No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Does not science tell us that its highest striving is after the ascertainment of a unity which shall bind the smallest things with the greatest? In natural science, I have understood, there is nothing petty to the mind that has a large vision of relations, and to which every single object suggests a vast sum of conditions. It is surely the same with the observation of human life. The Mill on the Floss ( IV : I :173) Writing in 1876, Henry James captured his ambivalence towards Daniel Deronda in a spirited “conversation” among three fictitious readers of the novel. Is George Eliot “too scientific,” judicious Constantius wonders? One might as well call her too Victorian , ardent fan Theodora bristles: “So long as she remains the great literary genius that she is, how can she be too scientific? She is simply permeated with the highest culture of the age.” Disgruntled Pulcheria begs to differ: “She talks too much about the 'dynamic quality' of people's eyes. When she uses such a phrase as that in the first sentence in her book . . . she shows a want of tact.” Theodora parries: “it shows a very low level of culture . . . to be agitated by a term perfectly familiar to all decently-educated people.” “I don't pretend to be decently educated,” rejoins Pulcheria; “pray tell me what it means” ( CH , 427).
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.