THE REPRESENTATION OF MEMORY IN THE WORKS OF WILLIAM WORDSWORTH AND GEORGE ELIOT Yu Xiao Thesis submitted to Newcastle University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2010 Abstract Studies of memory in the works of William Wordsworth and George Eliot have hitherto focussed mainly on individual recollective memory. By contrast, this study explores habit-memory in the work of both writers, on both an individual and a collective level. It proposes that for Wordsworth as well as for Eliot, habit-memory can enhance moral awareness and maintain the cohesion of a community. The thesis is divided into four chapters. The first discusses ‘The Old Cumberland Beggar’, Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda. Drawing on the idea of an ethics of memory in the work of the philosopher Avishai Margalit, I argue that the two writers regard habit cultivation as an important means of developing a sense of universal humanity in their characters as well as in their readers. The second chapter looks at the relationship between habit and duty through a discussion of ‘Ode to Duty’, Silas Marner and Romola. Wordsworth’s notion of duty, a universal law governing both the natural and the human world, is different from that of Eliot, which is identified with the habitual feelings of the body. Despite this difference, both believe that habit can help mould an individual into a duty-bound being. Chapter Three deals with the relationship between habit and guilt in Book X of The Prelude, Adam Bede and ‘Janet’s Repentance’. Rather than looking at guilt over a real transgression, it examines what Frances Ferguson terms ‘circumstantial memory’, the remorse that occurs when the unforeseen outcome of an action is interpreted as though it had been intentional. Wordsworth and Eliot differ in their view of the origin of wrongdoings and the pattern of recovery from guilt, but they both believe that this recovery can never be complete. The final chapter shifts from individual to collective habit-memory. Adopting a phenomenological approach to habit in discussing ‘Michael’ and The Mill on the Floss, I suggest that Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s theory can help us to understand Michael’s and Mr. Tulliver’s embodied relationships with their patrimonial land. I also draw on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Maurice Halbwachs to show that the habitual lives these characters lead and their attachments to their habitual states of being are collectively rooted. The chapter concludes by examining the two writers’ criticism of the intrusion into agrarian society of capitalism, which disrupts the transmission of collective memory from one generation to another. Contents Acknowledgements v Introduction 1 Eliot’s Reading of Wordsworth 2 The Treatment of Memory in Criticism of Wordsworth and Eliot 8 Theoretical Approaches 19 Recollective Memory and Habit-Memory 19 Habit in Associationism 23 Habit in Phenomenology 30 Habit in Collective Memory 31 Habit in Political Writings 33 Habit-Memory in Wordsworth and Eliot 35 Structure of the Thesis 37 Chapter One 42 Habit and Humanitarianism in ‘The Old Cumberland Beggar’, Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda Introduction 42 Thick and Thin Relations 43 ‘The Old Cumberland Beggar’ 44 Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda 64 Coda 86 Chapter Two 91 Duty and the Accumulative Force of the Past in ‘Ode to Duty’, Romola and Silas Marner Introduction 91 The Wordsworthian Duty: Newton and Hartley 92 ‘Ode to Duty’ 99 Eliot’s Notion of Duty: The Habitual 112 Romola 119 Silas Marner 132 Coda 137 Chapter Three 142 Guilt and Recovery in Book X of The Prelude, Adam Bede and ‘Janet’s Repentance’ Introduction 142 Circumstantial Memory 145 Self-Incrimination 149 Self-Exculpation 155 Tug-of-War 163 Eliot’s Determinism 168 The Reformation of Moral Habits 172 Adam Bede and ‘Janet’s Repentance’ 176 Trauma and Cure 182 Partial Recovery 187 Coda 189 Chapter Four 192 Collective Memory in ‘Michael’ and The Mill on the Floss Introduction 192 A Phenomenological Approach to Habit 194 ‘Michael’ 199 The Mill on the Floss 217 Coda 232 Conclusion 235 Bibliography 240 Acknowledgements During this long journey, I’ve accumulated numerous debts, many of which I will never be able to repay. First of all, I am fortunate to have two most supportive, encouraging and considerate supervisors, Dr. Michael Rossington and Professor T. R. Wright, to whom my gratitude is beyond expression. Their knowledge and expertise have been invaluable for me during every stage of the writing of this thesis, and will, I believe, benefit me throughout my life. I am grateful to the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme and to Newcastle University for funding this project. I must thank Professor David Bromwich, under the inspiration of whose paper delivered at the 2008 Wordsworth Summer Conference my second chapter took shape. I am also indebted to Professor Frances Ferguson, Professor Nick Crossley and Dr. Anne Whitehead, who all responded generously to the questions I raised to them while writing Chapters Three and Four. My thanks also go to Dr. Katie Harland, who has not only been a friend for me to turn to in times of difficulty, but has also proof-read the whole thesis and given me helpful suggestions on how to improve my arguments. Finally, I would like to thank my family for everything they have done for me throughout these years. I owe my greatest debt to my husband, without whose love and support the project would never have been completed. My mother’s love, care, reassurance and faith in me have proved to be the strongest emotional prop. My son, who has been ‘something between a hindrance and a help’, has provided me with many welcome distractions, which have made this journey more enjoyable. v Introduction Memory studies in Wordsworth and Eliot have drawn critical treatment for more than half a century. Most attention, however, has often focused on the way in which the recollection of a past event, through re-interpretation, feeds into or disrupts the present identity constructed by characters in the works of the two writers. Admittedly, this is a very significant aspect of memory. There is, however, another equally important area of memory which has not gained adequate critical attention. This category of memory, which is described by James Booth as ‘a rich deposit of habit, of body memory and habits of the heart’, is where the persistence of the past finds its best expression. Distinct from recollection, which is often self-conscious and which involves an effort to ‘preserve the past from erosion’, this form of memory is ‘often barely visible to us in the present’. Rather, it does its work ‘almost automatically’. 1 In absent-mindedly yielding to an accustomed way of behaving, in the skills we have learned and performed with great ease, and in the mode of conduct we have inherited from our community, we see the work of this memory. This thesis will take habit-memory as its central concern, attempting to explore both its mechanism and its social and political significance in the writings of Wordsworth and Eliot. Particular attention in the four chapters will be given to: the relationship between habit-memory and universal humanity; duty; guilt; and finally collective memory and the way it helps maintain the cohesion of a community. This chapter, as the introduction to the thesis, will start with Eliot’s life-long reading of Wordsworth. It will then move on to an overview of memory criticism in 1 W. James Booth, Communities of Memory: On Witness, Identity, and Justice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006), p. x. 1 past decades, followed by an explanation of the theoretical approaches that will be adopted in this research, and finally, a summary of how the thesis is structured. Eliot’s Reading of Wordsworth Stephen Gill notes that ‘[b]y the late 1830s […] Wordsworth’s fame was widespread and assured’. He was ‘the king-poet of our times’, as Elizabeth Barrett put it.2 This popularity was cemented by the award of an honorary degree at Oxford in 1839, and the Laureateship conferred in 1843. To the Victorians, both Wordsworth’s work and his life were ‘a spiritually active, empowering force’. 3 Many people found his poetry immensely therapeutic, and some even experienced spiritual conversion after reading it.4 Though Eliot did not undergo a dramatic conversion of the kind recorded by William Macready, John Stuart Mill, and William Hale White, Wordsworth still played a very significant part in her life. He was not only one of the forces who shaped her moral values, but also proved a strong influence on her theory of novel writing. Wordsworth was read by George Eliot throughout her adult years ‘with undimmed enthusiasm’.5 Wordsworth was clearly a very significant writer for her, as she shared her reading of him with the most important people in her life. The earliest correspondent with whom Eliot shared such feelings about reading Wordsworth was Maria Lewis, the governess whose evangelicalism was the strongest influence on her early years. It was on 4 September 1839, when she was nearly twenty years old, that Eliot wrote to Lewis, saying that she had been reading ‘scraps of poetry picked up from 2 Stephen Gill, Wordsworth and the Victorians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 16; p. 10. 3 Gill, Wordsworth and the Victorians, p. 41. 4 For a detailed discussion, see Gill, Wordsworth and the Victorians, which gives examples of five readers who regard Wordsworth’s poetry as spiritual balm: William Charles Macready, Sir William Gomm, John Stuart Mill, William Hale White, and William Whewell. Mill’s Autobiography contains the account of his reading of Wordsworth. 5 Oxford Reader’s Companion to George Eliot, ed.