What do you think?
Rate this book
George Eliot: Middlemarch, Silas Marner, Amos Barton
Three masterpieces from one of the Victorian eraâ s most celebrated feminist novelists. Middlemarch, Eliotâ s most famous work, paints a rich and complex portrait of English society. In Silas Marner, an embittered man retreats from the outside world, thinking only of work and money. Then his wealth is stolen, and a young foundling comes into his life and changes everything. Also the short story â Amos Barton.â
862 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1994
40 people are currently reading
1581 people want to read
About the author
George Eliot
3,118 books4,911 followersMary Ann Evans, known by her pen name George Eliot, was an English novelist, poet, journalist, translator, and one of the leading writers of the Victorian era. She wrote seven novels: Adam Bede (1859), The Mill on the Floss (1860), Silas Marner (1861), Romola (1862–1863), Felix Holt, the Radical (1866), Middlemarch (1871–1872) and Daniel Deronda (1876). Like Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy, she emerged from provincial England; most of her works are set there. Her works are known for their realism, psychological insight, sense of place and detailed depiction of the countryside.
Middlemarch was described by the novelist Virginia Woolf as "one of the few English novels written for grown-up people" and by Martin Amis and Julian Barnes as the greatest novel in the English language.
Middlemarch was described by the novelist Virginia Woolf as "one of the few English novels written for grown-up people" and by Martin Amis and Julian Barnes as the greatest novel in the English language.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
February 3, 2016
It took me about 200 pages to really get into and then it was great right to the end.
August 13, 2013
I focused my summer on reading the novel Middlemarch, and I'm so glad I did. I absolutely loved reading this book.
I think what sets this Victorian novel apart from others I have read, is this is the most believable and gives a modern reader a taste of what life was life during this time. Not to mention the intertwining stories and various points of view.
I also found it interesting how diluted all of these characters seemed -- Rosamond truly believed she was innocent, Lydgate thought he loved Rosamond, Dorothea believed Casaubon was an intelligent man, and poor Fred Vincy didn't see he had a gambling problem.
Finally, I want to mention the darling Mary Garth. The one character I found myself drawn to. She was sensible and caring. She didn't put up with any of Fred's BS and she was 24 before she got married! She may as well have had ten cats. High five to the liberal lady of Middlemarch!
I think what sets this Victorian novel apart from others I have read, is this is the most believable and gives a modern reader a taste of what life was life during this time. Not to mention the intertwining stories and various points of view.
I also found it interesting how diluted all of these characters seemed -- Rosamond truly believed she was innocent, Lydgate thought he loved Rosamond, Dorothea believed Casaubon was an intelligent man, and poor Fred Vincy didn't see he had a gambling problem.
Finally, I want to mention the darling Mary Garth. The one character I found myself drawn to. She was sensible and caring. She didn't put up with any of Fred's BS and she was 24 before she got married! She may as well have had ten cats. High five to the liberal lady of Middlemarch!
March 31, 2008
I read this for the first time last year (having vowed never to read another George Eliot novel after slogging through The Mill on the Floss, which is easily one of the worst books I've ever read). However, Middlemarch is compelling, poignant, and beautifully written. The characters are drawn with dimension and compassion. I found myself arguing with them as I was reading. One of my favorites!
May 11, 2017
This was my first George Eliot, and I was surprised by the depth of her talent.
I've read the Bronte and Austin novels and enjoyed them all, but Eliot stands above them as a writer. Her narration of the story is revelatory of her characters and human nature in general.
Great story, great insight, and great writing. I now consider her the best novelist of her era.
I've read the Bronte and Austin novels and enjoyed them all, but Eliot stands above them as a writer. Her narration of the story is revelatory of her characters and human nature in general.
Great story, great insight, and great writing. I now consider her the best novelist of her era.
May 22, 2012
Middlemarch is the best book I've ever read. Boom. That's it. I don't know what I was expecting from George Eliot, but I was unprepared. And the ending came at a time when I was needing some particular validation about the importance of my role as mother. If you like Austen or Dickens and haven't gone as far as Eliot, go there, she's amazing!
July 7, 2019
I really enjoyed Middlemarch and Silas Marner. I skipped Amos Barton. Like others said, it does take a while to get into Middlemarch, but it is definitely worth it.
October 12, 2021
I had read Silas Marner several years ago and enjoyed it then. I enjoy George Eliot as an author and her writing style. This time when I read Silas Marner, I connected as a weaver. I was amazed as a I'm learning to weave how Silas was able to weave linen with such poor eyesight. His poor eyesight was symbolic, I think, for his narrow vision of the world (He did not see his friend's true nature and how is friend betrayed him until too late.), and the people around him. Also, weaving was symbolic for patterns and people coming in and out of his life, weaving their lives with his and ending up with a beautiful life story.
It made me sad that the fate of Silas Marner was determined by "casting of lots". Although sometimes in life it may feel that things that happen to us are because of "casting of lots" but how we deal with these circumstances are very important: should we hide away as Silas did at first, stewing and focusing on worldly treasures or open our hearts and see the blessing and beauty around us like Silas after Eppie and Dolly came into his life?
I had to learn more about the "casting of lots":
"The practice of casting lots is mentioned seventy times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament. In spite of the many references to casting lots in the Old Testament, nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin.
The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31). Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14). The sailors on Jonah’s ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon their ship. The eleven apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Casting lots eventually became a game people played and made wagers on. This is seen in the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35)."
https://www.gotquestions.org/casting-...
One item is the story that was very confusing to me was the marriage between Godfrey and Molly. It seems to me that the author was just using it to introduce Eppie into the story?
"As a young man he married an opium addict, Molly Farren, with whom he had a daughter. This secret marriage and Godfrey's handling of it demonstrate the mixture of guilt and moral cowardice that keep him paralyzed for much of the novel. ... Despite his physically powerful and graceful presence, Godfrey is generally passive.
"Godfrey's problem is that his outside doesn't always match his inside. He has a "big muscular frame," but that only helps him when his problems can be "knocked down" or "throttled." Important moral decisions are totally beyond him, thanks to his "natural irresolution and moral cowardice" (1.3.25). Godfrey is manipulated into marrying Molly, freed by her untimely death, released of moral responsibility for Eppie by Silas's action, and then finally forced into confessing to Nancy because, of all things, Dunstan's body finally comes to light. Nancy is even the one who insists that they have to adopt Eppie (although, to be fair, Godfrey did try earlier).
Basically, Godfrey makes not one solitary decision throughout the entire book. He doesn't even make the one big decision that Silas makes—to adopt Eppie. He's pushed around by character after character. This basic instability means that he risks a negative character arc. As the narrator tells us, "the good-humoured, affectionate-hearted Godfrey Cass was fast becoming a bitter man, visited by cruel wishes, that seemed to enter, and depart, and enter again, like demons who had found in him a ready-garnished home" https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/l...
My two favorite characters the book were Priscilla Lementer and Dolly Winthrop. They were both very down to earth and pragmatic.
Priscilla
Priscilla Lammeter is Nancy's elder sister and is very homely and plainspoken. She is very good at everything she does. In fact, she is the one who manages Mr. Lammeter's farm and dairy.
"...she's labeled an "excellent housewife" (1.5.1), and then later "cheerful-looking" and "blowsy" (1.11.10), with attitude that some in the neighborhood think a little too rough. Priscilla's speech is heavy with dialect, like when she talks to Nancy about the color of the dresses they're wearing: "But as for being ugly, look at me, child, in this silver-coloured silk—I told you how it 'ud be—I look as yallow as a daffadil. Anybody 'ud say you wanted to make a mawkin of me" (1.11.17). She knows that she's not beautiful, but she doesn't care; her entire goal is to make the people around her happy, to see Nancy married and to make a home for her father: "I shall do credit to a single life, for God A'mighty meant me for it" (1.11.25).
In some ways, Priscilla is a wealthier version of Dolly Winthrop. Both of them are dedicated to their roles as women, but not the delicate fainting women that you might associate with Victorian novels. Priscilla is a hard worker. She bustles, orders, tends, fixes, and mends. And like Dolly, she has firm ideas about male and female roles, good and bad: "It drives me past patience […] that way 'o the men—always wanting and wanting, and never easy with what they've got" (2.13.17). Priscilla is a breath of fresh air next to the (it has to be said) stuffy Nancy, and her country ways are funny—but she's also a very sympathetic character. Only a Mean Girl would laugh at Priscilla, instead of with her."
https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/l...
Dolly Winthrop
Dolly Winthrop is the wife of the wheelwright, Ben Winthrop, and the mother of Aaron. Dolly Winthrop takes it upon herself to help Silas raise Eppie. She persuades Silas to trust in God always. "Dolly Winthrop later becomes Eppie's godmother and mother-in-law.
She has an instinctive faith that contrasts with Silas' initial distrust of Heaven. She represents the best of Raveloe, the community spirit and real interest and concern for others. She is no stereotype; through her discussions with Silas, she reveals a full personality, slow in thought but steady in faith and strong in her sympathy."
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literatur...
Silas Marner Summary (https://www.gradesaver.com/silas-marn...)
"Silas Marner, a weaver, is an eager and promising young member of a Puritan religious community, Lantern Yard. Marner's supposed best friend, Willam Dane, frames him for the theft of a pouch of coins. Marner suffers from cataleptic fits which leave him as insensible as stone and vulnerable to Dane's frame-up. The community of Lantern Yard draws lots to determine Marner's guilt or innocence in the crime. After the lots proclaim Marner guilty, he flees from Lantern Yard, utterly crushed, leaving behind his faith in God and in humankind.
Marner eventually settles at the outskirts of Raveloe, a provincial village in the English Midlands. The villagers appreciate Marner's trade but find him strange and unapproachable. Marner seems to have supernatural powers--he is able to heal a local woman using herbal arts he learned from his mother--but the villagers of Raveloe do not know his background and thus find his knowledge diabolical and threatening. Marner, for his part, is content to live a life of almost total solitude in his simple cottage beside the Stone-pits."
It made me sad that the fate of Silas Marner was determined by "casting of lots". Although sometimes in life it may feel that things that happen to us are because of "casting of lots" but how we deal with these circumstances are very important: should we hide away as Silas did at first, stewing and focusing on worldly treasures or open our hearts and see the blessing and beauty around us like Silas after Eppie and Dolly came into his life?
I had to learn more about the "casting of lots":
"The practice of casting lots is mentioned seventy times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament. In spite of the many references to casting lots in the Old Testament, nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin.
The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14-21), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31). Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8-9; 26:13-14). The sailors on Jonah’s ship (Jonah 1:7) also cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon their ship. The eleven apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Casting lots eventually became a game people played and made wagers on. This is seen in the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35)."
https://www.gotquestions.org/casting-...
One item is the story that was very confusing to me was the marriage between Godfrey and Molly. It seems to me that the author was just using it to introduce Eppie into the story?
"As a young man he married an opium addict, Molly Farren, with whom he had a daughter. This secret marriage and Godfrey's handling of it demonstrate the mixture of guilt and moral cowardice that keep him paralyzed for much of the novel. ... Despite his physically powerful and graceful presence, Godfrey is generally passive.
"Godfrey's problem is that his outside doesn't always match his inside. He has a "big muscular frame," but that only helps him when his problems can be "knocked down" or "throttled." Important moral decisions are totally beyond him, thanks to his "natural irresolution and moral cowardice" (1.3.25). Godfrey is manipulated into marrying Molly, freed by her untimely death, released of moral responsibility for Eppie by Silas's action, and then finally forced into confessing to Nancy because, of all things, Dunstan's body finally comes to light. Nancy is even the one who insists that they have to adopt Eppie (although, to be fair, Godfrey did try earlier).
Basically, Godfrey makes not one solitary decision throughout the entire book. He doesn't even make the one big decision that Silas makes—to adopt Eppie. He's pushed around by character after character. This basic instability means that he risks a negative character arc. As the narrator tells us, "the good-humoured, affectionate-hearted Godfrey Cass was fast becoming a bitter man, visited by cruel wishes, that seemed to enter, and depart, and enter again, like demons who had found in him a ready-garnished home" https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/l...
My two favorite characters the book were Priscilla Lementer and Dolly Winthrop. They were both very down to earth and pragmatic.
Priscilla
Priscilla Lammeter is Nancy's elder sister and is very homely and plainspoken. She is very good at everything she does. In fact, she is the one who manages Mr. Lammeter's farm and dairy.
"...she's labeled an "excellent housewife" (1.5.1), and then later "cheerful-looking" and "blowsy" (1.11.10), with attitude that some in the neighborhood think a little too rough. Priscilla's speech is heavy with dialect, like when she talks to Nancy about the color of the dresses they're wearing: "But as for being ugly, look at me, child, in this silver-coloured silk—I told you how it 'ud be—I look as yallow as a daffadil. Anybody 'ud say you wanted to make a mawkin of me" (1.11.17). She knows that she's not beautiful, but she doesn't care; her entire goal is to make the people around her happy, to see Nancy married and to make a home for her father: "I shall do credit to a single life, for God A'mighty meant me for it" (1.11.25).
In some ways, Priscilla is a wealthier version of Dolly Winthrop. Both of them are dedicated to their roles as women, but not the delicate fainting women that you might associate with Victorian novels. Priscilla is a hard worker. She bustles, orders, tends, fixes, and mends. And like Dolly, she has firm ideas about male and female roles, good and bad: "It drives me past patience […] that way 'o the men—always wanting and wanting, and never easy with what they've got" (2.13.17). Priscilla is a breath of fresh air next to the (it has to be said) stuffy Nancy, and her country ways are funny—but she's also a very sympathetic character. Only a Mean Girl would laugh at Priscilla, instead of with her."
https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/l...
Dolly Winthrop
Dolly Winthrop is the wife of the wheelwright, Ben Winthrop, and the mother of Aaron. Dolly Winthrop takes it upon herself to help Silas raise Eppie. She persuades Silas to trust in God always. "Dolly Winthrop later becomes Eppie's godmother and mother-in-law.
She has an instinctive faith that contrasts with Silas' initial distrust of Heaven. She represents the best of Raveloe, the community spirit and real interest and concern for others. She is no stereotype; through her discussions with Silas, she reveals a full personality, slow in thought but steady in faith and strong in her sympathy."
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literatur...
Silas Marner Summary (https://www.gradesaver.com/silas-marn...)
"Silas Marner, a weaver, is an eager and promising young member of a Puritan religious community, Lantern Yard. Marner's supposed best friend, Willam Dane, frames him for the theft of a pouch of coins. Marner suffers from cataleptic fits which leave him as insensible as stone and vulnerable to Dane's frame-up. The community of Lantern Yard draws lots to determine Marner's guilt or innocence in the crime. After the lots proclaim Marner guilty, he flees from Lantern Yard, utterly crushed, leaving behind his faith in God and in humankind.
Marner eventually settles at the outskirts of Raveloe, a provincial village in the English Midlands. The villagers appreciate Marner's trade but find him strange and unapproachable. Marner seems to have supernatural powers--he is able to heal a local woman using herbal arts he learned from his mother--but the villagers of Raveloe do not know his background and thus find his knowledge diabolical and threatening. Marner, for his part, is content to live a life of almost total solitude in his simple cottage beside the Stone-pits."
November 23, 2017
As my edition is an omnibus of three novels, I'll be writing reviews for each of them separately and using this space as my opinion on the omnibus as whole-similar to how I read my Darkest Powers Trilogy omnibus.
I'll be doing it this way for two reasons:
1-I like having separate reviews as it helps me keep my thoughts in order and I can look back and see which books I liked better instead of trying to figure out how I averaged them out, etc. Its a better visual aid than having to look through my review here.
2-I don't expect to read all the books one after the other. Seeing as Middlemarch is like 80% of my omnibus, I kind of feel like I'll need a break before diving into the other two. Which will mess up my timeline of when I read certain novels. And that's kind of important to me.
tldr: This will be on my currently reading shelf for a while, but I may not be always reading it.
Separate Reviews:
Middlemarch
Silas Marner
Amos Barton
In short: I really did enjoy this omnibus (though a good 85% of it is Middlemarch) and, honestly, can't wait to read more of Eliot.
I'll be doing it this way for two reasons:
1-I like having separate reviews as it helps me keep my thoughts in order and I can look back and see which books I liked better instead of trying to figure out how I averaged them out, etc. Its a better visual aid than having to look through my review here.
2-I don't expect to read all the books one after the other. Seeing as Middlemarch is like 80% of my omnibus, I kind of feel like I'll need a break before diving into the other two. Which will mess up my timeline of when I read certain novels. And that's kind of important to me.
tldr: This will be on my currently reading shelf for a while, but I may not be always reading it.
Separate Reviews:
Middlemarch
Silas Marner
Amos Barton
In short: I really did enjoy this omnibus (though a good 85% of it is Middlemarch) and, honestly, can't wait to read more of Eliot.
May 29, 2009
I am only rating Middlemarch, as I have not read Silas Marner or Amos Barton.
The characters were marvelous. All quite different, they had their own faults, weaknesses, strong points, conflicts, lovers, morals, etc. Characters make or break a book, and I was so pleased at how much depth these particular ones had. I wasn't so keen on Will Ladislaw. I am aware that he was supposed to be the main male character, but I was so much fonder of Lydgate that I found Ladislaw a smidge annoying. I loved his name, though. :)
This book teaches you things, probably more or less so according to your age. I actually think I learned some about love. For instance, Rosamond believed that she should deal with the affairs of her husband because to her he had sort of "disowned her" when they were having money troubles. To Lydgate, however, he was simply not speaking to Rosamond because he felt she was trying to ignore him, and therefore he did not want to further her anger.
As I am going to read Silas Marner this year for school, I think that it helped me get used to Eliot's switching characters so often. I did indeed think it was only going to be about Dorothea, and was quite surprised when it changed to Fred and Rosamond. I thought this, however, was quite clever because it seemed like you were really dealing with a town - not just one person from it.
As you can tell, this is one of my favorite books.
The characters were marvelous. All quite different, they had their own faults, weaknesses, strong points, conflicts, lovers, morals, etc. Characters make or break a book, and I was so pleased at how much depth these particular ones had. I wasn't so keen on Will Ladislaw. I am aware that he was supposed to be the main male character, but I was so much fonder of Lydgate that I found Ladislaw a smidge annoying. I loved his name, though. :)
This book teaches you things, probably more or less so according to your age. I actually think I learned some about love. For instance, Rosamond believed that she should deal with the affairs of her husband because to her he had sort of "disowned her" when they were having money troubles. To Lydgate, however, he was simply not speaking to Rosamond because he felt she was trying to ignore him, and therefore he did not want to further her anger.
As I am going to read Silas Marner this year for school, I think that it helped me get used to Eliot's switching characters so often. I did indeed think it was only going to be about Dorothea, and was quite surprised when it changed to Fred and Rosamond. I thought this, however, was quite clever because it seemed like you were really dealing with a town - not just one person from it.
As you can tell, this is one of my favorite books.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 13, 2011
I think this was a great book. I'm talking about the book Silas Marner by: George Eliot. This book takes place in the 19th century, so about two hundred years ago. It is about the little girl named Silas. She grew up. She had found love gotten married and her husband has died. She has also remarried and had children. in 1849 her father died. In 1849 she went on and met her literary inclinations. In 1851 she became an assistant editor with the Westminister Review. In 1854 she became fated with meeting George Henry Lewes. These are just some of the amazing events that happened in the story but the end is amazing. I wish I could tell you but it would give the story away, so pick up the book and read it you will like it.
October 10, 2012
This book is daunting in length. It took almost 200 pages to actually get going. Since there are so many characters this is not surprising. I enjoyed the second half of the book. I think the character exposition at first is needed to have character development in the second half of the book. I definitely rate it a good book overall, but make sure you have a chunk of time before delving in.
January 22, 2009
This is a short story, very brisk and cynical. Intelligently written. Eliot does it again. She really brings out the dirt on the parochial English country life. Somewhat hard to read, but one gets used to it after first few pages. Totally brilliant writing with a ton of description.
July 8, 2009
This was a great, albeit lengthy, novel about the "middle" of the "march" of progress in the 1800s....Written by a woman under the pseudonym of George Eliot, the novel is provocative account of European intellectual life in the 1800s....
July 28, 2009
I can't stay away from George Eliot for very long. Haven't read this one since high school. From long habit, I read thrillers interspersed with classics, with a sprinkling of WWII memoirs and history, during summer.
May 21, 2012
I really like Middlemarch ... but I am always bothered by a lingering question ...
spoiler alert ...
why didn't Dorothea just give him the income and property? then they could marry and "have it all" ... no?
what am I missing each time that explains it?
spoiler alert ...
why didn't Dorothea just give him the income and property? then they could marry and "have it all" ... no?
what am I missing each time that explains it?
January 9, 2013
I loved this, but mark it as less than 5 because she could have used an editor, or the invention of the Word Processor. Will come back to writing a fuller, more thoughtful review later when I have time.
August 30, 2014
A great book to have read, but a bit longwinded for modern tastes. Our book club read and then watched to BBC series, which was interesting. it certainly gives insights into the place of women, the political times and is worthy of being a classic.
June 1, 2017
George Eliot is one of my favorite authors. If you love classic lit, this is a must read. I give Middlemarch 5-stars, Silas Marner and Amos Barton 4-stars. Amos Barton is narrated differently from the other two. You can definitely tell it's one of her earlier works, but it's still a very good read.
August 27, 2008
The timeless truths that abound in this masterpiece of social life in 19th century England so elegantly pin down the essences of human nature.
November 11, 2008
This is a book I should read this year too, it is a great story, beautiful characters and makes me feel compassion.
September 21, 2010
This was given to me as a gift years ago and at the time I tried to read it and didn't get into it. But this time I picked it up I loved it and couldn't get enough.
April 17, 2011
I actually preferred Daniel Doronda to Middlemarch. It was easier to follow for me though it is easy to see why this is considered a great work of writing.
September 12, 2011
For many, many years I would have said this is my favorite novel of all time. Not sure it's the absolute front-runner these days. But still way up there.
July 15, 2012
It was tough going, but I enjoyed it. I read that this is one of Julian Barnes's favourite book!
Read
September 3, 2012Great on Audible for my commute!
March 12, 2013
I loved this book. It spoke to my heart as Silas discovered real treasure.
November 16, 2013
One of the best books I have ever read.
February 5, 2016
Middlemarch:-
.........................................
Silas Marner:-
The story of two men, and a little girl, and rectitude and values, ethics and right choices, loss and redemption, love and caring and the joy they bring to life.
The wealthy young man married in what moment of temptation is left unsaid, but he did wish to not only keep his family hidden for fear of his society, he was in love with a good young woman, and did not wish to lose her. When the wife turned up in the village and was found dead - due to starvation and cold, having been neglected by the husband - he took the opportunity to say nothing about his connection.
The little child had wandered into the home of a stranger to the village society who had left a traumatic past behind him in the city, where he was persecuted due to his epileptic fits being mislabeled as dealings with devil and he had been thrown out of his work and his life. He had lived for years in the village, but connected with humanity only when he found the child in his home shortly after being robbed of all his money, all his saving, and insisted the child was his to protect and care for.
The father of the child let that be - and so lost the only child he was ever going to have, as it turned out.
Silas Marner gained a life by his act, his choice and his heart's truth in giving love and care to an orphan as he thought the child was. The father of the child lost all but his wealth by deliberately not acclaiming the child he knew was his, and while he married the good woman he loved, he knew he was not good enough for either her or her love, since he was an untruthful unworthy man by virtue of having denied his wife and his child, having neglected one until she died of starvation and cold, and having not claimed the child so she was taken and raised as an orphan by another man, who found the whole village gather round him in the process.
One of the most touching tales about human relationships, mistakes and redemption, crime and sin, fate and choices.
Silas Marner found life, and love of a daughter, with the little girl wandering in and falling asleep at his hearth; it was not his duty but a choice he made to keep the little one he could ill afford. Meanwhile her natural and legal father has refrained from admitting his family, falsified his identity in relation to the family he would not own, for sake of the good young woman he loved, and he lost much in the process of fall from rectitude.
................................................................
Amos Barton:-
For an early work this story has amazing insight into human nature and behaviour, along with a detailed description of the place and time, and also usage of the language far more extensive than what one is used to during 20th century even before the sms era.
Even if one knows nothing of the author it is easy to suspect post finishing the book that this is an autobiographical tale, and it mainly at heart is a very deeply loving daughter's heartbreaking tribute to her very beautiful and universally loved mother who was also a very good person, along with the outward story that is a factual exoneration of her father of a false blame and suspicion harboured by silly neighbours of the parish who could not imagine a beautiful woman taking an extensive stay with a family of a man of cloth even if his own wife was beautiful, much loved by all including himself, and very much present on premises.
Why the author could not show details of the family post the departure of the mother is what one immediately questions after finishing this abruptly ending tale - along with such questions as what happened to other children (only two are mentioned, did the rest die as children did of decease and starvation in poverty in Europe those days?) and why Patty did not marry. That can be only explained by the surmise that this is the story of Mary Ann Evans who took the pen name of George Eliot in order to be able to write in peace and publish at all (- misogyny was not so violent then as now what with crimes against women being more violent and explicit by the day, but women were not seen as people who could think and were certainly not allowed to write and publish, and being an exception was a harsh struggle, so Bronte sisters had male names to publish too as did Madam Sand -) and that she did not marry due to the horror and pathos of the marriage of her mother who died so early in her life, compounded by the fact that there was no dowry for Patty or Mary Ann Evans to help her marry with security of a middle class life, since her father was a poor man of cloth with several children to feed and clothe and shelter.
One cannot but help compare here, since it is very pertinent and relevant - Barton in all his poverty and ordinary Englishman's life and persona of someone who has been to university and is involved day to day in matters intellectual and religious (for Barton approaches religion and sermons within strictly the intellectual realm and bores his parish stiff, enabling them to distance themselves until they sympathise with his loss of his wife) and little or none of the luxuries or power in his life or riches for that matter, is nonetheless no different from the Mongol (Mughal is Persian for Mongol, and the close relatives of Kublai Khan that settled in India routed via Persia bringing that nomenclature) emperor Shah Jahan who built that extravagant mausoleum for his wife on top of the revered temple of the majority religion of the country, achieving two shots in one; both the women were worn out by extensive childbearing beyond their health capability and died due to this " excessive love from the husband", a husband who was incapable of forbearing his sexual appetite even when the consequences endangered the wife's health to the point of death.
Perhaps the only difference is that Barton (or Evans) had no harem to satisfy his needs elsewhere while preserving the loved wife's health and life, and Shah Jahan did but wore out the one loved nevertheless. Amelia Barton died after giving birth to seven children (or is it eight?) and Mumtaj Mahal to fourteen, but then the latter had servants galore to do all her work and take care of her as well, and no lack of physicians or food or remedies of any sort available around in half the known world.
Milly Barton was poor, overworked, starving, worrying about her children being fed and clothed, and paying the bills in all honour.
This says two separate and related things to any aware reader - one, those involved in intellectual and spiritual line of work are likely to be poor as a rule, whether vicars and curates of England or Brahmans of India or rabbis of Jewish diaspora anywhere for that matter, and especially more so when they have families of their own to support and are not allowed to make money by using any skills since they are men of cloth or are Brahmans as indeed they are not by tradition allowed in most of these cases. And two, the only difference in the various traditions mentioned here is that in the older ones the Brahman or the rabbi is at least nominally most respected member of the society while a curate or a vicar is not accorded that social respect without backing of independent wealth, which in fact gets him a better living too.
Positions of vicar, curate, etc might be obtained by anybody and are not hereditary, but that in practice merely means that the positions are either bought by someone for the person appointed or are doled out as a favour to someone for some reason for the favour; as a consequence those richer get higher positions and those from poor background get less paid ones if at all, in church as well in trade or military or any other sphere of work.
On thinking it over, men inheriting their father's trade is not so far off this buying of positions, since most poor in the world are limited to what knowledge their parents can provide them as heritage; and women all over the world are limited even now with everyone seeing them as reproductive functionaries and food preparing and other services providers, to be browbeaten and blackmailed and threatened into it irrespective of time, place, relationship, occasion, whatever.
Indeed the only women that escape it might be born princesses and queens regina of Europe, if any. Others may fight back, but this merely makes life unpleasant, and this is the choice offered them socially as a weapon to force them to submit - until they do submit they are constantly attacked. I have heard a supposedly educated scientist from space agency of Europe questioning sexual capacity of a very famous high profile chief of a computer firm only because he heard about her being appointed in that position, and he went worse from that point. Till date I suspect most people hold him innocent in the huge quarrel we had and of course he probably does not mention his wrongs if indeed he is aware of them, but then even if he did they would not seem wrong to most people but only humour, not to be taken seriously or pointed out the wrongs of seriously. He in fact said it was different if he made racist jokes, which he would not, and was very angry when informed it was not different at all.
His wife wanted to discuss caste system of India, and was nonplussed when pointed out that her not requiring her sons or husband to help her in the kitchen but requiring or expecting any woman around irrespective of age, including any casual visitor or invited guests or new acquaintances, was caste system.
Most men and probably most women too would think this is harsh against Barton and against someone who spent twenty years and millions of public fund to build the most famous mausoleum in the world, since men's sexual needs are held not only incontrollable but sacrosanct, with rape considered natural and of no consequence and in fact the woman's fault for being raped (why was she there, what did she were, did she not encourage it and want it and if so how does anyone prove it, what difference does it make unless it is a damage to her husband or father's honour) through most of the world even now when law is changing and some lip service to a woman's right to be not assaulted is paid at some places around the world.
But fact is, these women died of their husbands "love" for them, thoughtless as it was and driven by the physical needs of the husbands, and what difference does a tombstone or a mausoleum make to the one that is dead?
If that is not convincing, consider what a man - any man anywhere in the world - would say offered the same alternative, of repeated usage and death in youth with a handsome mausoleum as a memento to the "love". It is a no brainer - men would club anyone suggesting this to death, with no memorial.
...........................................................
.........................................
Silas Marner:-
The story of two men, and a little girl, and rectitude and values, ethics and right choices, loss and redemption, love and caring and the joy they bring to life.
The wealthy young man married in what moment of temptation is left unsaid, but he did wish to not only keep his family hidden for fear of his society, he was in love with a good young woman, and did not wish to lose her. When the wife turned up in the village and was found dead - due to starvation and cold, having been neglected by the husband - he took the opportunity to say nothing about his connection.
The little child had wandered into the home of a stranger to the village society who had left a traumatic past behind him in the city, where he was persecuted due to his epileptic fits being mislabeled as dealings with devil and he had been thrown out of his work and his life. He had lived for years in the village, but connected with humanity only when he found the child in his home shortly after being robbed of all his money, all his saving, and insisted the child was his to protect and care for.
The father of the child let that be - and so lost the only child he was ever going to have, as it turned out.
Silas Marner gained a life by his act, his choice and his heart's truth in giving love and care to an orphan as he thought the child was. The father of the child lost all but his wealth by deliberately not acclaiming the child he knew was his, and while he married the good woman he loved, he knew he was not good enough for either her or her love, since he was an untruthful unworthy man by virtue of having denied his wife and his child, having neglected one until she died of starvation and cold, and having not claimed the child so she was taken and raised as an orphan by another man, who found the whole village gather round him in the process.
One of the most touching tales about human relationships, mistakes and redemption, crime and sin, fate and choices.
Silas Marner found life, and love of a daughter, with the little girl wandering in and falling asleep at his hearth; it was not his duty but a choice he made to keep the little one he could ill afford. Meanwhile her natural and legal father has refrained from admitting his family, falsified his identity in relation to the family he would not own, for sake of the good young woman he loved, and he lost much in the process of fall from rectitude.
................................................................
Amos Barton:-
For an early work this story has amazing insight into human nature and behaviour, along with a detailed description of the place and time, and also usage of the language far more extensive than what one is used to during 20th century even before the sms era.
Even if one knows nothing of the author it is easy to suspect post finishing the book that this is an autobiographical tale, and it mainly at heart is a very deeply loving daughter's heartbreaking tribute to her very beautiful and universally loved mother who was also a very good person, along with the outward story that is a factual exoneration of her father of a false blame and suspicion harboured by silly neighbours of the parish who could not imagine a beautiful woman taking an extensive stay with a family of a man of cloth even if his own wife was beautiful, much loved by all including himself, and very much present on premises.
Why the author could not show details of the family post the departure of the mother is what one immediately questions after finishing this abruptly ending tale - along with such questions as what happened to other children (only two are mentioned, did the rest die as children did of decease and starvation in poverty in Europe those days?) and why Patty did not marry. That can be only explained by the surmise that this is the story of Mary Ann Evans who took the pen name of George Eliot in order to be able to write in peace and publish at all (- misogyny was not so violent then as now what with crimes against women being more violent and explicit by the day, but women were not seen as people who could think and were certainly not allowed to write and publish, and being an exception was a harsh struggle, so Bronte sisters had male names to publish too as did Madam Sand -) and that she did not marry due to the horror and pathos of the marriage of her mother who died so early in her life, compounded by the fact that there was no dowry for Patty or Mary Ann Evans to help her marry with security of a middle class life, since her father was a poor man of cloth with several children to feed and clothe and shelter.
One cannot but help compare here, since it is very pertinent and relevant - Barton in all his poverty and ordinary Englishman's life and persona of someone who has been to university and is involved day to day in matters intellectual and religious (for Barton approaches religion and sermons within strictly the intellectual realm and bores his parish stiff, enabling them to distance themselves until they sympathise with his loss of his wife) and little or none of the luxuries or power in his life or riches for that matter, is nonetheless no different from the Mongol (Mughal is Persian for Mongol, and the close relatives of Kublai Khan that settled in India routed via Persia bringing that nomenclature) emperor Shah Jahan who built that extravagant mausoleum for his wife on top of the revered temple of the majority religion of the country, achieving two shots in one; both the women were worn out by extensive childbearing beyond their health capability and died due to this " excessive love from the husband", a husband who was incapable of forbearing his sexual appetite even when the consequences endangered the wife's health to the point of death.
Perhaps the only difference is that Barton (or Evans) had no harem to satisfy his needs elsewhere while preserving the loved wife's health and life, and Shah Jahan did but wore out the one loved nevertheless. Amelia Barton died after giving birth to seven children (or is it eight?) and Mumtaj Mahal to fourteen, but then the latter had servants galore to do all her work and take care of her as well, and no lack of physicians or food or remedies of any sort available around in half the known world.
Milly Barton was poor, overworked, starving, worrying about her children being fed and clothed, and paying the bills in all honour.
This says two separate and related things to any aware reader - one, those involved in intellectual and spiritual line of work are likely to be poor as a rule, whether vicars and curates of England or Brahmans of India or rabbis of Jewish diaspora anywhere for that matter, and especially more so when they have families of their own to support and are not allowed to make money by using any skills since they are men of cloth or are Brahmans as indeed they are not by tradition allowed in most of these cases. And two, the only difference in the various traditions mentioned here is that in the older ones the Brahman or the rabbi is at least nominally most respected member of the society while a curate or a vicar is not accorded that social respect without backing of independent wealth, which in fact gets him a better living too.
Positions of vicar, curate, etc might be obtained by anybody and are not hereditary, but that in practice merely means that the positions are either bought by someone for the person appointed or are doled out as a favour to someone for some reason for the favour; as a consequence those richer get higher positions and those from poor background get less paid ones if at all, in church as well in trade or military or any other sphere of work.
On thinking it over, men inheriting their father's trade is not so far off this buying of positions, since most poor in the world are limited to what knowledge their parents can provide them as heritage; and women all over the world are limited even now with everyone seeing them as reproductive functionaries and food preparing and other services providers, to be browbeaten and blackmailed and threatened into it irrespective of time, place, relationship, occasion, whatever.
Indeed the only women that escape it might be born princesses and queens regina of Europe, if any. Others may fight back, but this merely makes life unpleasant, and this is the choice offered them socially as a weapon to force them to submit - until they do submit they are constantly attacked. I have heard a supposedly educated scientist from space agency of Europe questioning sexual capacity of a very famous high profile chief of a computer firm only because he heard about her being appointed in that position, and he went worse from that point. Till date I suspect most people hold him innocent in the huge quarrel we had and of course he probably does not mention his wrongs if indeed he is aware of them, but then even if he did they would not seem wrong to most people but only humour, not to be taken seriously or pointed out the wrongs of seriously. He in fact said it was different if he made racist jokes, which he would not, and was very angry when informed it was not different at all.
His wife wanted to discuss caste system of India, and was nonplussed when pointed out that her not requiring her sons or husband to help her in the kitchen but requiring or expecting any woman around irrespective of age, including any casual visitor or invited guests or new acquaintances, was caste system.
Most men and probably most women too would think this is harsh against Barton and against someone who spent twenty years and millions of public fund to build the most famous mausoleum in the world, since men's sexual needs are held not only incontrollable but sacrosanct, with rape considered natural and of no consequence and in fact the woman's fault for being raped (why was she there, what did she were, did she not encourage it and want it and if so how does anyone prove it, what difference does it make unless it is a damage to her husband or father's honour) through most of the world even now when law is changing and some lip service to a woman's right to be not assaulted is paid at some places around the world.
But fact is, these women died of their husbands "love" for them, thoughtless as it was and driven by the physical needs of the husbands, and what difference does a tombstone or a mausoleum make to the one that is dead?
If that is not convincing, consider what a man - any man anywhere in the world - would say offered the same alternative, of repeated usage and death in youth with a handsome mausoleum as a memento to the "love". It is a no brainer - men would club anyone suggesting this to death, with no memorial.
...........................................................
August 4, 2023
Loved Middlemarch. The other two stories were a long and boring struggle to make it through. I'm pretty sure George Eliot could romanticize a rock. But overall, the stories and character portrayal in Middlemarch were so relatable and thought-provoking. A very enjoyable read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews