What, in your view, do the rustic village characters contribute to the novel "Silas Marner"?

Just a bit of desperate revision before tomorrow's test. I MUST not screw up.

"Silas Marner" is a novel about human relationships and of people, woven together by the story of the redemptive power of love in the life of Silas Marner, the novel's very endearing protagonist. What, then, do the rustic characters of Raveloe, in their multiple appearances throughout the novel, have to contribute to the novel's grand scheme of things? From their rustic charm and down-to-earth approach to life and its travails, the rural folk of Silas Marner, in all their simplicity, enhance and colour "Silas Marner", and even teach us a few things about life. This essay will thus examine the role of the rustic folk in "Silas Marner", and discuss their contributions to the novel.

Thomas Hardy once commented that "the business of the poet and novelist is to show the sorriness underlying the grandest things, and the grandeur underlying the sorriest things", and this is particularly relevant to George Eliot's treatment of class-distinction in "Silas Marner". The rustic folk, with their simplicity- in morality, religion and lifestyle- are juxtaposed with the gentry, and this imposes upon readers the same moral judgements that Eliot forces upon us throughout the whole novel. From a simple reading of the novel, one immediately realises that the gentry is the only source of what is aptly labelled moral depravity and a very simple evil in all the characters. A quick glance reveals Dunsey Cass- a thief, braggart, drunkard and punter- and Godfrey Cass, a man of "indecision", keeper of dark secrets and later, the man that seeks to take Eppie away from Marner.

In contrast, the rustic folk offer a much rosier picture. We have caring Dolly Winthrop - a woman of "scrupulous conscience" and the one motherly figure in the novel-, the judicious Mr. Macey and of course, Silas Marner himself. Throughout the novel, Eliot fosters in us a certain fondness for the villagers of Raveloe. There is a spirit of community in the way they all begin to warm up to Marner, offering food and consolation, after his gold is lost, and in the way almost the whole village turns up for Eppie's wedding at the end of the novel. From the "iterated" talk amongst villagers about the happenings in each others' lives, we see Raveloe as a tight-knit society, and this is something very endearing in its illustration of human relationships. We can contrast this with the constantly turbulent relationships amongst the characters of the gentry whose lives we are given insight to. Our first meeting with Godfrey and Dunstan sees them quarelling, revealing Dunstan's hideous treachery at once, and we later see how Squire Cass, the purported "greatest man in Raveloe" is but a hedonist and a bad parent who cannot find it within him to even exchange morning pleasantries with his son. The rustic folk and their simple community spirit and general pleasantness thus contribute to the novel by forming a stark contrast with the gentry, showing how there is subtle beauty in simplicity.

Shakespeare 1: The Shakespearean Tragedy- "Structural, Dramatic and Thematic Make-up"

What encompasses the Shakespearean Tragedy?

Tragedy: Drama in which the protagonist is overcome by some superior force or circumstance; excites terror or pity.

An introduction

Certainly, the frameworks of the Shakespearean Tragedy lie in the eventual deaths (or overcoming by "some superior force or circumstance") of the protagonists and antagonists, as well as of various key characters. There is no resounding (or apparent) victory, though this does not necessarily imply that there is no conflict resolution. The thematic makeup of the play will generally deal with issues of morality and human vice and how, through the machinations of poetic justice and Chance, they lead to the downfall of the principal characters of the work, and their immediate relations.

I believe the Shakespearean Tragedy differs from the Bard's works in other genres, in that he presents Man as 'never perfect'. The protagonist in the Shakespearean tragedy, whilst perceived to be the generally 'good' character, has his deadly flaws and his death in the end is meted out 'measure for measure', as it were.

Of Pity (and Pain)

Another aspect to consider is that the Tragedy is saturnine, gloomy and, in the words of A.C Bradley in his Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) "painful".

"He (Shakespeare) was writing tragedy, and tragedy would not be tragedy if it were not...painful....Sometimes from the very furnace of affliction a conviction seems borne to us that somehow, if we could see it, this agony counts as nothing against the heroism and love which appear in it and thrill our hearts."

Bradley goes on to say that: "we are (sometimes) driven to cry out that these mighty or heavenly spirits [ie: the tragic heroes (?)] who perish are too great for the little space in which they move, and that they vanish not into nothingness but into freedom...".

This is something I feel uncomfortable with, by virtue of the fact that the two tragedies I've read (this pittance of course warranting my opinion on this matter somewhat suppositious) don't give me a sense that the protagonist of the Shakespearean Tragedy is in any way deserving of the adoration of the reading/viewing public. Painful, yes, because of several thematic and dramatic forces at work; sad, yes, because there is death (much of it thoroughly unnecessary) but certainly not something that can galvanise us into fiery "furnaces of affliction", and certainly not reflective of the "heroism and love" of the fallen in question.

I will try, over this series on the Shakespearean Tragedy to support my views, with reference to my reading of "Hamlet", "Julius Caesar", "King Lear" and the tragi-comedy "Romeo and Juliet", clearly the largest and most famous of Shakespeare's tragedies. [sic: Bradley doesn't classify Caesar nor Romeo under the Tragedy umbrella]

More soon...

Oh dear...

Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy:
Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1905. Shakespeare Navigators.
...
27 Feb. 2005

Donne

"They who one another keepe
Alive, ne'r parted bee."

The most beautiful lines of metaphysical poetry I have ever read (ok, so maybe it's not ALOT).

Earlier in the sonnet, Donne does make substantial reference to the spectre of death. What struck me as significant was how "Alive" is here used to counter death and Destiny, with the affirmative "ne'r parted bee", a proclamation to the forces of mortality that love overcomes all.

Sweet.

Silas Marner as flawed. But Avaricious?

Raphael mentioned in lit lecture the other day... that...

Silas Marner is not necessarily all good and no evil, depending on how skewed one's definition of evil is. Going on to cite the Christian definition of evil, he then raised the question of Marner's evil lying in his avarice.

His excessive love for his gold is a) disturbing b) abnormal c) neurotic

d) avaricious?

I'm wont to disagree, without offense to Raphael, because I see a slight kink in the way avarice is seen here.

Avarice is the "desire to have a lot of money that is considered to be too strong" (Longman), and I believe the deadly sin associated with this is more greed than avarice (avarice is a tad too specific). Don't get me wrong, this isn't being anal with definitions... Marner would be considered avaricious or greedy if the love for his money (I stress his) is of its material and monetary value. I believe, however, that Silas' love of his money (in its many symbolic roles throughout the novel) has a very different tinge compared to your usual victim of hyper-acquisitiveness.

Marner and Money

1. Marner's acquisition of money, in the novel, is never described as obsessive or compulsive. He works NOT for the money but, as I read it, to wile the time away. And the pile of gold, to him, is indicative of how time passes him by as it grows in size.

"Gradually the gunieas, the crowns, and the half-crowns, grew to a heap and Marner drew less and less for his own wants... do we not wile away moments of inanity or fatigued waiting by repeating some trivial movement or sound... That will help us to understand how the love of accumulating money grows an absorbing passion in men.... (that shows) them no purpose beyond it..."

The last line or so complicates things... Marner is avaricious for collecting money? Hardly. Avarice should be more than just the futile collection of money, it has to encompass the value of the money in question, otherwise an inane collection of bottle caps or other trivialities could be regarded, by a loose definition, to be quasi-avaricious.

2. Money, to Silas (or Silas' money) has no real (ie intrinsic or monetary) value. His consumption patterns are static (aside from his earthenware pot, he "granted himself" very few other "conveniences"). What, then, does he use his hoard for? Apart from subsistence, he has no use for the surplus (contrast this to his use of money after his metamorphosis).

3. Marner's money is the reservoir of his remaining emotions. More a need to feel affectionate for something, here inanimate, (observe his overly-sentimental attachment to an earthenware pot) in place of his lost faith in humanity and God. His money becomes his life because he needs to feel emotion towards something.

Therefore?

Marner's money is not real money in that skewed sense. His hoarding of money is not for the sake of being rich, not for spending power, not for prestige (as an avaricious person would tend to be), but for very emotional, psychological purposes. To wile time away and to fill the void that his disregard for humanity ("his life narrowing and hardening itself more and more into a mere pulsation of desire and satisfaction that had no relation to any other being").

Observe how easily Eppie replaces Marner's money (Marner himself makes reference to how Eppie is, to him, a replacement for comfort he once found in the money. Upon her arrival, he no longer frets over his money returning to him and does not feel the pang of its loss. When his gold is found at the end of the novel, he finds it has "lost its hold" over him.

Marner's real sin, in the Christian sense, should actually be some form of idolatry and abject cynicism- a deliberate shunning of the Lord and the disregard of a life steeped in religion, not avarice or greed. The latter two are sins too strong for and, as I read it, above the likes of Silas Marner and the rest of Raveloe's non-gentry townsfolk. Then again, looking at the sins I've just accused Silas of, we question whether he's really at fault here, because his becoming a Jonah figure- hiding from the Lord, the "Power he had vainly trusted" being "very far away from this land in which he had taken refuge", is inflicted by something wildly beyond his control. Evil in the Christian sense? Everyone is evil in the Christian sense.

Just my 2 cents' worth.

Genesis- "Silas Marner and God"

"Silas Marner" certainly concerns itself with religion in a way that is worth examining. Just a few thoughts:

-During today's horror of a lit lecture, Hisham brought up a point about the poetic justice in "Marner" being a result of the will of God. It got me wondering. What did he base that on?

- My rudimentary definition of poetic justice in relation to "Marner"

• In the words of Miss Kalidas, the simplistic "good prospers, evil is destroyed" mechanism. Polar ends of the "good-bad" spectrum meet fates that are, quite crudely, 'fit' for them.
• Silas finds true happiness and love, and the only seemingly evil character (Dunstan) perishes.
• The question to ask is: Is this the Will of God?

Joel's pseudo-self-important-dissidation on the Will of God in literature and "Silas Marner"

I believe that for God to, as expressed in writing, "will" for something to happen, there has got to be a certain kink in the narrative, or at least a partial slant in the way the plot and characters are developed.

First and foremost, the plot and characters need to be engineered in a way that convincingly "creates" an omnipotent God-figure ("he that hath the steerage of my course" as expressed by Romeo [Romeo & Juliet 1.4.12]). How else is the Will of God to be manifested as poetic justice, as a mechanism of the narrative-machine if God is not, in any way, portrayed as existent in the text?

This omnipotent God-figure also needs to have a considerable amount of control, if not flexibility, in the direction of the plot. Coincidence, opportunity, chance and serendipity are all dramatic and narrative devices that can, for the purpose of linking God to poetic justice, be used to explain the divine's workings in the fate of the microcosmic fictional world synthesised by the author.

Do we see this in "Marner?"

Yes (and it would be interesting to examine Eliot's relationship with religion in this context, though that'll be for another post :p).

Serendipity, chance and well-placed opportunity in "Silas Marner"

Another cross reference to Romeo and Juliet unearths yet another relevant nugget. Romeo exclaims in Act 3 Scene 1 that he is "Fortune's Fool", but a pawn on the grand chessboard of the cosmos, an actor on Shakespeare's "world as a stage" (scripted, planned-out... dramatic). The dramatic or narrative devices that involve the spectre of Chance and Fate are but logical handles that can be used to link the plot to the work of God, or a God-figure, in the going-ons of the narrative. "Marner" is laden with these little "rivulets" of chance.

1. (Good prospers) Chapter 12: The death of Molly is followed by Silas' (suggestively) divine trance and the discovery of Eppie.

• The implications of Eppie's arrival are, of course, apparent to all. It is through Eppie that Silas begins the grand transformation ('rebirth', if you will), and the arrival of this life-changing vehicle is shrouded with chance.
• Silas' care of Eppie and Molly's own demise pave the way for Godfrey's own happiness.
• ODDLY... Eliot makes mention of the antithesis of the God-figure:
• "Slowly the demon was working his will
• This confuses me, somewhat, for Molly's demise, rather tragically, happens right outside Marner's door. A trade-off, perhaps, between God and the Devil. Eliot seems to be setting the scene for an almost ecclesiastical association with the coming events.
• Marner's seizure, his fit (a trance, even), allows him to see Eppie. (A tad of a stretch, but it seems like God is thrusting him towards her).
• Chance, or God, has, therefore, a very physical control over this situation.

2. (Evil is destroyed) Chapter 18: Dunstan is discovered/uncovered/recovered/whatever

• Dunstan actually falls into a stone-pit, right after he "stepped forward into the darkness" (Chapter 4) from Marner's house.
• Do we know if this is God's will? No, but we can speculate. The poetic-justice surrounding Dunstan's death is only complete in its effect when it is revealed to the reader, and this would not have been possible if it had not been for the need to, after 16 years, drain the stone pit.
• Again, somewhat of a stretch, but we can't deny the chance involved in this.
• Interesting how the gold is returned to Silas after his metamorphosis has gone full circle (ie. from contented in Lantern-Yard, to recluse, to a contented Marner in Raveloe)... as if it is God's will to "return" the gold when fit. (Interesting premise for discussion... Marner's "full cycle")

My Conclusion?

Chance and Fate seem to take on a pivotal role in Silas Marner, as they did with "Romeo and Juliet", though the pagan references to "Chance" or "Fortune" are absent in Eliot's work. Chance/Fortune/Fate seem, in "Marner" to be embodied in the God-figure whose, given the very rural and ritualistic society of "Marner"'s world (incidentally a very Christian society), part to play in the two main instances of poetic justice in the novel is very much suggested and implied.

Implied, perhaps, by Eliot's own introduction of religion into her fiction and through an invisible, but nontheless present and vital, divine impetus. Eliot is god, in a sense, in her fiction and the will of this god is manifested in the slants in her narrative.

The End

Hope it makes sense. I'll revisit this after reading a couple more Eliot/Victorian works and see if my opinion has changed.

Genesis- "Silas Marner