Victorians! discussion

For the discussion of chapters 32-42 in Daniel Deronda. If you have not completed these chapters be aware that spoilers may be posted here.

I am back to the part where I wanted to be, that involving the Jewish piece. I am however, somewhat disappointed in it though. It does seem quite contrived in a way and I am not yet buying Daniel's fascination with the Jewish faith. He was raised a British gentlemen and I do think that this Jewish interest would have been much frowned upon by his family. Does Daniel possess a sort of sixth sense as to his background I wonder?

The rest of the book seems quite natural, but this piece seems false. I can't quite fathom Daniel's reasoning. Is it because of his growing interest (love) for Mirah or is there something else? Is it just interest or does Daniel perceive himself a Jew? The character of Mordecai is trying so hard to "convert" Daniel and place on his shoulders his zeal for a national identity and a return to the Promised Land. It just seems to be a little too quick for this trust in someone who does not even know if he is Jewish. I guess I am wondering if anyone else feels this way?

I just don't know how realistic it would have been for a British gentlemen to search out the Jews especially considering how they were so looked down upon in Victorian times.

Marialyce wrote: "I am back to the part where I wanted to be, that involving the Jewish piece. I am however, somewhat disappointed in it though. It does seem quite contrived in a way and I am not yet buying Daniel's..."

I agree - it didn't seem in character. Also, I thought it seemed unusual how the Cohen family welcomes this stranger, lets him play with and kiss the little kids and invites him to celebrate the Sabbath - especially since they believe Deronda to be a gentile. Since Jews are so persecuted, I would think they would be a bit more wary or cautious.

I think Daniel and Mira, together, are the ethical center of this novel. They are almost too good to be true, but I root for both of them and hope for the fairytale ending of them ending up together. Their lives have parallels in that they have both "lost" their family and have been saved by a very good person.

It is a rare gentleman, in those times, who would not only rescue a poor Jewess, but also find her a home and show a special interest in her. But I think he is a rare gentleman. He is rare, foremost, in that he does not know about his parentage. I think this sets him apart from all other gentlemen.

(I keep thinking about Oscar Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest while reading this novel - especially the line about how careless it is to lose not only one, but two parents.)

Daniel falls in love with her. But how many ordinary gentlemen in those times would admit that to themselves? He goes in search of her family, to the Jewish quarter of the city and postpones asking the right questions for fear that he will find them too easily and, thereby, lose Mirah. Hence, he gets caught up with Mordecai and all his talk about Daniel being Jewish and about the Jewish faith. I'm not sure how fascinated he is with all this talk. I think he is being polite. Maybe I missed something - easy to do with the pages and pages of Mordecai's speeches.

I have to say that one of the things which irritated me about Daniel was his reluctance to discover the truth about Mirah's parents. Even before his falling in love with her, or at least before he declares it (to himself at least and thus to the reader) he expresses a hesitancy on endeavouring in the task becasue of his cynical concerns that it may be discovered that her mother is not the good woman which Mirah remembers.

I do not think that it is Daniel's place to determine what Mirha ought or ought not to know about her family, and I think he should honestly try to seek them out and should teller her the plain and simple truth for better or for worse.

I do not think that he should impose his own personal feelings into the search and allow his feelings however good intended they may be to interfere with his performing the task as such is not fair to Mirha, even if the information he discoverers is not pleasant news.

I agree. But, somehow, I put that aside and put my trust in Eliot, that she has Daniel procrastinate for a reason.

On another note, I have to say that a part of me was acutally surprised that the marriage between Gwen and Grandcourt went through, Though she had accepted his engagement, I kept exepcting/waiting for something to happen which would break the engagement or prevent the marriage from happening in someway. I never completely thought they would in fact truly end up married.

For those who have not read The Portrait of a Lady this may be a spoiler. But it is a comparison I noticed between the characters in both books I thought was worth mentioning for those whom have read both books.

(view spoiler)[Their marriage reminds me a lot of the marriage between Isobel and Osmound. In both cases I think the women married for the wrong reasons, as well were overconfident in thier ability to gain the upper hand over thier husbands. And I think there are a lot of similar traits between Osmond and Grandcourt, they both sought out to marry women whom they thought would be a challenge for them to gain control over and whom they would enjoy being able to break, and both care more only about themselves. (hide spoiler)]

In regards to Mrs. Glasher, though I can understand her being angry, I think that it was a bit naive of her to truly beleive that Grandcourt really would have eventually ended up marrying her if it were not for Gwen. I think if Grandcourt had planed to marry Mrs. Glasher, he would have already done so and well would not be attempting to court other women, particaurly one with whom a union would not bring him any advantage. Mrs. Glasher's feelings would be more justified if he had simply chosen to marry an heiress.

When Mrs Gashner makes her threat against Gwen through the delivery of the pearls, she does make quite a gothic type prediction. How true however, her words seem to be. Gwen is miserable in the marriage and Grandcourt's control seems to take an evil, sinister turn and delight in the situations he places his wife in. Sad, but true, Gwen seems doomed to a life of unhappiness brought on mainly by her need for money and success. She obtained what she wanted, escape from being a governess, but at such a price.

Daniel and Mirah on the other hand being the good people of the novel, seem to have
everything going for them. Eliot, it seems (at least to me) tries to make two points with
them. First of all is it possible that she is hammering home how just and wonderful Jewish
people are? Secondly, is she saying that life can turn around and hand you exactly what
you want and feel you need, and it is surprisinging and if you are good, the surprises are
good as well?

I, too, feel sorry for Mrs. Glasher and of course the children. How she could ever think
Grandcourt would marry her? She was a kept woman and was considered to be without morals.
Certainly, according to the standards of the time, she deserved what she was getting.
Was she as naive as Gwen to Grandcourt's manner? He is such a vile character, sinister
in his approach, and always the one who seems to be in the winning position.

Many of the characters seem to be searching for that inner self. It is interesting how Eliot
has made the good characters ultra good and the bad ones quite the opposite. I am anxious to see if any of the bad ones have a change of heart. Does anyone see the ultimate outcome yet?

I know this is a long piece of writing, but it does explain Eliot's reasoning when it came to writing this novel.

George Eliot herself said that she had written Daniel Deronda “to ennoble Judaism,” and to requite a moral debt owed to the Jews, as she explains to Harriet Beecher Stowe in the following letter:

“As to the Jewish element in ‘Deronda,’ I expected from first to last, in writing it, that it would create much stronger resistance, and even repulsion, than it has actually met with. But precisely because I felt that the usual attitude of Christians towards Jews is — I hardly know whether to say more impious or more stupid, when viewed in the light of their professed principles, I therefore felt urged to treat Jews with such sympathy and understanding as my nature and knowledge could attain to. Moreover, not only towards the Jews, but towards all Oriental peoples with whom we English come in contact, a spirit of arrogance and contemptuous dictatorialness is observable which has become a national disgrace to us. There is nothing I should care more to do, if it were possible, than to rouse the imagination of men and women to a vision of human claims in those races of their fellow-men who most differ from them in customs and beliefs. But towards the Hebrews we western people, who have been reared in Christianity, have a peculiar debt, and, whether we acknowledge it or not, a peculiar thoroughness of fellowship in religious and moral sentiment. Can anything be more disgusting than to hear people called "educated" making small jokes about eating ham, and showing themselves empty of any real knowledge as to the relation of their social and religious life to the history of the people they think themselves witty in insulting? They hardly know that Christ was a Jew. And I find men, educated, supposing that Christ spoke Greek. To my feeling, this deadness to the history which has prepared half our world for us, this inability to find interest in any form of life that is not clad in the same coat-tails and flounces as our own, lies very close to the worst kind of irreligion. The best that can be said of it is that it is a sign of the intellectual narrowness — in plain English, the stupidity — which is still the average mark of our culture.

“Yes, I expected more aversion than I have found. But I was happily independent in material things, and felt no temptation to accommodate my writing to any standard except that of trying to do my best in what seemed to me most needful to be done; and I sum up with the writer of the Book of Maccabees, — "If I have done well, and as befits the subject, it is what I desired; and if I have done ill, it is what I could attain unto.”

Marialyce, thank you for that quote. Explains a lot.

I am so far behind in my reading, but hope to catch up with you all soon. I must say the discussions have brought so much more depth and pleasure to my reading.

The discussions have been wonderful. Thanks, Christy!

Silver wrote: "On another note, I have to say that a part of me was acutally surprised that the marriage between Gwen and Grandcourt went through, Though she had accepted his engagement, I kept exepcting/waiting ..."

I was also expecting (and hoping!) that something would prevent Gwendolen and Grandcourt's marriage.

Silver wrote: "I have to say that one of the things which irritated me about Daniel was his reluctance to discover the truth about Mirah's parents. Even before his falling in love with her, or at least before he ..."

I agree. Daniel has a responsibility to tell Mirah anything he discovers about her family. It is not for him to judge them and make a decision about their worthiness to be associated with her. It smacks of someone doing something for someone else's "own good".

Marialyce wrote: "I am back to the part where I wanted to be, that involving the Jewish piece. I am however, somewhat disappointed in it though. It does seem quite contrived in a way and I am not yet buying Daniel's..."

Daniel does seem to become very quickly fascinated with Judaism and Mordecai's teaching. The only way this made sense to me was to assume that the meeting between Mordecai and Daniel was one of those rare instances where two people seem to immediately connect, to "click" on a deep level.

I'm finding this aspect of the novel very interesting but more difficult to read.

Marialyce wrote: "I know this is a long piece of writing, but it does explain Eliot's reasoning when it came to writing this novel.

George Eliot herself said that she had written Daniel Deronda “to ennoble Judaism,..."

Thanks for sharing that.

It is rare to find a Victorian novel that shows Jews in a positive light. A nice change! Dickens did also create a more favourable portrayal of one character in Our Mutual Friend but I can't think of any other instances. Does anyone else know of other Victorian novels that show something other than the anti-semitic sterotype?

I think his fascination with Judaism and Jewish people can be explained partly in Deronda's outsider status in his own circle. He has neither the right blood lines nor the promise of money and rank in order to fit into the world that he is surrounded by. This has made him unusually sensitive to the plight of others who are persecuted or plagued by circumstances of their birth.

George Eliot was also fascinated with Judaism and studied Hebrew and the religion formally with a rabbi. It's been my personal experience that some people develop a strong interest in Judaism that is not explained by their heritage. I took classes in Hebrew in college although I have absolutely no genetic ties to Judaism. There were several other goys (non-Jews) in the class as well. Some were staunch Christians who were taking the class in order to read the Old Testament in the original language. The others' motivations were harder to define. On the whole, our professor, who was an Israeli-born Jew, was often frustrated with the Jews in our class, constantly bringing up the fact that the goys seemed more interested in learning Hebrew than they were. (In fairness, most were not interested in learning any language and just took the course to satisfy the language requirement. Since they already knew some Hebrew, it became the logical choice. I don't mean to reflect on Jewish attachment to their language, just to illustrate that an interest in Jewishness is not determined exclusively by genetics.)

I think it shows that she had some "training" in the ways and teaching of the Jewish way of life. I have to say that I do live in a very Jewish area and my best friend is Jewish, so this section held special interest for me. I think we, as Christians, find ourselves at times drawn to the Jewish way of life. It is from whom we have descended religiously.

I'm only half way through, and I was a little puzzeld by the scene between Gwen and Daniel about living with a big guilt on the coscience. Here Daniel looked more catholic to me that Jewish in his attitude

Marialyce wrote: ...I think we, as Christians, find ourselves at times drawn to the Jewish way of life. It is from whom we have descended religiously.
"

I have to say I am slightly offended by this post. I think you meant to say YOU as a Christian...it is from whom YOU descend.

I am not a Christian and your assumption that everyone in this reading group follows your religious beliefs is narrow-minded at best.

@Jamie,

I don't think Marialyce is assuming everyone here is a Christian. She said 'we, as Christians...' so, she meant 'we Christians' as a group. If you aren't a Christian, she is not including you in the group she's talking about.

That said, I think that Daniel's interest in Judaism is not based on religion, but more as an interest in a group that is distinct and different. He responds more to the persecutions they faced as a people without their own homeland than responding to any shared history he feels.

Exactly right, Mickey.. I mention a group of people who follow Christianity having their roots so to speak in a Jewish past.

Certainly, I would not begin to think all here in this group practice Christianity. I embrace all faiths or lack of same as a rightwe all have due to our freedom of choice.

Point of fact is although raised a Catholc by strict parents, I follow now no particular faith, just the belief in a higher power.

As for Daniel, Mickey, I do see what you are thinking. I still do hold to my thoughts that he is looking to belong somewhere, to something that he could put down roots into, a place to feel that he is one of them. Eliot chose Judism, but I think it could have been anything that would have given his life a greater meaning,

I ended up skimming much of the latter pages of these chapters. I'm finding Eliot overly verbose and boring.

Mickey wrote: "@Jamie,

I don't think Marialyce is assuming everyone here is a Christian. She said 'we, as Christians...' so, she meant 'we Christians' as a group. If you aren't a Christian, she is not includin..."

OK. I will accept your interpretation.

Have you considered the passage at the beginning of chap. 43
"If there are ranks in suffering, Israel takes precedence of all the nations--if the duration of sorrows and the patience with which they are borne ennoble, the Jews are among the aristocracy of every land--if a literature is called rich in the possession of a few classic tragedies, what shall we say to a National Tragedy lasting for fifteen hundred years, in which the poets and the actors were also the heroes?"
And that before the second world war; what would Daniel think reading the same lines nowadays?
And all the discussion at the club? It sounded strange to me seeing what the sionists thoght about Mazzini.
In Italy we tend to consider the Palestinians more close to what we had to go trough 150 years ago ...

Marialyce wrote: "I am back to the part where I wanted to be, that involving the Jewish piece. I am however, somewhat disappointed in it though. It does seem quite contrived in a way and I am not yet buying Daniel's..."

I agree. Eliot doesn't seem to have laid a sufficient background for DD's interest -- he could easily look for Mirah's family without delving so deeply into Judaism. However, perhaps it reflects Eliot's own experience in developing a personal interest in Judaism and studying it quite seriously both from personal interest and as background for writing DD. I'm not aware of what sparked her interest initially; perhaps it was somewhat organic, which might explain why she has DD's interest develop in the same sort of way.

That said, I'm relieved that for the moment we've moved on from the totally spoiled and insipid life of Gwendolyn, of whom I was getting very tired. ,

I did read that she was extremely interested in all religions. She always remained interested in religion, but she rejected its more dogmatic and rigid elements and her writings explore the possibility of goodness without god in an essentially humanist way. People from all walks of life wrote to her for guidance on how “to live a good life in a godless universe.” A typical piece of her advice was: “Wear a smile and make friends; wear a scowl and make wrinkles. What do we live for if not to make the world less difficult for each other.”
However, Eliot had become interested in Jewish culture through her acquaintance with Jewish mystic, lecturer and proto-Zionist Immanuel Oscar Menahem Deutsch. Part of the inspiration for the novel was her desire to correct English ignorance and prejudice against Jews. Mordecai's story, so easily forgotten beside the glitter and passions of Gwendolen's, nonetheless finishes the novel. Partly based on Deutsch, Mordecai's political and spiritual ideas are among the core messages of the book.
(from wiki)

Mordecai's political and spiritual ideas are very difficult reading and I find myself barely skimming them. The novel would be so much better without him.

Yes, he does tend to go on and on and everything is a lesson it seems in Judaism and faith. Interestingly though, Elizabeth, that his is the only character believed to be based on a real life person.

It isn't the ideas themselves that make such difficult reading as the way they are written. I'm not sure exactly what I would want changed, though I know that long discourses like his are just not why I open a book.

I found him to be preachy which I think zealots are.

I guess it is no surprise that the Jewish community loved Eliot's work. Many Jews have often held that marrying outside their faith diluted the Jewish line. It was so perfect that (view spoiler)[Daniel turned out to be Jewish and married a Jew. (hide spoiler)].