A study of characterisation in the novels of George Eliot

155.
that they were too complex to be formulated. But we can detect in her
bifocal vision, a return to a more. reliGiously,,",orientedperspective.
With the introduction of a sense of purpose, a goal towards which a
person can direct his energies, we have a partial return to Aristotlets
disputed "final cause, II and a language which is J.ess scientifically precise.
J. Hillis Mi.ller analyses the tension arising from "the conf:j.ict
between the '::riter's conscious adherence to scientific models, whether
those of the physical or of the biological sciences, to descri.be human
life and, on the other hand, his insi{,:ht into the true nature of that
,
life. Such insight means a recognition that human beings cannot be de-
scribed in language appropriate for inanimate objects or for organisms."
4-
He refers explicitly to Adam Bade and Uiddle~..!£h.
and talks of George
Eliot's tlstruggle ••• to reconcile her sense of human existence vlith a
language of causality taken from nineteenth century science. 1I
This is obviously a recurring problem. In The Faith. .2f. the Counsellors,
Paul Halmos discusses the difficulty experienced by twentieth century
counsellors in findinG a scientific language which adequately expresses
the ineffable quality of some counselling situations. They encounter
serious problems when they attempt to quantify a qualitative relationship.
If, as he indicates, counsellors are but "priests ,vrit large," 5 then it
is not surprisinG that scientists should be confused by their ovm tendeney
to re-introduce terminology they feel is more suited to a religious
context. We must, he cautions, refrain from levelling at them accusations
of hypocrisy or double-think, a.s th:b problem they hnve'Nith langunge,
merely reflects the ambiguities of our hUInan situation. VIe can see the
relevance of his comments to George Eliot. He is presenting in different
terms the problem outlined by J. Hillis Hiller.
I will noi'! look at I:;he terms in which ~eorge
Eliot presents the very
personalised relationships which various 0:::' her critics have described as