@jerseysouthmomchess, re your list above, there was never a hint that Dorothea and Lydgate had any attraction for one another – I had just been doing a “what if” speculation in my earlier post. Later in the novel, they develop a great deal of mutual respect, but initially Lydgate views her as a “novelty” (his words) more than wifely material:
Honestly, Tertius. No wonder he ended up with the not-so-earnest Rosamond. Lydgate’s attitude above is quite a contrast to the pleasure Will Ladislaw finds in conversing with Dorothea right from the get-go.
Pier glass metaphor as condensed by Novelguide: “The pierglass analogy is Eliot’s most famous metaphor for her favorite theme of egoism. It illustrates, as she points out, that we interpret all things with a bias as long as we only use the light of our selfishness to see by.”
Another thought on @jerseysouthmomchess’s list in #158: Nicholas Bulstrode also belongs in the “characters who faced ruined reputations” category.
Bulstrode is an example of something I loved about George Eliot’s characters – they’re multi-faceted and never black-and-white. Bulstrode believes he’s a good man, a spiritual man–at least that’s what he wants to be–but he is too weak to make the right choices. He does terrible things…but not everything he does is terrible. From the BBC article in the post above:
I’ve always thought that Lydgate kind of deserved Rosamund.
I agree that Bulstrode is an interesting character. I liked his solution to what to do about Stone Court.
Interesting that Michael Gorra, who @Mary13 quoted in post #131 likes Mrs. Cadwallader so much. She’s one of the characters that I’d have to remind myself who she was every time she appeared on the scene.
“What could she do? What ought she to do?” wondered Dorothea near the beginning of the novel. She thought marrying Mr. Casaubon was the answer: are there any ways in which she was right? What might she, or we, now see as an answer? Was there a better one then? Is there a better one now? How does Mr. Casaubon’s death affect the range of her choices ? Is it wrong — for her or for us — to be glad, or at least relieved, that he is dead?
How does the codicil to Mr. Casaubon’s will change the relationship between Dorothea and Will Ladislaw? Do you look at these two differently because of Mr. Casaubon’s suspicions? Do you think they should be romantically involved — that the book has set them up to be in any way solutions for each other’s problems, for instance? Or would falling in love with Will just be a different kind of mistake for Dorothea? It’s interesting to compare the two partings between them in Book VI.
A major development in Book VI is Fred’s engagement to work for Caleb Garth. Do you think that this decision reflects larger patterns of value in the novel? Is working the land shown as better than burrowing in old books, for instance? better than science or medicine? Fred’s father is upset that Fred is throwing away his gentleman’s education: is there a commentary in here on social mobility or class consciousness?
How is the coming of the railway represented? What connections can we make between the opposition to the railway and the novel’s attitude to democracy?
Are your sympathies shifting about at all with regard to the Lydgates’ marriage? How does Rosamond’s miscarriage affect them? What about the couple’s financial woes, and attitudes towards resolving them: do you blame Lydgate, or Rosamond, or both, or neither for their difficulties?
What contrasts or similarities do you notice between the Fred – Mary – Mr. Farebrother triangle and the Dorothea – Mr. Casaubon – Will Ladislaw triangle? Or, for that matter, the less distinct but still visible Lydgate – Rosamond – Will Ladislaw triangle? Which, if any, couple seems our best hope for a happy outcome? Why?
One of the novel’s most important experiments in engaging our sympathies with imperfect people is the story of Mr. Bulstrode and his morally questionable past. “If this be hypocrisy, it is a process which shows itself occasionally in us all,” says the narrator, but at the same time, to understand is not to excuse. How do you judge Bulstrode, either for his past or for his present attempts to deal with it?
My takeaway was that Raffles was sick because he was a hard living alcoholic. Bulstrode took advantage of Raffles’ illness: He sabotaged Lydgate’s instructions by deliberately not telling Mrs. Abel what she should and shouldn’t do as regards opium doses and withholding alcohol. As a result, Raffles died – so it was pretty much murder, as far as I’m concerned.
The truth was never fully revealed to the public, although there was enough suspicion out there to ruin Bulstrode anyway.
Will was in a difficult position. He didn’t want to marry Dorothea for her money, but he didn’t want to make her poor because he married her. I’m glad they got over that!
No question that Bulstrode was guilty of murder. Not only did he not tell his housekeeper what the doctor’s instructions were, he gave her the key to the liquor cabinet.
Bulstrode gave Raffles the money he used to get drunk. I just thought he gave him the money to send him away. Maybe I’m naive.
Didn’t a remorseful Bulstrode tell his wife what happened the night Raffles died?Although, I don’t think he ever took real responsibility for his role in Raffles death.
Bulstrode tries to keep the whole story from his wife – he doesn’t want to hurt her or be diminished in her eyes. She finds out from her brother (Walter Vincy, Fred’s dad), and then gently confronts her husband:
However, what she knows is his history of taking the money that was rightfully Will’s; the rest (re Raffles death) is unconfirmed gossip that they don’t directly address: “She could not say, ‘How much is only slander and false suspicion?’ and he did not say, ‘I am innocent.’”
^I am having to do that to, because my reread has gotten so slowed down. Have read it many times, but the stuff about wills and the whole Raffles/Bulstrode story is escaping me in the details–hopefully i’ll get it done in the next week or so. (Am online teaching which apparently takes up all available time.)
Speaking of famous George Eliot quotes, this one: “If we had a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life, it would be like hearing the grass grow and the squirrel’s heart beat, and we should die of that roar which lies on the other side of silence” was echoed by Bono in U2’s “Breathe” which I think speaks very well for him.
Thank you all for helping me fill in some gaps.
How is it possible to see Bulstrode as innocent, of intent to murder, of conspiring to deceive a daughter of her rightful inheritance, and a liar to his wife ? What am I missing? Do his good deeds absolve him of his moral decisions?
Also, how was Bulstrode involved with Will ? I missed that relationship.
Finally, the scene when Lyndgate, who knew Raffles had died under questionable circumstances, voted to support Bulstrode, at the board meeting ( or directors meeting ) because of Lyndgate’s financial obligations, was a pivotal moment in the story,
This interconnectedness, ( Elliott’s web and concentric circles) and this pivotal moment When High minded Lyndgate sacrifices his reputation is what I will remember about Middlemarch, : A study of provincial life.
Elliot “study” of provincial life, looks at personal, political, class conflicts, and religious life in a small town, and each character exemplifies these conflicts.
Dorothea ( as a woman unable to marry or inherit due to laws), Lyndgate (his medical reputation is tarnished) , Bulstrode ( his past actions vs his religious beliefs) , Mr Vincy ( political embarrassment ) , Rosamond (her quest for wealth and prestige : class distinctions) , and all ultimately feared being judged by others.
“Being judged” within a small community seems a main theme of the novel…given the title Elliot chose **a study in provincial life **
I knew nothing about Elliots personal life, before this book discussion, and found that her life was one of choices which were unconventional, certainly she knew about breaking societal norms and being judged,
Bulstrode is a hypocrite and a murderer. It’s not possible to see him as innocent, but it IS possible to see him as human, which is part of the beauty of Eliot’s writing. Like all of us, he has internal struggles with right and wrong, he cares about the impression he makes on people, and he loves his family. That doesn’t absolve him, but it keeps him from being a caricature of a bad guy.
Will Ladislaw is the grandson of Bulstrode’s first wife – a widow whose daughter had run away, married, given birth to Will, and died in poverty. Bulstrode kept the daughter’s whereabouts secret from his wife and stole her inheritance. (To make matters even more confusing, Bulstrode’s first wife is Mr. Casaubon’s aunt.)
I haven’t finished the mini-series, but in the book, Lydgate’s only action at the board meeting is to physically tend to Bulstrode when he nearly collapses after his crimes are revealed by Hawley. Lydgate realizes that it looks like he’s in Bulstrode’s pocket due to the loan, but that’s not the case. He was ignorant of Bulstrode’s crimes and is disgusted at what he learns, but he’s a doctor at heart:
@jerseysouthmomchess, that is the weirdest story about George Eliot’s young husband jumping out the window on their honeymoon!
@garland, two of my siblings (for unrelated reasons – just a coincidence) have crossed paths with Bono in their work lives, and they report that he is a great guy – generous and kind.
Clarification, how is Will Ladislaw related to the woman, Raffles, knew about, the daughter of Bulstrode’s first wife, who died destitute because Bulstrode colluded to keep her from inheriting ?
I finished the mini-series this morning and can finally answer @Marilyn’s question from post #45:
The answer is yes – the BBC mini-series is a faithful representation of the book and the fates of the characters are all accurate. I enjoyed the series – didn’t make my heart swell like, let’s say, the BBC version of “North and South,” but it was well done.