in Jane Eyre and Middlemarch RE B E CCA N. MI TCHE L L N earnest man, devoted to a singular cause, falls inlovewithawomannamed Rosamond. She is exceptionally lovelyan angel 1 but she is invested in the superficial perquisites of that loveliness, and is unwilling or unable to share in his ambitions. Should he marry her? Two major novels of the nineteenth century feature a man in this very predicament: Charlotte Bronts Jane Eyre (+Sq) and George Eliots Middlemarch (+S+:). In Bronts novel, St. John Rivers gives up Rosamond Oliver; in Eliots novel, Tertius Lydgate marries Rosamond Vincy. The divergent responses to similar situa- tions are tellingof the foundational differences that critics have con- ventionally identified in the novels: Bront privileges knowledge of Nineteenth-Century Literature, Vol. 66, No. , pp. o:. ISSN: oSg+-g6, online ISSN: +o6-S:. :o++ by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Presss Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/ journals/rights.htm. DOI: +o.+:/ncl.:o++.66..o. 1 See Charlotte Bront, Jane Eyre, ed. Jane Jack and Margaret Smith (Oxford: Claren- don Press, +g6g), p. q6q: What did St. John Rivers think of this earthly angel? And see George Eliot, Middlemarch, ed. David Carroll (Oxford: Clarendon Press, +gS6), p. +og: In fact, most men in Middlemarch, except her brothers, held that Miss Vincy was the best girl in the world, and some called her an angel. Further references are to these editions and appear in the text. 307 the self, and Eliot privileges knowledge of the other. Know yourself fully, as St. John Rivers does, and avoid an unhappy marriage while sparing an innocent woman from a wholly preventable fate. Fail to knowthe other, as Tertius Lydgate does, and condemnyourself to a miserable future inwhichbothyou and your partner are unfulfilled and resentful. Such easy conclusions suggest that there is little in the Rosamond plots that cannot be accounted for by the most basic readings of Bronts and Eliots oeuvres, a conclusion substanti- ated by the dearth of critical attention paid to them. So overlooked are the Rosamond plots that the very names of the characters have been misspelled in the critical literature. 2 Rosamond Olivers role in Jane Eyre is, of course, considerably smaller than Rosamond Vincys in Middlemarch. Even so, Olivers near-total absence in anal- yses of the novel is striking, and, when she is mentioned, she is often reduced to a superficial foil to Janes unconventional beauty. That is not to discount the role of beauty in both works. In Middlemarch as well, Rosamond Vincys preternatural loveliness contrasts with heroine Dorothea Brookes austere beauty, and Bronts and Eliots treatments of feminine attractiveness is one intersection commonly addressed by critics. Wendy Steiner argues that the unlinking of beauty from virtue was an important goal in the creation of aesthetic and human sympathy for both Bront and Eliot. 3 Elizabeth Hardwick concurs that both Charlotte Bront and George Eliot are hard on the whims of beautiful women, and she opines further that it seems such a pity only pretty girls are able to win that fine, complicated hero the heroines and the authors would like for themselves. 4 More broadly speak- ing, critics have done much work comparing the writings of Eliot 2 For example, Zadie Smith, in a commentary on Middlemarch, uses Rosamund throughout (see Smith, Book of Revelations, The Guardian [:q May :ooS]). In Disorient- ing Fiction: The Authoethnographic Work of Nineteenth-Century British Novels (Princeton: Prince- ton Univ. Press, :oo), James Buzard refers to Miss Oliver as Rosamund, even though the Penguin edition he cites uses Rosamond. Perhaps not a major gaffe in any instance, but it is one that evinces the ease of overlooking the characters particularity. 3 Steiner, Venus in Exile: The Rejection of Beauty in Twentieth-Century Art (New York: Free Press, :oo+), p. :. 4 Hardwick, Seduction and Betrayal: Women and Literature (New York: Random House, +gq), p. :6. 308 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E and Bront, 5 and a great deal of that work has offered compelling insights regarding the historical, social, political, and aesthetic dif- ferences that underscore their novels. Yet no critic has considered the Rosamond plots of Jane Eyre and Middlemarch together. In this essay I suggest that the Rosamond plots do far more than provide embodiments of beauty to serve as counterpoints to the novels plainer heroines, and that they also do more than demonstrate a shift from Bronts self-awareness to Eliots other- awareness. I argue that Middlemarch stages a radical revision of the version of subjectivity vaunted in Jane Eyre. Via its invocation of Jane Eyres Rosamond plot, Middlemarch challenges the very nature of self-knowledge, questions the status of identification in intersubjective relationships, and insists upon the unknowability of the other. In Eliots retelling, the self-awareness promoted in Jane Eyre is not only insufficient, but also verges on self-absorption and even solipsism. One way in which Eliot enacts this revision is by shifting the focus of positive affective relationships away from models of identification. Rather than basing empathic extension on the recognition of similarities, Eliots novels describe charac- ters who must first apperceive the difference between themselves and others. Having realized the self, one must go further to realize the complexity, difficulty, even the potential impossibility of know- ing the other in order to open up a space for a richer engagement with those whose desires and drives are different from ones own. In light of Eliots construction, it becomes increasingly clear that in Jane Eyre the cultivation of self-definition is predicated on ones notions of self in relation to others. St. Johns behavior toward Rosamond Oliver serves as an example for Jane; fromhis example of self-certainty even in the light of social pressure and conflicting desire, she learns to identify her own desire and to resist pressure. We see that St. Johns rejection of Miss Oliver is a model for Janes rejection of St. John. Janes time in Morton becomes not a mere distraction from her life with Rochester, but rather a necessary 5 See for example Wilbur L. Cross, The Development of the English Novel (New York: Macmillan and Co., +Sgg); Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, +gg); and Christopher Lane, Hatred and Civility: The Antisocial Life in Victorian England (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, :ooq). J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 309 step toward that life. By functioning as obstacles on the ostensible path to knowledge, the two Rosamonds perform essential roles in both works: in Jane Eyre the obstacle posed by Miss Olivers pres- ence is overcome with relative ease, while in Middlemarch Miss Vincys alterity proves to be more formidable. While none of Eliots notes for Middlemarch indicate that she was actively considering Jane Eyre, her familiarity with and interest in the novel and Charlotte Bronts life and works is well docu- mented. Jane Eyre became a sort of touchstone for Eliots own writ- ing; upon the publication of Adam Bede in +Sg, Eliot turned to Bronts novel to compare its sales figures to those of her own work. 6 If Eliot chafed against anything in Jane Eyre, it seemed to be the rigidity of Janes versionof duty, especially to the extent that Janes boundedness to social or religious propriety oppressed her own personality. Writing shortly after Eliots death, Abba Goold Woolson describes Eliots aversion to Bronts vision of self- respect, which scorns a relationship, however excusable in her own eyes, which would make her personal honor seem other than stainless in the eyes of the world. 7 Described in this way, Eliot seems to object to Janes concern about others regard for her. As she noted in a letter to Charles Bray, Eliot further objects that Janes sort of self-sacrifice is directed toward a diabolical law which chains a man soul and body to a putrefying carcass. 8 Woolson links Eliots response to Jane Eyre to Eliots own romantic situation. Eliot, unlike Jane Eyre, chose life with the man she loved over supplication to the marital laws that kept G. H. Lewes, her lover, bound to his legal wife. This reading confines Eliot to sup- porting, even forwarding, Bronts emphasis on self-knowledge by suggesting that Eliot believed that Janes problem was her hyper-concern about the views of others or of the abstract soci- ety-at-large. This preoccupation with externally approved righ- teousness, such readings argue, could be corrected with greater personal fortitude or a stronger sense of self. 6 See J. W. Cross, George Eliots Life as Related in Her Letters and Journals, vols. (New York: Harper and Brothers, +SS), I, +S. 7 Woolson, George Eliot and Her Heroines: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, +SS6), pp. +:. 8 George Eliot, letter to Charles Bray, June +SqS, quoted in Cross, George Eliots Life, I, +S. 310 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E Other critics have cast the comparison in light of Eliots oeu- vre rather than her biography. Swinburnes +S Note on Charlotte Bront flatly prefers Bronts fiction, which he labels the work of genius, to Eliots, which he labels merely the work of intellect; Eliot, in his view, is but a pale and inferior example of a woman writer. 9 Martin Spence, in a very brief piece comparing the pro- posal scenes in Jane Eyre and Middlemarch, opens by claiming: Lit- erary indebtedness is always interesting, and when it concerns two of our greatest novelists, it cannot fail to be instructive. 10 Spen- ces essay nevertheless ends with an indictment of Eliots effort by noting the signs of admiration and envy in Eliots imitation of Bronts text: The signs are always the same: dilution, senti- mentalisation or vulgarisation of the original, lack of unity and drive so that the force of the original is wasted and dispersed, and . . . an obvious lack of rooting (C. Bronts Jane Eyre and G. Eliots Middlemarch, pp. +o++). 11 As I argue, there is another way of understanding the two novels distinctions: Eliots focus in Middlemarch on the limits of knowledge reveals the insufficiency of the self-knowledge and self-fulfillment advocated in Jane Eyre. In addition, by insisting that her characters remain in society after their marriages, Eliot fur- ther exposes the problem with the isolationist model of marriage offered in Jane Eyre, a model necessary to sustain static definitions of self. In comparison to Eliots in Middlemarch, Bronts vision itself seems adolescent, egocentric: the world conceived in Jane Eyre is a world without society, where self-fulfillment is achieved by moving away from, rather than into, a sphere shared with other people. Jane, after all, chooses Rochesters retired and hidden 9 Swinburne writes: George Eliot, a woman of the first order of intellect, has once and again shown how much further and more steadily and more hopelessly and more irretrievably and more intolerably wrong it is possible for mere intellect to go than it ever can be possible for mere genius. Having no taste for the dissection of dolls, I shall leave Daniel Deronda in his natural place above the ragshop door (Algernon Charles Swinburne, A Note on Charlotte Bront [London: Chatto and Windus, +SS], pp. :+::). 10 Spence, C. Bronts Jane Eyre and G. Eliots Middlemarch, The Explicator, q, no. (+gS), +o. 11 Eliot was kinder toward those who invoked Bronts work. Writing about Charles Kingsleys Westward Ho! (+S), she notes that the novel reminds us a little of Jane Eyre, but we prefer a partially borrowed beauty to an original bathos ([George Eliot], Belles Lettres, Westminster Review, 6q [+S], +:). J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 311 (Jane Eyre, p. S) Ferndean, in quite a desolate spot (p. qg) with two elderly servants as their only company; St. John leaves English society altogether in favor of India. In Middlemarch Doro- thea moves into society through steps that are not always easy (e.g., Sir Jamess reluctance to accept her husband Ladislaw) and sometimes contentious (e.g., Middlemarchs persistent com- munity view that Dorothea is not a nice woman [Middlemarch, p. S:q]). The novels very forms mirror this transition: from the first-person narration of Jane Eyre to the omniscience of Middle- marchs narrative voice, and from Bronts quasi-autobiographical title to Eliots title, named after the community in which her nov- els central characters live. These movements, from the subtle to the pronounced, are all present in the Rosamond plots, which, so long ignored in the critical literature, show Eliots work not to be a pale derivative of Bronts, or a meager extension of its pri- mary tenets, but instead an exploration of encounters with con- sciousness of the other in a way foreign to Jane Eyres characters. More specifically, Eliots revisions situate empathic response as being dependent upon the recognition of the radical alterity of the other. Given the importance of self-knowledge in Bronts world, the fact that Rosamond Oliver functions as an obstacle both for St. John and for Janes self-realization makes her role far more important than her presence on the page might suggest. On the surface, Bronts depiction of St. John Rivers and Rosamond Olivers relationship, mediated by Jane Eyres incisive reporting, details the collisionof two egos. Rosamondis fully aware of her perfect beauty and knew her power over St. John (Jane Eyre, pp. q6, q6g), flirting to excite his desire even when her advances are rebuffed. St. John easily exceeds Miss Olivers level of self-awareness, as his self-assessment acknowledges both his desires and the rationale for his refusal to act upon those desires. Sopowerful is his devotionto his self-constructionthat it influences the way in which he views others in addition to himself. That is, St. Johns dedication to his missionary ideals might have led him to deemany beautiful (and thus distracting) woman an unsuitable 312 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E companion. But his consideration of Rosamond is remarkable for its frank acknowledgment of the potential pleasure of the match. In his exhortation to Jane on this point, St. John articulates a vision of a future that entertains not only the limitations of his and Rosamonds clashing sensibilities, but also his genuine delight in Miss Olivers charms. Though he loves her so wildlywith all the intensity . . . of a first passion, he imagines her a partner [un]suited to him; though acutely sensible to her charms, he is as deeply impressed with her defects (pp. q6). The state- ments refute those critics who characterize St. John as denying his erotic attachment to Rosamond Oliver. 12 He does not com- pletely repress his desire for her, but rather subjects that desire to a brutal test against the other qualities that define his character duty and piety foremost among them. Rosamond presents temptations that serve as a tempering agent for St. Johns self-vision, which he calls upon repeatedly to guard against her charms and the fantasy life they inspire. 13 St. John admits that she is a beauty, well named the Rose of the World, indeed! (Jane Eyre, p. qg), 14 and her perfect beauty in fact ossifies his resolve, so much so that even Jane is skeptical about his ability to know his real desires. Challenged by Jane, St. John insists that his attraction to Rosamond is a mere fever of the flesh and not a convulsion of the soul, and, as such, he scorns the feeling as a weakness, affirming that he is as fixed as a rock, firm set in the depths of a restless sea (p. qS). To Jane this assertion seems only mock-heroic, and when St. John instructs her, Know me to be what I ama cold hard man, her response is to smile incredulously (p. qS). 12 Melodie Monahan, Heading Out Is Not Going Home: Jane Eyre, Studies in English Literature, , :S (+gSS), 6o:. 13 See Barbara Hardy, Tellers and Listeners: The Narrative Imagination (London: Athlone Press, +g), pp. :So. Hardy includes a discussion of St. Johns stance in light of those fantasies. 14 The erudite Rivers is wrongRosamond is derived from the Teutonic name Hrosmond, meaning horse protection (see A. Smythe Palmer, Folk-Etymology: A Dic- tionary of Verbal Corruptions or Words Perverted in Form or Meaning, by False Derivation or Mis- taken Analogy [London: George Bell and Sons, +SS:], p. q). St. Johns Rose of the World is a translation based on the French rose (rose) and monde (world), which seems better suited to Rosamonds portrayal in the novel. J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 313 The significance of Janes incredulity cannot be overstated: it is an indication of her own inchoate self-awareness. Jane doubts and mocks St. Johns self-vision early in their acquaintance, but the novel shows that Jane eventually comes to use his stubborn self-definition as a model for her own development. Although Jane ultimately rejects St. Johns marriage proposal, she adopts his willingness to buck conventional expectations in favor of fol- lowing the ideals that define his existence. For St. John that meant abandoning a rich, beautiful woman who loves him in favor of a missionary life; for Jane it means abandoning most of her inheri- tance and a life of altruistic religious devotion in favor of loving a now-obscure cripple. Before Jane realizes her internal resolve, the pressure to join St. John seems at times to overwhelm her abil- ity to articulate her own self in relation to him; when attempting to describe St. Johns power in the pulpit, the usually pithy Jane can- not: I wish I could describe that sermon, she confesses, but it is past my power. I cannot even render faithfully the effect it pro- duced on me (Jane Eyre, p. qqg). Such imprecision in Janes nar- ration is a sign in Bronts universe of problems on the horizon. (For Eliot this anxiety is inverted, as too much self-assuredness more often signifies a problem.) In response to this sense of ineffability, Jane is forced to find language for herself; St. Johns pressure steels Janes resolve, just as Rosamonds presence strengthened St. Johns resolve. The shift when Jane realizes all at once that St. John was not a suitable husband for Rosamondor for Jane herself, or perhaps for anyoneis the apogee of Jane Eyres Rosamond plot: I began to feel he had spoken truth of himself when he said he was hard and cold. The humanities and amenities of life had no attrac- tion for himits peaceful enjoyments no charm. Literally, he lived only to aspireafter what was good and great, certainly; but still he would never rest; nor approve of others resting round him. . . . I comprehended all at once that he would hardly make a good hus- band: that it would be a trying thing to be his wife. (Jane Eyre, p. o+) This is a moment of breakthrough, not only because Jane sees St. John clearly, but also because that revelation arises from her recognition that he knew himself clearly. Along with his sisters 314 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E Diana and Mary, Jane had believed that St. Johns missionary aspi- rations could be overcome with affection, with persuasion, or with money. They were wrong. As long as Jane is skeptical of St. Johns self-vision, she cannot articulate herself in relation to him. Once she recognizes the accuracy of his self-vision, Jane can then apply that lesson to her own relationship with St. John: if she had been wrong in her understanding of him, then surely he could be wrong in his understanding of her. His insistence that she [turn] to profit the talents which God had given her (p. qgg)that she embrace duty to the exclusion of all other drivessolidifies her sense of self and casts into relief Janes real desires, desires that conflict with St. Johns vision of a future with her. Rosamond was essential for establishing St. Johns internal fortitude, forti- tude that Jane must then herself muster in order to rebuff his advances. In this model, Jane moves into genuine comprehension only when she confirms St. Johns self-assessment and acts as an affirm- ing, rather than a skeptical, audience. Feminist criticism has long framed Janes development in similar terms, as a quest for an appropriate or appreciative audience. Rosemarie Bodenheimer writes that Janes progress in the novel . . . has to do with finding a fit audience for whom she can give a proper shape to her own story, where Janes role is to take charge of so many kinds of sto- ries in a narrative that seems both to credit and to quarrel with them all. 15 So Jane is a character who wants to write her own story, in her own way, and to have it believed by those she tells. So too does St. John, and in his relation to Rosamond we see an early example of the very difficulty that Jane faced: St. John repeatedly asserts not only his position in relation to Miss Oliver, but also his very character, only to have it disbelieved by his family. When Jane comprehend[s] all at once, stating in clear, declara- tive sentences her revised understanding of St. John, she also over- comes at least some of the challenges posed by Rosamonds presence, challenges that propel Janes own narrative. 15 Bodenheimer, Jane Eyre in Search of Her Story, Papers on Language and Litera- ture, +6 (+gSo), Sg, qo:. Carla Kaplan pushes this point further, suggesting that under- lying Eyres plot is a reliance on dialogue or dialectic for self-construction (see Kaplan, Girl Talk: Jane Eyre and the Romance of Womens Narration Novel: A Forum on Fiction, o [+gg6], +). J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 315 Just as she did for St. Johns self-articulation, Rosamond Oliver functions as a counterpoint to Janes. Jane doubted St. Johns declarations about his desire, at least in part because of her identi- fication with Rosamond: as a woman unable to be with the man she desires, Jane identified with Rosamonds equally thwarted desire. From that perspective, St. Johns behavior was the cause of Rosamonds pain, and Jane worked to counter his behavior or attitudes. After St. Johns proposal, Jane ceases to be a thwarted loveraroleshesharedwithRosamond. Instead, sheis inaposition to reject a partnership that might seem appealing to outsidersa role that St. John himself had occupied in relation to Rosamond. Jane is thenable toapprehendSt. Johnwithout anoverdetermined sympathy for a woman longing to be loved. St. John becomes a model of self-recognition for Jane; as she comes to realize the accu- racy of his self-description, she is able to feel more certain in her self-analysis. In other words, Jane emerges from the encounter with Rivers with a stronger belief in the necessity to know oneself rather than to be more careful when reading othersa conclusion that Eliot will complicate in Middlemarch. When Jane acts on her desire for Rochester and returns to Thornfield Hall, she refuses to embrace a vision of herself that excludes passion, a choice endorsed by the novels happy ending. Joyce Carol Oates describes Janes choice between two men urging her in different directions: if Rochester is all romantic passion, urging [Jane] to succumb to emotional excess, St. John Rivers is all Christian ambition, urging her to attempt a spiritual asceticism of which she knows herself incapable. 16 I would say that Jane comes to know herself as incapa- ble of St. Johns brand of asceticism, but I agree with Oatess broader point: Janes dilemma focuses less onwhichmanshe wants and more on which version of herself is more accurate. Janes clarity on that point leads her to Rochester. This ending seems to confirm the accuracy of Janes self- definition. It also confirms St. Johns: he would have made a mis- erable husband for Rosamond. St. John ends the novel a resolute, indefatigable pioneer; an unmarried missionary firm, faithful, and devoted; full of energy, and zeal, and truth ( Jane Eyre, p. S). 16 Oates, Introduction, in Charlotte Bront, Jane Eyre (New York: Bantam Books, +gS+, +gS), pp. xiiixiv. 316 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E Though St. Johns reading of Rosamond as an unsuitable partner was accurate, his reading is based not on his deep understanding of her needs but rather on the strength of his ambition. Miss Olivers alterity was immaterial to his decision, and because the novel does not grant the reader access to Rosamonds thoughts, it remains silent on how she felt about the outcome of the relation- ship. Rosamonds end, according to the novel, has nothing to do with her own expectations or premonitions but instead confirms St. Johns hunch about her future. Despite all of Rosamonds childlike petulance, she does, as he predicts, marry someone else. This final point elucidates Rosamonds function in the novel. She exists as a necessary step along the road of St. Johns and Janes growth into self-awareness; each constructs an identity in response to or as a reaction against Miss Oliver and what she stands for. As a conduit to the self-actualization of St. John and Jane, Rosamonds alterity has no place in the lives of those characters, just as it has no place within the novel. If the Rosamond/St. John relationship in Jane Eyre demonstrates the value of self-knowledge in preventing incompatible relationships, then the tale of Rosamond Vincys marriage to Tertius Lydgate in Middlemarch shows that an uncom- promising sense of self is not sufficient to navigate a world ruled by relationships with other individuals. Their marriage forms the link between the novels epistemological claims and the inter- personal relationships it depicts, showing that the limitations of knowledge that apply to literary or scientific pursuits apply equally to engagements with individuals. Lydgate, like St. John, begins his approach to Rosamond Vincy with the conviction that his ambitionhe is a Doctor intent on reforming medical practices in Englandwill overrule any fan- cies of the heart. Whereas St. Johns self-awareness allowed him to avoid a potentially disastrous marriage, Lydgates convictions can- not save him, and the stumbling logic that leads himto propose to Rosamond arises precisely from the strength of his resolve. In El- iots depiction, self-certainty functions more as self-delusion, and the stronger that certainty, the more impenetrable the delusion. J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 317 What is more, both men are unable to appreciate the full alterity of their Rosamonds, but St. Johns deficiencies in this area have lit- tle permanent effect on those around him, and Rosamond Oliver escapes relatively intact. In Middlemarch the consequences of their egotism extend beyond the lives of Rosamond and Lydgate, a dis- tinction crucial in understanding the differences between the worlds depicted in Eliots and Bronts novels. The tidiness of Jane Eyres resolutionall parties happy, each in an isolated contented- ness that depends on no other person than her husband 17 is countered by Eliots web of connection that links each person to every other. That web ensures that repercussions of interpersonal failure reverberate beyond the individual. Knowing yourself does not ensure your own happiness, and not apprehending others ensures difficulties for all those connected to each other. Yet these greater demands also create room for greater growth, and the promise of the Rosamond plot in Middlemarch is the potential even in the least likely personfor a movement into an acknowl- edgment of alterity, and thus the possibility for expansion and change. Even among Eliots oeuvre, which tends to frame self- awareness through encounters with others, the relationships in Middlemarch emphasize more strongly the necessity of encounter- ing the other not in opposition to the self, and not even, as Kay Young argues, as an application of the other onto and even into the self, . . . as feeling the presence of the other residing within. 18 Before that application can occur, an individual must apprehend the unknowability of the other. Eliot accomplishes the emphasis in broad, formal strokes (as when her narrator famously interrupts to query of the reader, why always Dorothea? [Middlemarch, p. ::]), as well as in characterization (as when Mary Garth, com- plaining to Rosamond about Fred Vincys approach to courtship, bemoans, I am not magnanimous enough to like people who speak to me without seeming to see me [p. +++]). 17 The narratives of Miss Temple, Jane, Diana, Mary, and Miss Oliver functionally end with their marriages, as the unions function to fulfill the promise as well as the desire of each woman. 18 Kay Young, Middlemarch and the Problem of Other Minds Heard, LIT: Literature Interpretation Theory, +q (:oo), ::6. See also Young, Imagining Minds: The Neuro-Aesthetics of Austen, Eliot, and Hardy (Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press, :o+o). 318 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E Curiously, because critics often focus on the empathy that Eliots novels provoke in readers, and because they so often figure empathy as a feeling like, they have for many years overlooked the role that such alterity plays in Eliots novels. 19 In fact, Eliots construction of the ethical imperative of empathy largely an- ticipates the twentieth-century phenomenology of Emmanuel Levinas, whose work on radical alterity gave a vocabulary to con- siderations of empathy independent of identification. More re- cently, scholars such as J. Hillis Miller and Thomas Albrecht have begun to consider Eliots work in light of her repeated insis- tence that before one can feel like another, one must recognize that one is other. 20 It is this tenet of Eliots writing that is apparent in Middlemarch: knowledge derives from the recognition of what one does not know. Rosamond and Tertiuss relationship and its miserable end show the natural outcome of the failure to appreciate the others radical alterity; it also resonates because both characters (as seems so often to be the case) assume with smug certainty that they do understand the other perfectly. That understanding is shown to be limited by the shallowness of Lydgates interestit is not Rosa- monds particularity that he finds attractive, but precisely her lack of particularity. Lydgate apprehends her not as a person, but as one of a type featuring that distinctive womanhood which must be classed with flowers and music, that sort of beauty which by its very nature was virtuous, being moulded only for pure and del- icate joys (Middlemarch, p. +6+). Such phrases echo Jane Eyres comments about Rosamond Olivers beautyNature had surely formed her in a martial mood; and, forgetting her usual stinted 19 There has been a resurgence of interest in empathy of late. Suzanne Keen, in her insightful Empathy and the Novel (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, :oo), thoroughly con- siders the readers affective response to fiction. Other useful examples include Rachel Ablow, The Marriage of Minds: Reading Sympathy in the Victorian Marriage Plot (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, :oo); and Ellen Argyros, Without Any Check of Proud Reserve: Sym- pathy and Its Limits in George Eliots Novels (New York: Peter Lang, +ggg). My concern here, however, is Eliots representation of relationships between characters, not between readers and the texts. 20 See especially J. Hillis Miller, Others (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, :oo+); and Thomas Albrecht, Sympathy and Telepathy: The Problem of Ethics in George Eliots The Lifted Veil, ELH, (:oo6), q6. J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 319 step-mother dole of gifts, had endowed this, her darling, with a grand-dames bounty (Jane Eyre, pp. q66q)while transform- ing their focus fromthe specific incarnation to the abstract. Eliots diction emphasizes critically Lydgates consideration of Rosa- mond in terms of generalities, and not exactitudea creature like Rosamond would make a good wife; her intelligence was just the kind that Lydgate found desirable, and hers was a sort of beauty that ensured virtue (Middlemarch, p. +6+). Rosamond herself was not innocent of such characterizing. Arriving in Mid- dlemarch as a stranger, Lydgate appeared particularly interesting to her because she had already decided that she shall not marry any Middlemarch young man (p. g). In Middlemarch these men- tal conceptions of the other foreshadow the couples future fail- ures at shared life. In Jane Eyre Rochesters similar reductions of Jane to placeholder do not prove to be equally problematic (e.g., Rochester, when comparing Jane to Bertha Mason, explains his desire by saying, I wanted her just as a change after that fierce ragout [Jane Eyre, p. +]), as they are indicative only of his desire, a desire that Jane shares. Unlike the world of Jane Eyre, where self-certainty can buttress a person against the judgments of others (for example, St. John and Jane herself), in the town of Middlemarch no amount of per- sonal fortitude can completely prevent the outside world from affecting ones actions or thoughts. A case in point: even though Lydgate believes that he is in control of his life and marriage, the conflicting beliefs of his beloved continually impede his actions. The omniscient narration contrasts Lydgates and Rosamonds thoughts in order to demonstrate the disconnect. He believed that the preposterousness of the notion that he could at once set upa satisfactory establishment as a married manwas a sufficient guarantee against [the] danger of proposing to Rosamond (Mid- dlemarch, p. :6+)that is, sufficient enough for Lydgate. Rosa- mond, only a few lines later, is occupied with thoughts of a handsome house in Lowick Gate which she hoped would by-and- by be vacant, and by the paragraphs end she is imagin[ing] the drawing-room in her favourite house with various styles of furniture (p. :6+). The regular collisions of these two minds reach their apotheo- sis in the scene of Lydgates proposal. Still insisting that Rosamond 320 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E tookeverythingas lightly as he intendedit (Middlemarch, p. :g), 21 Lydgate visits the Vincy household ostensibly to test his resolve to avoid the temptations there, to have a few playful words with Rosamond about his resistance to dissipation, and his firm resolve to take long fasts even from sweet sounds (p. :gq). Despite his resolve, his dedication to his plans is lost when Rosamond becomes teary-eyed in his presence. It is not exactly her pain or desire that ignites Lydgate, but rather his sudden belief that this sweet young creaturedependedonhimfor her joy (p. :g). Sopassionovertook the warm-hearted and rash Lydgate (p. :gq), a passion that con- structs Rosamonds desire in terms of himself. Given the myopic vision that permeated both sides of the Lydgate/Vincy courtship, it is not surprising that their marriage exacerbates, rather than breaks down, these barriers to shared intimacy. Eliot insists upon demonstrating that the very proximity of marriage exposes the fissures in Rosamond and Lydgates rela- tionship: Between him and her indeed there was that total miss- ing of each others mental track, which is too evidently possible even between persons who are continually thinking of each other (Middlemarch, p. :). In the end, Lydgates approach to his lifes work and his marriage undermines his efforts at both. Once Rosa- mond is defined in his mind as the instrument of the ruin of his potential (one of the final details that the novel offers about their marriage is that Lydgate, in a moment of frustration near the end of his life, calls Rosamond his basil plant [p. S:+]), Rosamonds actions or feelings have no effect on that characterization. While Lydgate acknowledges his own failures, he regards himself as a vic- tim of the unwelcome influence of others: He had meant every- thing to turn out differently; and others had thrust themselves into his life and thwarted his purposes (p. :). To a degree, the novel concurs with Lydgates self-assessment. Lydgates failure might have been influenced by others, but only to the extent of his devotion to ignorance about them. Rosamond is Lydgates match in this regard. She is unhappy in her marriage (it had ful- filled none of her hopes, and had been quite spoiled for her imagination [p. q+]), and that misery is defined in terms of 21 Another example from Eliots oeuvre is Arthur Donnithornes insistence in Adam Bede that his intentions have always been understood by Hetty Sorrel. J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 321 her disappointment in Lydgate. She receives his occasional at- tempts at tenderness as a poor substitute for the happiness he had failed to give her (p. q:). She, like Rosamond Oliver, goes on to marry a rich man, whose wealth she regards as her reward (p. S:+), and Mrs. Lydgates backward slide into the fate shared by Miss Oliver is one of Eliots most damning characterizations. Rosamond blames Lydgate for her unhappiness as well as his own; her only redeeming feature, as is told in the Finale, is that she does respect Dorothea. This flawed external focus, seeing the other as fungible or as a medium to deliver happiness or misery, is a core problem in Middlemarch, but it is also one that may be overcome. In Jane Eyre self-knowledge was the means to escape bad deci- sions or bad marriages. But in Middlemarch it is clear that every individual impinges upon another and is similarly impinged upon, and so any self-knowledge that refuses to allow the influ- ence of the other is not sufficient. Bad marriages thus occur despite perceived self-knowledge. Lydgate believes that he knows his own desires very well, but he is deluded by his expectations of life in relation to Rosamond, imagining that he would serve as her hero or that she would serve as his trophy. He does not account for the influence of her subjectivity on his own, and he cannot accurately anticipate his reactions under that influence. Dorothea, Lydgates complement in this regard, thoroughly con- siders her chosen role as helpmate to her future husband, but she woefully miscalculates her husbands desires and the effect of his will on her own. Overcoming those delusions requires a near-violent encounter with the truth embodied by the present, human other, not with the abstract Providence on which charac- ters in Jane Eyre depend to confirm internal hunches. 22 For 22 In Jane Eyre agents or voice of change are often curiously disembodied or external Janes uncles letter and Rochesters voice calling for her are two examples. Janes decision to leave Thornfield was the result of a soul-searching answered from without: in a dream, a spirit instructs her to flee temptation (Jane Eyre, p. qo), and on the road away from Rochester, she begs Providence to sustain her (p. q:+). As for St. John, he tells Jane: my powers heard a call from heaven to rise, gather their full strength, spread their wings and mount beyond ken. God had an errand for me (p. q6:). These are moments of crisis (Jane on the verge of giving up her life while wandering the moors, and St. John deciding on the future course of his then-adrift life), and the crises are emphasized expressly because the characters need to seek an answer from outside of the self. Lacking the 322 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E Dorothea this truth arises in the present, human other embodied by Rosamond Vincy. Dorotheas realization reinforces Eliots metaphor of the pierglassthat each person is the center of her own universe, and that to imagine the other simply as a constella- tion of the self is to condemn oneself to solipsism. 23 Dorothea and Rosamonds meeting at the novels end, an encounter in which Rosamond makes possible a rapprochement of Dorothea and Will Ladislaw, is a harsh, almost violent reckoning with another, forc- ing both women into a mutual awareness of alterity. Both Jane Eyre and Middlemarch describe an encounter between the heroine and her foil (a Rosamond) in which one is called into consciousness of the otherscenes that are illustrative of the progression from Bronts to Eliots vision. In Jane Eyre Jane watches as Rosamond Oliver and St. John walk away from each other after a clipped conversation. Rosamond twice looks back at St. John, who never turns to look at her. Jane recognizes Rosamonds pain: This spectacle of anothers suffer- ing and sacrifice, rapt my thoughts from exclusive meditation on my own (Jane Eyre, p. q66). As I noted earlier, Janes sympathy for Rosamond is contingent on her identification with Rosamond as a woman in love with a man she cannot have. And though Jane describes the encounter as a shifting of her thoughts away from herself, the shift is painfully slight, as it is based in that identifica- tion. The encounter fails to help Jane understand Rosamond bet- ter (it is perhaps as much projection as it is identification), and Rosamond emerges from this realization not a fuller person in Janes mind, but rather one more like Jane herself. In Middle- march that encounter with anothers pain also forces the charac- ters to cease exclusive meditation of their own situations. Yet in Eliots novel these encounters require interaction beyond merely seeing anothers pain; it is precisely ones inability to anticipate or access the other that imbues such interactions with potential. fortitude to assert desire definitively, they call upon Providence. For both St. John and Jane, such moments are only steps on the road to a clearer self-awareness that can shirk outside pressure. 23 For the full parable, see the opening of chapter : of Middlemarch (pp. :Sg). J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 323 In Dorothea and Rosamonds meeting near the end of Mid- dlemarch, Dorothea must confront her assumption that Will is romantically involved with Rosamond, while Rosamond must con- front the truth that Will is devoted to Dorothea. Though later she would claim otherwise, Eliot revised the scene repeatedly, intent on capturing the significance of the interaction. 24 What is once an encounter of rivals becomes something else, as each woman is in turn pulled out of a deep self-awareness into an awareness of the otherness of the other. At first Dorothea misreads Rosa- monds intentions, too much preoccupied with her own anxiety, to be aware that Rosamond was trembling too (Middlemarch, p. S). For her part, Rosamond is taken hold of by an emotion stronger than her ownhurried along in a new movement which gave all things some new, awful, undefined aspect (p. S6), yet she does find the words to release Dorothea from her suspense: Ladislaw is in love with Dorothea, not with Rosamond. The revela- tion surprises Dorothea, who expected Rosy to vindicate herself, not Ladislaw. Eliot locates much of the affective power of the scene in their mutual surpriseeach woman is overcome by her own emotion, but even more by the encounter with someone else entirely, whose experience was unknown, even unimagined. One might expect the self-centered Rosamond Vincy to be shaken by the experience, but even the generous and contemplative Doro- thea could not have imagined it: It was a newer crisis in Rosamonds experience than even Dorothea could imagine: she was under the first great shock that had shat- tered her dream-world in which she had been easily confident of herself and critical of others; and this strange unexpected manifes- tation of feeling in a woman whom she had approached with a shrinking aversion and dread, as one who must necessarily have a jealous hatred towards her, made her soul totter all the more with a sense that she had been walking in an unknown world which had just broken in upon her. (p. Sq) Here, an encounter with the other woman leads to an encounter with the world, an unknown worldit leads Rosamond not back 24 See Jerome Beaty, The Writing of Chapter S+, in his Middlemarch from Notebook to Novel: A Study of George Eliots Creative Method (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, +g6o), p. +o. 324 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E to herself but instead expressly outside of herself. Moreover, the result of the encounter is generosity, even at the expense of ones own (imagined) happiness. This breakthrough into the foreign mind-space of the other opens up the possibility for better rela- tionships, for actions based on a genuine empathic extension that first recognize difference before recognizing similarity. And thus Eliot depicts two flawed womenRosamond and Dorotheacognizant of their own limitations but willing to extend themselves by recognizing the unknown experience of another woman. That imagination carries the individual outside of herself into a fuller, more generous understanding of the world and its inhabitants. For Rosamond Vincy that understanding arises inaninstant, and might indeed be confined entirely to the conver- sation she shared with Dorothea about Ladislaw. Dorothea proves the fuller realization of the seed of empathic extension that ends Middlemarchs Rosamond plot. Nevertheless, always entangled with the other, Dorothea Brooke cannot be a new St. Teresa, as her world and those in it no longer support the work of an ardently willing soul in the way they once did (Middlemarch, p. ). In the novels finale Eliot writes: there is nocreature whose inwardbeing is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it (pp. S:q:). This is a critique of social strictures that bindpeo- ple to inequitable institutions and ideals, but also a comment on the inescapability of the obligation to the other. Early in her mar- riage to Casaubon, Dorothea is described as being as blind to his inward troubles as he to hers: she had not yet learned those hid- den conflicts in her husband which claim our pity (p. +gq). The yet is important, and is repeated: She had not yet listened patiently to his heart-beats, but only felt that her own was beating violently (p. +gq). Substitute Casaubon, or Lydgate, or Rosamond Vincy in Dorotheas place, and the sentiments still hold; being lim- ited to knowledge of oneself is not enough, as one must work to learn to move beyond the self and recognize the limitations of self-knowledge. Eliots modeling of the dynamics of interpersonal relationships depends on the role that the recognition of alterity plays in her description of the ethical drive, a recognition that does not inhibit empathic extension but rather makes it possible. In this way, Eliots fiction anticipates Emmanuel Levinass phenomenological model, J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 325 a model that provides a useful touchstone for understanding Eliots construction, wherein only through the individuals recog- nition of the radical, interminable alterity of the other does the possibility for empathy exist. Writing in the mid twentieth century, Levinas maintains that the other is alterity, 25 yet he does not place the self and other in a dialectic, suggesting instead that the other remains always unknowable. In Levinass account, the encounter with that radical alterity of the other human opens up the space for ethical behavior. And in his account, only another human is radically other and cannot be folded into ones self- conception or made into an object of the self. This distinction helps to explain the connection in Middlemarch between Lydgates and Casaubons difficulties with their scholastic endeavors and their difficulties with human relationships. Not recognizing the futility of their chosen projects, each man works toward a compre- hensive and exhaustive knowledge, believing all the while in the possibility of success. While those limitations may be evident in even the most superficial reading of the novel, what becomes clear via the Rosamond plot is that the same certainty of knowledge and ignorance of limitationapplies to the way inwhichthese men(and others) approach relationships with other people. Levinas cau- tions against the common desire for or expectation of alterity in non-human objectsa book, for example, cannot function as an other. But the characters in Eliots fiction routinely collapse that distinction. 26 If Lydgate believes that he can (and will!) unlock the secrets of the tissue that unifies all living things, then why should he doubt his capacity to understand his relatively simple- minded wife? (Lydgate is, of course, gravely mistaken in this belief.) Whereas St. Johns and Janes certainty ensured their respective desires, Lydgates seems to ensure the frustration of his. The difference between the Rosamond plots of Jane Eyre and Middlemarch rests with this revolution of emphasis of the unknownwhereas for the characters in Jane Eyre the self must 25 Emmanuel Levinas, The Proximity of the Other (+gS6), trans. Bettina Bergo, in his Is It Righteous to Be? Interviews with Emmanuel Levinas, ed. Jill Robbins (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, :oo+), p. :+. 26 See the chapters Alterity and the Limits of Realism and Sawing Hard Stones: Reading Others in George Eliots Fiction, in Rebecca Mitchell, Victorian Lessons in Empathy and Difference (Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press, :o++). 326 N I N E T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y L I T E R A T U R E be sorted, defined, and refined, and progression must be marked by a movement into certainty, for the characters in Middlemarch the unknown world is the world of the other, and progression occurs through an acceptance of uncertainty. A community, an environment peopled with others, precludes a pervading sense of certainty of self or other; the kind of self-certitude exhibited by St. John and ultimately achieved by Jane Eyre is neither possible nor desirable in the world of Middlemarch. University of Texas-Pan American ABSTRACT Rebecca N. Mitchell, The Rosamond Plots: Alterity and the Unknown in Jane Eyre and Middlemarch (pp. o:) In both Charlotte Bronts Jane Eyre (+Sq) and George Eliots Middlemarch (+S+:) an earnest and ambitious man falls in love with a superficial and beautiful woman named Rosamond. This essay explores the Rosamond plots to argue that Middlemarch stages a radical revision of the version of subjectivity vaunted in Jane Eyre. Via its invocation of Jane Eyres Rosamond plot, Middlemarch challenges the very nature of self-knowledge, questions the status of identification in intersubjective relationships, and insists upon the unknow- ability of the other. In Eliots retelling, the self-awareness promoted in Jane Eyre is not only insufficient, but also verges on self-absorption and even solipsism. One way in which Eliot enacts this revision is by shifting the focus of positive affective relationships away frommod- els of identification. The change marks an evolution in our understanding of the way in which character and communal life is conceived by each author. More specifically, Eliots revisions situate empathic response as being dependent upon the recognition of the radi- cal alterity of the other. Keywords: Charlotte Bront; George Eliot; Jane Eyre ; Middlemarch; alterity J A N E E Y R E A N D M I D D L E M A R C H 327