George Eliot wrote during the early Victorian period in England, which is classified by the reign of Queen Victoria. During this time, industry began to flourish and the middle class began to gain power. The Reform Bill of 1832 gave the new class political and economic means to unite against land owners. This was a time of great turmoil and change, creating a disparity between the newly forming middle class and the ever-increasing lower classes, which were “thrown off their land and into the cities to form the great urban working class” (Columbia 2005). The new social phenomenon of the middle class created an increase in literacy which led to the rise of the novel, and Middlemarch provides a critique of social norms and values, feminine empowerment, and new questions about morals and philosophy.
The second chapter of Ian Watt’s book Rise of the Novel is directly related to the rise of the middle class. While the lower class rarely completed school beyond the mandatory age of attendance, the middle class had continue to go to school beyond age 5, dividing their time between school and work, because middle class jobs in commerce, administration, and the professions required literacy for employment (Watt 39-41). As the middle class increased, so did the literacy rate of England. Leslie Stephen is quoted as explaining, “The gradual extension of the reading class affected the development of the literature addressed to them” (Watt 36).
Books were expensive, and though the reading class increased, access to manuscripts in full form was limited. Longer stories, called folios, were printed, but reserved for the very rich in limited quantity. Short stories were released in the form of serials in affordable publications like periodicals. Stories published in the cheapest forms were stories abridged into the forms of ballads or chapbooks, which were “abbreviated chivalric romances”, and new stories of criminals or extraordinary events (Watt 43). Pirated copies of works were printed and distributed at a lower price “for the gratification of those who were impatient to read what they could not yet afford to buy” (Watt 43).
Novels, which were in the mid-price range of publications, were like comics are to the reading public now; they were released in volumes called duodecimos. Middlemarch was originally released in eight volumes. Upon its initial publication, the book was seen as central to feminist issues. Then, no critics mentioned the work for over one hundred years. In 1976 however, the book was fervently reviewed by feminist scholars who chastised and rebuked the book as well as the author. Both Eliot and her novels were not seen as examples of feminism to most of the women’s studies community; however, her work was seen as “realistically depicting the possibilities open to most nineteenth century women…” (Siegler 1998).
For the last twenty years, Eliot and Middlemarch are important for feminist critiques of nineteenth century literature. Elizabeth Grosz is cited in “’This Thing I Like my Sister may not Do’: Shakespearian Erotics and a Clash of Wills in Middlemarch” by Carol Siegel because she explains what makes a work of literature feminist. Siegel states:
“’Neither the author, the reader, nor the content of a text explains how we are able to designate it as feminist.’ A feminist text is one whose style ‘render[s] the patriarchal or phallocentric presumptions governing its contexts and commitments visible’ in such a way as to question ‘the power of these presumptions in the production, reception, and assessment of the texts’ and to ‘facilitate the production of new and perhaps unknown, unthought discursive spaces’” (Siegel 1-3).
As this definition is applied to Middlemarch, both Dorothea and Rosamond are strong feminists as they are presented in Books One and Two.
Dorothea is a young woman of sixteen who strives to be pious and devoid of all desire. She wants to live an extremely devout life with knowledge of religion being the ultimate goal to her happiness. When faced with the presentation of a proposal of marriage from Mr. Casaubon, who is over fifty but published and recognized for his religious knowledge and interpretation, as well as the possible proposal from Sir James, who is a baronet that would do anything to ensure Dorothea’s happiness, Dorothea chooses Casaubon. She chose him over Sir James before he even asked. Many of the supporting characters including Dorothea’s uncle, Sir James, and her sister Celia think Dorothea is making a terrible mistake. Nevertheless, by the end of Book One, she “had become Mrs. Casaubon, and was on her way to Rome” (Eliot 60).
It is also on page 60 that we meet Rosamond Vincy, who is the traditional beauty of the story. In manner, character, and appearance, Rosamond is Dorothea’s diametric opposite. In fact, at a dinner party to announce and celebrate Dorothea’s engagement, many of the men, whether married or not, compared the beauty and talents of these two women and how they appeal to each man’s desires. Rosamond is more refined than Dorothea, but she has an equally elevated taste in her preference of men. While the standards for Rosamond’s future husband are different than Dorothea’s, they are equally unattainable for most men.
George Eliot has been harshly criticized because of the resolve of her characters. Most often critiqued are the manner in which her female heroes resolve their issues. Eliot, Siegel explains, often “resolve[s] her heroines’ life crises with marriage” is seen as “fidelity to the truth of ordinary women’s lives” (Siegel 1). It seems that while now it is mostly accepted that Eliot’s realistic approach to relationships and marriage, as contrasted with Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, is a fair representation for the way life was for women in the nineteenth century, many feminist critics cannot accept Dorothea as a strong female representation of a hero.
What makes Dorothea such a strong female hero during Book One is her desire to stick with the qualities that make a man great to her. She wants to marry a learned man from whom she can learn. The reaction to her decision to marry the older, less attractive, less wealthy Mr. Casaubon illuminates the expectations and social values of a husband of the society in which she lives. Valuing the knowledge and religious preferences of a potential husband over possible social status illuminates, as Grosz says, causes the patriarchal assumptions of the time to become visible.
In “The Key to Epic Life?: Classical Study in George Eliot’s Middlemarch,” Hilary Mackie questions the representation of Dorothea in the Prelude and evaluates what should make an epic, with regard to classical literature, life. Mackie’s hypothesis is, “Within the fiction of the novel, however, we see Dorothea and other characters try in various ways, but fail, to make sense of their lives through the study, employment, or imitation of classical models” (Mackie 53). What the author is missing is that Dorothea is not trying to imitate the life of some past saint, but she is trying to live up to her own ideal; morality is her way to live an epic- beyond any classical literary conventions- life.
The morality of Dorothea and the Prelude has also been debated in the field of philosophy. With regard to Middlemarch being an example of a morality tale, philosophers debate the role of fiction in shaping the society in which it is published. Rohan Maitzen answers Martha Nussbaum’s critique of Eliot’s novel by applying Nussbaum’s own criteria to the novel to prove it is an exemplary illustration of how fiction can contribute to philosophy by answering the question, “How should one live?”
The role of the novel in philosophy means that “the novel may share generic features which compliment or correct conventional philosophical discourse” (Maitzen 191). The terms Nussbaum set for the ethical evaluation of fiction include:
1. Analysis of the text’s literary properties
2. Every aspect of form and style expresses a sense of life and of value, a sense of what matters and what does not
3. Discovers this “sense of life” through close reading the engaged experience line by line
4. Reveals the character of the implied author, the would be friend urging us on a particular ‘pattern of desire’ (Maitzen 191).
Nussbaum bashes Eliot and Middlemarch in comparison with Henry James’ work, but Maitzen spends half of her essay showing that Nussbaum’s biases have elevated James beyond a fair evaluation of what a moral novel is.
When she moves on to evaluating Eliot’s novel, Maitzen shows that the Prelude outlines with “clarity, precision, and quiet confidence of the erudite narrator” (Maitzen 197) what the tale will be. Maitzen explains that the narrator possesses knowledge to interpret the story and life of St. Theresa as well as explain the significance of St. Theresa’s life to the modern audience. Clearly exhibited in the Prelude is the sense of life Eliot is going to describe; Maitzen says, “What is important and what is not in this fictional world” is the history of man (198). By using grand language, Eliot “encourages us to admire their idealistic plan and to lament the practical limits of domestic reality,” and also suggests “that it was worthy of epic treatment” (Maitzen 198).
Middlemarch and its history are full of controversy and debate about its validity as both a feminist and moral story. Never have I read a story about which critics are so conflicted. Without consensus, the novel proves to stand alone as a great work of literature that comments on social norms, feminist ideals, the value of virtues, and the life and times of women in the nineteenth century.
Works Cited
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. “The Victorian Age.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
2005. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0858005.html 28 Feb. 2010.
Eliot, George. Middlemarch. Ed. Bert G. Hornback. Norton: New York. 2000.
Mackie, Hilary. “The Key to Epic Life?: Classical Study in George Eliot's Middlemarch.”
Classical World 2009. 103:1. 53-67.
http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2146/journals/classical_world/v103/103.1.mackie.pdf 27
Feb. 2010.
Maitzen, Rohan. “Martha Nussbaum and the Moral Life of Middlemarch.” Philosophy and
Literature 2006. 30. 190-207.
Siegel, Carol. “This thing I like my sister may not do': Shakespearean Erotics and a Clash of
Wills in Middlemarch.” Style. Spring98: 32, 1. Academic Search Premier.
http://cletus.uhh.hawaii.edu:2060/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=103&sid=94177b8b-be7b-4637ac17d5227a7c34@sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=1516862 28 Feb. 2010
Watt, Ian. “The Reading Public and the Rise of the Novel.” The Rise of the Novel. Penguin:
Victoria 1963. 36-41.
Showing posts with label Middlemarch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middlemarch. Show all posts
Friday, June 4, 2010
Promise, Limitation, and Female Voices in Middlemarch
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)