Will Ladislaw Shakes out his Brilliance onto Dorothea
Will Ladislaw has benefited from a liberal education and his attitudes
toward learning and knowledge resonate with those of Cardinal Newman (The Idea of a University). Casaubon
explains some of Ladislaw’s education philosophy: “On leaving Rugby he declined
to go to an English university . . . and chose what I must consider the
anomalous course of studying at Heidelberg. And now he wants to go abroad
again, without any special object, save the vague purpose of what he calls
culture, preparation for he knows not what. He declines to choose a profession”
(72). Casaubon mocks Ladislaw for declining to choose a profession (73); however,
Ladislaw is conscious that by extensive travel and education, he is receiving a
liberal education, which Newman explains will “be a faculty of entering with
comparative ease into any subject of thought, and of taking up with aptitude
any science or profession” (xix). Rather than fixing himself on one profession
and restricting all his learning to that one field, Ladislaw opts for Newman’s
concept of liberal education. He exposes himself to many branches of knowledge
and to much scholarship, in part to assure that his own knowledge and
scholarship is not thrown away “for want of knowing what is being done by the
rest of the world” (190). Consequently, he considers a pluralistic and broad
education to be the cornerstone to knowledge.
What Newman's liberal arts program may have looked like |
As a result he, unlike Casaubon,
gains synthesis and clarity in his mind. He explains to Casaubon and Dorothea that
“Rome had given him quite a new sense of history as a whole: the fragments
stimulated his imagination and made him constructive” (194). He experiences
that phenomenon Newman attributes to a liberal education: “[The] true enlargement of mind which is the
power of viewing many things at once as one whole, of referring them severally
to their true place in the universal system, of understanding their respective
values, and determining their mutual dependence” (137-8). Ladislaw’s methods of
learning have brought together many pieces of knowledge and formulated them
into a coherent understanding of life. And his conception of the purpose of
knowledge “[consists] neither in self-conceit nor in humility, but in a power
to make or do, not anything in general, but something in particular” (74). He,
like Dorothea, desires to contribute to society.
Ladislaw’s
instruction and friendship to Dorothea is central to her intellectual growth. His broad knowledge challenges her narrow
philosophy. Her blindness to aesthetics, in particular, impairs her entire
intellectual vision. The metaphors of
vision pervading the novel are often paralleled with aesthetics, to emphasize
the relationship between epistemology and aesthetics.
In the first part of the
novel, Dorothea is described as one who lacks vision, residing under a shadow
of ignorance, which is largely due to her rigid Puritanical roots. She explains
to him: “I am seeing so much at once and not understanding half of it. That
always makes one feel stupid. It is painful to be told that anything is very
fine and not be able to feel that it is fine—something like being blind, while
people talk of seeing the sky” (188). Ladislaw releases her from metaphorical
blindness by illuminating to her the language of art (189). Eliot gives
Ladislaw Apollo-like attributes, which resonate with his role of bestowing
light onto Dorothea’s shadowy mind. The narrator describes Ladislaw: “The first
impression on seeing Will was one of sunny brightness, which added to the
uncertainty of his changing expression . . . When he turned his head quickly
his hair seemed to shake out light, and some persons thought they saw decided
genius in his coruscation” (191). Joseph Wiesenfarth suggests that,
metaphorically, Ladislaw shakes out the light of understanding onto Dorothea’s
ignorance (365).
Metaphorical blindness; failure to grasp aesthetics |
Apollo, the Sun God |
The narrator indicates that people in Dorothea's time are generally deficient in their understanding and knowledge of art: "Travellers did not often carry full information on
Christian art either in their heads or their pockets; and even the most
brilliant English critic of the day mistook the flower-flushed tomb of the
ascended Virgin for an ornamental vase due to the painter's fancy" (172). Dorothea’s
ignorance toward art is amplified as a result of her Puritanism which has, not only denied
her access to aesthetics, but has made her uneasy with art. Wiesenfarth states
that “Puritans consider art to be more or less a misrepresentation of truth”
(365). Given Dorothea’s Puritan education, she has difficulty endowing art with
any value. She explains: “I should like to make life beautiful—I mean
everybody’s life. And then all this immense expense of art, that seems somehow
to lie outside of life and make it no better for the world, pains one. It
spoils my enjoyment of anything when I am made to think people are shut out
from it” (201). She maintains that art must better the world, meaning it must
improve the quality of one’s life. She cannot conceive that art enhances life
because it stimulates thought and sensuousness. It is wicked to her that she
enjoy art while others endure squander. Thus, it is, on the one hand, religious
piety which accounts for her disinterest in art; on the other hand, it is her
ignorance. She simply does not know how
to enjoy art; she does not speak the language of art: “I cannot help believing
in glorious things in a blind sort of way. I should be quite willing to enjoy
the art here, but there is so much that I don't know the reason of “(201).
Hall of Statues, in the Vatican, where Dorothea is spotted by Ladislaw |
On her honeymoon in Rome, she is left on her own while Casaubon devotes his time to conducting research for his Key to all Mythologies. On one occasion, Ladislaw and his German artist mentor Naumann spot her:
Ariadne |
They were just in time to see another figure standing against a pedestal near the reclining marble: a breathing blooming girl, whose form, not shamed by the Ariadne, was clad in Quakerish gray drapery; her long cloak, fastened at the neck, was thrown backward from her arms, and one beautiful ungloved hand pillowed her cheek, pushing somewhat backward the white beaver bonnet which made a sort of halo to her face around the simply braided dark-brown hair. She was not looking at the sculpture, probably not thinking of it: her large eyes were fixed dreamily on a streak of sunlight which fell across the floor. But she became conscious of the two strangers who suddenly paused as if to contemplate the Cleopatra, and, without looking at them, immediately turned away (172).
Unlike the narrator who frames this very scene with a kind of condescension, Naumann describes Dorothea within an aesthetic discourse: "What do you think of that for a fine bit of antithesis? . . . There lies antique
beauty, not corpse-like even in death, but arrested in the complete contentment
of its sensuous perfection: and here stands beauty in its breathing life, with
the consciousness of Christian centuries in its bosom. But she should be
dressed as a nun; I think she looks almost what you call a Quaker; I would
dress her as a nun in my picture" (173). Dorothea's contact with Ladislaw and his artist mentor profoundly change how she views art and how she begins to view herself.
Ladislaw guides
her through the troubling relationship between aesthetics and social
responsibility. He instructs her to enjoy life, for “enjoyment radiates”
(201). In this way, he guides her so
that she can declare that “some things which had seemed monstrous to her were
gathering intelligibility and even a natural meaning ; but all this was
apparently a branch of knowledge in which Mr. Casaubon had not interested
himself” (196). Her exposure to new branches of knowledge facilitates her
liberal education. It is significant that it is outside of Middlemarch, outside
of narrow opinions (47), that Dorothea is educated. Rome, “the city of visible
history,” challenges her epistemology (176). Not only is she overwhelmed by the
majestic beauty and profound history and philosophy embodied in this city, she
is wrought with the emotion of a young bride neglected by her husband. And in
this vulnerability, “Dorothea’s ideas and resolves seemed like melting ice
floating and lost in the warm flood of which they had been but another form”
(181).
We note the changes in her epistemology when she returns to Lowick
(after her honeymoon). When she first visited Lowick she “found the house and
the grounds all that she could wish for” and she “walked around the house with
delightful emotion. Everything seemed hallowed to her” (65). After her time in
Rome, she finds Lowick “nothing but dreary oppression” (250). When she walks
into her boudoir, it is obvious that she has changed:
The ideas and hopes which were
living in her mind when she first saw this room nearly three months before were
present now only as memories: she judged them as we judge transient and
departed things. All existence seemed to beat with a lower pulse than her own,
and her religious faith was a solitary cry, the struggle out of a nightmare in
which every object was withering and shrinking away from her. Each remembered
thing in the room was disenchanted, was deadened as an unlit transparency (250)
Dorothea is no longer looking through the lens of religious dogma
and idealism. Her veneration of Casaubon has been snuffed out. Prior to her
marriage, her idealism magnified Lowick Manor: the furniture became grander;
the textiles became more colourful; the ceilings seemed higher. All was seen
through her hopeful vision. When she returned, she notes: “The very furniture
in the room seemed to have shrunk . . . the stag in the tapestry looked more
like a ghost . . . the polite literature in the bookcases looked more like
immovable imitations of books” (248). Her vision has altered significantly
since Ladislaw guided her learning in Rome. At home in Middlemarch, Ladislaw
continues to educate Dorothea. Unlike her uncle or her husband, Ladislaw is
interested in what she has to say and “[he] always seemed to see more in what
she said than she herself saw” (328). He continues to be that source of
illumination and joy. She describes her feeling of seeing Will which is “like a
lunette opened in the wall of her prison, giving her a glimpse of the sunny
air” (328).
Upon returning
to Middlemarch, Dorothea, whose education acquired abroad has ameliorated her
character, is in a position to extend the philanthropic gesture she so
fervently desires. The character qualities she has gained from her education
resonate with Newman’s vision that the well-educated possess “good sense,
sobriety of thought, reasonableness, candour, self-command, and steadiness of view
. . . In some it will have developed
habits of business, power of influencing others, and sagacity. In others it
will elicit the talent of philosophical speculation, and lead the mind forward
to eminence in this or that intellectual department” (xix). Indeed Dorothea
begins to demonstrate good sense and these other qualities as she is given
opportunity. We see evidence of these characteristics especially in her
relationship with Mr. Lydgate. As such, we need to explore briefly his education
experiences to demonstrate his shortcomings and to understand how Dorothea functions
as a Saint Theresa to him.
Eliot, George. Middlemarch. 1872. Toronto: Bantam,
1992. Print.
Newman, Cardinal John
Henry. The Idea of a University. New
York: Longmans Green. 1907. http://www.newmanreader.org.
Web. 27 November 2010.
Wiesenfarth, Joseph. “Middlemarch: The Language of Art.” Modern Language Association 97.3 (1982):
363-77. JSTOR. Web. 16 November 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment