The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Book III: The Downfall

1. What Had Happened at Home
2. Mrs. Tulliver's Teraphim, or Household Gods
3. The Family Council
4. A Vanishing Gleam
5. Tom Applies His Knife to the Oyster
6. Tending to Refute the Popular Prejudice against the Present of a
Pocket-Knife
7. How a Hen Takes to Stratagem
8. Daylight on the Wreck
9. An Item Added to the Family Register

The thing that stood out the most to me in this section was how little the family did to help the Tulliver's. Obviously, they had to worry that their own ship didn't sink when they were trying to save them, but they could have done a bit more.

Of course, Mr. Deane takes Tom on, but Tom had to be the one to take the initiative to go and see him. Which is good on one hand - he stepped up to the plate - but you would think that Mr. Deans or Mr. Glegg might have offered him something immediately.

And for the record, Mrs. Tulliver is a twit. lol!

It sounds to me like catatonic depression Bunwat or something very near to it. I had a spell of this when I was in my early thirties and was treated for it by ECT which, of course, was not available in Victorian times, nor were the mood changing dugs used today.

http://www.societymd.org/catatonic-de...

I was rather struck by that as well. When they all came to the house to have their counsel, it put me in mind of a bunch of vultures just sitting an waiting to swoop in. Picking over the remains of the Tulliver's. When Mrs. Tulliver kept expressing her concerns about her tea set, while one the one hand I think this demonstrates how out of touch and shallow minded she is. Being that her concern is primarily focused upon her things she does not seem to be fully acknowledging the state her family is in, and thinks that if only she can preserve her belongings everything will be fine. But on the other hand a part of me kept thinking, between the three of them they could not just by the tea set back and give it to her?

The other thing I was struck by was the irony in how indignant they were about Mrs. Moss, and they sure felt strongly that his completely impoverished woman certainly ought to pay the money that Mr. Tulliver lent to her, while none of them were willing to shell out any of their own money when they could do so without even noticing it is gone.

One thing which I wondered about, when Tom makes his proposal to his aunts and uncles that they should pull their money together to pay off the debt. Why does he exclude the Deane's? He specially address only Glegg and Pullet. That just seemed a bit odd to me.

BunWat wrote:Mr Deane isn't there, only Mrs Deane. Mr Deane is away on business and doesn't come to the meeting at the house. Maybe that has something to do with it? He doesn't feel he should try to get Mrs Deane to agree to anything if Mr Deane isn't there?

Oh that would make sense. I forgot about the fact that only Mrs. Deane was present, and it would make sense at the period of time that Tom would not address a woman on a matter of business, as well she herself would like not have had the authority to make such a decision on her own anyway.

These are people whose wealth, such as it is, is hard earned, not inherited and I think that explains their parsimony. There is little surplus income around and bad times could soon come to them too. There may also be a residue of the old Puritan belief that debt is an evil, therefore the Tullivers are evil.

Silver wrote: "I was rather struck by that as well. When they all came to the house to have their counsel, it put me in mind of a bunch of vultures just sitting an waiting to swoop in. Picking over the remains of..."

Great points, Silver. And I thought that too: just buy her linens and tea set, and hand it back to her. :-) That's what I would do.

But as Madge said, I think that they had a different mindset back then. They did work hard for the money, and Tulliver did mismanage his business affairs.

Today, even if we were annoyed with the parents, we might help them out because of the children. But Mrs. Tulliver's side wants the children to step up as well and learn the lesson of mismanaging financial affairs.

And while I wouldn't use the word "evil" as they did back then, people today could use a dose of common sense regarding debt. ;)

Lynnm wrote: "Silver wrote: "I was rather struck by that as well. When they all came to the house to have their counsel, it put me in mind of a bunch of vultures just sitting an waiting to swoop in. Picking over..."

Yes the whole time, I was reading I kept thinking. Does it matter if you like or want the teapot? Just buy it and give it back to her.

On the question of money, while I was reading this I was thinking about how much attitudes have changed about "charity" from than to now and the way in which families it seems today are much more warm about helping each other out than was formerly the tendency. I have noticed in reading other books from this time period when a person was in finical distress a wealthier relative would give them a loan for money, but the concept of just giving money as a gift seemed unknown. It seems today people are more willing to just give money to family in need.

I suppose that is because we are more affluent and our lives are more secure? I don't know about the US but here we are protected from extreme poverty by various state 'safety nets'. Going from riches to rags is very rare now, whereas it was commonplace in Victorian times: "Many cases of death caused by starvation and destitution were reported. One example of such a report will suffice. In 1850 an inquest was held on a 38 year old man whose body was reported as being little more than a skeleton, his wife was described as being ‘the very personification of want’ and her child as a ‘skeleton infant’" "‘In 1848 Lord Ashley referred to more than thirty thousand 'naked, filthy, roaming lawless and deserted children, in and around the metropolis'"

And again, there was the belief that your place in society, your success, was God-given and if you 'fell from grace' it was because of something bad you had done. We see that Mr Tulliver has been imprudent in going to law so often and he now has to pay the price. And of course the sins of the father are visited upon the children...

In public life, the Victorians were very philanthropic indeed. Many of the charities which are around today were started by Victorian business people and enthusiastically supported by the middle-classes. But the extent of the poverty and deprivation was too much for philanthropy to cope and later in the century it was decided that local government and government must share the burden via taxation.

MadgeUK wrote: "I suppose that is because we are more affluent and our lives are more secure? I don't know about the US but here we are protected from extreme poverty by various state 'safety nets'. Going from ri..."

It does seem that today generally speaking money is more easy to come by so to speak than it was in former times. There are more job opportunities than there presently used to be. And more of an opportunity for social mobility. It also helps that there are more equal opportunity for women in the workplace now than former times so there are more two income homes, opposed to just having one person have to make all the money and support the family. And as you mentioned there are more governmental programs to help the impoverished.

There was also a greater since of personal responsibility at that time than now. As you mentioned above, there was more of a since of you made your bed so now you have to lie in it. Though Mrs. Tulliver's family feels badly that one of thier sisters is brought so low, they do see it as being the fault of Mr. Tulliver and his own bad decision making, and it was her misfortune that she choose to marry beneath her and made a poor choice of a husband, so they might feel badly about how such reflects upon them as a family. And they are at least willing to prevent them from becoming absolute beggars in the street, but they do not feel it is truly thier responsibility to save them from the trouble they brought on themselves. After all the four sisters had all started out with the same opportunities and all of them but Mrs. Tulliver has done quite well for themselves. In this day an age there is a stronger feeling of entitlement and that they should be given something for nothing or that someone else should step in and save them from thier own poor decisions, that thier problems should become someone else's responsibility. People do feel more so now that they are owed something.

I don't think it is that people feel that they are 'owed something'. It is more the knowledge that 'we are all in this together', that to survive as a species, as nations, we must cooperate. It is the Golden Rule in practice - do as you would be done by. It is interesting that in recent times scientists have found that we are hard wired for altruism and so are the higher primates. Doing good for others ultimately means doing good for ourselves. The Victorian reformers were beginning to learn this but it seems that these Enlightenment notions had not penetrated to the Tulliver family.

MadgeUK wrote: "I don't think it is that people feel that they are 'owed something'. It is more the knowledge that 'we are all in this together', that to survive as a species, as nations, we must cooperate. It i..."

Maybe it is different in the UK but in the US there really is a very strong sense of people feeling like they are "owed" something, of feeling they are born entitled based purely on the fact of thier existence and not the merits of thier deeds. Particularly in the younger generation people feel as if the world should just be handed to them on a silver platter. They feel if they want something it ought to be given to them on the pure basis of thier wanting it.

BunWat wrote: I heard an interesting take on Mr Tulliver awhile back. The person was saying that Mr Tulliver is..."

I think that is an interesting point. I always thought it seemed a bit curious that it seems that Mr. Tulliver fixated his animosity upon Wakem who was just the lawyer doing what other people hired him to do and that Tulliver does not seem to place any focus upon the ones whom are actually hiring Wakhem. While Wakhem is just doing his job, Tulliver sees Wakehm as actively, and vindictively working against him. But after the lawsuit if over he never seems to give a second thought to the Dix's and Pivaart's.

Good points Bunwat. It was a fast changing world, something that Thomas Hardy, in particular, was always pointing out. The coming of the railways, mechanisation etc. made a very big impact on country people and just as the railways disrupted the land, they disrupted people's relationships too.

Silver: The same things are said about young people here too but it is (perhaps) true of only a desperate few. Young people do not ask to be born into this world and the very least that the adult population can do is to see that they have fairly easy access to a roof over their heads, a reasonable job and a 'safety net' when they are unemployed or sick. It seems to me that adults have been failing in these responsibilities of late and whereas the 'baby boomers' have had la dolce vita, they have not left the wherewithal for a good life behind for their descendants. We can see that Mr Tulliver too has squandered the resources he had and has not provided for his children, who face a very uncertain future, just as children today do. It is that which makes him 'wicked' in his relatives' eyes and there is quite a lot of the same sort of wickedness about in our own time.

MadgeUK wrote: "In public life, the Victorians were very philanthropic indeed. Many of the charities which are around today were started by Victorian business people and enthusiastically supported by the middle-classes. But the extent of the poverty and deprivation was too much for philanthropy to cope and later in the century it was decided that local government and government must share the burden via taxation. "

Thanks for the background information, Madge.

The same would be true in the U.S. as well. There was a lot of poverty in the 1800s, particularly in the big cities like New York. Immigrants lived in unspeakable housing, infant mortality was high, and food was scarce.

Particularly after Jacob Riis' pictures and accounts of the living conditions in the Lower East Side came out, there was a big philanthropic push from the very wealthy in upper part of Manhanttan.

But like England, there was too much poverty, and eventually government laws were enacted. While we don't have as many safety nets here vs. European countries, there still are many ways for the poor to be helped here as well.

MadgeUK wrote: "It seems to me that adults have been failing in these responsibilities of late and whereas the 'baby boomers' have had la dolce vita, they have not left the wherewithal for a good life behind for their descendants."

I totally agree. While teens and young adults can have a sense of entitlement, who made them that way?

I have little respect for my own generation, the Baby Boomers. It is a entitled and selfish generation that refuses to sacrifice. (How's that for bluntness early in the morning?! lol.) When we look at the problems today - the financial crisis, the environment - not only is the Baby Boomer generation responsible for it, we've left the younger generation to clean up the mess. And on top of it, haven't given them the tools to do so.

Phew...that's my rant for the day. ;)

Now back to the Mill on the Floss. You are right; the same can be said here. The Tullivers aren't responsible, didn't do their duty, and now Tom and Maggie have to live with the consequences.

Of course, there is a point that Tom and Maggie have to make their own way in the world and move beyond their present circumstances. (Which can be said for today as well.)

Yes indeed. Have you read What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us? which spells out the failings of that generation. In Germany there have been protests by the young against the elderly, their parents' generation, who are living in luxury homes, having two holidays a year etc whilst the present generation do not have the same opportunities and are now being asked to pay their debts. No wonder the young are disaffected!

The problem for Tom and Maggie is that moving away from their country life into another one is not as easy as it can be today where, for instance, they might emigrate to Australia or New Zealand (or the US). People generally lived and died in the villages they were born in unless something really drastic happened, like a pogrom or a famine.

I haven't read What did the Baby Boomers ever do for us? Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out on Barnes & Noble.

You say that the Tullivers were not responsible....but surely you mean Mr Tulliver? ....Mrs Tulliver said all along ...don't go to law....yet she also must pay the price...as was the lot of women...and still is to a large extent...but in those days especially they were swept along with whatever fortune or misfortune the husband created.

MadgeUK wrote: "The problem for Tom and Maggie is that moving away from their country life into another one is not as easy as it can be today where, for instance, they might emigrate to Australia or New Zealand (or the US). People generally lived and died in the villages they were born in unless something really drastic happened, like a pogrom or a famine..."

While most people may have lived and died in the village in which they were born, lots of people (including rural people) did emigrate at that time, not just because of pogrom or famine but for better opportunities and a better life. That includes a quite a lot of my ancestors, at least a couple of whom were single women who migrated on their own in the 1840s and 1850s.

I think that the problem for Tom and Maggie in moving away is not that it would not generally be an option, but that it is not an option for them, given their personalities and the family dynamics (not to mention the requirements of the plot!).

True Kim. You had brave ancestors!

I come from tough stock! :D

Indeed:). The 1840s were, of course, the years of the Irish famine and a great many of those poor people were forced to cross the Atlantic. Are you of Irish stock?

I have some Irish background (but mostly from before the 1840s - a convict in at least one case). But also quite a lot of English and some Scots, Danish and German. The single women migrants were English and Danish respectively.

Lovely story Bunwat. My ancestors have only travelled across counties:)

MadgeUK wrote: "I don't think it is that people feel that they are 'owed something'. It is more the knowledge that 'we are all in this together', that to survive as a species, as nations, we must cooperate. It i..."

Madge - The feeling that those in need feel they are owed something is very American in nature. Not saying that I agree with it, because I don't, but a lot of people here do.

Thanks Deborah. I think it is a common feeling these days but I also think it is erroneous and not thought through. Politicians are happy for us to have scapegoats - it is the old dog eat dog philosophy:(.

Bunwat - beautiful post, thankyou!

Reading all the comments about emigrants/immigrants reminds me of a wonderful essay by Richard Rodriquez called "Go North, Young Man."

He primarily considered immigrants in California who came from Central/South America, but at the end he had a great line about how immigrants are globalization's prophets, not bound by nationalism.

And he also talked about how immigrants were brave. It takes a lot of courage to leave home and family and strike out for a country where you don't know the language or culture.

@BunWat - I feel bad for Mrs. Tulliver as well. But I think that she becomes a mostly unsympathic character because as others have said, she puts material goods before family and the future.

I think that it is difficult to understand someone who obsesses over linens when they might not have a roof over their heads in the near future. And her children's future has just been destroyed.

I don't think that Elliot is being sexist. Instead, I think that she is commenting on how frivolous some women can be at times. It takes a woman to really know and understand women as a whole.

BunWat wrote: "I do think she is unintentionally mirroring her society's tendency to undervalue women and the work of women."

I think that's right. I don't see Mrs Tulliver's attachment to the items as frivolous. Rather, her china and linen are an extension of herself and symbolic of her role in the household. Her loss of those items is as significant to her as the loss of the books is to Maggie and the loss of reputation is to Mr Tulliver and Tom.

For me the most important element of the scene about the household goods is not Mrs Tulliver's reaction to their loss, but her sisters' cruelty in not being prepared to save them for her. Such a contrast to the generosity of Bob, who was prepared to give up his entire fortune to help a friend.

It takes a lot of courage to leave home and family and strike out for a country where you don't know the language or culture.

It certainly does. I know it is something I could never do. I've had a couple of chances and fluffed them. I like travelling but I like my home better:).

Elliot was certainly capable of being sexist to some of her compatriots - in her book Silly Novels by Lady Novelists for instance and she may have had a dislike of overly-domesticated women. Feminists of this period, following on from Mary Wollstonecraft, were anxious to point out the dangers of women being 'bred' for domesticity which, they thought, made them too dependent upon men. Her portrait of Dorothea Brooke in Middlemarch, for instance, is the very opposite of Mrs Tulliver and the heroine Dorothea is much more the type of woman Eliot admired and sought to be. Dorothea's opposite is Rosamond who is more of a ladylike Mrs Tulliver and who ruined her doctor husband through her love of fine things.

I'm not saying that Elliot isn't capable of being sexist. I'm saying that she's not being sexist here.

I think both sexes in the Mill on the Floss are treated harshly by Elliot. She may be more harsh with the women, but that's because she wants women to be better people. Criticism means that you really care about someone and want them to strive to be the best that they can be.

And I don't think of her china and linen as symbolic of her role in the household. I agree that they are an extension of herself, but merely because she wants to be able to put herself on the same level of her more wealthy sisters. And here, she truly is just as selfish as her sisters are. Material goods and how society perceives the family.

That is, however, the human condition. People today of both sexes define themselves by the material goods that they own. But just because everyone does it doesn't mean that it is "right."

Maggie on the other hand is seeking human connection through the love and acceptance of her brother, and also trying to expand herself more intellectually. Books - while material - represent wisdom and knowledge, not mere paper (or china or linens). The inner vs. the outer of Mrs. Tulliver and her sisters.

Lynnm wrote: "@BunWat - I feel bad for Mrs. Tulliver as well. But I think that she becomes a mostly unsympathic character because as others have said, she puts material goods before family and the future.

..."

I think Mr.s Tulliver's obsession re linens and material things are because that's the one area of her life where she felt she had control. People are strange. When things get out of control, they will try to control the simple things.

Very true Deborah. It was her little world.

This is where I do feel that Eliot is making comment about the character and irrationality of the women of her time. As Mary Wollstonecraft had done before her:-

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is more often than not regarded as a purely political treatise. However, like Plato’s Republic and Rousseau’s Emile, it can be seen as both a political and an educational treatise.

It is above all a celebration of the rationality of women. It constitutes an attack on the view of female education put forward by Rousseau and countless others who regarded women as weak and artificial and not capable of reasoning effectively. Mary Wollstonecraft rejected the education in dependency that Rousseau advocated for them in Emile. A woman must be intelligent in her own right, she argued. She cannot assume that her husband will be intelligent! Mary Wollstonecraft maintained that this did not contradict the role of the woman as a mother or a carer or of the role of the woman in the home. She maintained that ‘meek wives are, in general, foolish mothers’.

Reason was her starting point. For Mary Wollstonecraft, rationality or reason formed the basis of our human rights as it was our ability to grasp truth and therefore acquire knowledge of right and wrong that separated us, as human beings, from the animal world. Through the exercise of reason we became moral and political agents. This world-view was acknowledged by all progressive thinkers of the time. However, it was essentially a man’s world and the work of Rousseau was typical of this. What Mary Wollstonecraft did was extend the basic ideas of Enlightenment philosophy to women and Rousseau’s educational ideas of how to educate boys to girls.'

I think that Wollstonecraft's arguments, as the first prominent feminist, had a lot of influence on the women who followed her and her ideas still resound today. We can see her influence on many writers such as Eliot, the Bronte's and Gaskell. All great writers are 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. Both Virginia Woolf and Emma Goldman commended her work and were influenced by her. Without these early feminist thinkers women in America might not have burned their bras! The Muslim writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said she was "inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft, the pioneering feminist thinker who told women they had the same ability to reason as men did and deserved the same rights".

I know about the bra burning myths Bunwat - I was just using the expression as a metaphor for American feminism:).

We don't need books to be in print for ideas to circulate. How many feminists read the books of the 70s? Yes, we know Eliot read Wollstonecraft but what about other writers at the time? What did she say about MW's ideas to her contemporaries, to her daughter Mary Shelley? Critics have speculated that Charlotte Bronte read MW too. Despite her personal reputation, Wollstonecraft was part of the great reform movement of the 18C and knew all the 'movers and shakers' in England France and Sweden. She may not have had as great an impact on the American feminist movement but she is frequently paid homage over here. She is, as you may have gathered, one of my heroines:).

Interesting conversation between BunWat and Madge. And thanks for the information on the bra burning - I feel like a failed feminist - did not know that.

As for whether or not Elliot is reflecting some of Wollstonecraft's ideas or not. I can't remember who the philosopher was that said that ideas and societal beliefs are "written" on us, and that we can't get away from them. Often times, we believe in them without really thinking about them, because they are so much a part of us. For example, Americans have certain beliefs about freedom, liberty, and equality because of the documents written by our founding fathers. Whether an American has read the documents or not, doesn't matter - they still have those beliefs because those ideas are so embedded into American society and daily life. In other words, they are "written" on every American.

I think that same argument could be used in this case. A woman's role in society was constantly evolving and progressing, and those changes often came about because of books and culture. Therefore, woman at each stage have to thank all the women who came before them who allowed them to be where they are at that point in time. Today, we have all the great female writers to thank, from Aphra Behn and Rachel Specht all the way up to Austen and then Wollstonecraft to Woolf to the feminist writers in the 50's, 60's and 70s. And all the writers in between. Those books and ideas are written on us, whether we've read them or not.

You put it much more succinctly than I did Lynnm. Thanks.

Back to the book and another character:).

Bob Jakin's visit and kind offer in Chapter 6 is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Tulliver's relatives. An uneducated working lad, he has made his own way in the world by taking advantage of the opportunities offered to him. He acts as a contrast to not only Tom but to the Dodson's approach to finances. He shows himself to be kind and generous to Tom & Maggie in repayment of their past kindnesses by offering to give Tom his savings towards setting himself up as a packman. Because of the class difference, there it little chance of a romantic involvement with Maggie but as a potential lover he is more chivalrous and affectionate than either Philip or Stephen. He is, I suppose, what people used to call 'the salt of the earth'

MadgeUK wrote: "Back to the book and another character:).

Bob Jakin's visit and kind offer in Chapter 6 is in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Tulliver's relatives. An uneducated working lad, he has made hi..."

In this scene Bob had come to grow on me a bit. When he was first introduced as Tom's friend I did not overly care for him, but he proved himself to be a true and loyal friend and was quite endearing.

Funny you should mention this now, as I myself had just been reflecting back upon this scene and it made me think of the way in which it seems that those who can least afford it, prove themselves to be the more generous than those who could do so without it actually putting them in any inconvenience. Perhaps in part that is because those like Bob Jakin and Mr. Tulliver, (in regard to his sister) can more easily relate to the hardships in which others are facing. While the Gleggs and Pullets are more out of touch and in this way lacking in compassion and sympathy. Though Mr. Deane had said he himself worked his way up to the top. He does in the end give Tom the same opportunities he once had.

I myself was secretly hoping for a courtship between Bob and Maggie, while knowing it was unlikely to happen.

...because those like Bob Jakin and Mr. Tulliver, (in regard to his sister) can more easily relate to the hardships in which others are facing.

Good point Silver. Also there is a sense of optimism in Bob, a feeling that, by his hard labour, he could earn more money if he gave his savings to Tom. This is in contrast to the pessimism exhibited by the Tullivers.

I was like Silver - I didn't like Bob at first as a child, but then when he comes back as an adult, I liked him much more.

He's a bit lovable, like a Sam Weller, although obviously not exactly the same.