Book review

Supplementary: Was Dorothea and Casaubon’s marriage consummated?

One question that must surely occur to most modern readers is whether Dorothea and her elderly husband consummate their marriage? Of course, in one sense this is a meaningless question – these are fictional characters who do not exist outside what the author reveals of their lives. If George Eliot chose not to tell us whether or not this marriage was consummated, then we will never know. But that is not the whole story. The conventions of the time would have prevented Eliot from addressing this question directly. By implication, ‘Middlemarch’ poses the question as to whether a happy sexual relationship was part of a successful marriage. In my view Eliot gives us many clear indications that the marriage of young, vibrant Dorothea Brooke and her aged (47!) husband, Reverend Casaubon, was sexually unsuccessful, and possibly celibate.

Casaubon is sickly, with a heart problem that (spoilers) finishes him off quickly. He spends his honeymoon ignoring Dorothea, leaving her to sob alone. His doctor forecasts he may live “up to” another fifteen years “if we are very careful” and avoiding “agitation of all kinds, and against excessive application”. Dorothea’s expectation of a physical relationship are limited – her description of marriage in the novel’s first chapter is thus: “the really delightful marriage must be that where your husband was a sort of father, and could teach you even Hebrew”. As a prospective husband and lover, Casaubon inspires little confidence – his proposal is probably the driest, least romantic ever, and concludes:

“You have all – nay, more than all – those qualities which I have ever regarded as the characteristic excellences of womanhood. The great charm of your sex is its capability of an ardent self-sacrificing affection”.

Is he looking for a wife, or a clerical assistant?

Eliot introduces early and often the idea of Dorothea being like a virginal saint – “Her hand and wrist were so finely formed that she could wear sleeves not less bare of style than those in which the Blessed Virgin appeared to Italian painters”. The reference to Italian painters anticipates the honeymoon in Rome, and the art which appears to cause Dorothea such distress.

One scene early in the novel stood out for me as a clear warning of what Dorothea is to expect from her marriage. It is the chapter when the newly engaged Dorothea is shown around Lowick, Mr Casaubon’s home, for the first time. Casaubon encourages her to choose a room as her “boudoir”. (The word is used here in the sense of a room for her private and exclusive use – although today the word has more intimate connotations, as somewhere for private (even possibly dangerous) liaisons). She declines to choose, but her younger more ebullient sister Celia urges her to select the bow-fronted room on the first floor. They (Casaubon, Dorothea, Celia, and the sisters’ uncle and guardian, Mr Brooke) go to view the room. This is how Eliot describes what happens:

“Now, my dear Dorothea, I wish you to favour me by pointing out which room you would like to have as your boudoir,” said Mr Casaubon, showing that his views of the womanly nature were sufficiently large to include that requirement.

“It is very kind of you to think of that,” said Dorothea, “but I assure you I would rather have all those matters decided for me. I shall be much happier to take everything as it is – just as you have been used to have it, or as you will yourself choose it to be. I have no motive for wishing anything else.”

“Oh, Dodo,” said Celia, “will you not have the bow-windowed room up-stairs?”

Mr Casaubon led the way thither. The bow-window looked down the avenue of limes; the furniture was all of a faded blue, and there were miniatures of ladies and gentlemen with powdered hair hanging in a group. A piece of tapestry over a door also showed a blue-green world with a pale stag in it. The chairs and tables were thin-legged and easy to upset. It was a room where one might fancy the ghost of a tight-laced lady revisiting the scene of her embroidery. A light bookcase contained duodecimo volumes of polite literature in calf, completing the furniture.

“Yes,” said Mr. Brooke, “this would be a pretty room with some new hangings, sofas, and that sort of thing. A little bare now.”

There’s lot going on here. Casaubon’s invitation is interpreted as showing his views of “the womanly nature” as sympathetic and understanding – women need somewhere private for their moments of reflection, to do their mysterious womanly deeds. Dorothea is suitably submissive – but not sincere, because Celia’s suggestion about the ideal room for her is swiftly followed up, and the idea of leaving things entirely in Casaubon’s hands is forgotten.

The room in question has the air of a memorial – the furniture is faded and the colours of the tapestry have become blue-green and pale with age. The pictures hang in a group (at least I assume it is the pictures hanging in a group, not the ladies and gentlemen themselves!) representing a family tree, of sorts. The furniture is subtly personified – it has thin legs and is easy to upset – which is a hint perhaps of the room’s previous inhabitant. Thin legged chairs and furniture, which upset (in the sense of fall over) easily are very impractical – this is a room off limits to boisterous children or blundering men, one assumes. The alternative meaning of upset, of having emotions shaken, is picked up in the narrator’s image of the room “where one might the ghost of a light-faced lady revisiting the scene of her embroidery”. This is a clever joke – the sentence sets the reader up to expect the phrase “the scene of her death”, but takes a last minute swerve to a lighter comic ending. What we don’t know at this point, but are told shortly, is that this was the retiring room of Mr Casaubon’s mother, now deceased. It is Mrs Casaubon who is the ghostly light-faced embroiderer conjured in the imagination of the narrator, looking down from the wall in one of the faded miniatures. At this point the reader is not to know, but can surely expect the maternal presence memorialised in this room to haunt the shortly to be wed couple.

I appreciate this may be taking things too far for any reader that has got this far, but allow me one further comment on this scene, in relation to the pale stag. Eliot could have chosen to decorate her piece of tapestry with any number of objects from classical mythology, and a stag is far from an obscure choice. But it is unlikely to have been a completely random choice either (and even if it was, so what?). A stag is a classic symbol of masculinity. A two dimensional, pale and faded stag calls to mind the figure in the narrative (up to this point) who is superficially the predominant male figure, the groom to be, but who is described earlier (chapter 3) as having a smile like “pale wintry sunshine”, “sallow” and a “dried bookworm”. One need not be the most observant or acute reader to have spotted that the chances of success of this passionless marriage are limited.

On return from her unhappy honeymoon, Dorothea revisits this room. Eliot clearly wants to tell us that the marriage thus far is unconsummated, or at the very least sexually unsuccessful. She uses a range of symbols, metaphors and euphemisms, as an alternative to the bald facts. The “very furniture in the room seemed to have shrunk since she saw it before: the stag in the tapestry looked more like a ghost in his ghostly blue-green world; the volumes of polite literature in the bookcase looked more like immovable imitations of books.” (Chapter 28) Things have changed, and decayed. Just a few lines later she again surveys her room:

“her blooming full-pulsed youth stood there in a moral imprisonment which made itself one with the chill, colourless, narrowed landscape, with the shrunken furniture, the never-read books, and the ghostly stag in a pale fantastic world that seemed to be vanishing from the daylight”.

Dorothea’s vitality, and by implication her sexuality, is emphasised constantly; in contrast Casaubon’s shrivelled libido is hinted at insistently. If the reader needs the dots joined, in chapter 29 things are made a little more explicit. The narrator declares their frustration with portraying events solely from Dorothea’s point of view, and instead tells us something of Casaubon’s thoughts and feeling. Considering his thoughts on marriage and an ideal wife, he concludes:

On such a young lady he would make handsome settlements, and he would neglect no arrangement for her happiness: in return he would receive family pleasures, and leave behind him that copy of himself which seemed so urgently required of a man”.

“Family pleasures” is a very lightly coded euphemism for marital sex, and the description of the outcome of those pleasures – a child, a copy of himself – leave no doubt that Casaubon originally anticipated that procreation would play part of his married life. However, the narrator notes sadly that “he had not yet succeeded in issuing copies of his mythological key”. Superficially this is a reference to his book on mythology, but the metaphorical substitution of key for penis is a common one.

It is also significant that while Casaubon’s and Dorothea’s brief marriage remains childless, by contrast the other newly weds – Celia and Sir James, and Lydgate and Rosamund – both have pregnancies very early in their marriages.

One last clue, if it were needed, that Casaubon is impotent resides in the name of his house, Lowick. A candle with a low wick is approaching the end of its useful life and has very little power. Eliot uses names in this way throughout Middlemarch – indeed the name of the novel itself is an example.

So was their marriage consummated? Eliot goes as far as she can to be explicit about this – a healthy sex life is an important component of married life, and that Dorothea and Casaubon’s relationship was in this regard, sadly lacking.

Standard
Book review

Middlemarch, by George Eliot, 1871-72

Most (or should that be many?) Victorian novels end with a marriage. The bedroom door is closed on the newly-weds, and other than the occasional “we lived happily ever after”, the story closes. (Jane Eyre famously ends with “Reader, I married him” – except of course that it doesn’t, and Jane’s narration gives us a glimpse of her happy married life with Rochester (“I have now been married ten years. I know what it is to live entirely for and with what I love best on earth….No woman was ever nearer to her mate than I am: ever more absolutely bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh”). The conventional narrative arc follows the couple on a long and often difficult journey, and ends with their wedding as the culmination of the relationship, whether it is Emma and Mr Knightley, Jane and Mr Rochester, or Elizabeth and Mr Darcy.mm

Middlemarch inverts that convention, and opens with a marriage, between a couple who are intellectually suited but otherwise unlikely. Dorothea, nicknamed Dodo by her sister, emphasising were it necessary her awkwardness, while still a minor (i.e. under the age of 21) falls for Reverend Casaubon, a dry as bones vicar more than twice her age. Eliot goes out of her way to emphasise Casaubon’s physical unattractiveness and decrepitude – we see him not just through Dorothea’s eyes, but also from the perspective of her sister, Celia, who comments tellingly on his “white moles with hairs on them”. One of the strengths of the novel is Eliot’s sophisticated use of point of view – her narrator will often intrude personally into the novel, but at other times more subtly takes the perspective or voice of one or other of her characters.

Eliot tells us in the novel’s introduction how to interpret the events about to be portrayed:

“Here and there a cygnet is reared uneasily among the ducklings in the brown pond, and never finds the living stream”.

Middlemarch is the brown pond, Dorothea the cygnet doomed to spend her life cut off from the living stream. I’ll discuss Dorothea and Casaubon’s relationship in more detail in a separate post – it is central to the novel – but the reader is given many strong hints that marriage is doomed to unhappiness from the start. When Will Ladislaw, Casaubon’s cousin, is introduced, the threat to the marriage is obvious. Eliot seems obsessed with Ladislaw’s hair, relentlessly referring to his “light brown curls” and his “bushy light-brown curls”, emphasising his vitality in contrast to that of his cousin.

Middlemarch is widely considered one of the great Victorian novels. It is certainly very long, and has an extensive cast. The Midlands setting is largely irrelevant – this could be also anywhere in England, except perhaps London, and while most commentators think the political context, the years preceding the 1832 Reform Act, is significant, the concept of a country in the process of momentous change intrudes only briefly, when the railways start to come to Middlemarch, and is otherwise largely irrelevant. The narrative is complex and weaves together numerous smaller plotlines, although Dorothea’s story, and the career of Dr Lydgate, the two tales from which the novel was originally woven, are the principal components.

The novel’s mechanics, whereby the dark secrets of Mr Bulstrode, the town’s financier, are revealed by his blackmailer whilst drunk, have a distinctly Dickensian feel to them, and are some of the novel’s least successfully parts. They are heavily flagged “plot devices happening here, pay attention, this is important”. Anyone reading ‘Middlemarch’ to learn about nineteenth century life in middle England will be sadly disappointed – the principal characters are drawn from a narrow social class, and will the working class and agricultural labourers are represented (unlike in, say, Austen) they are all bit-part players primarily there for comic relief. Eliot claims to be giving the little people a voice – the novel concludes “that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs”. These are the people who have made this country through their small, undramatic efforts.

Is the novel worth reading, and is it a success. I confess my first reading of ‘Middlemarch’ several decades ago left on the barest impression, that of the unlikelihood of Dorothea and Casaubon’s relationship. Other characters left barely a trace. I found reading the novel a labour the second time of asking – it is less than the sum of its parts, and I found no-one to identify with or engage my interests. I really didn’t care what happened to them all; they rarely became living creations, are remained mostly people in a book. I appreciate this is to many complete heresy, and is a personal reaction rather than a well-constructed criticism of the novel itself. But I did find plenty of interest in the relationship between Dorothea and Casaubon, and that will be the focus of my next blog entry – watch this space!

 

Standard
20th century Literature, Book review, Cat's Cradle, dystopian fiction, Kurt Vonnegut

Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, 1963

I am not sure I can think of a more quintessentially 60’s novel than this. It is madcap, millennial (think Dr Strangelove), anarchic and at times plain weird. The plot, such as it is, involves a first person narrator who is researching a biography of the (fictional) inventor of the nuclear bomb, Felix Hoenikker. In this course of this investigation he finds out that Hoenikker stumbled across – out of pure academic curiosity – a way of converting water into a crystalline form – ice-nine. Ice-nine is an alternative structure of water that is solid at room temperature. When a crystal of ice-nine contacts liquid water, it becomes a seed crystal that makes the molecules of liquid water arrange themselves into the solid form, ice-nine. If ice-nine were to come into contact with a river or sea, all the world’s water would freeze in one shuddering bang.cats-cradle Continue reading

Standard
Book review

Midnight’s Children, by Salman Rushdie, 1981

I found ‘Midnight’s Children’ a challenge. It is a novel that has been showered with praise and awards and rightly so. While it is overall a complex narrative, with a very large cast of characters and multiple locations, at the same time the autobiographical structure and the single narrator allow the thread of the story to be picked up reasonably easily, even when the novel is read in small portions, as I did in this instance.mc

So why the struggle? What is it about Rushdie’s novel that prevented me from reading much more than a dozen pages at a time? I’ll return to that question when I have worked through my other observations about the novel, which may help formulate an answer.

The title of the novel refers to all the children born between midnight and one a.m. on the day of India’s independence from the United Kingdom. Rushdie’s conceit is that these children – several hundred of them – are born with magical powers.  The story’s narrator, Saleem Sinai, born at the exact moment of midnight, is telepathic, (although this power plays a surprisingly minor part in the overall events of the novel). Using this power he assembles a ‘Midnight Children’s Conference’ of all the gifted children – a conference that has huge potential, but never goes beyond discussion, and is eventually neutered, literally, and destroyed. The obvious point being made here is about the squandering of India’s post-independence potential.

The novel does not start at this point – Saleem takes his time reaching the disclosure about his magical abilities, spending a lot of the opening book of the novel giving us the background to his birth. This leisurely approach– as a narrator Saleem is very long winded – is part of the readability challenge I mentioned in opening.

Saleem’s story is openly allegorical of the story of India’s independence. Even the most obtuse reader could not avoid the numerous links Rushdie draws between his protagonists and Indian history – for example, Saleem’s story includes a number of the migrations and wars which plagued (and continue to plague) his country’s post colonial history.

Midnight’s Children is a wildly ambitious novel, huge in scope, a dissertation on identity, memory, nationalism, and family. In almost all instances it succeeds, and rightly deserves the awards and success it has received. My inability to engage with the text on this reading is I am sure more a reflection of my appetite for novels of this kind that the success or failure of the novel itself. While reading I could recognise the skill and intelligence involved in the construction of the novel I couldn’t warm to the characters or find much interest in the plot. When your main sensation on finishing a novel is relief you know you need to take a break from the classics – I am now reading Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Cat’s Cradle’ and the contrast in the experience is marked.

Standard