The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Dear friends, please share your thoughts and impressions about part 2

I would recommend a slight change in our reading schedule. Let us read chapters XI through XXVI. When I was splitting the book into sections, I was using my Sony ereader, and it was slightly inconvenient because I could not physically page through the book. I might have miscalculated or it was just a case of negligence. Anyway, if we read one chapter less this time and slightly deviate from the original schedule, this section will be virtually one forth of the book and all the sections will be well-balanced page-wise.

This section covers a significant time span for Ruth and other characters. Ruth moves to a new place, gives birth to a child, is introduced into a new society, and even is hired as a governess. She is even approached by Mr. Bradshaw who chooses her as a certain confidante and asks her to influence Jemima's behaviour towards her potential suitor. Here is a list of questions that might help to trigger the discussion and can be used as a starting point.

1. Ruth goes through a number of changes: she moves to a new place, she accepts a new personality, she becomes a mother and a governess. Do you think all these social transformations change Ruth as a person. Does she become pro-active as a character? Has she learned a skill of foreseeing and predicitng the outcomes of her decisions?

2. What can you say about the Bensons? Are they good people because of their innate goodness or is it a moral compass of their faith that turns them into very decent people?

3. Can modern readers relate to the motives of the Bensons' actions and moral guidance of faith? Is religious faith as a moral compass a must in the modern world?

4. Has Ruth sincerely found faith or has she accepted it because of her environment and as the only solution to provide a decent life for her son?

5. Is Gaskell conveying a certain social and moral message when she portrays the Bradshaws and Mr Farquhar?

6. How believable is Ruth's transformation from a humble girl presented as a young widow to the local society to a governess and even an adviser and a semi-confidante for Mr. Bradshaw?

Is religious faith as a moral compass a must in the modern world?

No! Morality is not solely found in religious faith or in religion in general, it is part of our 'survival kit' as human beings a la The Golden Rule - 'do as you would be done by'. Gaskell was a religious woman so was expressing her personal p.o.v. but at this time there was also a rise in freethinkers and atheists, like Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, the first atheist MP, who were also instrumental in improving the conditions of the working poor.

Ruth's transformation might not have been very likely but there were (and are) rags-to-riches stories in every society, which give hope if nothing else. 'The American Dream' is founded upon such unlikely stories.

MadgeUK wrote: "Is religious faith as a moral compass a must in the modern world?

No! Morality is not solely found in religious faith or in religion in general, it is part of our 'survival kit' as human beings a ..."

As a secular person and a humanist, I would also say, 'No!', and it will be my p.o.v., but it is still a very interesting point to discuss:-) I totally agree with you that Gaskell is expressing her point of view, but I have also met people who went through the amazing social transformation due to the faith they have discovered. I usually define this as an empowring experience for the stranded and misguided souls.
On the other hand, it is also interesting to observe how people accept faith because of conformity, but there are cases when the most sincere faith comes from the very heart of a person who actually does and acts what he or she preaches. Personally, religious faith is an eternal and fascinating enigma.

People can go through social and/or personal transformation for many reasons. Some of the early social reformers lost their faith because they could not discern the 'hand of god' in the conditions around them and instead they put their faith in human endeavour and awareness.

From a girl we saw as simple-minded, Ruth becomes an excellent student. It could be that she never went to school, only learned a bit at home, and once she had a course of study she blossomed, spurred by the need to teach her own child. But she also is a bit of a blank slate, being shaped by everyone else's views and desires, and hard to identify with as a real character.

I wonder how we are supposed to find Jemima with her "willful" nature. I like her a lot, as she is a normal teenager, but of course that didn't work with her Victorian father. Gaskell seems to have some sympathy for her, when the sister remarks that Papa disapproves of so many things, she can't remember them all. It's clear that Mr. Bradshaw has already cowed his wife into tiptoeing around him and spying on his children. I guess those were considered good qualities of keeping up the moral tone of his household. I felt a bit sorry for Mr Fahrquar who is also somewhat passive, having his actions and moods influenced by both Bradshaw and Jemima. No wonder Ruth is a welcome change.

Jemima seems to be a spirited girl, and she is definitely somewhat of a misfit for the Victorian society. Ruth, on the other hand, is very compliant and a tabula rasa. No wonder, Mr. Bradshaw believes that she can be someone who can change Jemima's mind.

This section was getting a bit heavy on the religion for me, so I appreciated the change of scene to the Bradshaws'. I found them amusing. Mr. Bradshaw has very firm ideas, and thinks his patronage is a great honor. Mrs. Bradshaw has been well trained by her husband, but I thought it was funny when she was talking herself into telling Jemima what she knew her husband wouldn't want her to tell. The two younger daughters have very different personalities, with one taking after her father, insisting that the other call their sister 'Jemima', etc. I feel a bit sorry for Jemima and Mr. Fahrquar, because they both care about each other and seem well-suited, but neither knows quite how to communicate with the other, leading to misunderstandings.

I also am really enjoying Sally! She is a bit gruff, but with a heart of gold. The story of her suitor was really fun; she seems determined to fight off any suitors and remain single, so as to look after her beloved 'Master Thurston' and leave him her money.

Ruth is becoming an admirable young woman, and her son Leonard is a favorite with everyone, including the Bradshaw girls. She still has a very difficult time understanding the motives of others, though.

A few comments on some of the discussion questions:

1. Ruth goes through a number of changes: she moves to a new place, she accepts a new personality, she becomes a mother and a governess. Do you think all these social transformations change Ruth as a person. Does she become pro-active as a character? Has she learned a skill of foreseeing and predicitng the outcomes of her decisions?

I don't think Ruth has really changed that much. I would definitely say that she is not any more pro-active or able to predict outcomes.

2. What can you say about the Bensons? Are they good people because of their innate goodness or is it a moral compass of their faith that turns them into very decent people?

It is difficult to separate the Bensons from their faith, especially Mr. Benson, as he is a preacher. However, I think that he is innately good; perhaps that is why he became a preacher. He did have to convince himself that it would be right to help Ruth for the sake of saving her child, to save their souls, but I think he wanted to save Ruth in the first place, and just needed to find a reason that he could reconcile with his faith. His sister, on the other hand, at first rejected the idea because of her faith, and her brother had to argue the case with her to convince her, but in the end, she came to love Ruth for herself, anyway.

3. Can modern readers relate to the motives of the Bensons' actions and moral guidance of faith? Is religious faith as a moral compass a must in the modern world?

I think that modern readers can understand the Bensons' religious views, whether or not they share them. I would agree with the others that religious faith is not necessary to have a sense of morality.

4. Has Ruth sincerely found faith or has she accepted it because of her environment and as the only solution to provide a decent life for her son?

I think that Ruth is, as has been often said here, a blank slate, and so it is easy for her to accept the faith and religious views of those who have come to her aid and even saved her life. She is very grateful and sees them as good people. Of course, she is also presented with another religious point of view in the household, in Sally, who is C of E.

6. How believable is Ruth's transformation from a humble girl presented as a young widow to the local society to a governess and even an adviser and a semi-confidante for Mr. Bradshaw?

I don't see it as that much of a transformation. She was presented as an honest woman in the first place, and the Bradshaws had no reason to question that. Although she is seen as a kind of governess to the two younger girls, I don't think she is actually expected to teach them. My understanding was that they had tutors, and she was supposed to be present during their lessons and make sure they did their schoolwork. Mr. Bradshaw seeks her help because she is so unassuming and gentle that Jemima loves her, and he thinks she will listen to Ruth before she will listen to him. I did enjoy the conversation where Ruth asks him exactly what he wants and whether he expects her to reveal what he has told her, since otherwise how would she know about it enough to advise her. He was quite taken aback, since he obviously had not seen that obvious issue!

Denise wrote: "I also am really enjoying Sally! She is a bit gruff, but with a heart of gold. The story of her suitor was really fun; she seems determined to fight off any suitors and remain single, so as to look after her beloved 'Master Thurston' and leave him her money."

Sally is a true gem as a character. When I was reading about her stories, her life, her way of speaking, and her way of thinking and acting, I kept reminding myself that I WAS NOT IN FACT reading Dickens. In my opinion, Sally is definitely Dickensesque!

Denise wrote: "I think that he is innately good; perhaps that is why he became a preacher. He did have to convince himself that it would be right to help Ruth for the sake of saving her child, to save their souls, but I think he wanted to save Ruth in the first place, and just needed to find a reason that he could reconcile with his faith. "

I also think that the decision to help Ruth was not initially motivated by his faith; Mr. Benson, as you said, is innately good, and this decision stems from his kind heart. He only wraps his impulses into the cloak of faith either because of the zeitgeist or because of the popular opinion or because that is how he always explained his kind actions to himself. The other explanation for his actions is Gaskell's vision of the world that was affected by her background. Preachers and sincerely religious people are always the torches of light in her books. And let's be honest about these characters - they are always likable.

The Chapter 11 discussion between Mr Benson and his sister about Ruth's plight and the baby's illegitimacy very much reflect Gaskell's enlightened views and the book was condemned for this when it was published. Here is some information about bastardy and the rise of baby farming in Victorian times, which mentions Ruth:-

http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal...

http://www.historybytheyard.co.uk/bab...

Dickens also campaigned against baby farming and wrote in Oliver Twist that he 'contrived to exist upon the smallest possible portion of the weakest possible food.' Dickens describes what happened to many of the children thus farmed out: '...it did perversely happen in eight and a half cases out of ten, either that it sickened from want and cold, or fell into the fire from neglect, or got half-smothered by accident; in any one of which cases, the miserable little being was usually summoned into another world, and there gathered to the fathers it had never known in this.'

So Ruth and her baby were very lucky to have fallen into the much kinder hands of the Bensons.

I was amused by Faith's 'whistling' because when I was a girl my Victorian grandmother used to say to me:-

Whistling women
And a crowing hen
Are neither good for
God nor men

It was considered very unladylike so it is surprising that Faith whistled. It was also thought that a whistle 'called the devil out of his den'!

MadgeUK wrote: "The Chapter 11 discussion between Mr Benson and his sister about Ruth's plight and the baby's illegitimacy very much reflect Gaskell's enlightened views and the book was condemned for this when it ..."

Thank you for illuminating articles, MadgeUK. The point that definitely disturbed me more than anything else is the fact that there were strict laws against the mistreatment of animals, but there were no laws governing baby-farming. Horrendous ...

The theme of baby-farming was raised and discussed in Victorian and neo-Victorian literature. The two books that come to mind are the novels Oliver Twist by Dickens and Fingersmith by Waters.

Zulfiya wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "The Chapter 11 discussion between Mr Benson and his sister about Ruth's plight and the baby's illegitimacy very much reflect Gaskell's enlightened views and the book was condemned f..."

Agnes Grey by Anne Bronte, published in 1847, mentions the treatment of animals. The Protection of Animals Act of 1835 made bull, bear and badger baiting, as well as cock and dog fighting illegal. However, the legislation only covered cruelty to domestic and captive animals, not wild ones. Baby farming wasn't regulated until 1872.

Mention is made of Welsh and Wales in Chapter 11: Wales is a very beautiful and mountainous part of western UK, with a long and troubled history.

http://www.map-of-uk.co.uk/map-of-wal...

http://www.snowdoniaguide.com/

It has its own very musical, Celtic language which is still widely spoken in North Wales where the people, signposts etc are proudly bi-lingual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqXToS...

It is famous for its male voice choirs and the Eisteddfodd Poetry festival.

I would have given Sally the sack when she cut off Ruth's hair! Faith does not seem to consider lying again and again a sin. No wonder her brother is worried!

MadgeUK wrote: "I would have given Sally the sack when she cut off Ruth's hair! Faith does not seem to consider lying again and again a sin. No wonder her brother is worried!"

Only Mr. Benson is angelic and impeccable in this household, but this unlimited goodness also makes him dull and predictable, IMHO

They are all too good to be true! Gaskell had learned a lot by the time she wrote her later novels, thank goodness.

Well, if it was true that widows wore their hair short, Sally was the only one who thought of that, and got Ruth the widow's caps. And I think they are too attached to Sally to fire her.

Okay, I've finally caught up to you all and have been enjoying the conversation so far. This book has certainly been different than the other Gaskell's I've read (North and South & Cranford) but I like the innocence of the tone, both in the storyline and in Gaskell's early writing.

I have been mulling over Zulfiya's questions, especially #1 and have been a little puzzled why I cannot seem to connect with Ruth. I like her and admire her poise and gentleness but for me she hasn't yet become "real"yet. It's almost like she is a "mirror" through which we see and know the other characters in the novel. The action revolves around her but it is as if the action is almost more important than Ruth who is only a passive participant. Does anyone know what I mean? Am I completely off base? I can't figure out whether it's a flaw in Gaskell's writing or a brilliant method of presenting the story ..... ???

Zulfiya wrote: "Only Mr. Benson is angelic and impeccable in this household, but this unlimited goodness also makes him dull and predictable, IMHO
..."

I like Mr. Benson. His handicap must not be easy for him to bear, as it not only limits him physically but can also bring him pain. I have known people who have had to live with chronic pain and it is difficult to exist with an equanimity towards life and a peaceful heart. Often the pain can cause the person to become bitter and their responses can be tinged with anger and annoyance. Mr Benson, as I see him, overcomes this, probably with continual struggle, and his peaceful demeanor and words of wisdom coming out of his circumstances make him one of my better loved characters in this book.

Perhaps the "goodness" of this novel is affecting me .... LOL! I even don't mind Mr. Bradshaw. Like Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, he seems to me to have been given good principles but has been left to follow them in pride and conceit. I had to laugh at the part where he was so certain of the marriage of Jemima and Mr. Farquhar and then could not remember if he and Farquhar had even directly spoken about it.

Cleo wrote: "I like Mr. Benson. His handicap must not be easy for him to bear, as it not only limits him physically but can also bring him pain. I have known people who have had to live with chronic pain and it is difficult to exist with an equanimity towards life and a peaceful heart"

I do like Mr. Benson AS A PERSON. I wish we could have more people like Mr. Benson. On the other hand, as a character he is somewhat predictable, but I do admire his goodness and kindness. He is an example for many of us to follow. I wish all religious people were as good as Mr. Benson and did what they preached. But again, I am projecting my hopes on humanity, and my projections are based on him as real person. Unfortunately, he is a character...

All in all, it is a conundrum. I wish there were more people like Mr. Benson, but as a character, he is only an unbelievably good guy. Sigh ...

Cleo, I understand what you mean about Ruth being something of a cipher. In that way she is like Oliver Twist and Little Nell, buffeted by the decisions and passions of others. It was radical of Gaskell to present a "fallen" woman as a basically good person, and maybe she wanted to leave more scope for readers to identify with her heroine. (Or it's just always more boring to read about good people than bad ones!)

Zulfiya wrote: "I wish all religious people were as good as Mr. Benson and did what they preached. But again, I am projecting my hopes on humanity, and my projections are based on him as real person. Unfortunately, he is a character... ..."

It has always intrigued me that daughters of clergymen (ie. Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, etc.) often like to portray religious characters in their books (Mr. Collins, St. John) as either bumbling fools or men who suppress their feelings in the name of piety (Mr. Bradshaw could also fit into this category). On one hand it's refreshing to see Mr. Benson portrayed as having the characteristics of what a Christian should be, however I do know what you mean about the portrayal leaving his character flat and predictable. If Gaskell had expanded more on his inner struggles he could have become more real to the reader, but perhaps that would have taken the focus off Ruth, who (is supposed to be) the main character in the novel.

Robin wrote: "(Or it's just always more boring to read about good people than bad ones!) ..."

Robin, your above comment is so true and I wonder why that is? Shouldn't we want to read more about good happenings than bad? .... Kind people rather than horrid people? .... A nice life rather than a sordid one?

While we know we should be good, inside there is something that actually wants to be bad and through books we can live out that bad part through the literary characters, whereas if we tried to act badly in real life, we can understand the consequences? Or is it because that by reading about the mistakes of the characters and seeing these characters rise above their circumstances, this encourages us in our own lives that when we make mistakes we are able to do the same? I kind of think a little of both.

I do find that children's novels have more good characters who are much more likeable than the bad ones. Perhaps this is as it should be, but perhaps with adult novels, the writer is freer to portray life in a more realistic manner.

Just some thoughts ......

Good and interesting thoughts, Cleo

I think flawed characters mirror our own battles between good and bad, light and darkness. Sometimes we are even attracted to good guys turning bad guys. It is a way of exorcising our own demons in a very peaceful and literary way :-)

Zulfiya wrote: "Denise wrote: "I also am really enjoying Sally! She is a bit gruff, but with a heart of gold. The story of her suitor was really fun; she seems determined to fight off any suitors and remain single..."

I fully agree with you, Zulfiya. She is a rather Dickensian character. :-) and reminded me a little of Pegotty in David Copperfield, who was also so attached to her mistress and her son.

Robin wrote: "Cleo, I understand what you mean about Ruth being something of a cipher. In that way she is like Oliver Twist and Little Nell, buffeted by the decisions and passions of others. It was radical of Ga..."

Cleo, Robin, I had a similar impression of Ruth. She is very passive and kind of flows through the novel. The only incident when she actually tried to be active was when she proposed to make her own living and find a very cheap place for herself and her son. However, this first and only attempt of being proactive was cut off directly by Miss and Mr. Benson.
Therefore, she also reminds me of Oliver Twist. I do like her for being a rather innocent victim to male attraction, but as a character she is rather plain and we do not really get to know her very well in contrast to Jemima whose conflict about her attachment to Mr. Farquhar is described much more and gives us a much better insight into her character.
Ruth is to me rather the plain young Victorian woman a la Dickens even though she accomplishes to take in a lot of education, but as mentioned above she does not really seem to use it, as my understanding of her role as the governess is also that she attends to the 2 younger Bradshaw girls, but does not scholarly educate them.

Related to the question:

Is religious faith as a moral compass a must in the modern world?

I do not think either that you need to have religious faith to act morally.
However, it seems to me sometimes that the argument actually often was that without the threat of hell and the belief in a later reward people might not act in a good way. And maybe this applies to modern cultures in which discussions about the loss of values has arisen. Maybe some people do need this kind of outlook and cannot just live according to the rule 'do as you would be done by'. I have never really thought about this in depth.
However, as human beings still do not always act according to their beliefs there might even be religious faith and still immoral actions. Hypocrisy - as we have often seen e.g. with Dickens - is a human vice.
In this respect it is nice to see that Mr. Benson at least fulfills and lives according to his faith. He acts what he stands for.

Hedi wrote: "Cleo, Robin, I had a similar impression of Ruth. She is very passive and kind of flows through the novel. The only incident when she actually tried to be active was when she proposed to make her own living and find a very cheap place for herself and her son. "

The more I think about Ruth, the firmer my position is that Gaskell deliberately created the image of a passive, obedient, compliant and nearly submissive girl. I think these are the features that were idolized by some Victorians. As a submissive woman, Ruth becomes an ultimate victim, not a culprit of loose morals. Hence, Gaskell was trying to create a character readers could sympathize with. It is, after all, a social novel, and her agenda is to raise awareness about the so-called 'loose or fallen women' I also think that Mr. Benson is a Christ-like figure not in the meaning of his sacrifice, but because he embodies the virtues true Christians should value, again according to Gaskell's p.o.v: love, forgiveness, compassion, and kindness.
Look at Mr. Bradshaw. He is a man of little faith, and his religious attitude is superficial, to say the least. He is driven by pecuniary matters. It does bring prosperity to his family while the Bensons (the family of faith) are relatively poor as good Christians are expected to be because most of the money is spent on other people’s need.

1. Ruth goes through a number of changes: she moves to a new place, she accepts a new personality, she becomes a mother and a governess. Do you think all these social transformations change Ruth as a person. Does she become pro-active as a character? Has she learned a skill of foreseeing and predicitng the outcomes of her decisions?

I do not feel that Ruth has really greatly changed. She seems very much the same. She still seems very passive to me, and she still seems to be as melancholy as ever. Perhaps she has a very more moments of happiness then she had before.

In some ways I suppose she has grown a bit. She has gained more of an education thus allowing her to perform the task of a governess. She also has become less naive then previously. She has grown more of awareness of the wrongness of her actions (at least from the Victorian view point).

It is quite hard to picture Ruth as a mother, considering her ineptitude at managing her own life,(always needing or having someone else to take care of her) I cannot conceive of how in the world she could actually raise a child and without the Bensons looking after her I do not think there is any way she could have managed to take care of the child.




2. What can you say about the Bensons? Are they good people because of their innate goodness or is it a moral compass of their faith that turns them into very decent people?

I would have to that it is their own innate goodness which makes them such good people, and it is because of thier goodness that they then preceive the morality of their faith in a way that is charitable to other people.

If one considers the time period, it was the moral compass of the faith which would lead many people to condmen Ruth and cast her out. Even Faith, Benson's sister at first reacted with repulsion to the thought of Ruth having a child on account of her moral views, but in combination with her brother's reasoning, and Ruth's own personality she came around to agree to take them in.

One can also look at Mr. Bradshaw, and the very strict moral compass he acts under, of which it is implied how he two would cast Ruth out if he knew the truth of her past.

MadgeUK wrote: "I would have given Sally the sack when she cut off Ruth's hair! Faith does not seem to consider lying again and again a sin. No wonder her brother is worried!"

I was a bit surprised when it was revealed that it was expected of widows to cut their hair. I had never heard that one before.

Faith is one of my favorite characters. I find her to be quite interesting. I did think it was quite amusing how much she had enjoyed the story telling.

It is also interesting to consider the differences between them and their own moral compasses. While Faith had grown quite found of Ruth, at the start Mr. Benson was a bit more liberal in his view of her and her situation than Faith was particularly after the discovery of the baby.

Faith had a stricter and more traditional moral view point about Ruth and her experiences, and yet, after she warmed up to the idea of Ruth, she initially came up with the idea of portraying her as a widow, and Mr. Benson was made uneasy by this idea of being dishonest even in that small detail.

I'm not so so sure that it would have been expected for Ruth to cut her hair and Sally admitted that she wasn't sure of this. This was a custom amongst Jews but not amongst Christians.

MadgeUK wrote: "I'm not so so sure that it would have been expected for Ruth to cut her hair and Sally admitted that she wasn't sure of this. This was a custom amongst Jews but not amongst Christians."

I wonder if the cutting of her is meant to be symbolic of her transformation into her new found life, and awareness.

In the past she had been much remarked for her good looks, in this way she does make me think of Fantine, of whose hair was a source of vanity. And it was on account of her appearances that Ruth ended up in the situation in which she is in.

The cutting of her hair represents her new found faith, as well as her new awareness of the "sins" of her past.

Silver wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I'm not so so sure that it would have been expected for Ruth to cut her hair and Sally admitted that she wasn't sure of this. This was a custom amongst Jews but not amongst Christia..."

I mainly think that cutting her hair short was a symbolic move: a loose woman with loose hair, who has her hair cut, somehow goes through the initiation of becoming a woman of high moral standards. It was indeed confusing. If, in fact, it was a tradition for a widow to have her hair cut, the Bensons might have known about it.

The Bensons are Dissenters, while Sally is CofE. Although Sally loves them dearly, at the same time she tends to look down on their beliefs, and non-adherence to her own religious traditions, so this may be something that she thinks is proper, but believes that the Bensons would never think of.

I also think that Ruth has been portrayed as entirely good so that Victorian readers would sympathize with her despite what would in all good society have been an insurmountable failing-the illegitimate pregnancy. This gets a bit tiresome after a while-I find Faith or Sally or Jemima to be much more realistic and therefore likeable characters-Ruth is too much of a blank slate.

I felt that Mr Bradshaw's attentions to Ruth seemed overdone and possibly a bit suspect-I can't imagine it would have been correct for a gentleman to send a young woman to whom he was not related a silk dress. I also can't believe he didn't see the danger of inviting a beautiful and agreeable young widow to supper to assist his plain daughter in wooing his business partner, particularly when his plain daughter seemed intent on making herself disagreeable.

I do think the Bensons are innately good, and this is inextricably linked to their faith, and it would be impossible to say whether faith leads to goodness or goodness to faith. I also believe that Ruth has come to a deep faith through her contact with the Bensons, and that their extreme generosity and kindness to her (remember, they barely knew her before taking her under their care) have led her to accept their faith as her own. I expect it must also be very comforting, when one lives in a very precarious situation, to believe that there is a God who will watch out for you and for your helpless child. For her, not to have faith would set her apart from all those who love and care for her and I don't think this would have been possible for her.

Frances wrote: "I also believe that Ruth has come to a deep faith through her contact with the Bensons, and that their extreme generosity and kindness to her (remember, they barely knew her before taking her under their care) have led her to accept their faith as her own. I expect it must also be very comforting, when one lives in a very precarious situation, to believe that there is a God who will watch out for you and for your helpless child. For her, not to have faith would set her apart from all those who love and care for her and I don't think this would have been possible for her. "

In her previous life, Ruth was a person with no or virtually no religion. It is not like she questioned God, but religion was not a part of her life. Now, in her new life, the only goodness she knows came from a deeply spiritual family that not only talks the talk, but also walks the walk of their religion; thus, she accepts it wholeheartedly. It definitely reflects Gaskell's views on religion (innate goodness comes with the sincere spiritual life), but it does make it difficult for some modern readers to accept this viewpoint. Oh well, writers think about the contemporaries much more than about their possible future readers. C'est la vie!

I don't really agree that Ruth had no religion before she came to live with the Bensons. She went to church regularly on Sundays when she worked for Mrs. Mason. I believe she was CofE originally. When Sally is telling Ruth the story of her suitor, she says, "I can speak pretty plain to you, for you're bred in the Church like mysel', and must find it as out o' the way as I do to be among dissenting folk." Later in the book, Mr. Bradshaw tells Mr. Donne, "Mrs Denbigh was a member of the Establishment once; and, though she attends chapel at home, she seems glad to have an opportunity of going to church."

Denise wrote: "I don't really agree that Ruth had no religion before she came to live with the Bensons. She went to church regularly on Sundays when she worked for Mrs. Mason. I believe she was CofE originally...."

I did not mean the technical side of attending the Church, but that she was a member of the flock without hard-core beliefs. Church was a social thing for her, not the spiritual thing. It was a routine like a weekly grocery shopping for us. After she met the Bensons, her religious ideas turned into convictions. I might be just speculating here, using my own example of originally being areligous (religion was not important, and I existed in the religious vacuum) and gradually turning into a a hard-core humanist and agnostic atheist. This change, as well as Ruth's change, came with the change of residence and cultures, and it was a certain epiphany:-)

Frances wrote: "
I felt that Mr Bradshaw's attentions to Ruth seemed overdone and possibly a bit suspect-I can't imagine it would have been correct for a gentleman to send a young woman to whom he was not related a silk dress...."

I found Mr. Bradshaw's patronizing Ruth, as the Bensons call it, to have been a bit strange, and at times discovering as well. I recall a couple of times being surprised when I was reminded that he was in fact a married man, though I do not think that anything untoward is meant to be suggested considering his own rigid morality but perhaps it is just meant to show his own version of Christian goodness.

The sending of a silk dress though does seem to be a rather intimate gift to give to a young unmarried woman.