[H]e was enamoured of that arduous invention which is the very eye of research, provisionally framing its object and correcting it to more and more exactness of relation … to pierce the obscurity of those minute processes.—George Eliot,MiddlemarchIt would be hard to discover a theoretical or aesthetic approach to George Eliot'sMiddlemarchthat is not already anticipated in some way by the novel's sagacious narrator. Possibly that persona, the quintessential Victorian polymath, does not foresee digital humanities as we know it. But critics have been struck as much by Eliot's prototyping of information systems, semiotics, and network analysis as by her humanist ethics. Casaubon does not invent the database of myths any more than Lydgate discovers DNA, or than Marian Evans Lewes rivals Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage. As I illustrate a kind of digital research that adjusts to the minute particulars of narrative, I hope to keep sight of historical distances between the 1830s, the 1870s, and the era of feminist Victorian studies that I sketch here. Lydgate's penetrative “invention,” in the epigraph, is associated elsewhere in the novel with his actual “flesh-and-blood” vitality: “He cared not only for ‘cases,’ but for John and Elizabeth, especially Elizabeth” (Middlemarch, chap. 15). He is as dedicated to evidence as the narrator, in many scientific analogies, counsels readers to be, and yet he approaches his own life story and the characters of women with a kind of prejudgment that filters out most data. Eliot's readers, seeing Lydgate's errors, are flattered into believing we miss no signals and see all analogies. Can contemporary readers appreciate both numerical cases and individual stories of women? In this article I try to outline a feminist criticism that encompasses both typological classifications and flesh-and-blood individuality, both digital research and interpretative advocacy.

中文翻译：

---

特定网站：Middlemarch、类型学和女性生活的数字研究

[H]e 迷恋于作为研究之眼的艰巨发明，临时构建其对象并将其校正为越来越精确的关系……以刺破那些细微过程的晦涩。——乔治·艾略特，米德尔马奇很难找到乔治·艾略特的理论或美学方法米德尔马奇小说的睿智叙述者在某种程度上没有预料到这一点。可能这个角色，典型的维多利亚时代博学家，并没有预见到我们所知道的数字人文学科。但批评家们对艾略特的信息系统、符号学和网络分析的原型和她的人文主义伦理学一样震惊。卡苏朋没有发明神话数据库，就像利德盖特发现 DNA 一样，也不比玛丽安·埃文斯·刘易斯的竞争对手艾达·洛夫莱斯和查尔斯·巴贝奇多。当我说明一种适应叙事细节的数字研究时，我希望能看到 1830 年代、1870 年代和我在这里勾勒的维多利亚女权主义研究时代之间的历史距离。在题词中，利德盖特的渗透性“发明”，米德尔马奇，章。15）。他像叙述者一样专注于证据，在许多科学类比中，劝告读者成为，但他以一种过滤掉大部分数据的偏见来处理自己的生活故事和女性角色。艾略特的读者看到了利德盖特的错误，受宠若惊地相信我们没有错过任何信号并看到所有的类比。当代读者能否同时欣赏女性的数字案例和个人故事？在这篇文章中，我试图概述一种女权主义批评，包括类型学分类和有血有肉的个性，包括数字研究和解释性倡导。