21 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment removed
Jun 10
Comment removed
Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

I've removed this comment because it contained a spoiler!! I'll be happy to answer it once we get to that point in the story :)

Expand full comment
Kristin Offiler's avatar

Thanks so much for answering my question! The others you addressed here were so helpful, too.

Expand full comment
Matthew's avatar

Back in Eliot's day, in England, your religious affiliation had more specific political implications than it does today. Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, all had associations with various political positions... Luckily, by her time people weren't murdering one another over the differences.

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

Very good point! I'm starting to wonder about how the "Puritanical" strain in Dorothea's family is also a way to validate their standing as a "good" family — not just via morals or virtuous goodness, but also through the same kind of thinking that eventually governs Old New York (as compared to the nouveau riche) in Wharton's novels.

Expand full comment
Laura Clemo's avatar

I think quite the opposite- it’s an example of how out of step Dorothea is with the prevailing views of society/acceptable ways for (young) women of her class to behave. Puritans were important in the English civil war mid-17th century, challenging the monarchy; when the ‘parliamentarians’ lost and the monarchy was reinstated, puritans were looked at with a lot of suspicion. The narrator comments when talking about Dorothea’s Puritanism that her ancestor had been a puritan (maybe even a parliamentarian, I can’t remember) during the interregnum but had somehow managed to remain in respectable society when the monarchy resumed power. Puritans were classed as ‘dissenters’ (along with eg baptists and Methodists) and although they were not excluded/discriminated against to the same extent as Catholics, they were still viewed with a lot of suspicion.

Expand full comment
Tess's avatar

I felt the same way as the reader from question #1, I’m finding Celia in particular super funny!

Expand full comment
Cha's avatar

I have written 'haha' in my notes quite a few times now!

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

I have so many "lols" in my margins!

Expand full comment
Clare's avatar

In reply to Julia, I have a Boox Tablet, which has an eink screen. It has Kobo, Kindle and any other eread you need available via the Google Play store. I can split the screen, with the text one side and scribble notes on the other side. Additionally, if the app allows it you can actually annotate the ebook page. This works best in the Boox native app, and I have nearly 2000 free books from Project Gutenberg on it.

Having said that I use a physical journal some of the time, as I still like a hard copy book, and sometimes even use it for digital books. I think it's the writing that helps retention, pencil, pen, or digital pen, all work equally well.

Expand full comment
SJ's avatar
Jun 4Edited

My question for week one is similar to the last question in this post— I’m struck by how much science is included and braided into the opening sentences and chapters— phrases that reference natural history (the “oary footed” cygnet at odds without its kind); phrenology/anatomy (the “outside tissues” of the skull which “make a sort of blazonry or clockface” for the mind);“agricultural chemistry” (the title of the book Sir Chettam is reading); and references in general to exact measurements and performing experiments. In the prelude, the narrator positions a woman’s ardor as the emblem of, or key to understanding, mankind and human history (Theresa as a template for social science insights?), but it seems like her ardor is also what precludes her from society and thus scientific fields of inquiry. The Theresa’s of the world— and more generally women— are cast as outsiders and pitted against “scientific certitude,” or, what can be defined, counted, and contained. As I read on, I wonder how much these allusions to scientific thought were just part of the conventions and conversations of the time, and how much Elliot is intentionally playing with scientific ideas, commenting on them as they intersect with gender and class; and using them as means to better illustrate the nature of her characters and the society they live in. Do Dorothea’s inconstancies and passion thwart men and the instruments and aims of conventional science, or do her deviations ultimately make her a better scientist than the men of the Middlemarch? Also I looked it up, and Darwin’s theory of evolution was published a little over 10 years before Middlemarch so I’ll be excited to see when that has an appearance/influence in the novel as well!

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

This is a beautiful question! I'll be sure to add it into the week 2 questions I grapple with for next week's post!!

You may be thrilled to learn there are academics who've written entire books analyzing just this tension — science in Eliot — alone! Exhibit A: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/subjects/literature/english-literature-1830-1900/george-eliot-and-nineteenth-century-science-make-believe-beginning?format=PB&isbn=9780521335843

Expand full comment
SJ's avatar
Jun 5Edited

Thanks for commenting and thanks for making this space! I’m so excited to keep going.

Expand full comment
Katya11's avatar

If you're interested in Eliot and evolution, she really explores Darwinism in The Mill on the Floss.

Expand full comment
Marta Lane's avatar

These questions and answers help a lot. Thank you for doing this!

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

Thank you Marta!! I'm so glad they're helpful.

Expand full comment
Judith F G Green's avatar

Hi Haley, just trying to renew my subscription to the new yearly amount but Substack won’t let me do that. Sorry, I have no idea how to dm you to ask how I can do this, sorry, Judith

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

Sending you a message!

Expand full comment
Kim's avatar

Julia: I am also trying to be economical :) I am reading the ebook on my kindle and then writing quotes and thoughts down in a notebook. I start a new section for each chapter to keep it somewhat sorted. I think it is working well so far! Writing the quotes out instead of just underlining them forces me to go slowly and spend more time thinking about what I am reading.

Expand full comment
Eric F's avatar

Re question on causbon’s project - I basically just pictured him trying (and failing) to write the Golden Bough

Expand full comment
Percy Sullivan's avatar

On the trouts and streams: I read it so much more literally! I read it as Humphrey being a recreational fisherman and his wife joking that as long as fish were biting (which is always) then all was right with the world as far as he was concerned. Humphrey is described as very easy going and genial. I don’t think he takes issue with much - so it would have to be a major upset like if all the fish in the world would suddenly stop biting.

He jokes back that it is a very good quality in a man to have a trout stream and I read this as simply saying that Mr Casaubons land included a stream that Humphrey had permission to fish in and therefore he sees Casaubon as a good guy! But this also showed Humphreys willingness to joke about himself and how he forms his opinions, another hint of his easy going nature.

Expand full comment
haley larsen, phd's avatar

I appreciate this so much! Of course you’re so right: why not let it be so literal?! I love this reading of it and it makes so much sense to me!

Expand full comment