A study of characterisation in the novels of George Eliot

69.
Evolution is said to be prof,res ive when it "roduces type;:' that
are more dominant or more and abundant; or have more control
over and greater independe"cefroffi the e;J.'lvironment; or have
the ability to cope with a greater variety of environment::,; or
develop powers of 1'twareness vlhi:;h enable ther;-. to respond ·with
e;reater plasticity and discrimination to their environment.53
For all Maggie f s powers 01' awareness, c;he only substantial attempt she
makes to win greater independence from her envi:-conment is by means of
her response to ThOITl:l.S .'8, Kempis. Vie do not see her ::respoud to her en~
vironment with greater plastid ty and i1iscrimination. Later I wi: 1 examine
this problem more fully in terms of how far G.,;orge Eliott s scheme
of ffioral development limited the range of choices s.a was willinr to
allow for her characters. For the momeEt I am merel;c h~nting
at tne implications
of George Eliot's evolution[u:Y treatment of Maggie ani:' her
problems of adaptation. Herbert Spence:~,
secure in;lis teleologioal belief
in evolutionary prog;:'ess could vlT'::'_te. that Hall ",viI results from the
non-adaptation of constit~ltion to cono.:...tions" from ,mnt of cong:,'uity
between the i'aculties and their s:phere..=.' of' action~ G~orge BLot
might well have agreed th:0.t 11age;ie t s t::'agedy, the f; ilure of her commu.1'lity
to appreciate her finely-wrought netture, consti utes an evil. But
the alternative indicated by Spencer y: ;uld have req '.red her to accede,
!
for example, to Stephen's pragmatic sugestion thai: must noy: "accept 1/
their Uactions, and start afresh from
" II
.(lem ..
ively, "' our position is altered; the
56
was before. t II The term;;:; of referenc·"
a means of judging Maggie ~ s moral
:~ says most;>2rsuascourSE:
no longer ,chat it
Elio has offered 'us &,5
such a f orrn of
8,(Ulptation to circumsta.nc':3s would be a:lefeat, a
of integrity on
."'."'.6(",-'-'" S part, from which~ we are led 0 believe, 5:',3 \'lould never recever.
Viewed alongside the subtlety o.~
George Eli)I:;' s characterisation,
the remark of Spencer I have just quot c"a. seems nai v' and far too general-