George Eliot presents glimpses into the private and public lives of several women and their thought processes in Middlemarch. Each woman uniquely represents something feminist, whether it is her desire to stick with her principles, exercise her free will, or outwardly represent the perfect model of modern, contemporary womanly attributes. Mary Garth, Dorothea (Brooke) Casaubon, and Rosamond (Vincy) Lydgate all express themselves as a strong female presence in relation to others, especially with regard to the threat or hint of a promise. Their perspectives regarding the meaning of a promise and how they act in accordance with promises shape their roles in public life.
Women long for what the same things men desire. Mostly, the immediate world available to women of the nineteenth century does not proffer these desires, and some women hope to find people who will guide them along their path to acquiring these desires. For Dorothea, in the beginning of the novel, she sought to marry a man who would help her grow intellectually and spiritually. What Dorothea found in Casaubon however was a man who was desperate to cling to her, unwilling to let her grow for fear that she was growing away from him. In a sense, Casaubon pushed Dorothea away with his stubbornness and lack of understanding (Thomas 392).
Rosamond and Mary also have desires. Rosamond desires her perfect man to be someone who will take her away from dull Middlemarch and her life as a merchant’s daughter. She also marries who she perceives to be the perfect man, but she unwittingly traps herself in Middlemarch by the way in which she acts toward him. Mary loves a man she knows is not perfect, and to him, Mary represents a muse, savior, and perfection. She is his reason for trying to change even though he fails.
All of these women interact and make promises with the people in their lives. Melissa Ganz, a Stanford professor with a PhD and a JD whose focus is analyzing the role of laws in English literature (IHUM), explains the history and evolution of “promise” and relates the various ways Eliot uses the promise in her novels in her article “Binding the Will”. Ganz explains that “promises give rise to repeated conflicts and misunderstandings, crystallizing tension between freedom and obligation” (Ganz 565). Ganz states that in Middlemarch, disputes occur in two ways. First, “egoists attempt to pressure others into making promises that require them to act in self-defeating ways” (Ganz 565). The second way in which conflicts arise with regard to promises are shaped around people refusing to acknowledge and honor their own commitments, “evincing a complete disregard for the ways in which other people construe their words and actions” (Ganz 565). Both of these types of dispute share the foundational problems of an abuse of will and disregard for other people’s perceptions and emotions.
The tensions caused because of promises shown in Middlemarch reflected an important social change because the role of promises and their function in both the private and public worlds was shifting. At the time George Eliot was writing Middlemarch, the role of the promise was being heavily discussed in philosophical and law settings. In the early eighteenth century, a promise was considered naturally derived from an individual’s will, reflecting intent. At the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, the view toward promises changed; promises became “commitments people freely and deliberately made” (Ganz 565).
Contract law at this time was rising in popularity, partially because of the change in the nature of the promise. The definition of a promise changed rapidly from the natural extension of one’s being and intention to mere words that could be disregarded in law suits if the parties did not share the same idea of terms or definitions. Ultimately, according to Ganz, Eliot takes the stance that promises are extremely important in interpersonal relationships, and disregarding them can detrimental. Ganz states, “Eliot embraces an expansive conception of promises. She suggests that one becomes bound by a promise when a person knowingly excites another’s expectations concerning the existence of obligation, even when one does not intend to become bound” (566). While the promise may not have been legally binding, Eliot demonstrated that the merit of promises made was equivalent to the person who made them; promises were considered a measure of trustworthiness, follow-through, and moral character.
Edward Casaubon, an egoist, attempted to bind his wife’s will and control her after his death by the use of promises. Without telling Dorothea what he wanted her to bind herself to, Casaubon exercised his status as her husband in a vain attempt to illicit her response. Dorothea told her husband she did not think it right “to make a promise when [she is] ignorant to what it binds [her] to” (Eliot 296). In reply to this, Casaubon challenges her by saying, “But you would use your own judgment: I ask you to obey mine; you refuse” (Eliot 296). He attempts to control his wife by using her chosen position of subservience to him in order to limit her choices while she is still alive knowing the value they both attribute to a promise, especially one made to a deceased person while he or she is still living.
Promises are acknowledged as having the power to improve relationships and strengthen personal accountability as long as a person can limit one’s own desires. Rosamond is an egoist like Casaubon, and she also uses promises as a means of getting her desires met. She tries to use the role of the promise, that it creates positive, strong relationship ties, to entice other people to make promises to her. In her refusal to take personal responsibility, Rosamond inadvertently aids in the destruction of the communication in her marriage. By telling Lydgate to promise her things, she forces him to make promises to others he cannot keep. These promises include paying for their house, which he knew he couldn’t afford, as well as furniture for the house. In the hope of making his wife happy, Lydgate ruins his name and tarnishes his already-questionable reputation (Ganz 578-580, Eliot).
Promises are ultimately shown as being valued and important. They are seen as a social norm maintained through the Garths and others in the town while their weight expressed through Dorothea as well as Mary Garth’s and Fred Vincy’s relationship. Dorothea chooses to not make any promises that will compromise her own free will. This is especially true after she sees her marriage to Casaubon as a mistake; this revelation came with the understanding that she had idealized her husband and realized his stubbornness had stunted his development as a scholar, writer, and husband. Even when she chose to marry Edward Casaubon, however, it was in accordance with her own will and not the will of those around her.
Mary Garth, like Dorothea, also acts in accordance with her free will. Her life revolves around her duty to her family. She works so she can support herself and help when she needs to. When Mr. Featherstone, on his deathbed, tries to bribe her to burn the latest will, she refuses. She refuses the money he offers her and refuses his wishes. With regard to her duty and her future, Mary made two promises with Fred. The first was that she would never marry him if he became a priest. She also tells Fred Vincy she will refuse his proposal of marriage until he becomes respectable in the eyes of the community. This was a conditional promise given to Fred but solely based on his own actions and decisions. While it inspired Fred, it did not empower him to try
The characteristics of Dorothea, Rosamond, and Mary have been scrutinized for over a century. Many scholars wonder why Mary Ann Evans, better known as George Eliot, created these female characters. Some feminist critics say their lives show, realistically, the options available to women during the late nineteenth century with regard to marriage and status. Others criticize Eliot for the limitations she placed on these women. Some extremists castigate Eliot for the vast differences of personal freedom when comparing her own life to the limited options available to her characters.
Works Cited
Eliot, George. Middlemarch. Ed. Bert G. Hornback. New York: Norton 2000.
Ganz, Melissa J. “Binding the Will: George Eliot and the Promise of Practicing” ELH 75: 3
2008 565-602. Project MUSE http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2146/journals/elh/v075/75.3.ganz.pdf 08 March 2010.
IHUM. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/undergrad/ihum/fellows/bios/ganz.html 08 March 2010.
Thomas, Jeanie G. “An Inconvenient Indefiniteness: George Eliot, Middlemarch, and
Feminism.” University of Toronto Quarterly 56:3 1987 392-415. EBSCO Host
http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2060/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=113&sid=c7c0b8a3-ad09-4e3c-b8df-391015b0baa2@sessionmgr111 08 March 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment