Women's Question in Middlemarch!

[UpasnaK]

Hi Guys,

I just finished reading Middlemarch. I loved it and hated it too . As much as dorethea appealed to me i cant help but be swayed by Mary and her clear headedness. And i got to think that who is actually the heroine of the novel. What did eliot think and if she is even interested in giving us a heroine or is it silly to read like that.

Also i was wondering about the women's question in the novel? With respect to the times it was written, what does eliot want to convey about the women in the novel.

Can any of you shed light on this for me

What do you guys think.

[aloe]

I enjoyed reading "Middlemarch" because there were many differing personalities and relationships. I suppose Dorothea could be considered the main heroine since the novel begins and ends with her - beautiful and noble and seeking a way to serve. But how lovely the story of Mary, a plain and pleasant woman who inspires love in two fine men and uses her influence and patience to help the man she loves turn from vocationally confused pleasure seeker into real marriage material. Then we have Rosamund whose beauty doesn't lead to success or happiness in marriage because of her ego and expectations. The men are varied and interesting as well.

[kelby_lake]

The novel casts doubt on the conventional hero and heroine. For example, Dorothea and Lydgate are clearly meant to be heroine and hero but their attempts at heroism fall short. The theme of the novel is about 'hidden history'- the contributions made by ordinary people to historical change- and supposedly noble reforms like Lydgate's medicine contrasted with supposedly minor reforms- Mary's reformation of Fred. The successful reformation is the small one.

[kev67]

I started reading a biography of Florence Nightingale. Dorothea reminded me of her. Dorothea wanted to achieve something socially useful, but couldn't think what, apart from designing better cottages for farm labourers and their families, that is. Florence Nightingale was from a similar background and certainly did achieve some great things. However, she had some advantages Dorothea did not:


Florence Nightingale received a very good education, largely from her father. Dorothea did not.
Florence Nightingale accompanied her parents on a tour around Italy and France. On that tour she spoke to some forward-thinking scholars and intellectuals, including a proto-feminist salonière. She was also made aware of Elizabeth Fry's prison reform work. This may have encouraged her to think it was possible for women to engage with public life.
Florence Nightingale had a genuine interest to nursing. She also had a geeky interest in facts and figures. Dorothea had an interest in housing reform it would seem. It is difficult to see where this would go.
It is doubtful that Florence Nightingale could have achieved so much if she had married.

[kev67]

According to Mark Bostridge's biography of Florence Nightingale:

Florence was an avid reader of George Elliot's fiction... While acclaiming Middlemarch, on its appearance in 1873, as a 'novel of genius', Florence took Elliot severely to task for finding no better fate for Dorothea, that latter-day Teresa of Avila, than a marriage to 'an elderly sort of literary imposter, and quick after him, his relation, a baby sort of Cluricaune [a type of Irish fairy that has a taste for alcohol]'. Why couldn't Dorothea have been made to follow the example of someone like Octavia Hill, the housing reformer (who was related to George Elliot by marriage)? Or, better still, why couldn't she have been a nurse?


Florence Nightingale had actually met Marian Evans (aka George Elliot) before she became famous in the Crimean War. Marian Evans was very impressed with her.