Victorians! discussion

Week 6: (Aug. 13-19) Ch. 32-38

Ch. 32-38
Gaskell begins Ch. 32 with John Carson’s thoughts before the trial of the man he believes has slain his only son. As the courtroom fills, Job receives a letter from Jem commending his mother and aunt into Job’s care, and making a special request for his beloved Mary. The trial proceeds with Jane and Mary giving testimony. Mary confesses that while Harry Carson’s attention was flattering, she broke with him because of her love for Jem. She collapses just as Will Wilson arrives and Jem is saved.

Mary is taken back to the Sturgis home where she lies in a state of delirium and exhaustion. Jem realizes that she is aware that her father murdered Harry Carson with Jem’s gun. Jem returns his mother to Manchester in time to be with Alice before she dies. Jem returns to Liverpool to be with Mary, and, when she is well enough, they travel back to Manchester, where she confronts her father. However, she finds John Barton wasted by bitterness, shame, and and guilt. Mary stays to nurse him and give him her forgiveness.

Through Sally, Mary learns that Jem has lost his job, but has an opportunity in Canada. Job Legh and John Carson hear Barton’s confession. While initially vengeful, Carson searches his soul and has a change of heart. He returns to the Barton home and John dies in his arms. Carson goes on to make changes at the factory in order to improve the lives of the workers. Mary and Jem locate Esther and bring her home where she is able to die among family.

Mary and Jem marry and move to Canada with Jem’s mother, where they begin a new life. Through Job’s letters, they learn that Margaret has had surgery to restore her sight, will marry Will Wilson, and that they intend to visit Canada in the future. The novel ends on a positive note, with the remaining characters finding happiness.

1. In what ways has miscommunication and hidden truth affected the events of the novel?
2. In what ways have the poor supported each other throughout the story?
3. How does the final confrontation between Johns bring change and culmination to the major events of the novel?
4. Do you find the ending to be satisfying? Are there elements that you wish Gaskell had handled differently?

For those who enjoy comparison…
Link to 2013 discussion:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Even though I already knew the events at the end, I still need to take a deep breath and compose myself before writing any more.

The dramatic final chapters and subsequent conclusion felt far more than just a happy ending for me. Of course it wasn’t a happy ending for everybody, there was never any possibility of that.

I will begin with this.

’I (the narrator) was not there (in the court room) myself; but one who was, told me that her look, and indeed her whole face, was more like the well-known engraving from Guido's picture of "Beatrice Cenci" than anything else he could give me an idea of.’



It was interesting that Elizabeth Gaskell chose this painting as reminiscent of Mary’s appearance, particularly considering the harrowing life story of Beatrice Cenci.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatric...

Before I write about Mary, Jem and his mother, I think it is important to mention how it ended for John Barton And Esther.

’ They laid her (Esther) in one grave with John Barton. And there they lie without name, or initial, or date. Only this verse is inscribed upon the stone which covers the remains of these two wanderers. Psalm ciii. v. 9.—"For He will not always chide, neither will He keep His anger for ever."

I think Elizabeth Gaskell put them in the same grave, not just because they were family, but to lament the parallel degradation of their lives. They were both exploited by a society which took advantage of their weaknesses and eventually condemned them both to desperate physical and moral poverty.

The author begins the last chapter of the book with an extract from this poem…….

‘ A Petition to Time
by Bryan Waller Procter (pseudonym Barry Cornwall)

Touch us gently, Time!
Let us glide adown thy stream
Gently—as we sometimes glide
Through a quiet dream.
Humble voyagers are we:
Husband, wife, and children three;
(One is lost—an angel, fled
To the azure overhead!)

Touch us gently, Time!
We've not proud nor soaring wings:
Our ambition, our content,
Lies in simple things.
Humble voyagers are we,
O'er life's dim, unsounded sea,
Seeking only some calm clime:
Touch us gently, gentle Time!’

The poem seems to me to form a bridge between the failed ambitions of John Barton and Esther, and Mary’s revised vision of her future life….with Jem.

Yes! I was very touched by the detail of the burial. Gaskell’s use of the real-world detail of same-grave burial for the poor, is quite brilliant. Thank you for illustrating the reasons so beautifully, Trev.

I also see a forgiveness and redemption in the choice. Both wronged each other and their family is certain ways, yet both are brought home to family in death. (And to their beloved sister/wife, if the custom of burying spouses together was in practice then.)

Trev quoted:

"Only this verse is inscribed upon the stone which covers the remains of these two wanderers. Psalm ciii. v. 9.—"For He will not always chide, neither will He keep His anger for ever."

The inscription reminded me of sth. I read - I think it was about Anne Brontë's Tenant of Wildfell Hall, where she too holds the belief that there is, ultimately, forgiveness for all (no eternal 'hell' or whatever) - a belief that was controversial at the time. So it seems Gaskell made the same statement here. - I could not say how strong and non-conformist it was.

I also have a lot of notes and thoughts about these last chapters, but before I go into them, another déjà-vu:

"But father!" said Mary, suddenly breaking that delicious silence with the one sharp discord in her present life.

I remember another one of Gaskell's 'delicious silences' ... is it the same?

(Attention: loooong speculations)

I wrote once before that I miss a character in the book: the ‘other conspirator’, one of those who draws a blank. My thoughts keep revolving around this man - maybe a friend of John Barton, maybe old and embittered as he is, maybe young and zealous? I’ll call him X and ask myself: what’s going on in him - and what would be his contribution to the novel? Where would he take the story - and why does Gaskell not go there?

At the meeting where they decide on the assassination he is convinced by John’s argument, viz. violence against masters instead of violence against knob-sticks. Then he draws a blank. … and feels so much relief that he comes to realise that he is not really ready to take his convictions to the last consequence.

But he knows *someone* among the conspirators has to kill Carson. Does he hope that other one feels like him and will never really do it? Does he simply try to forget it? - Let’s say he’s not prone to moral reflections whether murder as a ‘weapon’ in the labour conflict is right or wrong in principle.

What happens when he hears of the murder? - He concludes that the conspiracy has worked; one of the group has fulfilled the oath. He is halfway between shock and satisfaction.

(… Nowadays, you would expect the perpetrators of a political assassination to claim the deed. This group did not - maybe they thought it would be self-evident)

Then Jem is arrested for the murder. Which must be very strange to our man X: it’s too much of a coincidence that two men were out to kill Carson for two different reasons at the same time. So he’s one of the very few people - maybe together with the other conspirators - who is not convinced of Jem’s guilt. They even must be very much frustrated: their political assassination is ‘degraded’ to a crime of passion, the whole purpose is lost.

(Trade Union ‘officials’ must be glad that the motive in the investigation shifts to a crime of passion. If the political motive were known, the Unions as a whole would be incriminated - their reputation, and the reputation of the working class, not being good at any time; middle class media & people consider them unprincipled, wild, violent etc.)

Our man X is present at the trial. He must realise that Jem does not defend himself, hence that he covers up for someone. (Maybe he knows that John Barton is a close friend of the Wilsons, and can guess who is the murderer) - This is something that is really hard to swallow. The conspirators certainly don’t want an innocent - worker! one of theirs! - to be hanged. Not only is the purpose of the whole action lost, now it also leads to a second death, and misery for two families.

Let’s say X can’t endure the end of the trial and leaves the courtroom before Will’s testimony. It’s the turning point for him: he sees that violence begets violence. Violence begins with beating up knob-sticks and ends with the conviction of an innocent. … With Jem’s release, and Barton’s death, he later can overcome the acute wretchedness of his inner conflicts, but it will be a lesson.

So the character X would take the novel into the territory of the debate about violence/non-violence. This debate was much less clear at Gaskell’s time, what with ‘legitimate’ violence of the state, of parents, etc. And the very year of publication of MB was a year of - violent - revolutions in Europe. It is not astonishing then that in her debut novel she is not ready to tackle the violence/non-violence debate; or that she was not aware of the broad implications of the story. The debate was not yet out there, formulated in the terms we know today: Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' was to be published a year later, and it addressed slavery, and the government, specifically - no debate yet about non-violence in general. P.B. Shelley is credited with a first formulation of the idea in his poem 'The Masque of Anarchy', written as a reaction to the Peterloo Massacre, in 1819, but not published until 1832. There are these verses in particular:

'And if then the tyrants dare
Let them ride among you there,
Slash, and stab, and maim, and hew, -
What they like, that let them do.

'With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise,
Look upon them as they slay
Till their rage has died away.

The poem became highly influential - for Thoreau, Gandhi, M. L. King, and others. But Gaskell did not go into that debate - and I wonder whether anyone in the Unions, or her Unitarian Church, did so explicitly. Strikes are an important non-violent strategy, but most of the strikes in her time - as far as I know - failed to achieve their goals, as did the Chartist petitions. There was therefore a fraction of the Chartists who advocated armed resurrection , e.g. the Newport Rising of 1839. I imagine that the debate about ‘legitimate’ means of civil resistance began around that time.

And our man X? - I’ve determined that he is young Higgins, who, once he becomes a Union leader, is very outspoken in his opinion that the strike has to remain strictly non-violent.

(... and I have it - from Prof. Sanders’ lecture - that the Preston strikers who served as a model for Gaskell’s N&S, were indeed creatively non-violent: they managed to get hold of most of the imported Irish workers - the ‘knob-sticks’ - treated them to food and drink, and gave them money to return home)

sabagrey wrote: "(Attention: loooong speculations)

I wrote once before that I miss a character in the book: the ‘other conspirator’, one of those who draws a blank. My thoughts keep revolving around this man - ma..."

I really enjoyed reading about your ‘Mr X’ because I too was intrigued by what became of the conspirators. I have more to say later about Job Legh’s discussion with Mr. Carson as well as more about Sam Bamford now that the novel has been completed.

Sadly, I cannot believe in one of the outcomes of the novel, that Carson would have implemented all those changes for the good of the working man. Yes there were some philanthropic factory owners, Titus Salt to name one, but working conditions mainly changed because of pressure on owners via legislation, not from the goodness of their hearts.

I greatly enjoyed this book, even on a second reading. I agree with Trev that the moral/religious conversion of Carson seemed unlikely, but at least the text indicated that his good works were behind the scenes and that his outward stern demeanor didn't change. The other point I found unlikely was that Margaret's sight was fully restored from couching, an unreliable form of cataract removal which may restore some sight but may also result in serious complications. I think would have been more plausible to say she had regained some sight or just to leave the subject untouched. These are small points, however, in a novel that I found very delightful.

Nancy wrote: "I agree with Trev that the moral/religious conversion of Carson seemed unlikely, ."

So do I. But then it wasn't meant to be realistic - it was meant to be the utopian vision; the 'sermon' element of the novel; the solution Gaskell (and the Unitarians) proposed for the labour conflicts and the social problems.

It made me think of the other vision which was published the same year - The Communist Manifesto. (1848 in German, English translation 2 years later - but it remained largely unknown until the 1860s-70s).

That is, Gaskell could not have known it even if she cared. Her view of the economic system is much narrower and a-historical, she sees class distinctions and technological progress as 'God-given', and her solution only touches the social outcomes. This is not a criticism: no-one at her time was much more advanced in thinking. Marx and Engels were the first to put the finger on the systemic problem, i.e. capitalism, in an international and historical perspective.

As to the 'solutions' proposed by either of them: one was as utopian as the other. We can exonerate Gaskell from being particularly unrealistic, because, basically, everyone was. And we must not forget that the root problems of capitalist societies remain unsolved to this day - the global ecological crises capitalism has landed us in are witness to it.

As Trev says, working conditions mainly changed because of pressure on owners via legislation, not from the goodness of their hearts.

... where pro-labour legislation was the outcome of universal vote, pressure by trade unions, and power of the parties emerging from them. But, strangely enough, there are also traces of the dialogue that Gaskell suggests. In my country (Austria) such a dialogue was institutionalized after WWII in an inter-party effort to ensure social peace and cohesion (after the shock of austro-fascism and nazism, there actually WAS some goodwill). Minimum wages and working conditions have since been negotiated by the 'social partners'.


5 stars for Mary Barton - if only for making me re-think problems such as this. On my first read, I found the final chapters with their 'sermonising' a bit long, tedious and too 'Christian' - now, I think they are just right, maybe because I can see Gaskell's views better in their historical context.

(I wish Gaskell had gone on to write more ‘industrial novels’ beside MB and N&S - she was good at it, probably the best in her time. For a long time, I resented her leaving the genre, so much so that I refused to read Wives & Daughters for years. I like it in its own way now, but I may be allowed to go on wishing …)

There were some points in the last chapters that reminded me why I didn´t give the book 5 stars: the headline of the chapter about the trial that gives away the outcome, the sudden illness near death of Mary, some more sentimentality in these chapters, the disappearance of the conspirators, the "conversion" of Carson, the convenient death of the murderer Barton (also a fault in some Golden Age mysteries) or the sudden gain of Margaret´s eye sight. Though we have a lot of deaths here, the end is a bit "too" happy and unrealistic for my taste.

My decision after this reading of Mary Barton was to upgrade the novel from 4 to 5 stars. Even though I knew what was coming at the end, it didn’t prevent me being moved by the emotional scenes and provoked by the arguments developed by the author.

I don’t think it was over sentimental for Jem to be hiding behind the curtain as Mary was slowly recovering from what was really a mental breakdown after all the anguish she had been forced to endure. (I think I would have done it myself.)

’ She (Mary) did not see the face of honest joy, of earnest thankfulness,—the clasped hands, the beaming eyes,—the trembling eagerness of gesture, of one who had long awaited her awakening, and who now stood behind the curtains watching through some little chink her every faint motion…..’

And Jem’s mother, with a sense of relief more than anything else, agreeing to emigrate and putting the blame on the whole country, felt just right to me after all she had been through.

’ "To be sure 'Merica is a long way to flit to; beyond London a good bit I reckon; and quite in foreign parts; but I've never had no opinion of England, ever since they could be such fools as to take up a quiet chap like thee, and clap thee in prison. Where you go, I'll go.’

But it was the conversation between Job Legh and John Carson in the penultimate chapter that really provoked my thinking about the relationship between the owners and their employees. There seemed to be an impenetrable barrier between them. In particular Job Legh’s earnest plea for Carson to consider how much worse off the worker’s poverty was than that of the employers when times where tough.

’ Job looked and felt very sorrowful at the want of power in his words, while the feeling within him was so strong and clear.’…….

"I'm loth to vex you, sir, just now; but it was not the want of power I was talking on; what we all feel sharpest is the want of inclination to try and help the evils which come like blights at times over the manufacturing places, while we see the masters can stop work and not suffer. If we saw the masters try for our sakes to find a remedy,--even if they were long about it,--even if they could find no help, and at the end of all could only say, 'Poor fellows, our hearts are sore for ye; we've done all we could, and can't find a cure,'--we'd bear up like men through bad times. No one knows till they have tried, what power of bearing lies in them, if once they believe that men are caring for their sorrows and will help if they can. “ ‘

I often get the feeling that the same barrier still exists today and although I am relieved that now fewer people die of starvation, the philosophical problem that the two were discussing is just as uuapparent and the gap in understanding is still yawningly wide.

Samuel Bamford casts a large shadow over this novel. Elizabeth Gaskell has used her knowledge and appreciation of him to weave the questions of workers rights in and around her plots. He himself, peacefully campaigning for the rights of workers, was imprisoned for treason and was in turn both revered and vilified by the public. The influence he had during his long and tempestuous life ought to be more well known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_...

Trev wrote: "Samuel Bamford casts a large shadow over this novel. ."

Thank you - you've got me interested in this man. Have you read his 'Passages ...'? - I almost think I should read it: the period he writes about has always fascinated me.

I wonder whether it would not make for a good Buddy Read in this group?

I found the text here:
https://web.archive.org/web/200806140...

Mary Barton, the character, made me think of Esther Lyon in Felix Holt: The Radical, and I wonder whether George Eliot was not inspired by this book? She read Gaskell, and said somewhere that the town of 'Middlemarch' was inspired by Gaskell's small towns - Hollingford and Cranford; so why not characters, too?

Both girls are lively, warm-hearted, vain, socially ambitious, and their characters' growth plays an important role. In both books, there is a love triangle across social classes; and then, of course, both girls' testify before court. Also, in both novels social-political circumstances play an important role.

sabagrey wrote: "Mary Barton, the character, made me think of Esther Lyon in Felix Holt: The Radical, and I wonder whether George Eliot was not inspired by this book? She read Gaskell, and said somewh..."

There was an article about Gaskell and Elliot not only admiring each other’s work but being influenced by the stories that they both produced. It can be found in the Gaskell Society’s journal volume 29. Unfortunately you have to be a member of the Gaskell Society or subscribe to JSTOR to read it.

https://gaskelljournal.co.uk/volume-29/

Here is the abstract

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48518793

Trev wrote: "There was an article about Gaskell and Elliot not only admiring each other’s work but being influenced by the stories that they both produced.."

thank you for the hint (I'm on JSTOR) - the article goes, of course, much deeper in analysing the mutual influence; deeper than my amateurish book-love. My comparison is way too superficial, of course.

One thought sticks, however: that Gaskell's abandonment of the 'big problems' in her novels is considered her progress toward realism, and thus, implicitly, positive - where realism studies the 'big in the small'.

I think I cannot go along with this scholarly view: it takes the perspective of literature - but what about the perspective of society, and the meaning of literature in society? ... maybe I'm just too much of a 'zoon politicon' to see the progress there. I've written above somewhere that I regret that Gaskell did turn away from the 'big problems'.

Trev wrote: "...’ They laid her (Esther) in one grave with John Barton. And there they lie without name, or initial, or date. Only this verse is inscribed upon the stone which covers the remains of these two wanderers. Psalm ciii. v. 9.—"For He will not always chide, neither will He keep His anger for ever."
.."

I have finally finished as well.
Regarding the burial, the 2 sinners, the murderer and the fallen woman, are being buried together in an unnamed grave. I think this might also show/ criticize how the church handled these cases. They are not given a proper burial with a name on the stone as they are outcasts of society... at least I thought of that when reading. Maybe Mary and Jem did want them to rest in peace and nobody should know who really lies in that grave.

sabagrey wrote: "(Attention: loooong speculations)

I wrote once before that I miss a character in the book: the ‘other conspirator’, one of those who draws a blank. My thoughts keep revolving around this man - ma..."

That is a good point about Mr. X. That is maybe the aspect that is completely missing in the last third of the novel besides Job trying to convince Mr Carson of the fate of the workers. I was thinking about this during whole court scene and before that. How can you sit there knowing that someone from the group must be responsible for the murder as they had decided that together in this secret "lottery", and seeing another completely innocent man being tried for that murder.

Nancy wrote: "I greatly enjoyed this book, even on a second reading. I agree with Trev that the moral/religious conversion of Carson seemed unlikely, but at least the text indicated that his good works were behi..."

I was also a little surprised by Margaret's regaining her vision again and I think it must have been more for wrapping up the novel and say a few words in her favour as well than that it actually adds to the value of the story. But now I have googled a little and found this article about cataracts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

Already in the 18th century "couching" was substituted with other forms of surgical treatment. So it could have been possible for Margaret to get helped and maybe after having saved up some money from her singing career she could afford that type of surgery. So maybe it is not as unlikely as we might think.

Overall, I gave the book 5 stars (maybe it would have rather been a 4,5 star). It moved me quite much, more than I had expected. Each of the death scenes makes you feel as if you are in the room with the dying. The John Barton dies in Mr Carson's arms scene was maybe a little strange/ unrealistic, but perhaps it was Gaskell's wish to have a factory owner see the dying moments of a poor, dismissed factory worker to make a stronger impression on him which might then lead to his taking better care of his workforce in the future.
That Esther was able to die in a nice / her own old bed was comforting to me and I think Gaskell made it a little comical again when Jem tells that Job is not coming to Canada to visit his friends, but to find Canadian specimens.

I do agree with what has been said above about the chapter descriptions. It was a little strange to see the verdict of the court case named in the chapter title. But maybe it was clear for all readers that Will would show up in the last minute to save his cousin. The suspense suffered somewhat by this chapter title.

Hedi wrote: " The suspense suffered somewhat by this chapter title."

Could it be that readers of the period could not cope with so much suspense?

When I think that movies have become so much more fast, dark, gory, suspense-packed in my own lifetime that it is sometimes more than I can endure, I can imagine that what is 'normal' suspense for us may have been too much for mid-19th century readers.

... which makes me think of other novels of that time (1840s or so) : is there suspense and how is it dealt with by the authors?

Dombey and Son comes to my mind - (view spoiler)[Carker's journey and death in particular (hide spoiler)] - but the scenes I'm thinking of are more of a 'poetic dramatization' of events rather than suspenseful action per se.

Well, I think other novels did not have chapter titles.
And thinking of Dickens, I mostly remember all the cliffhangers at the end of his chapters that made you want to read on in order to find out what happens next.

Trollope had chapter titles in his Barchester series, but I cannot recall them destroying the suspense in such a way.

Trev wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "(Attention: loooong speculations)

I wrote once before that I miss a character in the book: the ‘other conspirator’, one of those who draws a blank. My thoughts keep revolving aro..."

The idea of communication or dialogue bringing understanding and change was probably one very close to Gaskell's heart, since we see somewhat the same course in Northa nd South as well-something she believed could (or rather should) happen.

The ending I though here was very well done (unlike the abrupt one in N & S--sorry I keep going there); we see a 'happy' ending for Mary (at least as much as it can be) and Jem; surprising sensitive sides to Mrs Wilson (done realistically, so she is also the sharp tongued mother in law at times), also release in a sense for John Barton who is undergoin torment ever since he did what he did (perhaps only after seeing the other as a human being like himself), and also some relief for Mr Carson (since he no longer seeks revenge). Esther too in a sense finds release from a life she was not happy with or proud of but couldn't escape either.

It was definitely a kind ending for most, with redemption and release as key factors. Gaskell wrapped up all the characters.