The Old Wives Tale and Wesleyan Methodism

In The Old Wives' Tale, Arnold Bennett portrays the divergent yet parallel lives of two English sisters.  One sister Constance remains in a provincial English town her entire life while Sophia elopes to Paris with the feckless though dashing Gerald Scales.  A pessimistic interpretation of the novel would be to say we live, grow old, and die.  And while there is quite a bit of pessimism in the book, a wider perspective would state that the aim of the novel is to show the influence of one's upbringing and surroundings on a person's path in life.  The two heroines are raised in a small provincial town in 19th century England, the progeny of parents of strict adherence to the principles of Wesleyan Methodism.  Bennett, himself raised according to these same principles, uses a sardonic tone to describe the Baines family in church:

In the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel on Duck Bank there was a full and influential congregation. For in those days influential people were not merely content to live in the town where their fathers had lived, without dreaming of country residences and smokeless air—they were content also to believe what their fathers had believed about the beginning and the end of all. There was no such thing as the unknowable in those days. The eternal mysteries were as simple as an addition sum; a child could tell you with absolute certainty where you would be and what you would be doing a million years hence, and exactly what God thought of you. Accordingly, every one being of the same mind, every one met on certain occasions in certain places in order to express the universal mind. And in the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, for example, instead of a sparse handful of persons disturbingly conscious of being in a minority, as now, a magnificent and proud majority had collected, deeply aware of its rightness and its correctness.

And the minister, backed by minor ministers, knelt and covered his face in the superb mahogany rostrum; and behind him, in what was then still called the 'orchestra' (though no musical instruments except the grand organ had sounded in it for decades), the choir knelt and covered their faces; and all around in the richly painted gallery and on the ground-floor, multitudinous rows of people, in easy circumstances of body and soul, knelt in high pews and covered their faces. And there floated before them, in the intense and prolonged silence, the clear vision of Jehovah on a throne, a God of sixty or so with a moustache and a beard, and a non-committal expression which declined to say whether or not he would require more bloodshed; and this God, destitute of pinions, was surrounded by white-winged creatures that wafted themselves to and fro while chanting; and afar off was an obscene monstrosity, with cloven hoofs and a tail very dangerous and rude and interfering, who could exist comfortably in the middle of a coal-fire, and who took a malignant and exhaustless pleasure in coaxing you by false pretences into the same fire; but of course you had too much sense to swallow his wicked absurdities. Once a year, for ten minutes by the clock, you knelt thus, in mass, and by meditation convinced yourself that you had too much sense to swallow his wicked absurdities. And the hour was very solemn, the most solemn of all the hours.

Strange that immortal souls should be found with the temerity to reflect upon mundane affairs in that hour! Yet there were undoubtedly such in the congregation; there were perhaps many to whom the vision, if clear, was spasmodic and fleeting. And among them the inhabitants of the Baines family pew! Who would have supposed that Mr. Povey, a recent convert from Primitive Methodism in King Street to Wesleyan Methodism on Duck Bank, was dwelling upon window-tickets and the injustice of women, instead of upon his relations with Jehovah and the tailed one? Who would have supposed that the gentle-eyed Constance, pattern of daughters, was risking her eternal welfare by smiling at the tailed one, who, concealing his tail, had assumed the image of Mr. Povey? Who would have supposed that Mrs. Baines, instead of resolving that Jehovah and not the tailed one should have ultimate rule over her, was resolving that she and not Mr. Povey should have ultimate rule over her house and shop? It was a pew-ful that belied its highly satisfactory appearance. (And possibly there were other pew-fuls equally deceptive).   (Book 1, Ch. 5)

Bennett gives a Thackerayan description of the "solemn" service, with the battle between God and his evil counterpart for the attention of the congregation.  Nevertheless, the scene provides background for the beliefs of the Baines family and their community, belonging to a rigid religious system convinced of "its rightness and correctness."  There is no room for discussion, what must be cannot be changed or debated.  It is in this spirit that Constance responds to the death of her sister Sophia:

Up to within a few days of her death people had been wont to remark that Mrs. Scales looked as young as ever, and that she was as bright and as energetic as ever. And truly, regarding Sophia from a little distance—that handsome oval, that erect carriage of a slim body, that challenging eye!—no one would have said that she was in her sixtieth year. But look at her now, with her twisted face, her sightless orbs, her worn skin—she did not seem sixty, but seventy! She was like something used, exhausted, and thrown aside! Yes, Constance's heart melted in an anguished pity for that stormy creature. And mingled with the pity was a stern recognition of the handiwork of divine justice. To Constance's lips came the same phrase as had come to the lips of Samuel Povey on a different occasion: God is not mocked! The ideas of her parents and her grandparents had survived intact in Constance. It is true that Constance's father would have shuddered in Heaven could he have seen Constance solitarily playing cards of a night. But in spite of cards, and of a son who never went to chapel, Constance, under the various influences of destiny, had remained essentially what her father had been. Not in her was the force of evolution manifest. There are thousands such (Book 4, Ch. 4).

What a harsh judgment from a sister!  Nevertheless, Constance has remained committed to the beliefs of her parents that all will be judged harshly who have compromised those beliefs.

Sophia had sinned. It was therefore inevitable that she should suffer. An adventure such as she had in wicked and capricious pride undertaken with Gerald Scales, could not conclude otherwise than it had concluded. It could have brought nothing but evil. There was no getting away from these verities, thought Constance (Book 4, Ch. 4).

Constance's unforgiving attitude toward her sister's demise dehumanizes Constance as a barbaric, unfeeling personification of the Wesleyan Methodist system.  Her first thoughts of her sister after her death is not of her soul but of her sin.  She offers no means of redemption, the deed was done and the punishment was absolute.  In this society, every misdeed faces harsh judgment (though admirably, Constance defends her son when he steals money from the till), and any misfortune must be the result of some character flaw.  In the case of Daniel Povey:


The flighty character of his wife was regarded by many as a judgment upon him for the robust Rabelaisianism of his more private conversation, for his frank interest in, his eternal preoccupation with, aspects of life and human activity which, though essential to the divine purpose, are not openly recognized as such—even by Daniel Poveys. It was not a question of his conduct; it was a question of the cast of his mind (Book 2, Ch. 2).

His perverse frame of mind is to blame for his wife's character.  In another instance, the refusal of Madame Foucault to allow her residence to be used as a brothel any further is rewarded, showing the other side of divine justice:

Madame Foucault was deeply impressed. Characteristically she began at once to construct a theory that Sophia had only to walk out of the house in order to discover ideal tenants for the rooms. Also she regarded the advent of the grocer as a reward from Providence for her self-denial in refusing the profits of sinfulness (Book 3, Ch. 6).

A respectable tenant is the reward for her "self-denial."  All wasn't bad in this society, though everything that happened was viewed as a divine judgment, whether favorable or unfavorable.  Nevertheless, subjection to this judgment was a fearful aspect of life.

A Review of Three Men in a Boat

Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog) by Jerome K. Jerome is a book that details the week-long journey of the title characters down the River Thames from London to Oxford and back.  Along the way, all four characters (including the dog) experience of adventures hilariously described by Jerome.  Th trip commences when the narrator discovers he has every disease except housemaid's knee and basically exhibits a "general disinclination to work."  He and his two friends, George and Harris, along with the dog Montmorency embark on a boating trip with many humorous occurrences.

One of the funniest stories involves the transport of smelly cheese.  While they are packing and preparing to begin the trip, the narrator tells of his consent to take some cheese to the home of a friend, who plans to return home later.  During the trip, the narrator clears out an entire train car with the "two hundred horse-power scent."  The smell of the cheese, upon arrival at the friend's house, forces the wife to take her children to stay in a hotel, rather than live in the house with the cheese.  When the owner of the cheese attempts to take it to the mortuary, the coroner declares the smell could wake up the dead.  Ultimately, the cheese is buried on a beach that becomes a haven for consumptive people.  Therefore, the narrator decides that one should never take cheese on a trip.

Harris tells the story of his attempt to conquer the Hampton Court Maze.  A cousin had given him a map that solved the maze by taking the first right every time.  When he attempted to use the map he ended up getting himself and a big group of people lost.  With the group infuriated at him, Harris gives up and gets the help of the keeper, who is new on the job and can't help the group either.  Eventually, a more experienced keeper helps everyone escape.

One of my favorite accounts involves a trout in a glass case mounted on the wall of an inn.  An old gentleman tells the men that he caught the fish 16 years previously and that it weighed over 18 pounds.  After he leaves the room, another man enters and claims to have caught the 26-pound fish five years before.  They meet three more men, including the landlord, who claim to have caught the fish of various weights.  George climbs to get a closer look at the famous specimen when he slips and knocks the trout off the wall, causing it to shatter several pieces.  The stuffed trout proves to be a plaster of Paris fish.

The book contains many other amusing stories, including the description of the nearing drowning of the men while trying to pose for a photograph.  The book is also valuable for its historical accounts of sites and cities along the way.  I highly recommend this cavalcade of whimsy to anyone who enjoys a delightfully clean, entertaining tale.

Deerbrook and Middlemarch

Deerbrook (1839), the first of only two novels by Harriet Martineau, is a work that combines Romantic elements with those of the realist movement.  It describes the arrival of the Ibbotson sisters in the titular provincial town and the marriage of one of the sisters, Hester, to the new town doctor Edward Hope.  Despite being in love with Margaret, Hope marries Hester due to the expectations of the town inhabitants.  The marriage experiences much turmoil, though eventually the novel ends happily for the couple. 

The similarities between Deerbrook and Middlemarch are undeniable, particularly in the characters of Edward Hope and Tertius Lydgate.  Both are doctors in English provincial towns, to which both are fairly new in their medicinal practices.  As medical men, among ignorant country villagers, both are subjected to nasty, unsubstantiated rumors involving the theft of dead bodies.  Both cast controversial votes that leave them alienated by a significant portion of their patients.  Both face unhappy marriages, loveless at the outset.  Nevertheless, Hope's marriage ends up a success while Lydgate's fails.  So what causes the difference in the outcome of the two marriages?  One significant is the motive of each man.

Hope, though in love with Margaret, marries Hester, who loves him, out of obligation to the expectations of society.  Because Hester loves him and others recognize it and believe him to return her feelings, Hope consents to marry her, though his love belongs elsewhere.  Hope enacts a self-sacrifice for the good of Hester, to avoid her disappointment and embarrassment.  Tabitha Sparks describes the marriage as "serving a communal rather than personal good" (31).*  Though not the marriage Hope desires, the marriage produces the greatest possible happiness for all involved:  Margaret loves another and eventually marries him while Hope grows to love Hester.

Lydgate, however, has proven himself hasty in the art of love.  While studying in Paris, he falls in love with a married actress who murders her husband who wearies her with his love.  Lydgate carelessly, though prophetically, declares that he will never love again and doesn't truly love Rosamond when he marries her.  Lydgate's love is his profession and he is more interested in the sickness than the patient.  Nevertheless, he marries her because she's beautiful and will make his home life easier.  Like Hope, love does not lay a major role in his decision but unlike Hope, his motive is purely selfish.

Another difference is home life between the two doctors.  Hope comes home from his visits to a home inhabited by a supportive wife and sister-in-law.  Though the environment is far from perfect, peace and harmony exists because the afflictions from outside sources bring the family together.  Despite poverty which forces them to give up their maid, the Hopes and Margaret make their minds to persevere and do whatever necessary to survive.  They recognize that their poverty is the result of vicious rumors and have faith that truth will prevail.

The home life of the Lydgates is anything but serene.  While Martineau provides many portraits of the home life of the Hopes, Eliot rarely describes that of the Lydgates.  Tertius and Rosamond always seem to be separated, in different spheres.  Rosamond is mostly at home while Tertius is out in the field of work.  Rosamond is bored with her life and in no way supports her husband's occupation.  She spends more time at home with Ladislaw than Lydgate in the pages of the novel.  Ladislaw, at least, takes an interest in her music and one finds it hard to pinpoint one facet of her personality in which Lydgate takes an interest.  Neither is willing to accept their financial situation and it causes tension between the two.  Lydgate dies at 50 and considers his life as well as his marriage a failure.

Hope's display of selflessness paves the way to his success in marriage and life.  He settled for the most convenient marriage and he and his family agree to remain a strong unit no matter the adversity.  The Lydgates never progressed past their own selfish interests to make their marriage life a happy one.  Martineau makes the case that it more than love to hold a family together.

*"Doctoring the Marriage Plot:  Harriet Martineau's Deerbrook and George Eliot's Middlemarch" in The Doctor in the Victorian Novel by Tabitha Sparks.

Caleb Garth's Philosophy of Work

The Gleaners (1857) by Jean-Francois Millet

"That depends," said Caleb, turning his head on one side and lowering his voice, with the air of a man who felt himself to be saying something deeply religious. "You must be sure of two things: you must love your work, and not be always looking over the edge of it, wanting your play to begin. And the other is, you must not be ashamed of your work, and think it would be more honorable to you to be doing something else. You must have a pride in your own work and in learning to do it well, and not be always saying, There's this and there's that—if I had this or that to do, I might make something of it. No matter what a man is—I wouldn't give twopence for him"—here Caleb's mouth looked bitter, and he snapped his fingers—"whether he was the prime minister or the rick-thatcher, if he didn't do well what he undertook to do" (Ch. 56).

The essence of Caleb Garth's philosophy on work is whatever your work consists of, love it and do it well.  Though Caleb always proved to be a diligent worker, he did not always bring in a salary proportional to his work ethic.  Nevertheless, Caleb strongly believed that one's work ethic reflected one's character, particularly a husband's with regard to his family.  His daughter Mary quotes him when she states "an idle man ought not to exist, much less be married" (Ch. 14).  Caleb sees work as preparation for the responsibilities of being married.  In cautioning Mary about marriage, Caleb tells her that a husband has an obligation to provide for his family:  "A woman, let her be as good as she may, has got to put up with the life her husband makes for her" (Ch. 25).  Caleb warns his daughter that the work ethic of a potential husband will have a huge effect on the lives of his dependents.  A lazy man makes a bad husband.  Caleb himself did not always have a lot of money, his wife at one point admonishing him that he must give up working for free, but he always worked hard.  At the reading of Featherstone's will, Caleb is almost alone of the many present that has no expectation of receiving money, going so far as to say, "I wish there was no such thing as a will" (Ch. 35).  Caleb does not believe in accepting handouts--it goes against the principles in which he believes.  There are many characters in the novel that would benefit from his tutelage.  I will highlight two that could have (Casaubon and Will Ladislaw)and one that does (Fred Vincy).

One person in the novel that fails to measure up to Caleb's work ethic is Casaubon.  While not lacking in ambition, in planning the massive Key to All Mythologies, Casaubon does lack the needed diligence to complete such a magnum opus.  In setting himself to such a task, he hoped to gain the respect of his colleagues while producing a work that would carry his name to future generations.  Unfortunately, the reasons why Casaubon is not taken seriously as a scholar become painfully apparent.  Firstly, he fails to learn German, which is an important language to his field.  Secondly, by failing to acquire the requisite knowledge, he handicaps his ability to remain up to date on the latest scholarship and fails to realize that his ideas are already antiquated.  Casaubon does not have the work ethic of Caleb and, therefore, dies unsuccessful.

Whereas Casaubon lacks intellectual skill, Will Ladislaw proves to be very intelligent.  Throughout the novel, Ladislaw shows the ability to speak fluently about art, writing, and politics.  Ladislaw's biggest encumbrance is his outsider status.  Much like Lydgate, Ladislaw faces criticism due to the uncertainty surrounding his origin.  Rumors spread of his possibly being Jewish or Corsican, despite his being English and Polish and a relative of Casaubon's.  As a result, Ladislaw struggles to find his proper place in Middlemarch society.  Casaubon says he "declines to choose a profession" (Ch. 9), though that is not entirely true.  Though he draws excellent sketches, he makes it clear that he has no interest in being an artist, having more respect for writing over visual art.  He is invited by Mr. Brooke to write for the political newspaper The Pioneer but is happy to give it up when the Brooke sells the paper.  Patience seems to play a role in his unsuccessful attempts at finding a career:  "If things don't come easily to me, I never get them" (Ch. 21).  He makes that statement when he is living off Casaubon's money, but his friendship with Dorothea pushes him to make something of himself.  Ladislaw is not lazy, but he seeks a challenge, and his job with the newspaper bored him after a while because he is not convinced that he can effect change in that position.  He continues to drift aimlessly until his marriage to Dorothea, after which he becomes a MP and achieves success.  Ladislaw can only work in an environment in which he makes a difference in people's lives (similar to Dorothea).

Fred Vincy is in the unique in that he is interested in marrying Mary Garth and must meet the expectations that Caleb has set forth.  Fred develops the reputation of a sponger:  he lives off other people's money while making none of his own.  He is hopeful of being Featherstone's inherito, though Fate ruins his plans.  He falls prey to gambling and loses his money, making himself unable to pay the loan for which Caleb co-signs.  Nevertheless, Fred desires to marry Mary, who reciprocates his feelings, though she is leery of Fred's potential to provide as a husband.  Caleb is the only one that sees promise in Fred, and he secures Fred a job assisting in the management of the Brooke and Chettam estates.  Caleb recognizes that Fred is not lazy, he just needs an opportunity as well as an extra push.  The episode of Fred's bad penmanship illustrates that Fred is capable of being success if he has someone to work patiently with him.  Caleb gives his approval to the match without fretting his daughter's future.

Caleb provides an excellent example of how hard work can present opportunities for a person.  The three men described above could use some of Caleb's work ethic.  Caleb believed in loving your work.  Casaubon never loves his work, it becomes a burden to him.  Will refuses to settle for any occupation he does not love.  Fred becomes passionate about his work and wins praise in the agricultural community.  Caleb also believed in having pride in your work.  While Casaubon never produces a work of which he could be proud, Will and Fred find pride in the work they do.  Therefore, the latter two experience successful lives.

No Incentive To Change

A Country Cottage by Frederick Watts (1800-1870)

One theme in Middlemarch is the resistance of provincial folks to change.   For this reason, Lydgate faces a lot of opposition in his pursuit to better the lives of his neighbors.  He battles the gossip that arises about his non-traditional methods in treating his patients, differing from his predecessor Mr Peacock as well as his contemporaries.  Having been educated in Paris Lydgate refuses to prescribe medicine for the sake of making money, particularly in cases where no medicinal solution is needed.  His patients, used to being placated by placebo, grow suspicious of his motives, despite the success of his methods.  Rumors fly that Lydgate wants dead bodies for dissection.  Even when patients recover as a  result of Lydgate's methods, people accuse him, by reviving the dead, of using powers reserved for the Divine.  Either way, Lydgate is demonized, by Middlemarchers and fellow practitioners alike, for his desire to make advancements in medicine. 

By being an outsider in a small country town, Lydgate is subject to being misunderstood, even as he misunderstands the environment in which he lives.  He has big dreams, having been educated in Paris and desiring to retire to a provincial setting to implement his new approaches.  He fails to realize the significance of the ballot he casts and how his decision causes him to aligned with the unpopular Bulstrode.  He is also blind to the skepticism the community has toward all things foreign and unfamiliar.  Lydgate's hometown is never disclosed and his familial origins are unclear.  As skeptics, Middlemarchers dissociate themselves from change, objecting to the introduction of the railroads to the detriment of their land.  Despite the setting in an "age of transition," Middlemarchers are hesitant to embrace transition.  Lydgate wrongly believes that success will make his methods more appealing.

Lydgate's chief flaw is pride, trusting in his superior education in dealing with his neighbors.  He acknowledges that "people never consider that a thing is good to be done unless it is done by their own set" (Ch. 44).  Change is only acceptable when it comes from within.  Nevertheless, Lydgate tries to bring change from the outside, never ameliorating his methods with input from other Middlemarch doctors.  He goes too far in overturning, though rightly, Dr. Minchin's diagnosis of a patient, saying "It's not tumour: it's cramp" (Ch. 45).  Dr. Minchin believes that it is "indecent in a general practitioner to contradict a physician's diagnosis" (Ch. 45), showing not only that Lydgate's action was ill-advised but also the lack of respect other have for him by referring to him as merely a "general practitioner."  The failure of Lydgate to assimilate into Middlemarch society causes him to be viewed as an outsider and makes his methods less likely to be accepted.