The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Week 4's comments go here.

I finished last night. Typical sad ending! I know that there was a tradition that villains, fallen women, etc. had to die. As Gaskell was apparently trying to show that a 'fallen woman' was not necessarily a bad woman, I feel a little disappointed that she didn't give Ruth a happy ending and comfortable life.

At least there was a mention that Bellingham had changed his name for property, so that mystery was somewhat cleared up. This is similar to Jane Austen's brother Edward Austen Knight, and her character Frank Churchill. Also, in Middlemarch, Featherstone required Rigg to change his name in order to inherit, as I recall.

Denise wrote: "I finished last night. Typical sad ending! I know that there was a tradition that villains, fallen women, etc. had to die. As Gaskell was apparently trying to show that a 'fallen woman' was not ..."

Sorry, Denise, I have come home quite recently and I am still suffering from jetlag, so I was not able to post questions earlier.

1. Yes, as you stated it, according to the rules of the game in the Victorian society, a fallen woman should not be happy even after she has chosen a more enlightened path. In that case, how shall we treat the situation with Mr. Donne's falling ill and then recuperating with Ruth nursing him back to life and succumbing to the same illness and eventually dying?
Does it reflect the idea that Ruth was more guilty than Mr. Donne because he was given a divine pardon while Ruth was still punished?

2. Are you happy with Mr. Bradshaw's transformation?

3. Why didn't Gaskell mention anything about Mr. Benson's financial reimbursement after he lost his money due to Richard's embezzlement? Do you think that it was assumed as a routine or the rights of the victims were not protected by law and thus they were left vulnerable in similar situations?

4. Mr. Farquhar was very willing to help Leonard. What was his true motive? Was he really concerned about the wellbeing of this charming young boy or was he driven by other underlying motives?

5. Why was Mr. Donne's help rejected by the Bensons? A reader might assume that this might have been a starting point for his moral reformation and his moral redemption. Did they see him beyond redemption? If so, and as we know, the Bensons are people of faith, again, how should they and we interpret the fact of his reconvalescence and Ruth's death?

6. Do you think Ruth was a successful social novel?

I am posting here just to remind you that the thread for the final part is open.Feel free to share your ideas. The questions in the previous post are tentative, and they are answered only if you want to :-)

Denise wrote: "I finished last night. Typical sad ending! I know that there was a tradition that villains, fallen women, etc. had to die. As Gaskell was apparently trying to show that a 'fallen woman' was not ..."

I finished last night - just a couple of days later ;-)

Yes, the villain/ sinner was supposed to die, even though she turned so much into someone better and sacrificed her life while saving the originator of her sins.
Mr. Bellingham and Richard Bradshaw are also sinners/ villains, but they do not get such a bad ending.

In that respect I am a little disappointed and sad that she had to be sacrificed at last while the others are still a live and in not such a bad position.

Zulfiya, this also answers partially your first question. It almost seems that Ruth is considered the greater sinner, even though I think that Mr. Bellingham had much more to do with it. She was but a homeless, orphaned child while he was already a grown man. However, in the end we do not really know what happened... To me it is just not really satisfying. The same applies to this embezzlement affair of Richard Bradshaw.

Related to question 3:
I was wondering about this, too, esp. as Mr. Bradshaw explains that there was a certain legal obligation to follow up on these cases from a legal perspective. If there was no money left, I would assume that it is accounted for as lost, but in this case the company is still there and I would expect at least, especially in such a town of Ecclestone and under the limited circumstances the Bensons lived in that Mr Bradshaw would be so kind to give at least a small compensation for the loss the Bensons incurred.

However, this was one of things in the later part of the novel that did not quite satisfy my need for justice. It just left questions open that I would have liked to be clearly answered. The same applies to the fate of Richard Bradshaw, who seemed to redeem himself in Glasgow. He was allowed to do that while poor Ruth did that all her life in a much more divine way and had to die so young.

Sorry for repeating myself, but I just cannot get over it. :-(

Question 4 is interesting. I had not really thought about the option that he might have other motives than trying to help when all the others, especially his business partner, turned away. Could it not be that he wants to save Leonard from a sinful life? What could become of boy who is shunned by everyone and has no real home, no family? He could live a life like the ones described Oliver Twist, which is maybe not particularly chosen, but the only thing left.
Maybe he also expects a reward for his well-doing in an afterlife? I just cannot recall whether he was very religious or not....

So these are just some thought that have come up now. Sorry for them being so unorganized.

Hedi wrote: "Denise wrote: "I finished last night. Typical sad ending! I know that there was a tradition that villains, fallen women, etc. had to die. As Gaskell was apparently trying to show that a 'fallen ..."

I am as confused as you are. As a social novel, it is definitely an eye-opening one. As a spiritual novel, it is quite inconsistent.
Most of the mundane issues have not been answered, most of the spiritual questions are so confusing and inconsistent that it aggravates me. I am sure some of it has to do with the ethics, morals and values of the society. Nowadays, giving birth to a child out of wedlock is just a part of life. Then it was one of the biggest sins, but it is the misogynistic message that infuriates me more than anything. Moreover, it comes from a woman. Ruth is the biggest sinner of the two, and has to die while Mr. Donne is allowed to live despite a life-threatening disease. Ruth works hard and sometimes without pay to earn the hearts of the poor while Richard Bradshaw has had just a scare and is soon socially accepted elsewhere. He does not even have to face social criticism of his peers and other members of the society while Ruth is stigmatized and condemned by most.
Personally, I have an aftertaste that Ruth is portrayed as an accidental victim who stands out from the crowd of other fallen women who were in general sinful and lustful, but occasionally and very rarely there were girls like Ruth, and although their fall is highly circumstantial, they are still sinners and are not given any chance of social amnesty, and they are also guilty because men can not be charged with seducing a woman.

It is also confusing because Gaskell might be punishing Ruth and the Bensons for their lie; this also explains why Mr. Benson becomes the victim of financial fraud. You sin - you are smitten and chastised, and you do not inquire about the financial retribution, even if it undermines your social security, the security of your sister, Leonard (totally innocent one when it comes to the sin of lying) , and other people. I really hope I am not the only one who is confused by the message of the novel. If it had been a secular novel, I would have said - Life is inconsequential, and there is no inherent fairness in our universe, let's deal with it. Because it is a novel with the strong religious motive, I expect more religious justice for its characters with the clear message.

Zulfiya, I am reading the introduction by Angus Easson now. Maybe that will give some more insight. :-)

Hedi wrote: "Zulfiya, I am reading the introduction by Angus Easson now. Maybe that will give some more insight. :-)"

Share some ideas from the introduction if you find them illuminating.

Jack wrote: "Sally's broad comic relief sometimes gets a bit much for me. But she also provides a stern moral foil for some of the other characters."

I fully agree with you - Sally is a bit rough around the edges, but she is possibly one of the most 'successful' literary characters in the novel. She is consistent, she is interesting, she is devoted, and she is likable. I would whta the novel would have looked like if Ruth had Sally's nature.

Jack wrote: "I thought the scenes between Ruth and Bellingham/Donne when they meet again were very well done. Lots of tension, with a dramatic setting on the shore. "

I have read several novels by Gaskell, but I think this is indeed the best dramatic setting in all her novels, but I have not read My Lady Ludlow and A Dark Night's Work, so there might be some other hidden gems there.

Jack, good point about the quote by Mr Bradshaw in your bulletpoint 5. I remember that I reread it a couple of times to be sure that it actually came from him. It seemed quite brave/ inconsiderate in his situation to make such a strong statement towards someone like Mr Benson.

Yes, Jack, unfortunately. ;-)

I have read the introduction in my edition (Penguin Classics) - Denise mentioned it already in the thread of the previous week.

So here are some thoughts originating from that:

1. "Ruth" is considered a romance in contrast to realism e.g. by Dickens. The romance is driven very much by episodes of experiences e.g. illnesses, dreams. Actually Dickens must have wished for her characters to be a little steadier on their feet, which I thought quite funny. I had not even thought about the amount of illnesses that actually occur in the novel starting with the illness of Ruth's friend at Mrs. Mason's.
Maybe Dickens' realism is something that is more accessible to a modern reader than the Victorian romance.

2. Denise had already mentioned in the previous thread the 2 poles of law and spirit in form of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Benson. It even states that Mr. Bradshaw is not a hypocrite, but only a victim to the letter.
I am not sure whether I can accept this statement, but it is definitely interesting to look at. Mr Bradshaw supposedly believes the Gospel, but is tested by the election, which he supposedly is uncomfortable by, Ruth's history and by his son's accident.
Did you think that Mr. Bradshaw was uncomfortable by the elections and the related actions? I cannot recall it that way, but maybe I was too much driven by people from "Martin Chuzzlewit" who often seemed to have these hypocritical thoughts. I read the section that Mr Bradshaw supported the elections and knew that it was inevitable to bribe, but did not want to make his hands dirty and therefore, let others do this work. Was he really upset about this? Why would he take part in these doings at all if he opposes them. Nobody was forcing him to be part of the elections in my opinion or what do you think?
On the other hand, Mr. Bradshaw is also blaming Mr. Benson for not acting properly due to his lie about Ruth's background. This could also be interpreted as hypocritical and Mr. Benson did show his discomfort and did not deny anything when being confronted by Mr. Bradshaw.

3. Interesting is the comparison of the feminine and masculine side of the novel while the feminine side is being valued.
Bellingham and Bradshaw definitely represent the male side, while Benson represented by his invalidity shares the feminine side with all the female characters.
It is stunning for the time that Gaskell does not allow the men to own the women in her novel. Bellingham does not own Ruth in the end and Jemima contradicts her father when he makes clear that he wants her to marry Mr. Farquhar.
I must admit that I did not interpret the novel that much.

Well, maybe you all have some additional thoughts and ideas about this.

Rethinking about the novel it is very emotional, e.g. as Jack had mentioned before about all the tears that Ruth is spreading throughout the novel, and with a lot of impressions, e.g. Ruth's looking out of the window on a rainy day and experiences through illnesses and dreams. However, I think I do prefer maybe the realism of Dickens a little more. This novel just left me with too many open questions and a feeling of injustice related to the other sinners, but that is just my humble opinion.

Hedi wrote: "3. Interesting is the comparison of the feminine and masculine side of the novel while the feminine side is being valued.
Bellingham and Bradshaw definitely represent the male side, while Benson represented by his invalidity shares the feminine side with all the female characters.
It is stunning for the time that Gaskell does not allow the men to own the women in her novel. Bellingham does not own Ruth in the end and Jemima contradicts her father when he makes clear that he wants her to marry Mr. Farquhar.
I must admit that I did not interpret the novel that much."

An excellent point about gender and sexuality. Ruth is submissive as a woman and thus seuxally attractive to alpha males. Jemima is a feminist in the Victorian society. She challenges her father and refuses to get married just because of her father's wish; she marries Mr. Farquhar because she LOVES HIM.
Mr. Benson's disability turns him into nearly a sexless individual. It looks like that in his case faith is a sublimation of physical love although it is obvious that every other man finds Ruth attractive.

Thank you for summarizing this introduction. The ideas are indeed thought-provoking.

And yes, the next Dickens read is coming. I actually read the first two chapters today. I have been so much involved into the project that I use Dickens as a compass for other Victorian novels:-)

I think I have the same "problem" at the moment. Dickens is just dominating my reading experiences currently. :-)

I felt that Bradshaw was somehow redeemed by the end of the novel-first in bending to attend Ruth's funeral as an acknowledgement that she herself had been redeemed by her works and her faith, then by returning to the Dissenter's church. I believe that he and Benson will, in their mutual sorrow and loss, rekindle their friendship. Bradshaw had learned humility and I think he will be a better man for it.

I was struck by the actions of Ruth in choosing to nurse Bellingham again even though other skilled nurses were available. Has she perhaps spent her life considering herself in some way wedded to Bellingham and that it is her "wifely" duty to nurse him? It it strange that, despite the passage of 10 years or so, he has never married and that he remains drawn to Ruth. Does this mitigate her sin in some way that she has been "faithful" to him?

I liked the little detail of having the medical man turn out to have been illegitimate as well, and to see him offering an apprenticeship to Leonard. It would be a very tidy answer to his future and would keep him close to the Bensons and Sally.

While I really enjoyed this novel, it was my least favourite of the 3 Gaskell novels we've read, I suspect because the characters were less finely drawn and several of the characters- Ruth especially (but also Leonard!) -were much too idealized or caricaturish. (I know that's not a word, but you get my meaning!) I do applaud Gaskell for writing about this subject in a sympathetic way and assume she needed to draw Ruth as so perfectly good to be able to accomplish her goal and to get her novel published.

Frances wrote: "I felt that Bradshaw was somehow redeemed by the end of the novel-first in bending to attend Ruth's funeral as an acknowledgement that she herself had been redeemed by her works and her faith, then..."

Both Ruth and Leonard are idolized and saccharine, but I think it was the only way this novel could be published and this topic could be tackled. I hope gaskell was not so naive as to imagine that such characters existed in real life. Imagine a character like Jemima or Margaret Hale from North and South in Ruth's shoes - they would not even hope to appeal to prude hearts of the Victorians.
I also applaud Gaskell with you for choosing this difficult subject and attracting readers' attention to it. I know that many Victorian matrons were not very happy about the book and forbade their daughters to read it.

Interesting contrast with Jude the Obscure where Sue and Jude live "in sin" because she refuses to bow to the conventions of society. Of course things don't work out so well for them either!

When Ruth told Leonard about her secret (how we would have understood from her euphemism, I don't know), I thought of the movie Norma Rae. When the heroine thinks she may go to jail for her union activity, she tells her children about their fathers, who are variously dead/gone/were never married to her. She is concerned others in the small town will bring those things up. That is really Ruth's reason for telling Leonard, so that he doesn't hear it from others.

Robin wrote: "When Ruth told Leonard about her secret (how we would have understood from her euphemism, I don't know), "

Birth and sex in general were a huge taboo, as we know, so I am as befuddled as you how Leonard, just a boy, could understand Ruth's heavily euphemized discourse. He is an uber-talented boy, attuned to his mother's feelings. The last sentence is definitely sarcastic.

A good point, Robin.

Thinking back to Mr Benson's disability, I listened to this fascinating BBC Radio 4 series this afternoon, which folks may be able to pick up:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b021m...

Disability in the 19thC was, apparently, considered a Mark of Cain, related to the first sin. And pregnant women could suffer from Maternal Impression which meant if they saw someone who was deformed/disabled it could transmit to the foetus!

MadgeUK wrote: "Thinking back to Mr Benson's disability, I listened to this fascinating BBC Radio 4 series this afternoon, which folks may be able to pick up:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b021m......"

Thank you so much. I love BBC, especially Radio 4.

Yes, I listen to hours of Radio 4 - there are many interesting and educational programmes, as well as short stories and plays.

We see two versions of religious views regarding fallen women in Bradshaw and the Bensons. One sees her as sinful and irredeemable, to be cast off, while the other sees her as sinful also, but able to redeem herself to some extent by living a pure life. However, in the end, she is still a sinner and must spend her entire life trying to atone. I know I am looking at this through modern eyes, but I wish there was a view wherein it could be recognized that she was 'more sinned against', that her lapse was temporary, and that she is no longer a sinner. I imagine what I am going to say will be controversial, but I wish that Ruth could have accepted Donne's offer of marriage. I think that it would have been best for all involved. Ruth was always in love with Bellingham, to the end; that was why she was in such anguish after their encounter on the beach, and why she nursed him during his illness. Donne/Bellingham might have been primarily focused on himself, but I do think he had feelings for Ruth, had always remembered her fondly, and was proud of Leonard when he met him. I think he could have been a good husband to Ruth. He saw her beauty as an adornment that flattered his own taste, and found her even more beautiful when he re-encountered her, and she certainly would have been devoted to him, which would have flattered his own self-esteem. Leonard would have grown up with a father (even though he would probably have always believed him to be a stepfather), and in financial comfort. It could have been a happy ending for all of them. But Ruth, through the Bensons and their religious view of her circumstances, was convinced that she was still a sinner, and that succumbing to Bellingham a second time would have deepened her sin, so she could not even contemplate such a move. So, in a way, it was religion that stood in the way of Ruth's happiness.

In the introduction by Easson, there is a passage that seems to help explain why he thinks that Ruth's death is necessary. Gaskell had sent an outline of the book to Charlotte Bronte for her comments (in fact, Gaskell sought other' opinions a lot while writing this novel, whose subject was very difficult for her; she thought its subject matter might be 'not fit for fiction'). From the introduction:

Ruth dies. Is this a sign of her redemption? or an unjust imposition upon the innocent? Charlotte Bronte protested against this conclusion: 'Why are we to shut up the book weeping?' Because, Gaskell might have replied, the importance of Ruth lies not in any sin, for which a punishment might be exacted, but rather in the value of what she can achieve after the world would cast her out as worthless; it lies too in the world's realization, confronted by the death that crowns Ruth's life, of what has been lost. Ruth cannot live on in the actuality of 1853, the date of the action's conclusion and the novel's publication. Death confirms the pattern of her life's achievement, even while it keeps her within the imaginative borders of romance.

Only God could redeem her in Victorian eyes. She had sinned and would be a 'fallen woman' until the end of her days. Prayers would help her get out of Purgatory but at the Pearly Gates only God could decide whether she entered heaven.

Denise wrote: " I wish that Ruth could have accepted Donne's offer of marriage. I think that it would have been best for all involved. Ruth was always in love with Bellingham, to the end; that was why she was in such anguish after their encounter on the beach, and why she nursed him during his illness. Donne/Bellingham might have been primarily focused on himself, but I do think he had feelings for Ruth, had always remembered her fondly, and was proud of Leonard when he met him. I think he could have been a good husband to Ruth"

This is the point in the narrative that still disquiets me - it would have been a happy end for both of them, and I am sure the partnership with Ruth would have changed Mr. Donne for a better man. He would have had to deal with the public opinion and take care of his family. It would have also benefited Leonard. Ruth, who claims to love Leonard more than her life, did nothing to provide his happiness and rectify his illegitimate status. Does it mean that she considered the Divine salvation more important than mundane happiness?

Yes, and so did Victorian readers. Like Tess, Ruth had to have a bad end to satisfy Victorian morality.

RR members, thank you for a stimulating discussion. The thread will be open and if you want to post your other thoughts or someone is catching up, I will leave them accessible, and I will comment and respond, but now we are moving into our summer reads, Dombey and Son and The Forsyte Saga. Do not forget to join in and participate.

I also want to thank everyone for a great discussion! I enjoyed reading a 'new' Gaskell.

I've just finished reading "The Cage at Cranford" , Mr. Harrison's Confessions, and My Lady Ludlow which were combined with the edition of Cranford I borrowed from the library. These are shorter works-the first only 22 pages and set in Cranford with many of the familiar characters and personalities, the latter two somewhat longer but both equally delightful glimpses of an earlier time. Mr Harrison's Confessions is the story of a young Doctor and the social complications that ensue when he sets up practice in a town which, like Cranford, appears to have considerably fewer gentlemen than ladies. My Lady Ludlow is a rather rambling description of life with an impoverished, very kind and good-natured and very old-fashioned aristocratic widow and the village over which she reigns. There are stories within the story touching on the French Revolution and another tale of illegitimacy redeemed and again it is a beautifully written portrait of an older way of life. For those who enjoyed the Gaskell and in particular Cranford, I would encourage you to give these shorter works a read.

Frances wrote: "I've just finished readingCranford, the Cage at Cranford and the Moorland Cottage, Mr. Harrison's Confessions, and My Lady Ludlow which were combined with the edition of Cranford I borrowed from th..."


Thank you, Frances. These novelettes are the ones I have not read. Because I enjoyed Cranford so much, I think I will like them.

Denise wrote: "I also want to thank everyone for a great discussion! I enjoyed reading a 'new' Gaskell."

Thanks for the discussion from my side as well, and Zulfiya, special thanks to you for your great moderation (as usual) :-)
I have kind of mentally finished with Ruth already, after having started with Dombey & Son. Now I am completely back on the Dickens track. :-)

Frances wrote: "I've just finished reading "The Cage at Cranford" , Mr. Harrison's Confessions, and My Lady Ludlow which were combined with the edition of Cranford I borrowed from the library. These are shorter wo..."

Frances, that is interesting. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read Cranford yet, but now I will also check whether my edition of it also includes the other stories.

Frances wrote: "I've just finished reading "The Cage at Cranford" , Mr. Harrison's Confessions, and My Lady Ludlow which were combined with the edition of Cranford I borrowed from the library. These are shorter wo..."

Those who enjoyed the miniseries Cranford and Return to Cranford will also be interested in these, because they were all used in the miniseries. Mr. Harrison's Confessions was used in Cranford, My Lady Ludlow was used in both miniseries, and The Cage at Cranford was used in Return to Cranford. I have only read The Cage at Cranford, because that was included in my edition of Cranford, along with the essay The Last Generation in England, which was also used in the miniseries. My Lady Ludlow was my favorite storyline, so I would love to read it sometime. Another novelette, The Moorland Cottage, was also used in Return to Cranford.

I got a bit behind but I finally managed to finish the novel. So I thought I would post some of my own final thoughts.

As had already been mentioned Ruth does come to the expected end for a woman in her position, though there was a point in which I thought it possible she might have ended up marrying Mr. Bellingham for though she refused his first proposal, I thought after the truth of her was divulged in order to save Leonard the shame she would consent to marriage to his rightful father.

I think it is rather symbolic that it was through her healing of Bellingham that brought her to her eventual death. I think this is a reflection of the way in which his initial seduction of her led to her downfall, and so be extension he is responsible for her death, because in the Victorian landscape there could be no other path for her. Redemption could only truly be found in the next life. Though her work as a nurse had earned her much sympathy and respect it could not remove the stain of her sin on earth, only redeem her in death.

Mr. Bellingham being permitted to live while ruth is doomed to death I believe is Gaskell's way of pointing out the double standard of the time. For what Ruth is viewed as being a grave and unforgivable sin, is as stated considered to be but a "youthful folly" for Mr. Bellingham.

In regards to Mr. Farquhar I believe his wishing to take Leonard in and offer him assistance is genuine and out of real concern and sympathy, I think it comes both from the affection he once held for Ruth, and perhaps his feelings of guilt in rejecting her once he discovered the truth about her. I think it is also done out of his love for Jemania who was Ruth's friend and stood by Ruth even against her own father. But I to think he is a genuinely good person.

I have to say that I personally think that everyone was being far too lenient with Richard. I cannot say that I felt particularly sympathetic towards him and didn't think that Mr. Benson and Mr. Farquhar should have protected him in such a way.

Though Mr. Bradshaw's reaction might have seemed harsh, and generally speaking I did not much care for him, I respected his willingness to hold his son accountable for his actions. When it was discovered that it was Mr. Benson that Richard stole from, considering Bradshaw's feelings about Benson a part of me wondered if he would try and cover it up and protect Richard.

I finished a week or so ago, so I was dragging behind with you, Silver!

I had a somewhat different view of Ruth and her trials. It does appear that Ruth is trying to atone for her "sin" or mistake but I don't see it in a negative way or that her death was a punishment or a result of her sin. I feel that her redemption began early on in the book with her meeting Mr. Benson and his sister and continued from there. When the town found out about her sin, she could have moved to another place and started over; it wouldn't have been easy but I'm sure Mr. Benson and perhaps Mr. Farquhar would have helped her. That would have been the easiest choice ...... to run from the judgement of people and start over again. Instead she chooses the more difficult route ...... to stay and gradually rebuild her esteem and reputation in the eyes of the townspeople. This is the truly heroic course. At her death, she is beloved by so many people and I believe this shows her redemption before her death. At her death she has been raised to a status of near sainthood and the sacrifice of herself for the good of Bellingham is the ultimate saintly act.

Ah, here I found the biblical passage that might illuminate Ruth's action: Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

She lay down her life for her enemy, making the ultimate sacrifice.

I also wonder if there is a deliberate contrast from Gaskell between the Dissenters and the regular Church of England. I believe that Ruth is condemned by the hard-line church followers but the Dissenters in the novel, such as Mr. Benson, show a forgiveness and the Christian spirit of mercy towards her.

Perhaps there was no further mention of Mr. Benson's reimbursement after he was robbed by Richard because, in actuality the money was not important to the theme of the novel. Redemption was the main focus so Gaskell ensures that the reader knows that Richard has been forgiven and redeemed, at least as far as his limited character will allow. The fraud just set up another opportunity for redemption.

I agree with Jack about Bellingham being cast as a true villain. It's almost as if Gaskell gave us four types in this novel: Ruth, a sinner but through good works turned saint; Mr. Benson a Christian living a Christ-like life; Bradshaw a Christian who lives a perverted type of Christianity and Bellingham the true sinner and villain. I would naturally want to stop short of calling Bellingham unredeemable but I think Gaskell meant him to be just that.

Hedi, I haven't read your Penguin notes yet because I wanted to get my thoughts down first but I will go back and read them after my post.

@ Denise with regard to Ruth marrying Bellingham: I believe it would then have been the saint marrying the unredeemable sinner. I'm not sure if religion stood in the way of her happiness: the soul is supposed to be more important than outside comforts and happiness, so I can't imagine this novel going that way. However, in a modern novel, absolutely! It would have been a possibility.

A big thanks to everyone for all the wonderful, thought-provoking comments. They have made my read of this novel a much richer experience!

Cleo wrote: "I finished a week or so ago, so I was dragging behind with you, Silver!

I had a somewhat different view of Ruth and her trials. It does appear that Ruth is trying to atone for her "sin" or mistak..."

While it is true that Ruth is the herione of the book, and Gaskell views her in a syampahtich light, even if the Victorian audience had been moved to sympathize with Ruth, and had seen the goodness within her, I do not know if they truly could have accepted the novel of the "fallen woman" did not ultimately have a tragic end.

No matter how she may have changed her life, and how regretful she may have been for her past actions, and how much good she may have done to try and correct prior wrongs, I think the Victorian audience would still call for her death.

In this way it is her punishement, or her true road to redemption, becasue however innocenct she may have been when she was mislead by Mr. Bellingham, from that moment she had sealed her fate, and there was no other true option left open for her but this end.

In the Victorian eye, I believe they would have thought that truly her death would have been the best thing for her, opposed to having to continue to live as a woman who had sinned, no matter how much amends she may make for that sin.

Silver wrote: "When it was discovered that it was Mr. Benson that Richard stole from, considering Bradshaw's feelings about Benson a part of me wondered if he would try and cover it up and protect Richard. "

I found it immensely satisfying that Mr. Bradshaw turned out to be a man of principle and decided to keep his son accountable. On the other hand, as you said earlier in your post, the 'carnal sins' of women were considered graver than embezzlement and thievery, and by modern standards these norms are definitely warped and skewed. In addition, and you might consider this exaggerated, I interpret this novel as a reminder that we should keep fighting for our civil rights, and it is a daily battle. Otherwise, the fictional world of The Handmaid's Tale might one day become a reality.

I also wonder if there is a deliberate contrast from Gaskell between the Dissenters and the regular Church of England.

Excellent point Cleo! Gaskell herself was a Dissenter (Unitarian) and there is evidence that they did a lots more good work amongst women like Ruth whilst the established church were a lot more judgemental. The rise of the NonConformist churches is partly due to this work they did with those in society who were 'down and out'.

Great to see the discussion continue! Great, thoughtful posts, Silver and Cleo.

Silver, I agree with your assessment of Mr. Farquhar. I do believe he was a good man, and was sincere in his wishes to help Leonard. Other than his feelings of relief that he had not spoken to Ruth about his feeling for her, once he learned about her past, he and Jemima were supportive of Ruth and did not hold her past against her.

Cleo, I guess my wish that Ruth had accepted Donne's proposal was more my own feeling, outside of the context of the book, that it would have been the best solution for all involved. At the same time, I did feel that such a resolution would have seriously derailed the plot of the novel!