Printable View
Hi all,
I have just finished reading Silas Marner and was wondering what people's thoughts are on the book. This is my first George Eliot book.
I am torn between two views on the book. I am not sure if George Eliot is mocking religion or is she advocating for renewed faith in religion.... or perhaps I have got it all wrong. It would be great if someone could shred some light into the matter for me.
I remember reading about Silas Marner's religion, but I cannot remember which one it was. He said he never went to church, but went to chapel, which suggests he was a Methodist, only I thought I read he was something else.
I doubt George Elliot is mocking religion, but I would be surprised if she was advocating for renewed faith, as I seem to remember reading she was an atheist. I think she may have been arguing that you should not let yourself become embittered against mankind, that you be part of the community, maybe even going to church or chapel once in a while. Silas Marner's fellow villagers are not exactly doctrinaire, but they generally approve of the sentiments and enjoys some of the customs.
I am only half way through so I may revise my opinion.
Edit: in a later chapter, Silas Marner is not familiar with the term 'Christening', although he is with baptism of adults. Therefore, I guess he is a Baptist. He is going to raise the little girl as an Anglican, because that is what everyone in Raveloe village is.
Would, hypothetically, mocking religion (as a concept or in the case of a particular individual religion) be a good thing or a bad thing, or is it just something that is and is independent of ethical concerns?
Atheism and irreligion are two different. Atheism is wholly concerned with religious discussion and many atheists actively resist agaibst mainstream religions (both those that are theistic and atheistic in nature), while irreligion completely ignores both the concept of religion and all religions altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by kev67
The discussion of whether deities exist or not is a wholly religious discussion.
Marner was a member of a strict Calvinist sect. Religion is positively presented through Dolly Winthrop, who doesn't intellectually understand doctrine, but has a powerful and profound idea and understanding of faith in her life.
I read it many years ago. The overall feeling I got was that there is a slight criticism of religion, or people who claim religion, ( as a plot device not as a central theme) but not faith, it is positive about faith. Marner's own story has biblical aspects to it - like a parable.
According to Victorian Nonconformity by David W. Bebbington, Silas Marner would have been a a member of the 'Independent' church, who later renamed themselves 'Congregationalists', who, I hear, in England and Wales, merged with the Presbyterian church to become the United Reformed Church in 1972. According to Wikipedia, the new church was formed by passing the United Reformed Church Bill in the House of Commons. It seems odd to me it would require a bill passed by the House of Commons to allow the new church to be recognised. I thought the whole point of Dissenter/Non-conformist churches were that they rejected the authority of the state in their religious affairs. Anyway, that's an aside. Bebbington says the Independents were very similar to the Baptists. Presumably they did not approve of Christening of children before they were aware of the significance of it.
I grew up thinking the Church of England was basically a Protestant religion, although I was taught it was a pragmatic compromise between Protestantism and Catholicism engineered during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which, usefully for the state, made the monarch the head of the church. There was high church for those that liked their services more Catholic, and low church for those that liked it more Protestant. I went to a couple of Catholic services in Ireland, and they were nothing like Church of England services. I get the impression that Baptist and Presbyterian services are nothing like Church of England services either. I am not sure about Methodist services.
Another interesting thing is that Raveloe was apparently modelled on the village where Mary Ann Evans was born, Bulkington in Warwicksire. A Congregational church was built there in 1811. This was Silas Marner's religion. 1811 would have been between the first and second parts of the book.
George Eliot lost her evangelical faith as a young adult and became an agnostic or atheist. But in all her books, religion carries very positive and humane values. She is far more convincing and subtle writing about religion than Dickens with his crude sentimentality. She criticizes a manifestation of religion in Silas Marner but she certainly doesn't mock it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus
As a good liberal, it is a different form of religion in each book which carries value. In Adam Bede it is Methodism, in Daniel Deronda it is Judaism, in Romola Catholicism, Felix Holt Baptists.
In Silas Marner it is the folk Anglicanism of Dolly Winthrop.
The narrowness and bigotry of working class evangelicals was a standard object of the satire of Victorian novelist (Dickens has the oily Mr Chadband in Bleak House and Mr Stiggins in Pickwick Papers.) George Eliot treats Marner’s chapel with characteristic sympathy and understanding. She recognises that for all its cruelty, it does provide a space where people at the bottom of the social pile can find value for themselves.
Just a tangent:
I would have thought that because the Congregational and Presbyterian churches were legal bodies, they would require their trust deeds, finances and other legal supports to be regularized if they merged and that could only be done by Act of Parliament. They couldn't just dissolve themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by kev67
Interesting, why would Elliot write so much about religion if she no longer believed in any of it? She did not seem to be mocking Dolly Winthrop's simple faith, even though Dolly calls God 'them', does not know what 'IHS' stands for, and appears not well versed in the bible. Elliot seems to think it is good that Marner recovers his belief in God. Marner's loss of faith in God was accompanied by his loss of faith in humanity, and his recovery of faith in God, with a recovery of faith in humanity. Marner also wanted to keep Eppie and do his best for her, which meant taking her to church. All the same, his recovery in religious faith seemed genuine. Did Elliot have a God shaped hole in her life? Dolly is a simple but good person who could accept the contradictions in Christianity; Elliot was a big brain who could not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanB
George Eliot lost her evangelical faith and was intellectually an atheist. As a young women she had translated Strauss’ Life of Jesus from German, which gives biography of Jesus as a human with no theological significance or supernatural side.
However she continued to see religion as a bearer of an important aspect of a humane life. And an imaginative artist should be capable of describing sympathetically experience alien to themselves personally. The account in Adam Bede of Dinah Morris’ silent prayer after her preaching is one of the few accounts I know of contemplative prayer in literature. Dickens or Thackeray could no more write it than fly.
(kev – I do recommend Adam Bede to you if you haven’t read it.)
To be cynical, a Victorian novelist who wanted to be successful could hardly be seen to knock religion and her books were no doubt admired by pious readers who she would have criticized. However she is clearly fascinated by the place of religion in human life and sensitive and acute in describing it. Despite Marner’s chapel and Mr Casaubon, it is usually portrayed in a very positive light.
There’s contemporary account of her religious views here: http://www.bartleby.com/309/1001.html