Classics and the Western Canon discussion

While Dorothea and Causabon travel to Italy, we get to know some of the Middlemarch people better. We are introduced to the controversy over the chaplaincy at the hospital. We get to know more about Lydgate and Farebrother. We see Bulstrode in action when he is asked for the letter. We see Fred and Mary together and with Featherstone.

Then we travel to Italy with the Casaubons, where Ladislaw befriends Dorothea, and we get a strong element of the painting aspects of the book.

In this section entitled Old and Young we again see the influences of a patriarchal society where men are considered superior to women. In an essay called 'Silly Novels by Lady Novelists' (1856) George Eliot criticised lightweight fiction written by women, because it tended to fuel prejudice against 'the more solid education of women'. Lack of solid education proved a damaging obstacle in Dorothea's and Rosamond's relationships with their husbands. Lydgate distrusts clever women, such as Dorothea: 'It is troublesome to talk to such women. They are always wanting reasons, yet they are too ignorant to understand the merits of any question, and usually fall back on their moral sense to settle things after their own taste'.

In Chapter 14 Mary Garth is bullied by Peter Featherstone: 'Why couldn't you sit here until I told you to go? I want my waistcoat now. I told you to always put it on the bed.' and she was prevented from reading in his company. Mary eventually writes a book but she was raised by a mother who viewed the subordination of women to men as proper, and, significantly, Mary's book relates stories of great men and the townspeople gave the credit to Fred because he was the one who had gone to university!

Some of George Eliot's close friends sought reforms in the spheres of law, politics and education but she harboured suspicions that such reforms would impair women's capacity for compassionate action. She felt that women have a capacity for empathy, which is often missing from patriarchal conduct, and wished to promote this quality, but remained unsure how best that might be done.

Do readers here feel that women's 'liberation' has impaired women's capacity for compassionate action or their capacity for empathy? Or has it, on the other hand, improved men's capacity for those things by enabling them to 'get in touch with their feminine side'?

MadgeUK wrote: "In this section entitled Old and Young we again see the influences of a patriarchal society where men are considered superior to women. In an essay called 'Silly Novels by Lady Novelists' (1856) Ge..."

I think Eliot had somewhat conflicted feelings about gender roles and relationships, and these are indeed, as you point out so well, reflected in Middlemarch.

Mary's writing is mentioned much later in the book, so perhaps we should defer a discussion of that until we get to that section. But we still have plenty of gender issues to discuss!

We have seen several wives in action. Dorothea, of course. But also Susan Garth.

And, not to forget, Mrs. Cadwallader and Mrs. Bulstrode.

But I'm most interested in Dorothea and Susan Garth, because both seem to me to be presented as women of education (recall that Susan Garth was a schoolteacher) and of clear principles for living. But both are subservient to their husbands.

What does this say about Eliot's view of women? Anything, not that much?

Everyman, Madge, you two are doing yeoman duty here and I applaud you. I do have a couple of observations to make and I'm mulling over the questions the two of you posed.....But I've another 20 pages to read before I can jump in.

Take your time Adelle - I'll still be here and I look forward to your observations on my observations:):)

SO many phrases and sentences that show what an insight Eliot had into human nature...wonderfully-worded, carefully-constructed. They brought smiles to my face.

Just a few examples:

“To point out other people’s errors was a duty that Mr. Bulstode rarely shrank from” (120).

Vincy: “I bear you no grudge; I think no worse of you than I do of other people” (123).

Regarding Fred: “…and his share in the higher education of this country did not seem to help him” (127).

“Lydgate’s nature demanded this combination: he was an emotion creature…He cared not only for ‘cases,’ but for John and Elizabeth, especially Elizabeth” (137).

There are a good many smiles in this book.

In Book 2, “Old and Young,” I continue to enjoy the characterizations. I got a kick out of old Mr. Featherstone. The way he leverages his soon-to-be-someone-else’s worldly belongs!


I loved how Vincy, in his remonstrances with Mr. Bulstrode, when Vincy was asking for the paper/signature that Mr. Featherstone had demanded of Fred, Vincy was pushing his own point of view as already being Mr. Bulstrode’s point of view, too. (about page 121). “Of course you never said any such nonsense,” “I suppose you can have no objection to that.”

I wondered whether this were Mr. Vincy’s usual way of conducting conversations---telling the other party what they thought---or if it were only that he was so desperate for the paperwork on Fred’s behalf. SURELY, Vincy knows that Bulstrode is not a man whose opinions can be massaged into place by others.

Also, although I rather like Fred, I was quite disappointed in him that Fred himself did not go to speak to his uncle, Mr. Bulstrode. He drops in my opinion.

{When I attended my high school prom with my then boyfriend, my opinion of him dropped when I saw that he was using his father’s credit card to fill the gas tank in the car---and really, shouldn’t he have filled the tank before he came to pick me up? That’s what I thought, too. And he took me to a very nice restaurant; but, again, he used his father’s credit card to pay for it. And have similar feelings towards Fred at this point.}

Well, since I’m down on Fred this morning, I should mention that he dropped even further in my opinion come page 128. Fred is speaking with Mary. “She was certainly treating him with more indifference than usual: she did not know how affectionately indignant he had felt on her behalf up-stairs.”

!!!!! {As in, Fred recognizes that Featherstone treats Mary badly, does NOTHING to stand up for her, and, really, feels he deserves credit for…. For what? For being a spineless, albeit charming, milquetoast, who has perhaps right-thoughts, but who is unable/unwilling to speak up for himself or others when he believes they are being wronged? Fred, Fred, Fred.}

Adelle wrote: "SO many phrases and sentences that show what an insight Eliot had into human nature...wonderfully-worded, carefully-constructed. They brought smiles to my face.

Just a few examples:

“To po..."

Great selections. This is one of the things I love about Eliot. Though the book is long, and in some ways develops slowly, it is filled with little gems. There is hardly a sentence in it that is wasted or not worth reading for its own merits.

Oh, I simply must had this one, as it may well be my favortite:

"Nobody had anything to say against Mr. Tyke, except that they could not bear him, and suspected him of cant" (170).

Adelle wrote: Well, since I’m down on Fred this morning,..."

I find Fred a wonderful portrait. There doesn't seem to be a mean bone in his body, and he certainly means to do well, but he's just so undeveloped, almost immature. He wanders seemingly clueless through life, but all the time seeming like a puppy that keeps stumbling over the too big feet that it hasn't grown into yet. I can't help getting frustrated with him, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that if he ever grows up he could turn out to be a worthy person.

Regarding the “if” scenarios:

I suppose that ANY moment could be re-written as an ‘If” moment…if only…

The three, that to me, struck me as important ‘IF’ moments. One:

Dorothea, following the … unpleasantness … between herself and Mr. Casaubon, at the museum, “she had not spirit to turn round and say that she would drive anywhere” (193)…thus, Will Ladislaw’s artist friend sees her in JUST that perfect pose, and thus Ladislaw sees her…and visits her…and is so engaging….and influences her mind with his opinion on Mr. Casaubon’s work….

I throw this out as an important “if” because I think that Eliot has implied that, had not Ladislaw entered Dorothea’s life at this juncture, that she [Dorothea:] would have re-examined her pre-conceived ideas about Casaubon and marriage, and that would have been a chance that she would have been able to then build her marriage on a better/firmer/more realistic foundation.

From page 185, Dorothea crying. “It was too early yet for her fully to recognize or at least admit the change, still more for her to have readjusted that devotedness which was so necessary a part of her mental life that she was almost sure sooner or later to recover it. Permanent rebellion, the disorder of a life without some loving reverent resolve, was not possible to her; but she was now in an interval when the very force of her nature heightened its confusion. In this way, the early months of marriage often are times of critical tumult […:] which afterwards subsides into cheerful peace.


The 2nd “if,” as I perceived it in this Book2, was closely related to the above. It was the scene, my apologies, I can’t seem to find the page number or the actual wording, but I’m referring to the scene in which Dorothea and Casaubon are speaking….and IF ONLY Casaubon had reached out and held Dorothea’s hands… Ah! Found it! “If he would have held her hands between his and listened with the delight of tenderness and understanding to all the little histories which made up her experience, and would have given her the same sort of intimacy in return, so that the past life of each could be included in their mutual knowledge and affection…..” (188).

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: Well, since I’m down on Fred this morning,..."

I find Fred a wonderful portrait. There doesn't seem to be a mean bone in his body, and he certainly means to do well, but he's just s..."

I like what you wrote regarding Fred. Especially drawing my attention to the fact that Fred is not mean. Because, yes, I like him, too. Even though he disappoints me again and again. He's not the man I would have him be [Smile. ah. life. people have such a stubborn tendency to be who they are instead of who I want them to be.:] but yet I have hope for him that he can BECOME a better man.

I couldn't find the appropriate "Resources" link. But some may be interested in a discussion of Mill on the Floss in the Guardian. It was written 150 years ago next week.
http://tinyurl.com/y9dd8gb

This passage from the article struck me as being relevant to our reading of MM.

Behind Eliot's comedy there is, as ever, a more serious intent. As a careful reader of all the new scientific theories, including Darwin's, Eliot wants to show us the Dodsons in their larger historical context. Thirty years ago, she explains, this is how rich Protestant peasants lived in middle England. Fussing over butter-making and swollen ankles, household linen and fashionable bonnets may strike her readers as tiresome and vulgar, but it is important to realise that this way of being represents a particular moment in human development. Now that moment has passed, and, for all their ant-like vitality, the Dodsons and their ilk are as dead as dodos.

Are the people we are encountering intended to seem like Dodos--a self destructive species long gone? (Note pun on Dorothea's name!) Or are they, rather, versions of ourselves --and people we recognize--living in a different, but not significantly so, environment?

Adelle wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: Well, since I’m down on Fred this morning,..."

I find Fred a wonderful portrait. There doesn't seem to be a mean bone in his body, and he certainly means to do we..."

There is something about Fred that I always found to be irresistibly likable even when at times his behavior leaves something to be desired.

One of his greatest redeeming qualities I thought was his devotion and lover for Mary in spite of his roguish nature with his gambling habits, and his having no direction in his life, not wishing to take on any career or any responsibility but instead just hanging around waiting for an old man to day hoping to inherit from him.

This shows that while he might be unreliable and immature, and given to his own self-pleasure, he is at least not shallow. For all of his other flaws and faults, Fred is at least not interested just in some ornament of a woman. Mary is portrayed as being both not particularly attractive as well as not wealthy, but instead she is an intellect and quite sensible and practical.

In addition she calls Fred to account for his behavior, and gives him her frank and honest onion and Fred does value Mary for what is inside of her and for the kind of person she is.

Zeke wrote: Are the people we are encountering intended to seem like Dodos--a self destructive species long gone? (Note pun on Dorothea's name!) Or are they, rather, versions of ourselves --and people we recognize--living in a different, but not significantly so, environment?

All of these people are still around today, just dressed a little differently. Human nature stays the same. Ideas, though, change. Even the revered Darwin is like a dodo today. None of his particular ideas are still alive, except in the popular mind.

Zeke, Thank you for the article on The Mill on the Floss.

I think the surface details change over time...but that the inner being---the emotions, the motivations, the core needs and wants---remain surprisingly unchanged....which is why, I think, that Eliot's novels hold our interest. We can well imagine ourselves living in Middlemarch...and we wonder to ourselves, "Would I have made a different choice? Would I have acted differently?" So Middlemarch seems believable. Or so it seems to me.

Madge, I wanted to get back to you on what I thought was the most important "if" situation in Book 2. It isn't set up as a blatantly obvious "if,” but it seemed to me the most important.

[Smile. Yes. Admittedly I may be reading too much into this. But although the words are the same for all of us, we each read into the book what we read into the book.:]

Lydgate.

“great things were expected from him” Lydgate has potential. But potential is not a guarantee, so I see this as Eliot positioning an “if” scenario.

“He was but seven-and-twenty, an age at which many men are not quite common…” (134).

“It was said of him, that Lydgate could do anything he like, but he had certainly not yet liked to do anything remarkable” (135). It seems to me that this could be telling. That perhaps Lydgate has a tendency to non-commitment, that he tends to flow along with the situation. That he’s not decisive.

Now Lydgate does develop a passion for the medical field after reading those dusty volumes of Diderot’s Cyclopaedia. “They were on the highest shelf, and he stood on a chair to get them down” (135). Lydgate had had to REACH before he found his calling. “From that hour Lydgate felt the growth of an intellectual passion” (136). “’If I had not taken that turn when I was a lad,’ he thought, “I might have got into some stupid draught-horse work or other” (156). Some may see Lydgate’s discovery of those volumes as mere happenstance. In my reading, the fact that Lydgate had to decide he wanted to get to those books, that he had to make the effort of climbing on that chair to get those books---that he had to reach high for them--- is of the utmost importance.

And then Eliot again, as I see it, positions an “if” scenario. “For in the multitude of middle-aged men who go about their vocations in a daily course determined for them much in the same way as the tie of their cravats, there is always a good number who once meant to shape their own deeds and alter the world a little” (136). As a reader, I see this as foreshadowing. Lydgate has such potential, such promise, such resolve. “Lydgate did not mean to be one of those failures.” “He would keep away from the range of […:] intrigues.” “He meant to be a unit who would make a certain amount of difference….” “He was not blind to the dangers….” “He did not mean to imitate.” “He intended to … Lydgate meant to ….. and he was wise enough to see” (139).

And then Eliot nudges us again: “for character too is a process and an unfolding” (141).

Lydgate needs to make a decision as to how he will cast his vote. He needs to make this decision, not just because he has a vote to cast, but because putting in the effort to actually make a decision [reaching high:]---either way---will shape his character. This is one of the important cross-roads of Lydgate’s life. What will he decide and what will be the basis of his decision?

But.

Lydgate doesn't decide.

“without telling himself the reason, he deferred the pre-determination on which side he should give his vote” (168).

“…he continued to waive the question of the chaplaincy” (169).

Lydgate KNOWS he MUST make up his mind.

But he doesn’t.

‘“Confound their petty politics!’ was one of his thoughts for three mornings in the meditative process of shaving, when he had begun to feel that he must really hold a court of conscience on this matter” (169). Yet when Lydgate sets out for the meeting, “he did not distinctly say to himself on which side he would vote” (171).

“Lydgate was late in setting out…” (171).

For me, IF Lydgate had not been late in setting out, everything might have been different. Yes, he could have made his decision at any time prior, but IF he had not set out late, had be been there in time to take part in the discussion, Lydgate would still have had a chance to make his own decision.


Although Lydgate had not said to himself how he would have voted, “he did not intend to be a vassal of Bulstrode’s” (170). If he had not been late in setting out, Lydgate would have been there for the discussion, for the back-and-forth pros-and-cons.

Had Lydgate been there, in a position to say, so-and-so makes a good point, he would have had men there who would have supported him. Lydgate’s vote would not have been the DECIDING vote; it would not have been cast without Lydgate having come to some determination of what he himself thought and believed.

But because Lydgate had been late in setting out, he never forced himself to reach for his own determination, he let circumstances determine.

My belief is that if Lydgate, whether in the days leading up to the vote or at the voting itself, had made his own decision it would have strengthened his character.

Oh, two things more occured to me:

1) In message 13, Zeke wrote, Are the people we are encountering intended to seem like Dodos--a self destructive species long gone? (Note pun on Dorothea's name! Zeke's having brought the Dodo bird aspect to my attention:

From wikipedia: The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird. Might we consider that Dorothea was trying to fly, [intelletually:], but that she remained flightless? Or, has only Celia calls her Dodo, is Celia, perhaps representing society as a whole, suggesting that Dorothea's aspriations are silly ("silly bird"), and that as far as society is concerned Dorothea is not meant to fly?

also from wikipedia: It is commonly used as the archetype of an extinct species because its extinction occurred during recorded human history, and was directly attributable to human activity.

Might Eliot also be suggesting that if Dorothea's asprirations to fly are extinquished, that a good part of the cause of that failure might be due to human activity, specifically that Dorothea lives in the Middlemarch of the early 1800s and society acts towards suppressing/extinguishing Dorothea's dreams.

Dorothea wants her dreams/aspriations to live.
I'm sure the Dodo wanted to live.

Will Dorothea be able to overcome her surroundings?



2) I had a quote from Middlemarch in post 17: ‘“Confound their petty politics!’ was one of his thoughts for three mornings in the meditative process of shaving, when he had begun to feel that he must really hold a court of conscience on this matter” (169). Yet when Lydgate sets out for the meeting, “he did not distinctly say to himself on which side he would vote” (171).

It occurs to me that perhaps as in the Biblical story of Easter, that the "three mornings" is meant to suggest that Lydgate had the potential to rise [to the occasion:] on that third day. That he had the potential to be born a new [more resolute:] man on that third day.

Adelle wrote: "Madge, I wanted to get back to you on what I thought was the most important "if" situation in Book 2. It isn't set up as a blatantly obvious "if,” but it seemed to me the most important.

[Smil..."

Yes, lots of 'if onlys' ther Adelle, well spotted. Some are foreshadowings I think.

Fred Vincy calls Lydgate 'a prig' and I tend to concur. I find him a younger more modern version of Casaboun and without much substance.

I like the idea of his resurrection. The latin name Tertius also suggests that he is the third son In a literary sense it is a reference to the Roman Third World or underworld of Pluto so maybe that is an omen?

The use of the word Dodo as a nickname for Dorothea is strange and I like your idea of the Dodo wanting to live. Could it also mean that one kind of old fashioned Dorothea becomes extinct but another comes into being? The Victorian Web also mentions your idea about Dorothea being flightless, 'caged and flightless' (the last paragraph is apposite):-

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/e...

Oh, on the foreshadowing, I totally agree. I think there's a good deal of foreshadowing in the book. It draws me in, it forces me to pay closer attention as I read...because I'm always wondering what little bits might be revealing or important.

But we part company regarding Lydgate. (Still, I'll have your point of view in mind as I read on. I'll have to keep on eye on him.)

Because even though I like Fred, I have no respect for him, so I don't put much stock in his opinions.

I have to wonder whether Fred calls Lydgate a prig because Fred likes to have a young man's good time, and Lydgate is something of a nose-to-the-grindstone bore.

Also, my sense of Lydgate is that he is socially ill-at-ease, that he doesn't seem to have a confident, relaxed sense of belonging wherever he might be.

Granted, he's new to Middlemarch and therefore an outsider....but my sense is that no matter how long Lydgate lives in Middlemarch, his never really going to feel he "belongs," that he'll never have that Hail-fellow-well-met self-confidence that Sir James or Dorothea's uncle have. He's always going to appear somewhat uptight.

LOL, Madge. It occurs to me here that I don't EXACTLY know what a prig is. So you've expanded my ed-u-ma-ca-tion!

From wikipedia: prig is a word people use to describe someone they believe shows an inordinately zealous approach to matters of form and propriety; especially where the prig has the ability to show superior knowledge to those who don't know the protocol. They see little need to consider feelings or intentions of others, relying instead on established order and rigid rules to resolve all questions.

Mmmm. Well, on the one hand, he's planning to go against form and established propriety because he plans to focus on new medical procedures and avoid being a pill-pusher. That seems, to me, to give him substance; on the other hand, I'll concede he might come across as rather self-righteous about it.

On the one hand, he's put most of his money into buying his practice, and he very sensibly plans to forego the expenses---nice house, etc. that a doctor "should" have---that a prig would want.

On the other hand, mmm, there's that business with the furniture.

"Lydgate's spots of commonness lay in the complexion of his prejudices, which, in spite of noble intentions and sympathy, were half of them such as are found in ordinary men of the world:

that distinction of mind which belonged to his intellection ardour [so a difference here from Casaubon:][mmm. no, perhaps not a difference, as Casaubon has ardour as well:]

that distinction did not penetrate his feeling and judgment about furniture, or women, or the desirability of its being known (without his telling) that he was better born than other country surgeons."

Madge, maybe it's just semantics, he might well be a bit of a prig, but personally I'd be more prone to label him a snob.

Nice job! You made me go back and re-examine Lydgate.

Madge,the link in message 19 was wonderful reading! I would guess that Zeke was onto something.



[The first edition of H.W. Fowler's Modern English Usage has the following definition:

A prig is a believer in red tape; that is, he exalts the method above the work done. A prig, like the Pharisee, says: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are"—except that he often substitutes Self for God. A prig is one who works out his paltry accounts to the last farthing, while his millionaire neighbour lets accounts take care of themselves. A prig expects others to square themselves to his very inadequate measuring rod, and condemns them with confidence if they do not. A prig is wise beyond his years in all things that do not matter. A prig cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things—the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, and blindness to the difference in value between different things.

Tertius IS an unusual name. I'll keep your thoughts in mind.

Prig: For you opera lovers out there, think Beckmesser.

Isn't Lydgate a sort of scientific-secular version of Dorothea?

Like her he is earnest about his quest and, also like her, a bit naive as to how it may be received in provincial Middlemarch.

Everyman wrote: "While Dorothea and Causabon travel to Italy, we get to know some of the Middlemarch people better. We are introduced to the controversy over the chaplaincy at the hospital. We get to know more ab..."

Wow, Madge, I am soooo impressed by your comments, and those of everyone,. I am learning a lot from them. I have been remiss in getting to MIDDLEMARCH as I finished, and lingered over, the last volume of Trollope's Palliser Novels. Your comments and those of other readers have made me eager to get on with MIDDLEMARCH, and I turned the first pages last night.

I must be the only person to find Dorothea quite tiresome--perhaps my age (I'm 78) has made me forget how silly young ladies can be, but I cannot understand how anyone, no matter how young and isolated, can find anything appealing about Casaubon's proposal letter. Perhaps when I get to know Dorothea better I shall look at her with a less jaundiced eye.

I have not read Eliot since college (Oh, so long ago) and did forget about her ability to make observations about human nature that literally make me curl my toes with pleasure. Thank you and all those involved with this venture for what I know is going to be a rewarding experience as I read on. This week-end promises to be rainy so I shall be indoors reading instead of outdoors gardening.

Zeke wrote: Isn't Lydgate a sort of scientific-secular version of Dorothea?

Similarities, I think, and it's an interesting comparison, in their earnestness.

But Lydgate has put in the hard work of acquiring his scientific foundation. Always with a book in hand. Educated. [True, that path hasn't been very open for Dorothea.:]

Obviously I'm thinking as I go along, but it occurs to me that we never actually see Dorothea with a book.


Mmmm. Perhaps similarities, too, in that helping others is not the primary goal or motivation of either of them.

Dorothea has that urge to help others...though more for the feeling of doing good that it gives her rather than the actual good that she does.

Lydgate wants to, what?, advance medicine or science, but not so much for the good it will actually do his patients, as for the sake of the advancement.

Zeke wrote: "Isn't Lydgate a sort of scientific-secular version of Dorothea?"

Interesting juxtaposition--they are both rather intense, but I find Lydgate rather judgemental (Farebrother's gaming, for example) and patronizing/superior (other doctors) whereas Dorothea seems much more sincere.

Did anyone else find his detached "dating" (he's not courting her) of Fred's sister rather callous? I've heard that many fans of Middlemarch feel Dorothea should have ended up with Lydgate but he's drawn to the stereotypical self-absorbed pretty face from day one. (Not spoiling anything here, this is in the introduction.)

Zeke wrote: "Prig: For you opera lovers out there, think Beckmesser."

I'm smiling.

Laurele: Ideas, though, change. Even the revered Darwin is like a dodo today. None of his particular ideas are still alive, except in the popular mind.

With all due respect, and with zero desire to spark a theological discussion, I don't think this is an accurate statement. Without Darwin's ideas there would be no modern biology or medicine.

Making no claim that he explains why, it is pretty much consensus in the scientific community that he and those who followed explain how.

Ironically, it is the "popular mind" (especially in the USA that is most skeptical.

Zeke wrote: "Laurele: Ideas, though, change. Even the revered Darwin is like a dodo today. None of his particular ideas are still alive, except in the popular mind.

With all due respect, and with zero desire ..."

I'm just talking about his particular ideas, Zeke, but there's not time to discuss it here, as you say.

Regarding message 27, Lydgate's relationship with Rosamond.

I don't think that Lydgate thinks that he's dating or courting her. After all, he plans not to marry for several years. "he was not ready to entertain the notion of being in love with a girl whom he happened to admire" (154). I think that Lydgate thinks that he's just enjoying talking with a beautifuly young woman.

And in point of fact, when she played the piano, "he did not rise to pay her any compliments, leaving that to others."


And, this is just my take, I think that Lydgate is "judgmental" in regards to Farebrothers' gaming, because Lydgate is subconsciously looking for reasons to back Bulstrode's choice. He's looking for rationalizations. "Many things would be easier to Lydgate if it should turn out that Mr. Bulstade was generally justifiable" (154).


Otherwise, Mr. Tyke would have to considered entirely unsuited for the position. Farebrother's preaching was ingenious and pithy, and his sermons "were delivered without the book," and he gave good advice, and Lydgate "liked him heartily, and wished for his friendship" (169)

"Nobody had anything to say against Mr. Tyke, except that they could not bear him, and suspected him of cant" (170).

But it's in Lydgate's interest to vote for Mr. Tyke.

Zeke wrote: "Laurele: Ideas, though, change. Even the revered Darwin is like a dodo today. None of his particular ideas are still alive, except in the popular mind.

With all due respect, and with zero desire ..."

"Ironically, it is the "popular mind" (especially in the USA that is most skeptical."

As a non-American, I find the debate about teaching Darwin's evolution theory in the US to be incomprehensible. When I grew up in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country, it was taught in science class. We also had religion class, where the student, depending on his/her religion, studied the biblical or koranic creation story. There has never been any fuss about it. They still teach both in my kids' school today.

I agree Sandybanks. Darwin is taught in all UK schools as part of the national science curriculum and creationism is only taught in some religious schools but alongside the national curriculum. Ditto Europe. I took my grandchildren to see a Darwin exhibition here quite recently which was crowded with schoolchildren and their teachers - he is certainly not dead as a Dodo over here but then he was a Brit:):) I think it is only the US who are out on a limb on this one:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/...

In my Indonesian Catholic school, we were taught about evolution in science class (which followed the national curriculum) and creation according to Genesis in catechism class. No one had any problem with it. The priest who taught us told us that the bible is not a scientific or historical book, but that it's a book of faith. And also that some of the stories in it are meant to be understood symbolically, not literally. I suppose that the Catholic church must have learned something about scientific controversies since that 16th century fuss with Galileo. lol

Most of Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists that I know also have no problem with it being taught in the state schools.

I understand that for many Americans, unlike in other parts of the world, these issues are deeply divisive. However, it's hard to imagine how America is going to maintain its edge in the sciences if such basic scientific theories are not taught to its next generation of students.

Back to our discussion: what is the impact of such revolutionary theories on the English society during the Victorian era? I have earlier learned from Madge about Hardy's neo-Pagan/Humanist philosophy. How about Eliot herself? What is her view on religion and how did it influence her portrayal of the clergy/Anglican church in her novels?

How should we view Casaubon's research to find the 'Key to All Mythologies' within the religious/philosophical context of his time? Would it be considered controversial if the theory treats Christianity as merely one mythology among the many that exist in the world? Would Dorothea be shocked if her husband's research points towards that conclusion?

Fascinating anecdotes, Sandybanks, about Indonesia. As I said, and Laurele agreed, my comment was not meant to introduce discussion of the merits of Darwin's theories to this book discussion. But you raise a great point: there are a number of new ideas and reforms in the air at the time of the novel, and Britain is in the early stages of an industrial revolution. How these affect the residents of Middlemarch is something I will be on the look out for.

For the record, the novel takes place a couple of decades before the publication of Origin of Species.

Zeke, it was also not my intention to provoke a debate about Darwin's theories. I think we all have our personal understanding about such matters and that it should not be introduced into this discussion unless it has any direct bearing on it. I was just reacting to the notion that Darwin's ideas are as dead as a dodo --- which in my personal experience as a non-American is just simply not true. Others might have different experiences/opinions and that's fine also.

I'm interested about the impact of such theories on Middlemarch because although the novel itself is set in the 1830's, Eliot wrote it in the 1860's, when Darwin's theory was barely a decade old. There was a vogue for 'unifiying' theories that will explain everything at one stroke --- thus the 'Key to All Mythologies' --- in the latter part of the 19th century. Eliot, in writing about Casaubon in the 1830's is looking back 30 years towards the beginning of such researches. I wonder if Casaubon's theory is meant to be a mythological/religious counterpart of Darwin's theory of evolution.

If my memory serves, we are not told that much about the contents of Casaubon's theory, except that it is widely considered to be obsolete by his peers. I'm curious about it. Is it a survey of world mythologies ala Joseph Campbell? I wonder if it is based on some real theories that was proposed at that time. Maybe Eman or Madge know something about its historical context?

Adelle wrote: "Regarding message 27, Lydgate's relationship with Rosamond.

I don't think that Lydgate thinks that he's dating or courting her. After all, he plans not to marry for several years. "he was..."

Not sure how/why this got sidetracked into Darwin...regarding Lydgate, I agree he tries to rationalize his voting for Tyke, but I find the words "contempt" and "despise" show up a lot when his thoughts are being discussed. He is also very conscious of what others might be thinking and tends to do what's "expected" rather than what he knows to be right. Voting for Tyke is one example, marrying Rosamonde because "everyone" thinks they're engaged is another, buying all the furniture/having two horses/etc. is a third.

Oh, but I feel I'm getting to know Lydgate better and better as I have to constantly go back over the Old and Young section. Or, lol, if I'm not getting to know him better, at least I won't forget him!

Frances, sorry, and granted I was trying to read quickly, and I probably just missed seeing them, but I could not find many instances of "contempt" for others or "despise" showing up in Lydgate's thoughts. I will try to pay closer attention to Lydgate's thoughts in the upcoming chapters.

And even so, I would want to know WHAT he despised or had contempt for. Doubtless everyone despises certain things or certain behaviors. I certainly do.

Lydgate makes a good point in his conversation with Mr. Farebrother on page 165, "Don't you think men overrate the necessity for humouring everybody's nonsense, till they get despised by the very fools they humour?....The shortest way is make your values felt, so that people must put up with whether you flatter them or not."

This seems to me that Lydgate wants to honor hard work and results and that he depises flattery and humouring others.

[Mmmm. OK. this might turn out to be foreshadowing. IF Lydgate believes that humouring others [doing what is "expected" ... is to be despised:]

and should it turn out that Lydgate starts humouring others instead of honoring his own values...then tragedy is coming.]

[On page 141, "Lydgate's conceit was of the arrogant sort, never simpering, never impertinent, but massive in its claims and benevolently contemptuous. He would do a great deal for noodles...

All his faults were...those of a man whose clothes hung will upon him..." I think it's a class contempt. As in, I'm a gentleman and you're not and that's just the way it is. I mean, A is A. People then WERE conscious of class...there wasn't as much egalitarianism in the air.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Si...
It seems to have been a group looking to regenerate society differently...looking for equality....influenced Karl Marx....as someone believing in the class system....Lydgate would have been against this.]

[Mmmm. But there may be support for your point here. Lydgate "THOUGHT of joining....in order to turn them against some of their own doctrines" (141). Yes, this instance definately lends your point support. As he didn't ACT on that thought, it would SEEM that he may not have wanted to be agruing in opposition.:]

... Rosamond is eyeing him BECAUSE of his class; "the piquant fact about Lydgate was his good birth" (157).]


I do have mixed feelings on Lydgate. I think that his choice of schools and his decision to not practice in London (because he wants to be able to concentrate on his research) shows that Lydgate---in his career decisions, at least---is quite capable not doing what is expected of him.

But he doesn't seem to have that same stength vis-a-vis social situations.

To me, it seemed that Lydgate voted for Tyke either because

(1) it was in his self-interest [because that's what Bulstrade wanted and Bulstrade was in a position to be beneficial to Lydgate's career:], or

(2) to prove to himself that he didn't care what others thought about him --- "Other people would say [that in voting for Tyke he should be voting on the side obviously convenient for himself:] and would allege that he was currying favour with Bulstrose for the sake of making himself important and getting on in the world. What then? He for his own part knew that if his personal prospects simply had been concerned, he would not have cared a rotten nut for the banker's friendship or enmity" (171).



"The man was still in the making...and there were both virtues and faults capable of shrinking or expanding" (141).

You may be right about Lydgate caving to what is "expected" in upcoming chapters. I don't know.

But that's why it seemed to me that the his determination on the vote was so important. If he had wrestled with the issue and MADE A CHOICE then he might have found the backbone to stand up for his choice.

If, as you say, Lydgate ... flows along in the future with what others expect of him ... I think it can be traced back to the Tyke vote.

Adelle wrote: "Oh, but I feel I'm getting to know Lydgate better and better as I have to constantly go back over the Old and Young section. Or, lol, if I'm not getting to know him better, at least I won't forget..."

I guess perhaps I have moved forward a bit, sorry, but you are already seeing the signs in your examples, it's more of the same (he buys two horses instead of one, for example, because a doctor is expected to have two)! I do think he votes for Tyke because it's in his interest, and also because it's expected of him; the fact that he rationalizes it by critizing Farebrother does not endear him to me.

In terms of Rosamonde (your earlier comment), I agree he didn't think he was courting her but as soon as he hears everyone expects them to marry he basically falls in.

By the way, I am so impressed with everyone noting pages for their examples. Am I the only one reading without a pen?

Sandybanks asked about Eliot's religious views and this is what the Introduction to my novel says (they seem much the same as Hardy's):-

'As a child Mary Ann was ardently religious. In 1840 her faith remained strong and she published a poem in the Christian Observer, then in 1841, she and her father moved to Coventry, enabling Isaac to take over Griff House, following his marriage. She entered a circle of sceptics and freethinkers, and early in 1842 her refusal to attend church resulted in temporary estrangement from her father. She remained a sceptic and agnostic throughout the rest of her life, yet was interested in controversial works of contemporary theology.'

There is more about her views in this piece by the British Humanist Assocation:-

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism/h...

Sandybanks: I don't think we learn much more about Casaubon's theories. There is more hot air than substance which is why Chettam describes hinm as a 'dried bookworm' and Mrs Cadwaller 'a great bladder for dried peas to rattle in'!!

POSSIBLE SPOILER: Here is an amusing summary of the character of Casaubon ironically called 'A great intellect-destroyed by a silly woman'!!:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/...

Sandybanks wrote: How should we view Casaubon's research to find the 'Key to All Mythologies' within the religious/philosophical context of his time? Would it be considered controversial if the theory treats Christianity as merely one mythology among the many that exist in the world? Would Dorothea be shocked if her husband's research points towards that conclusion?

Casaubon's thesis (and I agree with him, by the way) was that the world mythologies are a corruption of the truth of the Scriptures. Trying to sift through all the mythologies to prove that would be a daunting and unnecessary task. When Ladislaw brings up to Dorothea her husband's lack of German knowledge, he is referring to the new German higher criticism and religious liberalism, which was trying to refute and change the teachings of the church. So yes, Casaubon's work would be controversial, but not to people in Dorothea's circle.

Laurele wrote: "Even the revered Darwin is like a dodo today. None of his particular ideas are still alive, except in the popular mind.
"

A bit off topic, perhaps, but this suggests that at some point we might want to read Darwin to see what he actually DID say instead of what people say he said.

Darwin, of course, wrote the Origin of Species between the time Middlemarch is set in and the time Eliot wrote it. So she had knowledge of the work, but her characters didn't. But what seems clear in MM (sorry if this duplicates a later post; I haven't read to the end of the thread yet) is that Eliot is already foreshadowing the coming debates between religion and science. We have Lydgate representing pure science. He has an investigative mind, he wants to erform autopsies on the dead, which in a world which still believed that one's body would rise physically out of the grave was a sacrilege, and he believed in following methods which were being developed and proved valid instead of sticking with what had always been done.

Then we have Tyke, who I see as representing pure religion.

Then we have the fascinating Farebrother, who seems to me to presage the melding of science and religion which was still Darwin's belief. I find Farebrother perhaps the most interesting character in the work because he seems the most complex, the least predictable, a very good man and clergyman but also a man of science, a man who has "made an exhaustive study of the entomology of this district." He merges C.P. Snow's two worlds of science and the humanities.

In this, I suspect, though I have no firm evidence, Eliot is reflecting her own views of science and religion more than in any other character in MM (or, perhaps, in any of her books). Eliot's belief system seems certainly closer to Farebrother's than to Tyke's or Bulstrode's, and she had a strong and ongoing interest in science (as seen in the many scientific allusions and references in MM), so her combination of the two into one of the most interesting and sympathetic (to me) characters in any of her books seems to me to suggest that she may see more of herself in Farebrother than perhaps in any other character she created except Maggie in Mill on the Floss.

Sandybanks wrote: How should we view Casaubon's research to find the 'Key to All Mythologies' within the religious/philosophical context of hi Would it be considered controversial if the the..."

Laurel did a nice job replying to this, but I also think it's a fascinating topic in its own right, and one that I haven't seen answered yet. There are lots of works on the origins and uses of mythology, but none I have seen that try to unify all the mythologies of all different cultures and find a unifying theme to all of them.

There are certainly many general themes in mythologies. Gods, of course. Talking animals. Magic. But whether they can all be tied together as Casaubon wanted to do, I don't know.

But isn't it an interesting idea for Eliot to have come up with for him? I wonder whether there was a source she drew that idea from, or whether it was entirely her concept.

Adelle wrote: "Granted, [Lydgate is:] new to Middlemarch and therefore an outsider....but my sense is that no matter how long Lydgate lives in Middlemarch, his never really going to feel he "belongs," that he'll never have that Hail-fellow-well-met self-confidence that Sir James or Dorothea's uncle have. He's always going to appear somewhat uptight.... "

I like your analysis of him. While I admit that I don't like him all that much personally -- he would not be somebody I would look forward to as a dinner party guest -- I do have a lot of respect for him, and with all due respect for diversity of views, I don't find him without much substance.

Helyn wrote: "I have not read Eliot since college (Oh, so long ago) and did forget about her ability to make observations about human nature that literally make me curl my toes with pleasure. "

Love that comment. It is so true!

Zeke wrote: "With all due respect, and with zero desire to spark a theological discussion, I don't think this is an accurate statement. Without Darwin's ideas there would be no modern biology or medicine. "

Hmmm. I can't really agree with that. Bacon really set modern science on the path away from reliance on authority (mostly Aristotle) and onto the path of observation and the scientific method. After Bacon, science would never be the same.

As we see in Lydgage and Farebrother, both a generation or so before Darwin, the spirit of inquiry and detailed biological study were alive and well. And Darwin was just one of several people working on the same line of inquiry, Alfred Russel Wallace being one of the most prominent, though not the only one. As is often, not always but often, the case in science, many people are working on the same advance at the same time, and it's more a matter of luck than anything else that one of them gets the public recognition and credit and the others have toiled in obscurity.

But we diverge somewhat from Middlemarch, I fear, since Darwin hadn't written at the time the novel is set.

Adelle wrote: "To me, it seemed that Lydgate voted for Tyke either because
(1) it was in his self-interest [because that's what Bulstrade wanted and Bulstrade was in a position to be beneficial to Lydgate's career:], or
(2) to prove to himself that he didn't care what others thought about him ..."

I think he really didn't care, and would have been glad not to have had to make the final vote, but it came down to what was the more desirable thing to do and what was the expedient thing to do, and he chose expediency. Whatever he would gain from rebelling against Bulstrode wasn't worth the consequence of raising a rift between them.

Isn't it interesting that Eliot forced him into this position? I wonder what she wanted us to take away from his decision.

Frances wrote: "In terms of Rosamonde (your earlier comment), I agree he didn't think he was courting her but as soon as he hears everyone expects them to marry he basically falls in. "

While Casaubon and Lydgate at first seem totally unalike, there seem on closer look to be several points of close similarity. Both are committed to a somewhat quixotic goal. They are probably the two most scholarly people we see in Middlemarch. And they both are completely clueless about what sort of wife would be best for them and how to make a successful marriage.

"Sandybanks wrote: How should we view Casaubon's research to find the 'Key to All Mythologies' within the religious/philosophical context of hi Would it be considered controversial if the the..."


Frazier's The Golden Bough would perhaps have been the 'unifying' work that Victorians after 1854 were familiar with and it had 'a tremendous effect on the literature of the period':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gold...

I agree with Everyman that there were many precursors to Darwin but none had the same lasting influence on religious and scientific beliefs. Darwin is mentioned by author after author in the Victorian period, whereas you find little mention of Bacon or Wallace et al in the same context although Eliot was apparently familiar with Herbert Spencer's evolutionary thought in the 1850s. Henry James complained that 'Middlemarch is too often an echo of Messrs Darwin and Huxley' and there are a couple of comments about Eliot and Darwin here:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

I love the comment by Mr Brooke that he 'went into science a great deal myself at one time, but I saw it would not do. It leads to everything' ! Eliot is said to have been confused at first by evolutionary theory and she changed her mind about it and other scientific ideas of the time several times - perhaps Mr Brooke is expressing her own thoughts!