methods or his former self, but these are made to subserve the impul—
sive, dominating force Of the new Spirit. ”63 This new Spirit, it be-
lieved, restored art to a position where it could ignore the photographic
description and documentary detail formerly forced upon it by science.
This review,alone however, admitted to seeing Moore's rejection of
his earlier method and aims.

' A year later Mr. Hugh'E. M. Stutfield wrote at length on de-
generate literature and blamed the novelist for his role in writing
literature of this sort, although Stutfield apparently ignored the essential

morality of Esther Waters. , Using the term realism instead of natural-

 

ism, he worried about the future of the British nation:

. Decadentism is an exotic growth unsuited to British
soil, and it may be hoped that it will never take permanent
root here. - Still the pOpularity of debased and morbid
literature, esPecially among women is net an agreeable or
healthy feature. It may be that it is only a passing fancy, a
cloud on our social horizon that will soon blow over; but the
enormous sale of hysterical and disgusting books is a Sign of
the times which ought not to be ignored.“

Of course, Moore had not yet introduced his "decadent" Sir Owen, but
that did not free him from Stutfield's charge that Moore, like Zola,
was most offensive:

That morbid and nasty books are written is nothing; their
pOpularity is what is disgusting. I have no wish to pose as a
moralist. A book may be shameless without being precisely
immoral--like the fetid realism of Zola and Mr. George Moore--
and the novels I allude to are at any rate thoroughly unhealthy.65

 

63“Esther Waters, " Bookman, P- 52-

“Hugh-E. M. Stutfield, "Tommyrotics, " Blackwood's, CLVII
(June 1895), 834.

“Stutfield, p. 836 .

 

173

Moralist or no, Stutfield in his self-appointed position as-protector

Of British womenaagainst the invasion of foreign, and hence unworthy,
ideas, continued the custom of -making Moore and Zola associates in
evil. By stating exPressly that British women avidly read suchharm-
ful novels and condemning them for doing so, he suggested men

might read the same novels with greater impunity.

- The Athenaeum never allowed its readers to forget Moorehad

 

at one time been closely identified with“ Zola. . Even in its review of

' Evelyn'lnnes, a novel written at least ten years after Moore disavowed

 

the naturalistic technique, the periodical compared him to the French
writer:

Mt. Moore-is crammed full of facts; one may imagine
him, like Zola, studying for his novels from every available
source. . . . but, unlike Zola, he has not acquired the» faculty
of discarding unnecessary facts. The Frenchman knows, as
all Frenchmen do, that one Of the first elements Of art is to

know when to be silent. . . . . This is the reason why some re-
viewers cry out against "disgusting" passages in Mr. Moore's
books. Now in this one there are some details which certainly
could not be qualified as disgusting, but which are absolutely
unnecessary, and whichone would prefer not to havementioned
unless there were some very strong dramatic reason for doing
. so, which there is not. They are annoying here chiefly because
they are so gratuitously unnecessary, just as some of his long
and inappropriate descriptions of scenes are tiresome; they
are only worse than the latter because they concern matters

on which. it is better to be reticent, but their real fault is
essentially the same, that of irrelevance.“

. It was unlikely all the reviewers would ignore the disquisition

on-Balzac in~EveljnInneS; and the Bookman, regarding Sir Owen as

 

the Spokesman for Moore (who "admiresmany French things and has

learnt some part of his craft in a French school"), eagerly informed

 

6'6nEve1yn Innes, " Athenaeum, p. 32.

 

174

its readers that since Moore could imitate only Balzac's weaknesses--
formlessness, monotony, "longueurS"-—they must not expect the
French master had done anything but "provide the Shelter and encourage-
ment of a great name" to Moore's innate deficient talent.67. The review‘
continued its tirade on Moore's manner and method as "the abnegations
Of all art, " indicated he should be judged as a mere photographer, and
suggested Flaubert would be a better guide than Balzac. 68 The tone Of
the article in no way suggests the periodical's capitulationto foreign
writers, who were as suSpect as ever.

, Indeed, some three years later the Bookman stated of Moore,

He is excessively, provokingly, un-English. The movement to
which he belongs, but in an original way of his own, winds
hither and thither from the Goncourts to Tolstoi, but always
outside our conventions. . . . . - Even Sir Owen Asher would put
in his claim to a niche among the creations of Balzac, and all
theothers [characters in Evelyn Innes and Sister Teresa] are
Wagnerian, Old musical Italian, Celt, or Catholic. What will
the average Briton make of them who knows as much (that is
to say, as little) of lyric drama as of mystic theology?69

 

 

This review, like the Stutfield review earlier, pointed to the insularity
of English taste. And Moore, whether regarded as a cut above or a cut
below the foreign naturalists, was destined to carry any stigma

attached to the title throughout the entire period under discussion.

 

61"'Evelyn Innes, " Book-inan, p. 103-

6,8"Evelyn Innes, " Bookman, p. 103.
69"The Cloister and the Stage. “‘ Bookman, P- 149-

175

CHAPTER SUMMARY

The reasons for this burden are Obvious. - First Of all, he
selected women of low economic and social status to be his heroines.
- Drab, pitiful, and unlovely, they wandered through the pages of his
early novels, insPiring no one to admire or COpy them. - They possessed
none of the characteristics the Englishman wanted in fiction or real

life, for that matter. Not until Esther Waters appeared did Moore

 

uphold motherhood as the goal of all Victorian womankind. A woman's
dutiful conduct had been ignored or decried in the novels published

earlier and in- Evelyn Innes as well. Moore gained no friends among

 

the anonymous reviewers for portraying his women characters as
selfish, crude, and disreputable creatures.

1 His heroes were received no better. From the introsPective
'Lewis Seymour to the dissolute Mike Fletcher to the decadent Sir Owen
Asher, Moore omitted heroic qualities in depicting his men. The
‘Victorians liked their heroes to be men of action, one will recall, so
Seymour was an undesirable person; they liked persevering, cheerful,
diligent seekers after position, so Fletcher became the epitome of a
villain; they wanted men who assumed the reSponsibility Of home,
family, and country, so the decadent Sir Owen was no more pOpular
than the others. ~ Critics could not accept Moore's concept of heroes
and heroism.

Besides substituting unsavory characters for the usual heroes in
fiction, Moore offended in still a third way. « He allowed his characters
to become involved in illicit romances. Although he shunned the
' Zolaesque manner of reporting sexual activity, he did not conceal
from his reviewers (or his readers) behind-the asterisks licentiousness;

and Moore left on his reviewers the lasting impression that he wrote

176

salacious novels. - Only Esther Waters completely escaped this classifi-

 

cation, and then only because the author insisted on her innate moral
goodness and consequent reform although she had been led astray.
- Unfortunately for Moore's reputation, the critics could not agree
'Evelyn‘lnnes had sufficient motivation for ceasing to be Sir Owen's
mistreSs. The absence of the novelist's condemnation of promiscuity
and his permitting his main characters to live together out of wedlock
antagonized most Of the critics since the era recognized sex only within
the bond Of marriage.

The pessimism Of Moore's novels also depressed the reviewers

in this age of Optimism. Most of the novels, in fact, even'Esther Waters,

 

leave one today as they must have then, feeling any improvement in the
lot Of the characters can be only temporary. And the presentation of
the streets and Slums of London became in Moore's novels a kind of
Oppressive and invincible force waiting to inflict misery upon passersby.
A More than one reviewer, noting such scenes, remarked upon the gray
and cheerless effect such descriptions afforded. The novels lacked
happy endings with scenes where justice or heroic behavior triumphed.
« Complete surrender to Opposing forces or, on other occasions, suicide
added to the general, omnipresent feeling of deSpair. A search for
light humor or Dickensian sentiment must always prove fruitless in
the novels; therefore, it is not at all surprising that violations of the
code. calling for a belief in progress made Moore's novels unacceptable
to the reviewers.

- From the time his first novel was published, Moore was accused
of writing unsuitable language. In the beginning, complaints about his

language were registered in order to condemn his works completely.

177

Toward the end, his too elegant style served the same purpose. Only
Arthur Symons saw Moore's language contributing to the artistic
qualities of his work.

Moore was always accused of employing naturalistic techniques
and materials. His later reviewers, like his earlier, thought his excessive
detail and documented evidence peculiarly naturalistic. Furthermore,
because like Zola he handled unconventional subject matter--drab and
degraded characters, sordid love affairs, and overwhelming forces--
critics equated him with Zola, indicated how he had surpassed the
French novelist, or tried to excuse him for his sins against literary
propriety. In most criticisms, the reviewers mentioned neither novel-
ist without referring to the other. Names of other authors, too, were
associated with Moore's--Balzac's, the Goncourts', Flaubert's, Tolstoi'S--
all foreign names which were regarded with suSpicion in a country which
complacently believed that Thackeray, Dickens, and George Eliot had
provided all the acceptable masterpieces. The important thing, however,
is that Moore was believed permanently subject to the alien, and hence
unhealthy, influence of Zolaesque naturalism. , From this charge he could
never escape.

- The many excerpts from the reviews indicate Moore'was not a
favorite with the periodicals of the day and that at no time did he receive
unqualified praise for his efforts. Hepersisted in his aim to write
realistically, and deSpite changes in his methods and material, he was
unable or unwilling to satisfy his critics. ~ His early associations with
foreign naturalists and his attempts to demolish the ordinary standards
of fictionprevented the reviewers from ever accepting him whole-

heartedly.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

The information in the preceding pages provides us with a real
insight into the thinking Of the reviewers during the last days of Queen
Victoria. . It would be convenient, but inaccurate, to say those who signed
their names appreciated and praised the work Of Hardy, Gissing, and
Moore'and that the anonymous reviewers hid behind the mastheads of
their journals. The fearless Mrs. Oliphant Spoke as violently against
Hardy as Mrs. Newton- Robinson Spoke in his behalf; the same Mr.

- Tyrrell who objected so strongly to Hardy's lugs 13.19.? Obscure had only
praise for the work of George Moore. Unfortunately, no evidence is
available to show the same anonymous reviewer commented on more than
one book or author. ' All we can learn from interior evidence is that
occasionally the reviewer has read or heard enough of one of the other
authors to draw superficial likenesses, as Moore called them.

Similarly it would be convenient to be able to say one periodical
was receptive to the innovations Of the authors and another soundly rem
jected them. . But again, the evidence does not bear this out.
~ The Bookman, for example, usually admired George Moore and appreciated
Gissing's efforts, but as with the other periodicals there are enough ex-
ceptions in the Bookman to show the-novelists on occasion were treated
indifferently if not actually excoriated.

The Opening chapter of this study discussed the reasons why the

earlier Victorians liked or disliked novels. They preferred, it was

178

179

pointed out, heroines who were modest, demure, coy, and dutiful,
pretty if need be, but virtuous always. Writing later in the era, Hardy
insisted on their beauty, Gissing on their intellectuality, and Moore on
theirbeing unusual enough to attract attention. The critics, of course,
did not always agree with each other, but many noticed the women
characters. Reviewers who ordinarily condemned the women scarcely
concealed the fact they regarded them as immoral. On the other hand,
critics we can identify as men of science or literature, for example
Havelock Ellis or Quiller Couch, admired the efforts of the novelists to
present attractive, lively, and Spirited women.

As forthe fictional hero, the Victorians, the studyhas shown, liked
them active, decisive, ambitious, and successfulnpossessing more
intellect than women, but never pensive nor bookish. Great intellect
was not presumed to be a heroic characteristic in Victorian novels.

The male role demanded duty to God, to the Queen, and to womanhood in
general. Our novelists, however, refused to concedethese character-
isticsmade men worthy of a place in a story. - Hardy, like Gissing and
Moore, utilized characters with none or few of these qualities. . Hardy's
men could be wise, Gissing's were at their best whenpensive, and
Moore's sooner or later rebelled magnificently against every conventional
standard. ' And what was the verdict Of the critics ? They judged on the
basis of inherited moral criteria except for those few judges more
interested in. the art of the novel than in the effect the novel might have
on British society. Only whenGiSSing acceded to the critics' demands
'wereahis men accepted, partial evidence that the critics still judged by
earlier standards. Moore's and Hardy's men never won general acclaim.

The Victorians demanded elevating works of fiction, and one

thing they insisted on was language which would inSpire readers.

180

It could have a certain snob value, of course, if an author exercised
the proper care and put dialectal or ungrammatical language in the
-mouths of his lower class characters. For the other characters, the
most careful language was demanded no matter what the circumstances.
Like a theatrical convention, the language revealed the nature of the
(individual. - Hardy, Gissing, and Moore also appreciated and respected
so-called prOper English as evidenced by their comments on the subject
as well as by their own roles as narrators. Although they chafed at
contemporary restrictions denying them the right to transcribe all
speech, they were artistic enough to counterfeit reality without pro-
fanity and vulgarity. . DesPite their efforts here, each author was
belabored by more than one critic for using a wrong pronoun, a wrong
word, or a jarring simile. The impression such criticism leaves with
us is that reviewers, reluctant to condemn or discuss a book for literary
merit or narrative technique, chose this method to destroy what they
could not comprehend.

a The twentieth century generally regards the Victorian era as more
preoccupied with sex than was good for it. Certainly Victorian novels
suggest this if only by their avoiding the sexual asPectS of life so
scrupulously. An aura of shame surrounded any mention of sex, and
novelists were denied the right to make sex a motivating force in their
books. To the Victorian, immorality and sexual looseness seemed
synonymous. Thus, prostitution, illegitimacy, rape, adultery, and all
mention of fornication were immoral and therefore forbidden innovels,
whichhad, after all, didacticism as a major reason for their existence.
- Whenever the novel was charged withimmorality, some violation of
the Victorian sex code was reSponsible. - At any time during the last

decades of the century, a novel of Gissing or Moore was likely to be

181

presumed immoral because both began their careers by writing narra-
tives in which "immoral" acts were at least suggested. Hardy escaped

the charge on a few occasions, for example with DeSperate' Remedies;

 

but Tess o_f t_h_e D'Urbervilles and Jude th_e Obscure angered almost all

 

 

 

anonymous reviewers and many known critics as well.
An unconventional treatment of love as physical attraction instead

Of as a romantic phenomenon further distressed critics of Hardy,
Gissing, and Moore. These novelists did not insist love's fulfillment
await marriage nor that marriage preserve love. Moore, in fact,
believed marriage killed love. Gissing insisted characters who married
for love destroyed themselves. Hardy dared to Show a heroine who re»
fused to marry the father of her children, even though She came as
near to loving Jude as she could. - Such attacks on the Victorian ideal of
home and family generally infuriated periodical critics.

~ Even more upsetting to the reviewers than sexual looseness and
immorality was a pessimistic Spirit pervading novels of these so-called
naturalists. This Spirit evinced itself in numerous offensive ways but
most of all in the protagonist's inability to overcome either his inner
nature or his environment. The novelists thus frightened Victorians
who sought in novels reassurance the world was constantly progressing
and who could not accept a story which proved otherwise. Hardy,
Gissing, and Moore, however, emphasizing always the theme of degener-
ation, not regeneration, came to be regarded as pessimistic authors
and chroniclers of deSpair. A While their fictional charact ers frequently
acted before a backdrop of poverty, the novelists showed their readers
deSpair was not the Special province of the poor. They allowed deSpair
to penetrate the lives of the wealthy or the successful as well. They de-

fied all convention by portraying suicide, the real epitome of deSpair;

182

they‘pictured death in an unsentimental manner; they avoided happy
endings and closed their-books with calamity prevailing.

The literary techniques of the authors differed SO greatly-that if
one were to call Moore a naturalist because he at first triedto suggest
reality by presenting every visible detail, one would have to regard
Hardy as a romantic who shaped by his imagination because-pictorial
details play a much less significant role in his Wessex novels. If
Moore's objectivity is ascribed to a naturalistic technique, one would
have-to deny Gissing's naturalism becauseof his ownpresence in his
works. - All three authors were dissimilar in their methods, yet the
reviewers' term "naturalist" joined them.

- The evidence-presented in the chapters on the novelists-themselves
reveals much about the critic s' practices and their ideas of naturalism.
' In the first place, not one attempted to define naturalism or Zolaism,
the-more popular epithet. - We have-no reason to believe anyone who

condemned the authors for naturalism had even read Le Roman

 

Experimental tOlearn what Zola's precepts were. - And yet the term

 

wasused to. libel the three authors. - What the critics meant by natural-
[ism can be deduced not from definition but only from. their critical
practices.

- We have seen some critics applythe term naturalism to novels
merely-different from traditional fiction. - Criticswhose reading taste
the masters and. their discipleshad formed were obliged tO-concedethat
from the pens of Hardy, Gis sing, andMoore-novels of a. different cast
kept appearing. Novelty annoyed critics whovinsisted familiar standards
of fiction were best; and certainly one of the ways in. which the novelists
— under consideration-promulgated the unfamiliar was in their treatment

of the role of fictional women. But because-in this aSpect they differed

183

so greatly among themselves, as was Shown earlier, it was not for
their unusual women characters that critics called their narratives
naturalistic .

- Secondly, the male characters differed from those who had be-
come the standard for fiction, but again the novelists had divergent
views regarding the necessary attributes and characteristics of the
men. - It was not, then, a certain type of man who evoked the cry of
naturalism.

Thirdly, while the novelists insisted freedom in language Should
be theirs and complained because it wasn't, they were forced to write
as their predecessors had, that is, without the liberty of reproducing
actual or overheard Speech. Thus, whether the authors approved or
disapproved, the language in their novels did not vary enough from the
traditional to be considered revolutionary. If kind of language were the
underlying principle of what critics called naturalism, in making com-
parisons, the critics would certainly have had to refer to the master
novelists as naturalists because the novelists of the last three decades
had to rely on similar if not identical language techniques.

- When an examination is made of the novelists' unconventional
and candid presentation of sex, one finds the authors were on more
common ground. They treated sex asa motivating force for characters
either in or out of wedlock. » Their characters were unlike those of an
earlier day in that once having discovered the sexual relation, they
succumbed to its power deSpite any disastrous effect it might have on
love, home, or family. Its possession of the individual was the feature
the authors stressed, although we find it less in Hardy's and Gissing's

works than in Moore's.

184

It is but a short step from this emphasis on the overwhelming
force of sex to the pessimism of the novels. Here the authors were
most closely related. They showed their characters at the mercy of
insuperable forces--sex, nature, economics, the conscience, or any
of a thousand others. Their characters were unable to win over the
Odds against them, try as they might. . A temporary reSpite may have
been granted occasionally, but readers soon learned a permanent
victory over an inimical force was impossible.

- Having remarked earlier the vastly different literary techniques
Of the three novelists and their sincere and emphatic disavowals of the
"science of fiction" (inMoore's case a disavowal of Zola himself), we
can now see what underlay the charge Of naturalism which periodical
critics applied to Hardy, Gissing, and Moore. The authors differed
among themselves on the types of roles of heroines and heroes; they
were forced by custom to conform to standard language; they rejected
“Zolaism and the science of fiction. - What they had in common was a
belief that man was a victim of life, a helpless pawn moved about by
uncontrollable forces. In the critics' mind, this denial of Optimism,
or conversely, the embracing of pessimism, was the reason for the
charge of naturalism--not technique nor bad language nor unconventional
heroes and heroines nor descriptions of sexual promiscuity. If critics
had examined their own reviews and those of their colleagues, they
would have reached a definition like this:

A naturalistic novel is one in revolt against former con-
ventional, moral standards, one that presents pessimism;
hence, immoral.

. Amy Cruse based her studies of the literature of the Victorian era
on comments-readers made. - Her evidence the young readers of the

nineties found: Hardy's message "not only terrible but stultifying"

185

because they saw all hOpes and aspirations dashed by a superior Fate
is certainly substantiated by the present study. 1 The extensive survey
of the critical Opinions of reviewers during those and earlier years
indicates the Spirit of Optimism. still prevailed and demanded reSpect.
Like the ordinary reader Of the time, the reviewers still preferred
stories of man triumphant.

- Walter Houghton's study of the Victorian mind before the last
three decades of the century provided valuable material for establishing
the standardsof literary taste given in this study. It is hoped the study
will in turn furnishhim with useful material for a comparable study of
the final decades should he ever attempt one.

Bibliographers and eSpecially scholars interested inHardy,
- Gissing, or Moore may find the attached bibliography of great time-
saving benefit should they have occasion to use the major literary
periodicals of the era. - While there always exists thepossibility that
some reviews have been overlooked or discarded becausethey were not
pertinent to this study, any future scholar of Hardy, Gissing, and: Moore
Should be able to find in those poorly-indexed magazines the reviews

he needs and which have lain dormant for many years.

 

1Amy Cruse, Aftertlie Victorians, p. 180.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY HARDY, . GISSING, ' AND MOORE

The following list includes only those books and articles contribut-
ing directly to the preparation of this thesis; it excludes the novels and
collections of stories from which the author has not quoted directly.

Gissing, George. Letters o_f George Gissing tO‘Members of His Family.

C011. and arr. by Algernon and‘Ellen Gissing. London, 1927.

New Grub Street. Introd. by Harry Hansen. - New York, 1926.

 

 

Private Papers (if Henry Ryecroft. Introd. by Paul Elmer
More. New York: Modern Library, 1918.

 

 

 

. - Selections Autobiographical and Imaginative from the Works
onGeorge Gissing. - Pref. by Al?red Charles Gissing. New York,
1929.

 

 

 

Workers in the Dawn. Two volumes. - Ed. , Robert Shafer.

‘ New York, 1935.

- Hardy, Thomas. - The'Letters 2f ThomasHardy, Ed. , Carl J.- Weber.
Waterville, Maine, 1954.

 

Life and'Art. Introd. by Ernest Brennecke. - New York, 1925.

 

. . Thomas Hardy's Notebook_s_. ' Ed. ,- Evelyn Hardy. London, 1955.

 

Moore, George. - Confessions o_fa Young Man. ' Introd. by Floyd-Dell.
New York, 1917.

 

 

. ~Hail arid Farewell. One vol. edition. Leipzig, 1914.

 

Impressions and Opinions. ' New York, 1891.

 

 

186

187

Moore, George. "La; Debacle." Fortnightly Review, LVIII
(August 1892), 204-210.

 

Letters 2f George Moore. Ed. , John Eglinton, pseud. Of
William Kirkpatrick Magee, Bournemouth, England, n.d.

 

 

"Meisonnier and the Salon Julian. " Fortnightly Review,
LIV (July 1890), 44-55.

 

"New Pictures in the National Gallery, " Fortnightly
Review, LIV (October 1890), 589-596.

 

"Royal Academy, " Fortnightly Review, LVII (June 1892),
828-839.

 

”Turgueneff, " Fortnightly Review, IL (February 1888),
237-251.

 

Impressions and Opinions. New York, 1891.

 

CONTEMPORARY PERIODICAL CRITICISM

Adams, Francis. "Tess Of the D'Urbervilles, " Fortnightly Review,
LVIII (July, 1892), 19-22.

 

Archer, William. "Real Conversations, " Academy, LX (March 23,
1901),. 240.

"'The Art of Thomas Hardy' by Lionel Johnson, " Athenaeum, CIV
(October 1894), 559-560.

 

Barrie, J. M. "Thomas Hardy: the Historian of Wessex, "
Contemporary Review, LVI (July 1889), 57-66.

Barry, William. "The Cloister and the Stage, " Bookman, XX (August
1901), 149.

"Bending of the Bough, " Bookman, XVIII (April 1900), 26.

"Born in Exile, " Academy, XLII (July 23, 1892), 67.

188

"Born in Exile, " Athenaeum, IC (May 28,. 1892), 693.

 

~ "Born in Exile, " Saturday Review, LXXIII (June 11, 1892), 688.

 

"Born in Exile, " Spectator, LXVIII (June 25, 1892), 883.

"Born in Exile, " Westminster Review, CXXVIII (November 1892),
571-572.

 

"By the Ionian Sea, " Athenaeum, CXVII (July 27, 1901), 121.

 

"Celibates," Athenaeum, CVI (July 13, 1895), 64.

 

."Celibates." Bookman. VIII (July 1895), 114.

"Celibates, " Yellow Book, VII (October 1895), 141-3.

 

"Charles Dickens, " Westminster Review, CIL (May 1898), 591.

 

"The Cloister and the Stage, " Bookman, XX (August 1901), 149.

Colby, Robert A. . "The Librarian Rules the Roost, " Wilson Library
Bulletin, XXVI (April 1952), 623-627.

 

. » "That He Who'Rides May Read, " Wilson Library Bulletin,
[XXVII (December 1952), 300-307.

 

- Colles, W. Morris. "Personalities: George Gissing, " Academy,
ILXVI (January 9, 1904), 40.

"Confessions of a Young Man, " Athenaeum, CXXIV (February 15, 1905),
240.

 

"Confessions of a YoungMan, " Athenaeum, XCI (March 31, 1888), 402.

 

"Confessions of a Young Man, " Idler, IX (June 1896), 723.

"Crown of Life, " Athenaeum, CXIV (November 18, 1899), 683.

 

"Crown of Life, " Bookman, XVII(December 1899), 89.

"Crown of Life, " Spectator, LXXXIII (November 4, 1899), 661.

189

"Culture and Anarchy, " Quarterly Review, CLXXIV (January 1892), 343.

 

"Demos, " Athenaeum, LXXXVI (April 10, 1886), 485.

 

"Demos: a Tale of English Socialism, " Saturday Review, LXII
(August 21, 1886), 261.

 

"Denzil Quarrier, " Academy, XLI (April 9, 1892), 347.

"Denzil Quarrier, " Athenaeum, IC (April 9, 1892), 466.

 

"Denzil Quarrier, " Bookman, I (March 1892), 215.

"The'Depressed School, " Saturday Review Supplement, LXXIX (April 27,
1895), 531. Reviews Eve's Ransom.

 

 

"DesPerate Remedies, " Athenaeum, LIX (April 1. 1871). 399°

 

Dolman, Frederick. "The Novels of George Gissing, " National Review,
XXX, (October 1897), 258.

 

' Douglas, G. B. S. "On Some Critics of Jude the Obscure, " Bookman,
IX. (January 1896), 120-122.

- Douglas, G. B.- S. "Well—Beloved. " Bookman, XII (April 1897), 12-13.

"The Wessex Novels, " Bookrnan, XVII (January 1900):
110‘- 1 120

- "A Drama in Muslin, " Academy, XXX (July 17, 1886), 40.

"A Drama in Muslin, " Athenaeum, LXXXVI (July 24, 1886), 110.

 

"A Drama in Muslin, " Saturday Review, LXII (July 24, 1886), 131.

 

Ellis, Havelock. "Concerning Jude the Obscure, " Savoy, VI
(October 1896), 35-49.

”Thomas Hardy's Novels, " Westminster Review, CXIX
(April 1882), 163-177.

 

"The'Emancipated, " Athenaeum, XCV (April 12, 1890), 466.

 

190

"The‘Emancipated, " Saturday Review, LXIX (June 21, 1890), 772.

 

"The Emancipated, " Spectator, LXXIII (August 11, 1894), 183.

 

"The‘Emancipated, " Westminster Review, CXXXIV (September 1890),
333-334. -

"Esther Waters, " Athenaeum, CV (April 28, 1894), 537.

 

"Esther Waters, " Bookman, VI (May 1894), 52-53.
"Esther Waters, " Spectator, LXXII (June 2, 1894), 757-758.

"Evelyn Innes, " Academy Supplement, LIII (June 25, 1898), 683.

 

"Evelyn Innes, " Athenaeum, CXII (July 2, 1898), 31-32.

 

"Evelyn Innes, " Academy, LIV (July 16, 1898), 69.
"Evelyn Innes, " Bookman, XIV (July 1898), 103-104.
"Evelyn Innes, " Bookman, XX (August 1901), 149.

"Evelyn Innes, " Fortnightly Review, LXXI*(April 1899), 621-622.

 

"Eve's Ransom, " Athenaeum, CV (May 11, 1895), 605.

 

"Eve's Ransom, " Bookman, VIII (May 1895), 54.
"Eve's Ransom, " Spectator, LXXV (September 14, 1895),. 344-345.

"Far from the Madding Crowd, " Athenaeum, LXVI (December 5,
1874), 747.

 

"Far from the Madding Crowd, " Athenaeum, LXXII (August 11, 1877),
177.

 

"Far from the Madding Crowd, " Harper's Monthly, XL (September,
1895), 648.

 

Findlater, Jane H. "The Spokesman of DesPair, " National Review,
XLIV (November 1904), 511-522.

 

191

"Gissing the Rod, " Punch, LXXXVIII (January 3, 1885), 1.

"Group of Noble Dames, " Athenaeum, XCVI (July 4, 1891), 35—36.

 

"Groupvof Noble Dames, " Spectator, LXVII (August 1, 1891), 163-164.

"Hand Of Ethelberta, " Athenaeum, LXIX (April 15. 1876). 523.

 

Hannigin,- D.- F. v "The Latest DevelOpment of English Fiction, "
Westminster Review, CXXXVIII (December 1892), 655-659.
. Reviews Tess o_f tie D'Urbervilles.

 

 

. ":‘."Mr.~ Hardy's Latest Novel, " Westminster Review, CXLI
(April 21, 1894), 136-139. Reviews Jude the Obscure.

 

 

"Victorian Age of Literature and Its Critics, " Westminster
Review, CVL (May 1896), 519-525.

 

"HumanOdds and Ends, " Academy, LII (December 18, 1897), 125-126.

'"HurnaniOdds and Ends," Athenaeum, CV (January 12, 1895), 45.

 

"Human-Odds and Ends, " Bookman, XIII (December 1897), 106.
"Human-Odds and Ends, " Spectator, LXXIV (February 9, 1895),. 205-206.

"ImPressions and Opinions, " Academy, XXXIX (March 21, 1891), 274.

 

"'Irnpressions and Opinions, " Athenaeum, XCVI (July 25, 1891), 117-118.

"ImPressions and‘Opinions, " Saturday Review, LXXI (April 1891), 484.

 

_"In‘~Scarlet and Grey; and the Spectre of the Real, " Spectator, LXXVII
(October 31, 1896), 593.

> "In the Year Of Jubilee, " Athenaeum, CV (January 12, 1895), 45.

 

"In the Year Of Jubilee, " Bookman, VIII (May 1895), 54.

"Inzthe‘ Year of Jubilee, " Saturday Review, LXXIX (January 19, 1895),
99-1000

 

192
"In the Year of Jubilee, " Spectator, LXXIV (February 9, 1895),
205-206.

"In Thomas Hardy's Country, " The Eclectic Magazine, CXXVI (June
1896), 776.

 

"Isabel Clarendon, " Academy, XXX (July 10, 1886), 24.

"Isabel Clarendon, " Athenaeum, LXXXVII (June 19, 1886), 809.

 

"Isabel Clarendon, " Saturday Review, LXII (July 10, 1886), 58.

 

"Isabel Clarendon, " Spectator, LIX (October 23, 1886), 1420.

"Jude the Obscure, " Athenaeum, CV1» (November 23, 1895), 709—10.

 

"Jude the Obscure, " Bookman, IX (January 1896), 123-124.

"Jude the Obscure, " Saturday Review, LXXXI (February 8, 1896),
153-154.

 

"Jude the Obscure, " Spectator, LXXIV (February 9, 1895), 206.

Lang, Andrew. "Literature, " New Review, VI (February 1892),
243-251. Reviews Tess o_f thg D'Urbervilles.

 

 

 

"A Laodicean, " Athenaeum, LXXVIII (December 31, 1881), 899.
"A Laodicean, " Saturday Review, LIII (January 14, 1882), 53.
"A Laodicean, " Academy, XXI (January 7, 1882), 5.

"A Laodicean, " Spectator, LV (March 4, 1882),. 296.

LeGallienne, Richard. , "Jude the Obscure, " Idler, IX (February 1896),
114.

. "Life's Little Ironies, Few Crusted Characters, " Athenaeum, CIII
(March 24, 1894), 367.

 

"Life's Little'Ironies, and a! Few Crusted Characters, " Bookman, VI
(April 1894), 18.

193

"Life's Little Ironies, Few Crusted Characters, " Spectator, LXXII
(April 21, 1894), 537-539.

"A Life's Morning, " Athenaeum, XCII (December 8, 1888), 770.

 

"A Life's Morning, " Spectator, LXII (February 9, 1889), 204.

"Mayor of Casterbridge, " Athenaeum, LXXXVI (May 28, 1886), 711.

 

"Mayor of Casterbridge, " Bookman, VIII (July 1895), 118.

"Mayor of Casterbridge, " Harper's Magazine, XCI (September 1895),
648.

 

"Mayor of Casterbridge, " Saturday Review, LXI (May 29, 1886), 757.

 

"Mayor of Casterbridge, " Spectator, LVI (May 29, 1886), 711.

"Mayor Of Casterbridge, " Westminster Review, CXXVI (July 1886), 300.

 

"A Mere Accident, " Athenaeum, XC (July 30, 1887), 144.

 

"A Mere Accident," Saturday Review, LXIV (August 13, 1887), 231.

 

"Mike Fletcher, " Athenaeum, XCIII (December 21, 1889), 851.

 

"Mike Fletcher, " Spectator, LXIV (February 8, 1890), 210.

Minto,- W. "Work of Thomas Hardy, " BOOkrnan, I (December 1891),
99-101.

"A Modern Lover, " Athenaeum, LXXI (July 7, 1883), 13.

 

"A Modern Lover, " Spectator, L (August 18, 1883), 1069.
"Modern Painting, " Spectator, LXXI (November 18, 1893), 720.

"Modern Painting, " Westminster Review, CXL (September 1892), 347.

 

"Mr.- George Gissing: An Inquiry, " Academy, LVII (December 16,
1899). 724.

194

"Mr. Gissing on Dickens, " Academy, LIII (March 12, 1898),. 280.

"Mr. Thomas Hardy's Novels, " Academy, XXI (February 18, 1882),
120. Suggests plagiarism in The Trumpet Major.

 

"A Mummer's Wife, " Athenaeum, LXXXIV (December 13, 1883), 767.

 

"A Mummer's Wife, " Saturday Review, LIX (February 14, 1885), 214.

 

"The‘Nether World, " Athenaeum, XCIV (July 27, 1889), 126.

 

"New Grub Street, " Athenaeum, xcvn (May 9, 1891), 601‘.

 

"New Grub Street, " Saturday Review, LXXI (May 9, 1891), 572.

 

"New Grub Street, " Spectator, LXVI (May 30, 1891), 764.

Newton-Robinson, Janetta. "Study of Mr. Thomas Hardy, " Westminster
Review, CXXXVII (February 1892), 153-164.

 

"Novels of Thomas Hardy, " British Quarterly, LXXIII (April 1881),
342.

 

"The Odd Women, " Athenaeum, CI (May 27, 1893), 667.

 

"The Odd Women, " Spectator, LXX (May 27, 1893), 707-708.

Oliphant, M. O. W. "Anti-Marriage League, " Blackwood's Edinburgh
Magazine, CLIX (January 1896), 135-149.

 

"Our Friend the Charlatan, " Academy, LX (June 1, 1901), 466.
"Our Friend the Charlatan, " Bookman, XX (August 1901), 152.

"Pair of Blue Eyes, " Athenaeum, LXIII (June 28, 1873), 820.

 

"The‘Paying Quest," Athenaeum, CV11 (January 25, 1896), 116.

 

"The Paying Guest, " Saturday Review, LXXXI (April 18, 1896), 405-406.

 

"Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft, " Bookman, XXIII (March 1903),
245-246.

. 195

' Quiller-Couch, Arthur. "Evelyn Innes, " Academy, LIV (July 16,
1898), 69.

"Return of the Native, " Athenaeum, LXXIV (November 23, 1878), 654.

 

Sichel, Walter. "Romanism in Fiction, " Fortnightly Review, LXXI
(April 1, 1899), 621.

 

- Sickert, W. "Portrait of George Moore, " Yellow Book, IV (January
1895), 85.

 

"Sister Teresa, " Athenaeum, CXVII (August 3, 1901), 150.

 

"Sister Teresa, " Bookman, XX (August 1901), 149.

"Sleeping Fires, " Athenaeum, CV11 (January 25, 1896), 116.

 

"Sleeping Fires, " Saturday Review, LXXXI (January 11, 1896), 48.

 

"Sleeping Fires, " Westminster Review, CVL (April 1896), 472..

 

"Spring Days, " Athenaeum, XCII (September 8, 1888),. 317.

- Stutfield, Hugh E. M. "Tommyrotics, " Blackwood's, CLVII (June 1895),
833-845.

 

Symons, Arthur. "Ilnpressions and Opinions, " Academy, XXXIX
(March 21, 1891), 274.

"Terre d'Irlande, " Athenaeum, LXXXJIX (March 26, 1887), 415.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Athenaeum, IC (January 9, 1892), 49.

 

("Tess Of theD'Urbervilles, " Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine,
CLI (March 1892), 464-474.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Bookman, I.(February 1892), 178-180.

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Gentleman's Magazine, IL (September
1892), 321.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Harper's New Monthly Magazine,
LXXXIV (June 1892), 152.

 

 

196

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Quarterly Review, CLXXIV (January
1892), 319-326.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Quarterly Review, CLXXIV (April
1892b 317-344.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Saturday Review, LXXIII (January 16,
1892L 73-74.

 

"Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Spectator, LXVIII (January 23, 1892),
121-122.

"Tess Of the D'Urbervilles, " Westminster Review, CXXXVII (March
1892), 347-348.

 

"Thomas Hardy, " Athenaeum, CIV (November 10, 1894), 641.

 

"Thomas Hardy's Wessex, " Bookman, I (October 1891), 26-28.

"Thyrza," Athenaeum, LXXXIX (May 7, 1887), 605.

 

"Thyrza, " Saturday Review, LXIV (June 11, 1887), 848.

 

"Thyrza, " Saturday Review, LXXII (October 17, 1891), 450.

 

"Thyrza," Spectator, LXIII (June 25, 1887), 868.
"Town Traveller, " Academy, LIV (October 1, 1898), 336.

"Town Traveller, " Athenaeum, CXII (September 10, 1898), 346.

 

"Town Traveller, " Bookman, XV (October 1898), 19.
"Town Traveller, " Spectator, LXXXI (September 3, 1898), 312-313.

"Trumpet Major, ” Athenaeum, LXXVI (November 20, 1880), 672.

 

"Trumpet Major, " Athenaeum, LXXVIII (October 22, 1881), 527.

 

"Two on a Tower, " Athenaeum, LXXX (November 18, 1882), 658.

 

"Two on a Tower, " Saturday Review, LIV (November 18, 1882), 674.

 

197

"Two on a Tower, " Spectator, LVI (February 3, 1883), 154.

Tyrrell, Robert Y. "Jude the Obscure, " Fortgghtly Review, LXV
(June 1896), 857—864.

 

"Mr. George Moore and Ireland's Vocation, " Macmillan's
LXXXVIII (July 1903), 206-212. ‘

 

"The‘Unclassed, " Academy, XXV (June 28, 1884), 454.

"The‘Unclassed, " Athenaeum, LXXXIV (June 28, 1884), 820-821.

 

"The'Unclassed, " Spectator, LVIII (January 31, 1885), 158.

"Vain- Fortune, " Athenaeum, XCVIII (November 7, 1891), 613-614.

 

"Vain-Fortune, " Bookman, VHI (May 1895), 53.
"Veranilda, " Bookman, XXVII (November 1904), 181.

Watson, William. - "Tess of the D'Urbervilles, " Academy, XLI
February 6, 1892), 125.

Waugh, Arthur. "George Gissing, " Fortnightly Review, LXXXI
(February 1, 1904), 244.

"The‘Well-Beloved, " Athenaeum, CIX (April 10, 1897), 471.

 

"The‘Well-Beloved, " Bookman, XII (April 1897), 12-13.

Wells, H. G. "Novels of Mr. George Gissing, " Contemporagy Review,
A LXXII (August 1897), 192-201.

 

"Wessex Poems and Other Verses, " Athenaeum, CXII (January 14,
1899). 41-42.

 

"Wessex Poems and Other Verses, " Bookman, XV (February 1899).
139-1410

"Wessex-Poems and Other Verses, " Westminster Review, CLII
(August 1899), 180-184.

 

198

"Wessex Tales, " Athenaeum, XCI (June 30, 1888), 825.

 

"The‘W’hirlpool, " Academy,- XLH (April 24, 1897), 459.

"The Whirlpool, " Athenaeum, CIX (April 24, 1897), 536.

 

"TheWhirlpOOl, " Bookman, XII, (May 1897), 38-39.
"The'Whirlpool, " Spectator, LXXVIII (April 24, 1897), 596.

"Will Warburton, " Athenaeum, CXXVI (July 8, 1905), 41.

 

"Will Warburton, " Bookman, XXVIII (August 1905), 162.

"The'Woodlanders, " Athenaeum, LXXXIX (March 26, 1887), 414.

 

"The Woodlanders, " Saturday Review, LXIV (April 2, 1887), 484.

 

"The Woodlanders, " Westminster Review, CXXVIII (June 1887), 384.

 

"Workers in the Dawn, " Athenaeum, LXXV (June 12, 1880), 758.

 

Wright, E. A "Novels of Thomas Hardy, " Quarterly Review, CIC
(April 1904), 499-523.

 

BIOGRAPHY AND CRITICISM

Allen, Walter Ernest. The English‘Novel. New York, 1955.

 

Baker, Ernest A. . The'Day before Yesterday. Vol. IX of The History
of the English Novel. Ten (volumes. London, 1938.

 

 

Beach, Joseph Warren. The Technique <_>_f Thomas Hardy. Chicago,
1922.

 

 

Brennecke, Ernest. The Life qf Thomas Hardy, New York, 1925.

 

 

Cazamian, Madeleine L. Le Roman et les'Idées en Angleterre:

L'Influence is 13. Science (1860- 1890). New York, 1923.

 

Cecil, Lord David. Hardy, t_1_1_e Novelist. New York, 1946.

199

Cruse, Amy. 'After the Victorians. London, 1938.

 

 

Cruse, Amy. The Victorians and Their Reading. New York, 1935.,

 

De'La-Mare, Walter, ed. The‘Eighteen-Eighties. Cambridge, England,
' 1930.

 

- D'Exideuil,. Pierre. The Human Pair i_n t_1_1_e Wo___r__ks of Thomas Hardy.
Trans, Felix W. Crosse. London, 1929.

 

 

- Donnelly, Mabel Collins. George Gissing Grave Comedian.
Cambridge, Mass., 1954.

 

 

. Follett, HelenThomaS and Wilson. - Some Modern Novelists. New York,
1918.

 

- Freeman, John. A Portrait o_f George Moore 133 Study o_f 1:1_i_s Work.
New York, 1922.

 

 

- Frierson, William C. L'Influence du Naturalisme Frangais sur les
Romanciers Anglais de l_8__85 a_ l9_0_0. Paris, 1925.

 

 

 

. TheEnglish Novel ETransition 1885-1940. Norman,
Oklahoma, 1942.

 

 

- Gapp, Samuel Vogt. , George Gissing, Classicist. Philadelphis, 1936.

 

Granville-Barker, Harley, ed. TheE_i_ghteen-Seventies. -New York,
1929.

 

- Grisewood, Harman, ed. Ideas and Beliefs (_J_f t_l_1_e Victorians. London,

1949.

 

 

 

 

Guerard, Albert J. Thomas Hardy; The Novels a__nd Stories.
Cambridge, 1949.

. Hardy, Florence'Emily. The'Eagly Life-pf Thomas Hardy 1840-1891.
New York, 1928.

 

 

. The Later Years <_>_f Thomas Hardy 1892-1928. New York,
1930.

 

 

200

Hone, Joseph. - The Life (if George Moore. London, 1936.

 

 

Houghton, Walter E. The Victorian-Frame o_f Mind 1830-1870.
New Haven, 1957.

 

 

Lovett, Robert Morss and Helen S. Hughes. The History (if 9.1.53 Novel i_n
England. - New York, 1932.

 

 

Jackson, Holbrook. The‘Eighteen Nineties. . New York, 1925.

 

McCullough, Bruce. . Representative Einglish Novelistsz. Defoe t2
Conrad. New York, 1946.

 

 

 

Routh, H, V. M-oney, Morals and Manners As Revealed in Modern

 

Shafer, Robert. , Christianity 3.251 Naturalism. New Haven, 1926.

 

 

Sherman, Stuart P. "Aesthetic Naturalism of George Moore, " Chap. V
302 Contemporary Literature. New York, 1917.

 

Swinnerton, Frank. Authors and the Book Trade. New York, 1932.

 

 

. George Gissing, _A Critical Study. London, 1923.

 

 

‘Wagenknecht, Edward. "Hardy and the Cosmic Drama, " Chap.— XX in
-Cavalcade pith-__e_ English Novel. New York, 1943.

 

 

_Walcutt, CharlesC. 'American Literary Naturalism, _a" Divided Stream.
Minneapolis, 1956.

 

 

- Weber, Carl J. Hardy if Wessex. New York, 1940.

Weygandt, Cornelius. "The Creed of George Gissing, " Chap.- XIV in
A Century pf 2133 English Novel. - New York, 1925.

 

Periodicals:

Decker, Clarence R. "The'Aesthetic Revolt Against Naturalism in
-Victorian Criticism, " PMLA, L111 (1938), 844-856.

201

. Frierson, William C. "TheEnglish Controversy over Realism in
-Fiction, 1885-1895, " PMLA,'XLIII (1928), 533-550.
Unpublished material:

Newton, William B. , Jr. Thomas Hardy and Naturalism.
University of Chicago doctoral dissertation, 1950. (Microfilm).

 

» Winslow, Donald James. Thomas Hardy: 1113 British and American
Critics. Boston University doctoral dissertation, 1942.