Assighnment: paper-8

Literary Criticism 

 

Topic: Northrop Frye- Archetypal Criticism

Name: Kalani Jalpa H.

Roll No: 13

Semester:2

Batch:2010-11

Submitted: To:  Dr.Dilip Barad

Department of English, Bhavnagar University.

Northrop Frye’s Archetypal Criticism

In literary criticism the term archetype denotes recurrent narratives designs, patterns of action. Character types, themes and images which are identifiable in a wide variety of works of literature, as well as in myths, dreams and even social rituals. Such recurrent items are held to be the result of elemental and universal forms or patterns in the human psyche, whose effective embodiment in a literary work evokes a profound response from the attentive reader, because he or she shares the psychic archetypes expressed by the author. An important antecedent of the literary theory of the archetype was the treatment of myth by a group of comparative anthropologists at Cambridge University, especially James G. Frazer, who’s The Golden Bough (1890-1915), identified elemental patterns of myth and ritual that, claimed, recur in the legends and ceremonials of diverse and far- flung cultures and religious. An even more important antecedent was the depth psychology of Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), who applied the term “archetype” to what he called “primordial images”, the “psychic residue “of repeated patterns of experience in our very ancient ancestors which, he maintained, survive in the “collective unconscious” of the human race and are expressed in myths, religion, dreams, and private fantasies, as well as in works of literature. Archetypal literary criticism was given impetus by Maud Bodkin’s Archetypal patterns in poetry (1934) and flourished especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Apart from him, the other prominent practitioners of various modes of archetypal criticism were G. Wilson Knight, Robert Graves, Philip Wheelwright, Richard Chase Leslie Fiedler, and Joseph Campbell. These critics tended to emphasize the occurrence of mythical patterns in literature, on the assumption that myths are closest to the elemental archetype than artful manipulation of sophisticated writers.

The death/ re-birth theme was often said to be the archetype of archetypes, and was held to be grounded in the cycle of the seasons and the organic cycle of human life; this archetype, it was claimed, occur in primitive rituals of the king who is annually sacrificed, in widespread myths of gods who die to be reborn, and in a multitude of diverse texts, including the Bible, Dante’s Divine Comedy in the early 14^th century and S.T Coleridge’s Rime of Ancient Mariner in 1798.

Among the other archetypal themes, images and characters frequently traced in the heavenly ascent, the search, the Paradise/Hades dichotomy, the promethean rebel-hero, the scapegoat, the earth goddess, and the fatal woman.

Bodkin’s Archetypal patterns in poetry, the first work on the subject of archetypal literary criticism, applies Jung’s theories about the collective unconscious, archetypes, and primordial images to literature. It was not until the work of Frye’s thesis in “The Archetypes of Literature “remains largely unchanged in anatomy of criticism. Frye’s work helped displace New Criticism as the major mode of analyzing literary texts, before giving way to structuralism and semiotics.

Frye’s work breaks from both Frazer and Jung in such a way that it is distinct from its anthropological and psychoanalytical precursors. In his remarkable and influential book Anatomy of Criticism (1957). N. Frye developed the archetypal archetypal approach into a radical and comprehensive revision of traditional grounds both in the theory of literature and the practice of literary criticism.

For Frye, the death-rebirth myth that Frazer sees manifest in agriculture and the harvest is not ritualistic since it is involuntary, and therefore, must be done. As for Jung Frye was uninterested about the collective un-conscious on the grounds of feelings it was un-necessary; since the unconscious is unknowable it cannot be studied. How archetypes is his interest.

F5rye, proposed that the totality of literary works constitute a “self-contained literary universe “which has been created over the ages by the human imagination so world of nature into archetypal forms that serve to satisfy enduring human desires and needs. In this literary universe, four radical mythoi, correspondent to the four seasons in the cycle of the natural world are incorporated in the four major genres of comedy (spring), romance (summer), tragedy (autumn) and satire (winter).

Within the overarching archetypal mythos of each of these genres, individual a number of more limited archetypes- that is, conventional patterns and types that literature shares with social rituals as well as with theology, history, law and, in fact, all “discursive verbal structure archetypally, Frye asserted, literature turns out to play an essential role in refashioning the impersonal material universe into an alternative verbal, because it is adopted to universal human needs and concerns.

There are two basic categories in Fry’s framework, i.e. comedic and tragic. Each category is further subdivided into two categories: comedy and romance for the comedic; tragedy and satire

(Or ironic) for the tragic. Though he is dismissive of Frazer, Frye uses the seasons in his archetypal schema. Each season is aligned with a literary genre: comedy with spring, romance with summer, tragedy with autumn, and satire with winter.

Ø  Comedy is aligned with spring because the genre of comedy is characterized by the birth of the hero, revival and resurrection. Also, spring symbolizes the defeat of winter and darkness.

Ø  Romance and summer is the culminations are paired together because summer is the culmination of life in the seasonal calendar, and the romance genre culminates with some sort of triumph usually a marriage.

Ø  Autumn is the dying stage of the seasonal calendar, which parallels the tragedy genre because it is, known for the “fall “demise of the protagonist.

Ø  Satire is metonymies with winter on the grounds that satire is a “dark” genre. Satire is a disillusioned and mocking form of the three other genres. It is noted for its darkness, dissolution, the return of chaos, and the defeat of the heroic figure.

Ø  The context of a genre determines how a symbol or image is to be interpreted. Frye outlines five different spheres in his schema: human, animal, vegetation, mineral and water.

Ø  The comedic human world is representative of wish- fulfillment and being community centered. In contrast, the tragic human world is of isolation, tyranny, and the fallen hero.

Ø  Animals in the comedic genres are docile and pastoral while animals are predatory and hunters in the tragic.

Ø  For the realm of vegetation, the comedic mineral realm. The tragic mineral realm is noted for being desert, ruins or “of sinister geometrical images”.

Ø  Lastly, the water realm is represented by rivers in the comedic. With the tragic, the seas, and especially floods, signify the water sphere.

Fry admits that his schema in “The Archetypes of Literature “is simplistic, but makes room for exceptions by noting that there are islands such as Circe’s or Prospero’s which cannot be categorized under the tragic or comedic.

 It has been argued that Frye’s version of archetypal criticism strictly categorizes works based on their genres, which determines how an archetype is to be interpreted in a text. According to this argument the dilemma Frye’s archetypal criticism faces with more contemporary literature, and that of post-modernism in general, is that genres and categories are no longer distinctly separate and that the very concept of genres has become blurred, thus problematizing Frye’s schema for instance Beckett’s waiting for godot is considered a tragicomedy, a plays with elements of tragedy  and satire, with the implication that interpreting textual elements in the play becomes difficult as the two opposing seasons and conventions that Frye associated with genres are pitted against each other. But in that arguments about generic blends such as tragicomedy go back to the renaissance, and Frye always archived of genres as fluid, Frye thought literary forms were part of a great circle and were capable of shading into other generic forms.

Ø  The example of archetypes in literature:

Archetypes fall into two major categories characters, situations /symbols it is easiest understand then with the help of example listed below are some of the most common archetypes in each category.

Ø  Characters:

Ø  1) The Hero: The courageous figure, the one who’s always running in and saving the day. Example: Dartagnon from Alexander Dumas’s “The Three Musketeers”.

Ø  2) The Outcast: The Outcast is just that, he or she has been cast out of society or has left it on a voluntary basis. (Pandvas, Ram-Sita-Laxman, Sugreve, Duke, Orlando, Rosalind in as you Like It, Tramps in Godot).

Ø  3) The Scapegoat: The Scapegoat figure is the one who gets blamed for everything regardless of whether he or she is actually at fault. (Tom Jones, Darcy Tess for Death of Prince, giving birth to sorrow).

Ø  4) The Star-Crossed lovers: this is the young couple joined by love but unexpectedly parted by fate. Romeo and Juliet, Tess and Angel, Heer-Ranja, Sheeri-Farhad.

Ø  5) The Shrew: This is that nagging, bother-some wife always battering her husband with verbal abuse. Katherina in Taming of Shrew, Paul’s mother in Son’s and lovers.

Ø  6) Female Fatale: A female character type who brings upon catastrophic and disastrous events. Eve from the story of Genesis from Greek mythology is two such figures. Seta Draupadi or Surparnakha.

Ø  7) The Journey: A narrative archetype where the protagonist must overcome a series of obstacles before reaching his or her goal. The quintessential journey Homer’s Odyssey.

Ø  Situations/Symbols: Archetypal symbols very more than archetype narratives or character types, but any symbol with deep roots in a culture’s mythology, such as the forbidden fruit in Genesis or even the poison apple in Snow White, is an example of a symbol that resonates to archetypal critics.

Ø  The Task: A situation in which a character or group of characters, is driven to complete. Some duty of monstrous proportion. (Bring Helen back to Troy. Kurukshetra’s battle for Arjun, Savitri).

Ø  The Quest: The characters are searching for something, whether consciously or unconsciously. Their actions, thoughts, and feelings centre around the goal of completing this quest. (Search for Holy Grail, search for Sita, Nal-Damayanti, Savitri for Satyakam’s life, Shakuntala in Kalidas, Don Quixote, Jude).

Ø  The Loss of Innocence: this is, as the name implies, a loss of innocence through sexual experience, violence, or any other means, (Tess, Tom Jones, Jude, and Molly).

Ø  Water: Water is a symbol of life, cleansing and rebirth. It is a strong life force, and is often depicted as a living, reasoning force.

Ø  Rivers:  Death and rebirth: the following time into eternity, transitional phases of the life cycle. (Water movie and novel by Bapsi Sidhwa, Death by Water, Polluted River in Waste Land).

Ø  Clours:

Ø  Red: Blood, Sacrifice, Passion, Disorder

Ø  Green: Growth, Hope, Fertility

Ø  Blue: Highly Positive, Secure, Tranquil, Spiritual Purity.

Ø  Black: Darkness, Chaos, Mystery, the Unknown Death, Wisdom, Evil, Melancholy.

Ø  White: Light, Purity, Innocence, Timeless

Ø  Yellow: Enlightment, Wisdom.

Ø  Numbers:

Ø  3: Light, Spiritual Awareness, Unity, Male Principle.

Ø  4: Associated with the circle, life cycle, four seasons, earth, nature, elements.

Ø  7: The most potent of all symbolic numbers signifying the union of three and four ,the completion of a cycle, perfect order, perfect number, religious symbol.

Ø  Garden: Paradise, Innocence, Unspoiled beauty.

Ø  Tree: Denotes life of the cosmos, growth, proliferation, symbol of immortality, phallic symbol.

Ø  Desert: Spiritual aridity, death, hopelessness.

Ø  Creation: All Cultures believe the Cosmos was brought into existence by some supernatural being.

Ø  Seasons:

Ø  Spring: Rebirth, Genre/Comedy

Ø  Summer: Life, Genre/Romance

Ø  Fall: Death/Dying/Romance

Ø  Winter: Without life/ Death, Genre/Irony.

 A

Assighnment: paper-10

Cultural Studies 

 

Topic:Cultural Studies in Practice: Hamlet

Name: Kalani Jalpa H.

Roll No: 13

Semester:2

Batch:2010-11

Submitted: To:  Dr.Dilip Barad

Department of English, Bhavnagar University.

Cultural Studies in Practice: Hamlet

In several instances earlier in this chapter we noted the cultural and new historical emphases on power relationships. For example, we noted that cultural critics assume “oppositional” roles in terms of power structures, wherever they might be found. Veeser, we pointed out, credited the new historicists with dealing with “questions of politics, power, indeed on all matters that deeply affect people’s practical lives”. And of course there are the large emphases on power in the matter of Jonathan Swift’s Laputta, as previously noted. Let us new approach Shakespeare’s Hamlet with a view to seeing its cultural context.

Shortly after the play within the play, Claudius is talking privately with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Hamlet’s fellow students from Wittenberg. In response to Claudius’s plan to send Hamlet to England, Rosencrantz delivers a speech that- if read out of context- is both an excellent set of metaphors and a summation of the Elizabethan concept of the role and power of kingship:

The singular and peculiar life is bound

With all the strength and armor of the Mind

To keep itself from noyance, but much more

That spirit upon whose weal depends and rests

The lives of many. The cease of majesty

Dies not alone, but like a gulf doth draw

What’s near it with it? It is a massy wheel

Fixed on the summit of the highest mount.

To who’s huge spokes ten thousand lesser things

Are mortised and adjoined; which, when it falls

Each small annexment, petty consequences

Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone

 Did the king sigh out with a general groan?

Then alone, the passage is a thoughtful and imagistically successful passage, worthy of a wise and accomplished statesman.

But how many readers and viewers of the play would rank this passage among the best-known lines of the play- with Hamlet’s soliloquies, for instance, or with the king’s effort to pray, or even with the aphorisms addressed by Polonius to his son Laertes? We venture to say that the passage, intrinsically good if one looks at it alone, is simply not well known.

Attention to the context and to the speaker gives the answer. Guildenstern had just agreed that he and Rosencrantz would do the king’s bidding. The agreement is only a reaffirmation of what they had told the king when he received them at court. Both speeches are wholly in character, for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are among the jellyfish of Shakespeare’s characters. Easy it is forget which of the two speaks which lines-indeed easy it is forget most of their lines altogether. The two are distinctly plot-driven: empty of personality, sycophantic in a sniveling way, eager to curry favor with power even if it means spying on their erstwhile friend weakly they admit, without much skill of denial, that they “were sent for”. Even less successfully they try to play on Hamlet’s metaphorical “pipe”, to know his “stops”, when they are forced to admit that they could not even handle the literal musical instrument that Hamlet shows them. Still later these nonentities meet their destined “non-being ness”, as it were, when hamlet, who can play  the pipe  so much more efficiently, substitutes their names in the death warrant intended for him. If ever we wished to study two characters that are marginalized, then let us look upon Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are from the Dutch-German: literally, ‘garland of roses’ and ‘golde4n star. Although of religious origin, both names together sound singing and add to English ears. Their jingling gives them lightness, and birds the individuality of the characters they label.

Lightness to be sure. Harley Granville Barker once wrote in an offhand way of the reaction these two roles call up for actors. Commenting on Solanio and Salarino from The Merchant of Vanice, he noted that their roles are “cursed by actors as the two worst bores in the whole Shakespearean canon; not excepting, even those other twin brethren in nonentity, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern”.

Obvious too is the fact that the two would not fit the social level or have the level of influence of those whom Harold Jenkins reports as historical persons bearing these names: “These splendidly resounding names, by contrast with the unlocalized classical ones, are evidently chosen has particularly Danish. Both were common among the most influential Danish families’ nobles and even note the appearance of the name as Wittenberg students around 1590.

No, these details do not seem to fit the personalities and general vacuity of Shakespeare’s two incompetents. So, let us look elsewhere for what these two characters tell us. Let us review what they do, and what is done to them. Simply, they have been student at Wittenberg. They return to Denmark, apparently at the direct request of Claudius. They try to prey from Hamlet some of his inner thought especially of ambition and frustration about the crown, hamlet foils them. They crumble before his own questioning. As noted above, Claudius later sends them on an embassy with Hamlet, carrying a letter to the king of England that would have Hamlet summarily executed. Though they may not have known the contents of that “grand commission”, Hamlet’s suspicion of them- and to “trust them as adders fanged”.

They must sweep my way,

And marshal me to knavery. Let it work, for it’s the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard. And it shall go hard but I will delve one yard below their mines and blow them to the moon: Oh,’it’s most sweet when in one line two crafts directly meet.

In a moment of almost trickery on his own part, hamlet blithely substitutes forged documents bearing their names rather than his as the ones to be “put to sudden death, /not shriving time allowed”. When Horatio responds laconically with “so Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to‘t, hamlet is unmoved.

Why, man, they did make love to this employment.

They are not near my conscience. Their defeat

Does by their own insinuation grow?

This dangerous when the baser nature comes

 Between the pass and fell incensed points of mighty opposites.

And with that Shakespeare as well as Hamlet- is done with these two characters “they are not near Hamlet’s conscience”.

Again, why? For one thing, Hamlet may well see himself as righting the moral order, not as a murderer. And much has been said on that matter. But let us take note of another dimension: the implications for power. Clearly Hamlet makes reference in the lines just noted to the “mighty opposites” represented by himself and Claudius. Clearly, too, the ones of “baser nature” who “love to this employment” do not matter much in this struggle between powerful antagonists. They are pawns for Claudius first for Hamlet second. It is almost as if Hamlet had tried before the sea voyage to warn them a sponge, provoking this exchange:

Hamlet: …Besides, to be demanded of a sponge! What replication should be made by the son of a king?

Rosencrantz: Take you me for a sponge, my lord?

Hamlet: Aye, sir, that soaks up the king’s countenance, his authorities. But such officers do the king best service in the end. He keeps them, like an ape, in the corner of his Jaw, first mouthed, to be last swallowed. When he needs what you have   gleaned, it is but squeezing you and, sponge you shall be dry again.

So they are pawns, or sponges, or monkey food: the message of power keeps coming through. Thus, they do not merit a pang of conscience. True, there may be some room for believing that at first they intended only good for their erstwhile schoolfellow. But their king, the power that has brought them here. Their face, however, is to displease mightily the prince, who will undermine them and “hoist with own petard”.

For such is power in the world of kings and princes. Nor is it merely a literary construct. England had known the effects of such power off and on for centuries .whether it was the deposing and later execution of Richard-2, or the crimes alleged of Richard-3, or the beheading of a Thomas More or of a wife or two, or the much more recent actions in and around the court of Elizabeth: in all these cases, power served policy. Witness especially the face of the second earl of Essex, whose attempt at rebellion led to his own execution in 1601, and even more especially the execution of Elizabeth’s relative, Mary Queen of Scots, who had been imprisoned by Elizabeth for years before Elizabeth signed the death warrant. A generation later, another king, Charles-1, would also be beheaded. With historical actions such as these, we can understand why Shakespeare’s work incorporates power struggles.

Claudius was aware of power, clearly, when he observed of Hamlet’s apparent madness that “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.

To say, then, that the mighty struggle between powerful antagonists is the stuff of this play is hardly original. But our emphasis in the present reading is that one can gain a further insight into the play, and indeed into Shakespeare’s culture, about the lesser persons caught up in the massive oppositions.

It is in instructive note that the reality of power reflective of Shakespeare’s time might in another time and in another culture reflect a radically different worldview. Let us enrich our response to Hamlet by looking at a related cultural and philosophical manifestation from the twentieth century. In the twentieth century the dead, or never-living, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were resuscitated by Tom Stoppard in a fascinating re-seeing of their existence, or its lack. In Stoppard’s version, they are even more obviously two ineffectual pawns, seeking constantly to know who they are, why they are here, where they are going. Whether they “are” at all may be the ultimate question of this modern play. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard has given the contemporary audience a play that examines existential questions in the context of a whole world that may have no meaning at all. Although it is not our intension to examine that play in great detail, suffice it to note that the essence of marginalization is here: in this view, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are archetypal human beings caught up on a Ship-Spaceship Earth for the twentieth or the twenty-first century- that leads nowhere, except to death, a death for persons who are already dead. If these two characters were marginalized in Hamlet, they are even more so in Stoppard’s handling. If Shakespeare marginalized the powerless in his own version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard has marginalized us all in an era when-in the eyes of some- all of us are caught up in forces beyond our control. In other words, a cultural and historical view that was Shakespeare’s is radically reworked to reflect a cultural and philosophical view of another time- our own.

And if the philosophical view of Stoppard goes too far for some, consider a much more mundane phenomenon of the later twentieth century- and times to come, we except. We allude to the Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s, the little people, who have been caught up in recent decades the effects on these workers when multinational companies move factories and offices around the world like pawns on a chessboard.

Whether in Shakespeare’s version or Stoppard’s, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no more than what Rosencrantz called a “small annexment”, a “petty consequence”, mere nothings for the “massy wheel” of kings.   

 

Assighnment: paper-9

The Victorian Literature

 

Topic: Multiplicity of Themes in Middlemarch

Name: Kalani Jalpa H.

Roll No: 13

Semester:2

Batch:2010-11

Submitted: To  Ms.ruchira Ma'm

Department of English, Bhavnagar University.

 

Multiplicity of Themes in Middlemarch

Middlemarch is a complex work of art and a number of themes and ideas are woven into its complex fabric. One of its major themes, however, is the frustration of noble ideals and lofty aspirations by meanness of opportunity, i.e. an unfavorable environment and “spots of commonness” in the character of the idealistic himself. George Eliot studied this very theme in The Mill on the floss and her other novels also, but in Middlemarch the theme has been studied with reference to a number of characters, and has been universalized in this way.

§  Dorothea-Casaubon Story: Meanness of Opportunity: Dorothea is the first major character in the novel whose life is a tragedy of frustrated idealism. She has been referred to as a modern St.Theresa motivated by an intense desire to do good and make some noble achievement. But Middlemarch society, narrow stinted and tradition bound, offers little opportunity for the realization of her ideals by making projects for the re-building of the cottages of the poor tenants on the state of a neighboring baronet and friend of the family, Sir Chettam. But the scope for such philanthropy is extremely limited and it brings little satisfaction to this later day Theresa. Thus her lofty aspirations are frustrated by her meanness of opportunity.

§  Lydgate-Rosamond Story: Meanness of Opportunity: This very frustration of noble aspirations by ‘meanness of opportunity’ and ‘spots of commonness’ is also illustrated by Lydgate-Rosamond story. Well educated and cultured Ledgate is an exceptional individual who is keep to promote the cause of medical science by devoting his energies to higher research are study, and not waste them in earning money like the common fashionable physician. But, says Joan Bennett, “Lydgate’s promise the promise to a man of exceptional moral and obstructive stupidity of the religious and political prejudice, professional jealousy and difficulty which can impede the progress of medical science. But unfulfillment was to be partly also the result, both of positive and negative qualities in his own character”.

§  Integrated Vision and Thematic Unity: Various critics have expressed various views regarding the central theme of the novel. According to Joan Bennett, the central theme of the novel is the compromise which ultimately a man makes between the life to which he aspired, and kind of life which the human condition perm its. This theme has been illustrated through the life and careers of a number of characters, and this gives to the novel a race unity of design. The vision of the novelist is an integrated one, and this accounts for the unity of the novel and its immense variety.

§  Mr.Bulstrode’s Acceptance: This very compromise is also made by a number of other characters in the book. It is made by Mrs.Bulstrode after the downfall and disgrace of her husband. She comes to him after a night of deep spiritual anguish. It was eight o’clock in the evening before the door opened and his wife entered. “He dared not look up at her. He sat with his eyes bent down, and as she went towards him she thought he looked smaller-he seemed so withered and shrunken. A movement of new compassion: and old tenderness went through her like a great wave, and putting one hand on his, which rested on the arm of the chair, and the other on his shoulder, she said, solemnly but kindly ‘Look up, Nicholas’.” She accepts her husband, despite his sin and disgrace, and her acceptance of him is an acceptance of the human condition with all its limitations.

§  Dorothea’s Quest: Dorothea, of course, is an idealist, she has a theoretic mind- a modern Saint Theresa- and she seeks self-fulfillment by achieving noble and remarkable. But the limited and conservative Middlemarch society has an inhibiting effect on her quest for her true vocation. For some time she tries to engage herself with projects for building new and better cottages for the poor tenants, but such projects are soon felt to be inadequate. Her quest is also inhibited by her sex, for her conservative environment provides little freedom of movement to a young girl like her.

§  Her Frustration: she marries Casaubon in the hope that in marrying him she would be marrying Pascal, and finds her true vocation by helping him in his scholarly researches. Again her quest is frustrated because Casaubon is no true scholar but only a dried up pedant, a mere stick of a man, pseudo-scholar incapable of any higher achievement, The marriage is a failure, for Dorothea fails to find her true vocation through it. Then she marries WillLadislaw, the only man she had ever loved, and in this marriage soon dwindles into a good wife and mother.

§  Lydgate’s Quest: His Frustration: Lydgate is equally frustrated in his quest for a proper vocation by an inhibiting environment. Well-educated, cultured and progressive, he had come to Middlemarch in the hope that in the seclusion of this provincial town he would be able to pursue his scientific research undisturbed. But the Middlemarchers are entirely in capable of appreciating such projects, and have a poor opinion of a professional man who does not practice for money. Then he has to face the hostility and jealousy of other medical man of the town. Soon he is entangled into marriage by the vain and frivolous Rosamond, and as a consequence is involved in endless financial difficulties. His appreciation on the part of Middlemarchers, ultimately compel him to leave Middlemarch for London where he becomes a fashionable doctor, practicing for money. His rare gifts are thus wasted; his quest for true vocation comes to naught.

§  Egoism and Self- Centeredness: According to W.J.Harvey, the theme of vocation runs through the novel and is an important unifying force, but it is subsidiary to another theme which may be called the transcendence of self and the birth of a new self through moral self-education. The learned critic writes, “The taproot of her vision, that which nourishes the whole fabric, is her concern with what we may call the transcendence of self. The typical psychological and spiritual environment of her protagonists is the painful struggle to break free from the prison of egoism into a life of sympathy with their fellow men. Her most acute studies are often of the reverse process, the spiritual degeneration and purification of the corrupted soul as it creates its own private hell.

§  Its evil Consequences: we have Bulstrode, for example who chokes his conscience in the padding of doctrinal justification. Above all, there is Casaubon; chill, impotent, a creature of shadows who walks an interior labyrinth and says of himself, with unconscious irony: ‘I feed to much on the inward sources; I live too much with the spoilt child; on one occasion only does she rise those her cold, neutrality, only to lapse again into her habitual self. Fred Vincy, too, displays an equally childish selfishness, though treated more lightly here, since unlike his sister he is capable of reform; he is no match for the sturdy good sense of Mary Garth.

§  Suffering and Illumination: but the most complex exemplars of moral self-education are, of course, Lydgate and Dorothea. In each case this self-education and self-transcendence is brought about through a ‘baptismal of fire’, through suffering which purifies the soul, which purges it of all dross and results in inner illumination. “Pain is the great lord of mortals” in George Eliot’s novels and it is through pain that evil within is conquered and spiritual regeneration taken place.