Wives and Daughters (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

The book is very long and of an interest so quiet that not a few of its readers will be sure to vote it dull. In the early portion especially the details are so numerous and so minute that even a very well-disposed reader will be tempted to lay down the book and ask himself of what possible concern to him are the clean frocks and the French lessons of little Molly Gibson. But if he will have patience awhile he will see. As an end these modest domestic facts are indeed valueless; but as a means to what the author would probably have called a “realization” of her central idea, i.e., Molly Gibson, a product, to a certain extent, of clean frocks and French lessons, they hold an eminently respectable place. As he gets on in the story he is thankful for them. They have educated him to a proper degree of interest in the heroine. He feels that he knows her the better and loves her the more for a certain acquaintance with the minutiœ of her homely bourgeois life.

-HENRY JAMES

The novelist Henry James, in his review of Wives and Daughters (1866) written in the wake of Elizabeth Gaskell’s death, praises Gaskell’s “genius” and pronounces that the novel is “one of the very best novels of its kind” (“Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell,” pp. 1019-1020; see “For Further Reading”). In the review, quoted above, James mingles praise with warnings to his imaginary readers that they might at first find the book dull, but that which was dull would soon enough prove to be the foundation of a strong investment in—even love for—the novel’s heroine. James’s mingled but nevertheless high praise seems to have emerged from his belief that although Gaskell’s novels displayed “a minimum of head,” describing her writing style this way was a compliment to Gaskell’s “personal character,” rather than an indictment of her “intellect.” Whether one chooses on Gaskell’s behalf to be affronted or flattered by James’s review is less important, I would suggest, than parsing the review to better understand how Victorian novels known to be written by women were received by their readers. One thing we learn from James’s review is that the register for praise (and not just criticism) is related to gender. Even though James thinks highly of Wives and Daughters, he cannot forget that it is written by a woman, and would likely not think to try—which may not so much detract from his reading of the novel as condition his reading of the novel. And so with James’s emphasis on Gaskell’s facility with “domestic facts,” her adeptness with “minutiae,” and her evocation of a reader’s feelings rather than the promotion of understanding, each skill that is singled out is in some sense a stereotype of women’s interests and talents. The praise, that is, emphasizes the author’s femininity. James mentions the “gentle skill” Gaskell uses to slowly involve the reader “in the tissue of the story,” her “lightness of touch,” and the “delicacy of the handwork” she uses to perfect the “net” that ultimately entangles the reader in the novel.

James’s review may emphasize that the author is female, but, unlike our own contemporary obsession with the target demographics for various art forms—“chick-lit” and “chick-flicks,” to name two current monikers—it does not assume or even believe that the audience of the novel is necessarily female. If anything, James projects a male reader, one who will feel what he calls an “almost fraternal relation” to the heroine Molly Gibson. Elizabeth Gaskell was, as Henry James allows, a “lady-novelist,” but one who excites every “reader’s very warmest admiration.” Our contemporary concern for deemphasizing an author’s gender when evaluating art, while often simultaneously emphasizing who is meant to consume it, was not shared by the mid-Victorians. James’s review reflects this, as does the considerable attention Gaskell gave to what we now call the “packaging” of her first novel. Like her good friend Charlotte Brontë, Elizabeth Gaskell had sought a male pseudonym to use for her first novel, Mary Barton:ATale of Manchester Life (1848), even though her publisher had suggested that the novel would be more popular if it was known to be the work of “a lady” (Uglow, Elizabeth Gaskell: A Habit of Stories, p. 183). The account that Jenny Uglow, one of Gaskell’s biog raphers, gives of the publishing process suggests that Gaskell was invested in the commercial presentation of the novel; Uglow speculates that Gaskell “may have felt that a man’s name (like the proposed title, “John Barton”) would make the readers take the politics of the book more seriously.” Gaskell agonized about the choice of the male pseudonym until she chose—too late—the name “Stephen Berwick” (Uglow, pp. 187—188). In the end, Mary Barton was published anonymously, but, having caused considerable controversy, the identity of its author was soon known and celebrated. Henceforth, Elizabeth Gaskell would publish her novels, if not quite in her own name, under her married appellation of “Mrs. Gaskell.”

To read Wives and Daughters today is to forget perhaps the extraordinary opportunity that writing fiction presented to Victorian women. The book trade during the period was a profoundly commercial enterprise. And unlike in earlier periods, the arts were divorced from either university ties or elite patronage, which particularly benefited women writers. Writing literature was one of the very few professional pursuits open to women in Victorian society. Elizabeth Gaskell was connected to a broad literary community of women, many of whom were her friends and some of whom she actively promoted with her own connections. This circle, which included Charlotte Brontë, Geraldine Jewsbury, Harriet Martineau, Anna Jameson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Caroline Clive, reads like a list of the most popular and important female literary figures of the day. And yet it would be a mistake to assume that a novel such as Wives and Daughters is solely the province of the female reader. Our contemporary perspective might look to the title Wives and Daughters and think the book is directed to the female reader, even though the title was most likely influenced by Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons (1862). The conventional assumption about novels, and romance plots and domestic narratives in particular, is that women make up their primary audience; indeed, the stereotype of the woman who reads too many novels, and becomes sick from “gorging” on too many delicious reads, originated in the eighteenth century and circulated widely in the Victorian period. And yet a host of descriptions, anecdotal evidence, figures from circulating libraries, and surveys about book ownership and reading habits suggest that men were as avid novel readers as women. And indeed what, exactly, in the novel marks it out for the female reader? As will become apparent as you read the novel and the following discussion, the work of Elizabeth Gaskell cannot be slotted into contemporary demographic readerships, but rather is inviting— as Henry James himself said—to anyone interested in an “ ‘everyday story’ ... in an everyday style.”

It is important to understand that the novel—as a distinct art form or literary genre—has not always been with us. Moreover, in some sense, it required the emergence of a middle-class society: one in which there was enough leisure time to read, privacy in which to do it, literacy to enable it, and enough money to purchase or borrow books. The literary critic Ian Watt, in his well-known book The Rise of the Novel, articulated the emergence of the novel, specifically his concept of “formal realism,” within the historical context of the early eighteenth century and as arising from the following conditions: the rise of the middle class, the growth of commercial capitalism, the eclipse of strict feudal and aristocratic relationships, and (more broadly and theoretically) the emergence of “individualism” as a value stemming from the Protestant Reformation. We know that the audience for novels grew considerably in the Victorian period. This was due to a number of factors, including cheaper production costs. (That the novels became cheaper to possess is related to the consumption of them as works of art, for just as reading a novel is scaled to one person, the capability of infinite reproduction of that artwork through cheap editions makes any one copy worthless.) Other factors contributed to the growth of the audience for novels, including the increase in literacy, although the extent of literacy in the Victorian period is hard to quantify with certitude. The growth of cities with their more concentrated markets, the expanded markets in the colonies, and the proliferation of circulating libraries were also significant factors. The circulating library, which lent books for an annual membership fee, was a common means by which Victorian readers obtained novels, for it was not until the 1890s that free public libraries became common and the institution of the circulating library collapsed. Cheap versions of fictional works were not as readily available as has been popularly imagined; reproductions of classics, abridgments, and penny popular fiction were available, but more serious fiction (including Dickens, Thackeray, Gaskell, Eliot, and Trollope) was not reprinted in cheap form for some time after the first printing—from one to three or even five years.

Novels, however, did not necessarily first appear as volumes, but were often first printed as serials. That is, installments of the novels—known as “numbers”—would come out in a magazine or journal. Wives and Daughters first appeared this way in the Cornhill Magazine, a respected monthly aimed at the educated middle and upper-middle classes. Charles Dickens, a publisher as well as an author, first brought out many of his novels—including Great Expectations (1861) and A Tale of Two Cities (1859)—in monthly installments in his magazines Household Words and All the Year Round. Dickens in fact published Elizabeth Gaskell. A great number of magazines other than the two Dickens edited brought out fiction in “part” form, and while the practice lasted (it had died out by the 1880s), it was often a lucrative device for authors and publishers alike. However, publishing in serial form, as might be surmised, did put certain constraints and demands on authors. Gaskell, whose professional relationship with Dickens lasted some thirteen years, is said to have chafed at some of the demands put on her by Dickens as editor. Gaskell, as the volume you are holding might suggest, is not known for being economical with words, and indeed this was a source of contention between Dickens and Gaskell; money did not enter into their disagreements, as Dickens was generous with his authors. As an editor Dickens sometimes asked Gaskell to alter conclusions and strongly encouraged her to end installments on important moments in the flow of the story, or even on cliffhangers—requests to which she would only occasionally comply. Gaskell would go on to publish in other journals, including Fraser’s Magazine, Harper’s Magazine, and the Cornhill. She was a popular author in the United States as well; she published her novels in American periodicals such as Harper’s New Monthly Magazine and The Atlantic Monthly beginning in 1849. Gaskell’s most important editor after Dickens was a George Smith, who together with William Thackeray edited the Cornhill, a journal that also published such Victorian luminaries as George Eliot, John Ruskin, and Matthew Arnold. Wives and Daughters first appeared in the Cornhill over the course of eighteen months; the first installment came out in August 1864, and the final monthly installment appeared in January 1866, several months after Gaskell’s death. Each installment was equal to approximately three chapters. If you were to look at the original serials of the Cornhill, you would see that Wives and Daughters appeared alongside novels by Anthony Trollope (The Small House at Allington) and Wilkie Collins (Armadale) .

The novel was not finished when the Cornhill began publishing its monthly installments; in fact, even though Gaskell stayed months ahead of the publication schedule, she had not finished the novel by the late fall of 1865, when she suffered a sudden death. As her biographer Jenny Uglow details, Gaskell was much occupied by the outfitting of a country house in Hampshire that she had secretly purchased as a surprise for her husband. Intended as a house to retire to, Gaskell purchased the house with proceeds from her writing and with a loan from George Smith in anticipation of the success of Wives and Daughters. She died suddenly in the house in November 1865, her husband not yet aware of its existence and—for our purposes, most importantly—with the novel not quite finished. The novel is nevertheless substantially complete. You will find when you come to the end of your reading of this novel a letter from Frederick Greenwood, who was the editor of the Cornhill when Wives and Daughters was being serialized. It is the same letter that appeared in the Cornhill in January of 1866 in lieu of the final installment. In the letter Greenwood explains that the reader will already, in many senses, know what Gaskell had envisioned as the various fates of her characters. There is a marriage that is forecasted in the final chapter, and indeed no close or immersed reader of Wives and Daughters can have any doubt about its primary characters’ fates. Nonetheless, the reader does not get to see that conclusion unfold in Gaskell’s by-now-familiar narrative style; it is rather told to us by the editor. This is not disastrous, for the story does not feel incomplete, but the loss of the final chapters for the reader who has entered the world of the novel is indeed a felt loss.

Gaskell was in her mid-thirties when she first became a novelist. Although she had written various small sketches and fictional experiments, she did not begin the writing of a novel in earnest until late 1845, when she was prostrate with grief and depression from the death of her infant son William from scarlet fever. Her husband, a prominent Unitarian minister who was himself the author of various tracts, hymns, and a volume of temperance poetry, encouraged her to start the novel as a way to distract herself from her sorrow. Like many Victorians, Gaskell had a life punctuated with the effects of premature death. She herself lost her mother at the age of one. Born Elizabeth Cleghorn Stevenson on September 29, 1810, she was the eighth child of William Stevenson and his wife, Elizabeth. Although born in London, after her mother’s death in 1811 she was sent to be raised by her mother’s sister in Knutsfbrd—a small town in Cheshire that would become the model for Cranford (in her much-appreciated novel, Cranford) and Hollingford in Wives and Daughters. After her father’s death when she was nineteen, Elizabeth traveled widely in England, and in 1832 she married William Gaskell, whom she had met in Manchester, and settled there to the life of a Unitarian minister’s wife. This was not as restricting as it might sound, as Unitarians were deeply committed to various social and political causes, and as the wife of a Dissenting minister she would have been at the center of a lively and engaged community. Likewise, the Unitarian conception of marriage was understood less as a hierarchy and more of a partnership. Unitarians also believed strongly in the education of women, so it is not surprising that many of the period’s female intellectuals, including Gaskell, came from this background. Nevertheless, Gaskell’s early married life was consumed with the traditional duties of childbearing and child care. Between 1833 and 1846 she had six pregnancies, one of which resulted in a stillborn daughter; the other five produced her four girls—Marianne, Margaret Emily (“Meta”), Florence, and Julia—and the one son, William, who died in infancy.

Gaskell saw firsthand the experiences of the poor in Manchester, one of the new, booming industrial cities of the North that epitomized the new social conditions and class conflicts brought by industrialization. She always chose to live at the physical fringes of Manchester, for she was a somewhat unwilling denizen of the city, having grown up among the rural landscapes of Cheshire. From Gaskell’s observations of the Manchester poor emerged Mary Barton, one of an array of novels written in the 1830s and 1840s that brought to the attention of the greater public the terrible living and working conditions of the working classes. These “condition of England” novels contributed to the broad attempt to document the problems of industrial poverty under laissez-faire capitalism, to effect social change. Parallel attempts included early sociological enterprises such as Friedrich Engels’s The Condition of the Working Class in England (published in German in 1845; first English translation 1887) and Henry Mayhew’s London Labour and the London Poor (1851, 1861-1862). Gaskell, as well as novelists such as Dickens, Benjamin Disraeli, Rev. Charles Kingsley, and Charlotte Brontë, contributed in immeasurable ways to the reform agendas of mid-century England. What have been called Gaskell’s social-problem fictions-Mary Barton and North and South (1855)—participated in the great era of agitation for reform in England. Unlike a number of countries on the European continent—such as France, Germany, and Italy, which reeled from outright revolution in 1848 and 1849—England for the most part kept the peace, despite the country’s considerable economic depression during what came to be known as the “Hungry Forties.” While the country experienced numerous incidents of localized violence, including riots and machine-burning, no large-scale revolutionary movement emerged in England.

Gaskell, in a sense, came of age during these rocky times and in a place where the rift between the wealthy and the poor was particularly deep. It is then perhaps not surprising that her first turn to fiction was an effort to explain to the middle classes that political insurrection stemmed from social and economic conditions. In 1832, the year that Elizabeth Gaskell moved to Manchester, there were riots born of fear of a cholera epidemic. Unitarians and Quakers—unlike members of other denominations, such as Church of England faithful, who viewed epidemics as acts of God—believed that these epidemics could be prevented by social reform, such as relief from the filth and overcrowding of the city. William Gaskell, who preferred the arenas of social and educational work to political reforms, worked for years on behalf of housing and sanitary reform, while Elizabeth Gaskell lent her pen broadly to the cause of social reformation. Although the politics of living and working conditions for poor and working-class people in England would necessarily dominate Gaskell’s experience, her politics were far from disengaged from pressing international issues. The Gaskells were visited by many American abolitionists and antislavery advocates, and Elizabeth was known for her antislavery position in a city whose sympathies were generally with the American South. (Despite her views on slavery, Gaskell deplored the suffering of the Manchester mill-workers who lost their work during the American Civil War when cotton from the American South ceased to be imported.) Mary Barton, not surprisingly, was criticized by industrialists from Britain’s North as unfair and overly broad in its characterization of the rich and poor; nevertheless, it was immediately successful and brought Gaskell fame as an author.

Gaskell wrote seven novels (as well as numerous short stories) over her remaining lifetime, as well as her famous biography of her friend Charlotte Brontë: Mary Barton (1848), Cranford (1853), Ruth (1853), North and South (1855), The Life of Charlotte Brontë (1857), Sylvia’s Lovers (1863), Cousin Phillis (1864), and Wives and Daughters (1866).

Wives and Daughters belongs to the other kind of writing for which Gaskell has been known and celebrated: the novel of provincial life. It would be mistaken, however, to believe that only Gaskell’s social-protest fiction is historically and politically engaged, for whether her novels are set against an urban or rural landscape, Gaskell is most interested in the individual and how individual lives play out against a broader social and historical background. The historical context for Wives and Daughters bears going into, for even though the setting is a small town, the characters’ actions and feelings are to some degree informed by the circumstances of their historical moment. First and foremost, the novel is set back in time to a near-historical past; its main action can be pinpointed as taking place between 1827 through to the early 1830s. Gaskell wrote and published the novel between 1864 and 1866.This choice to deliberately hearken back to a time some thirty-five years before is one that George Eliot also made in her great novel of provincial life, Middlemarch (1872).

On the second page of Wives and Daughters, the narrator invokes a twelve-year-old girl named Molly, and a time “five-and-forty years ago” when she was born; moreover, we learn that “it was before the passing of the Reform Bill,” and “in those days before railways” (pp. 6-7). These are clear references not only to dates but to social conditions, which leads one to believe that Gaskell had a deliberate purpose in mind in setting her novel not back into a distant past but into a specific near-historical moment. This could be understood as a nostalgic energy, one that sought a time and place that was perceived to be better than the current moment. Although Gaskell’s work does in many ways admire and, in some sense, regret the loss of small-town life, her recollection is neither hazy nor romanticizing as it might be were it the result of nostalgia. Another way of understanding Gaskell’s choice to write in a near-historical moment is to see it as having given her a lens through which to evaluate the positive as well as the negative features of the social and political changes that had been wrought during her lifetime. In many ways, the retrospective energies of Wives and Daughters are those of a historically minded documenter, driven in a sense to capture that which has faded or is fading, to better understand the present. Hence, many of the topics that come up in the course of the novel—including the education of girls, marriage, exploration, evolutionary science, and medicine—had undergone change by the time Gaskell was writing about them in the 1860s. As difficult as it is from our twenty-first-century perch, it is important to realize that Gaskell’s novel is not just part of a seamless historical past known as the “Victorian era,” but is itself in historical dialogue with an earlier moment in the century. Wives and Daughters is engaged with the enormous changes that had taken place from the 1830s to the 1860s, and to fail to grasp that Gaskell is writing about a near but distinctly different past is to miss much of the novel’s nuance and import.

What did this near-historical past encompass? This is a broad question, but generally it encompasses a moment prior to the “Hungry Forties” and just before the political changes of the First Reform Act of 1832. When Gaskell wrote Wives and Daughters, England was enjoying a period of deep prosperity; moreover, higher standards of living for the working classes were now in place, and some of the early nineteenth century’s worst injustices had been moderated. Mid-century brought much “progress” (the byword of the time) to England, including a feverish pace of building railroads, factories, middle-class housing, churches, canals, and ships. It was a significant period of growth, matched only by England’s imperial energies, which included dominion over the vast wealth and population of India. In contrast, the late twenties in which Gaskell sets Wives and Daughters is a time “betwixt and between” England’s rural past and the coming agitations for social and political change. In 1801 most people in England lived in villages or on farms, while by 1851 more than half the population of England was centered in the cities. Wives and Daughters is set prior to the railroad, which came on the scene in 1830, a technological advance in transportation that would visibly transform not only the landscape but also—even more meaningfully, one might argue—a population’s consciousness about such basic concepts as mobility, distance, speed, and even home. The 1832 Reform Act was the first bit of legislative reform that was passed in response to the (then radical) demands of the reformists who petitioned Parliament for comprehensive change. The 1832 Act gave a wider share of power to the middle classes, primarily by partially redistributing parliamentary representation from small electoral boroughs to England’s new cities. It also extended the vote by lowering the property requirement, although the radicals’ call for universal male suffrage was not met; still, after the reform, enfranchised men in England almost doubled to 813,000—a number that seems reasonable only until one considers that the adult male population was close to 6 million, and that women were not part of the equation. Still, the 1832 Reform Act was a significant piece of legislation because it started the process of moving away from the traditional bases of power (landownership, birth, and rank). Perhaps most important, it began the process that would be continued in the century’s later Reform Acts (1867 and 1884) and that would result in the spirit of change that would give rise to various legislative acts that would improve the lives of the lower classes—including laws limiting the hours a child could work in a factory, public health laws, and reformations in the poor laws. Perhaps most important, the “Corn Laws” were repealed; these protectionist tariffs had kept the price of bread artificially high—indeed out of the reach of a laborer’s wages—and had contributed to the tragedy of Ireland’s famine in 1845 and after.

Perhaps the most vital difference between the 1820s and 1860s for a novel entitled Wives and Daughters was the change in the social and legal status of women. England in the 1820s and 1830s was still firmly in the grip of what has become known as “domestic ideology,” a theory about separate spheres of activity for men and women (although it is important to recognize that it would have not meaningfully considered or encompassed the lives of working-class people, who had to work regardless of their gender). Sarah Ellis, in her best-selling The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits (1839), articulated a set of widely accepted beliefs about the “natural” roles of men and women; in this formulation, men are “naturally” suited to striving in the public world to advance themselves and their families, while the “innate” moral beauty and selflessness of women make them ideally suited to the vocation of the home and raising children. The emphasis on women’s moral greatness simultaneously idealized them and deprived them of access to a host of legal, political, and even economic rights. By the 1840s and into the 1850s there was liberal reaction against this perception of natural gender roles, but it remained the case for middle-class women that work outside the home was considered unrespectable; those middle-class women who did work—estimated at mid-century at some 7 percent—were mostly governesses or writers. Before the parliamentary actions of the 1850s, the legal status of women in England was defined by the doctrine of “coverture,” which for the purposes of the law treated a woman as an object under the control (and responsibility) of her husband or father. Women were not subjects with rights and responsibilities, but can best be described as dependents. A husband or a father was responsible for his wife’s or daughter’s actions, and he controlled her property; the fact that women could not enter into contracts was but one of the inequities that women still suffered in the first half of the nineteenth century. Feminist agitation by women writers was instrumental in bringing issues such as child custody and the right to inherit property to the forefront. Elizabeth Gaskell was one of the most prominent signatories of the petition to Parliament (with some 25,000 signatures) that ultimately resulted in the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, which enabled women to inherit, own, and bequeath property, as well as to enter into contracts and bring a suit in court (or be sued).

Gaskell’s novel registers the difference for women between the 1860s and the late 1820s in several ways, but most deeply in the father’s error in judgment that drives the novel: Mr. Gibson’s decision to acquire a second wife (and, as a result, a step-daughter) in order to provide a female presence for his then seventeen-year-old daughter. The notion that Molly needs to be protected from her emerging sexuality (and the resulting attention) through the propriety of a female chaperone/mother figure is subtly but persistently derogated by the novel, which determines that Molly’s character is in fact the strongest among the three women of the Gibson household, rather than one in need of protection. In other words, the concept that the father knows best how to protect his daughter—and that she needed to be protected, rather than consulted—is subtly critiqued, although never to the extent that the narrator intervenes to discourse upon the subject. On the contrary, the reader is left to figure out what to make of the combination that Dr. Gibson personifies: a generous and loving father who also calls his daughter “Goosey” and tells her suitor (but not her) that she has her own money The discussion of Molly’s education that takes place in the novel’s third chapter also provides some insight into the educational norms for (middle-class) women early in the century, which Gaskell subtly deprecates by making Molly’s later success dependent upon knowing a good deal more than her father—an informed and gentle man—thought necessary: “ ‘Don’t teach Molly too much: she must sew, and read, and write, and do her sums; but I want to keep her a child, and if I find more learning desirable for her, I’ll see about giving it to her myself. After all, I’m not sure that reading or writing is necessary. Many a good woman gets married with only a cross instead of her name; it’s rather a diluting of mother-wit, to my fancy, but, however, we must yield to the prejudices of society, Miss Eyre, and so you may teach the child to read’ ” (p. 34). Molly’s insistence that she be educated—eventually the father yields and allows her also to study French, dance, and drawing—and her later studies in natural history are ways in which the novelist subtly discriminates between the ideas of the older and newer generations.

Other differences that Gaskell registers about the changed status of women include the difference in education of the working classes. In the first chapter, the narrator alludes to a school for the working-class girls of the village: “She and the ladies, her daughters, had set up a school; not a school after the manner of schools nowadays, where far better intellectual teaching is given to the boys and girls of labourers and work-people than often falls to the lot of their betters in worldly estate; but a school of the kind we should call ‘industrial’” (p. 7). Gaskell is clearly marking a distinction between “then” and “now,” though her sense of the improvement in education for the poor “nowadays” is perhaps somewhat idealistic, considering that state-sponsored education was not established until the 1870s. The novel’s period of the late twenties was a threshold: a moment just prior to such things as the railway age, the penny post, Catholic emancipation, the extension of the vote, and the accession to the throne of Queen Victoria in 1837. It was, moreover, the real remembered world of Gaskell’s childhood, for even though the novel is set in the Midlands, Hollingford is clearly based on her childhood home in Knutsford, Cheshire, for which she retained an affection throughout her life.

Wives and Daughters attempts to capture pre-Victorian country society at multiple levels, including the upper, middle, and working classes, and to capture the internal hierarchies within each of those class positions. Gaskell’s capacity for the detail makes her exceptionally capable of rendering the texture of the everyday and the nuances of social life. The subtitle of Wives and Daughters is “An Every-Day Story,” which at once announces the novel’s ambition and strategically asserts its verisimilitude. After all, if it is a story about the “everyday” rather than the “exceptional,” then it is a story about the real rather than the fantastic; of course, the novel is simply a fully imagined fictional world, but one in which the reader is encouraged to believe as “real” and eventually cannot help but do so. The subject matter—Holling—ford, Molly Gibson—is deliberately restricted, which makes it possible for a slowly unfolding narrative procedure to enact the world under consideration, effectively bodying forth a sense of its realness in its sheer dedication to details and commonplace (rather than exceptional) moments. As such, you will notice that the narrator is not particularly intrusive, and especially not declarative. You might contrast this narrative style with Jane Austen’s; Austen’s narrative voice has a considerably more authoritative tact, and her arguments are achieved via narrative assertions or Socratic-like debates between characters. The ideas that the reader takes in when reading Gaskell are unfolded rather than stated, as they are more likely to be in (for instance) the novels of George Eliot. Gaskell’s narrative style is subtle, one in which important facts unfold quietly in the form of self-reflexive analysis by characters. The “every-day story” of Molly Gibson’s coming of age in Hollingford in the late 1820s is, of course, a narrative ruse. By making Molly—a character at the center of the ordinary and the everyday whose subjectivity as a young woman on the threshold of the marrying age makes her interesting and even worthy of a story—the focus of the narrative, the novelist is able to dramatize that which is essentially unnarratable: everyday life.

The nuances of social life in Hollingford demand the reader’s attention throughout the novel. One of Gaskell’s talents as a novelist is the evocation of the internal hierarchies and distinctions among and between the various classes. This talent makes the texture of everyday living seem particularly indebted to the web of classes present even within a county and a village. The contemporary reader will want to familiarize herself with the various titles and distinctions employed in the novel, and to achieve a working understanding of their connotations, to better understand the social exchanges among the various characters. The social spectrum in the novel is quite wide, for the novel is populated with such characters as divergent in class position as a duchess and an old laborer. Among the principle characters, Squire Hamley represents the untitled landed gentry; his family is reputed to be the oldest in the area, and his title “Squire,” while not an official title, is a term of regard for the foremost landowner of a town or borough. His is a high social status, with strong ties to the community primarily maintained by the rental and supervision of his lands. Throughout the novel Squire Hamley demonstrates a simultaneous disdain and sense of inferiority in regard to the Cumnors, who are the titled people in the neighborhood. His disdain is based on the sense that their title is new—having been given out in Queen Anne’s time—while his inferiority is based in their comparative wealth and social standing. Lord Cumnor is Earl of Cumnor, while Lady Cumnor is a countess (the title apportioned to an earl’s wife). “Lord” and “Lady” do not refer specifically to an aristocratic rank, but are rather the general honorifics that one might use with any member of what was known as the “peerage,” the name given to the aristocratic class in England. Thus, the fact that the people of Hollingford always refer to the Cumnors by their titles suggests the heightened importance the residents place on rank:

The little straggling town faded away into country on one side, close to the entrance-lodge of a great park, where lived my Lord and Lady Cumnor: ‘the earl’ and ‘the countess.’ as they were always called by the inhabitants of the town; where a very pretty amount of feudal feeling still lingered, and showed itself in a number of simple ways, droll enough to look back upon, but serious matters of importance at the time (p. 6).

The narrator employs deliberate overstatement here in equating the townspeople’s deference to “feudal feeling,” for the relationship between people and their “lord” and “lady” had long been ceremonial rather than economic. The narrator pokes fun at a defunct sensibility, but registers its importance “at the time.” (Here is yet another example of the distinction being drawn in the novel between “then” and “now,” between the 1820s and the 1860s.) An earl was in the middle of the hierarchy of the peerage. Aside from the King or Queen, first in importance was a duke (his female counterpart was known as a duchess), followed by a marquis; a rank below a marquis was the earl (and countess) , followed by the viscount; the lowest-ranking member of the peerage was known as a baronet. Strictly speaking, the term “lady” was used to designate the wife of a peer below the rank of duke and as the honorific for the daughter of a duke, marquis, or earl—hence “Lady Harriet,” the daughter of Lord Cumnor. Knights, though titled, were not members of the peerage and thus did not have the right to a seat in the House of Lords and the ability to bequeath the title and land to descendents.

The townspeople’s interest in the titled people is best captured in the scene of the charity ball in chapter 26; the townspeople dance and yet await the appearance of the Cumnors (the people from the “Towers”), who are rumored to have a duchess visiting them. They make a very late appearance, and many of the Hollingford ladies are disgusted with the duchess: “‘Such a shabby thing for a duchess I never saw; not a bit of a diamond near her! They’re none of ’em worth looking at except the countess, and she’s always a personable woman, and not so lusty as she was. But they’re not worth waiting up for till this time o’ night’ ” (pp. 291-292). Here Mrs. Goodenough’s criticism is based on the duchess’s decision to dress in a simple manner and not to wear what the townspeople had expected (“diamonds and a coronet”), which violated the distinction that her title afforded and that the townspeople wished to see maintained; a duchess was the only member of the peerage who might wear a coronet, or small crown. As Lady Harriet, one of the novel’s most astute commentators, remarks to her brother, rank and class are performances: “ ‘We’re a show and a spectacle—it’s like having a pantomime with harlequin and columbine in plain clothes’ ”(pp. 294-295).

The role of rank and class in the novel cannot be underestimated, as it informs many of the social interactions and machinations. The family at the center of the story, the Gibsons, have what is perhaps the most socially ambiguous position in the novel—an ambiguousness due in no small part to the nebulousness of the medical profession in the early nineteenth century, which included physicians with university degrees, apothecaries (who sold drugs and dispensed medical advice), surgeons (who dealt with the structure of the body), and surgeon-apothecaries. The majority of doctors were educated through apprenticeships, which is the case with Dr. Gibson’s students. The apprenticeship to a surgeon, like all apprenticeships, was a legally binding agreement; it lasted from five to seven years, during which the apprentice exchanged his labor for education and room and board. Dr. Gibson, whose reputation in the neighborhood is held in high esteem primarily because he “attends” at the Towers, was most likely educated in this way, although his Scottish background (Edinburgh then being at the cutting edge of medicine) lends him a more enlightened and prestigious reputation. And yet it would be a mistake to think that medicine afforded someone a high social standing, as it does today, for even among the professions it was the least respected. The process by which the profession’s reputation began to change started with the Medical Registration Act of 1858, which abolished regional licensing and formally installed the hospital as the place for medical training. In Wives and Daughters, the fact that Mr. Gibson occasionally has lunch with Lord Hollingford (the earl’s son) depends entirely upon his personal merit—the two men share an interest in new scientific discovery—and not upon his rank.

The web of rank and class in Wives and Daughters incorporates a varied cast of people and social positions, including the land agent, the second son, the governess, the barrister, the unmarried but genteel woman, the servant, and the laborer. Roger Hamley, as the second son of Squire Hamley, would not have inherited land or title from his father; the laws of primogeniture ensured that land would not be divided among sons but given in its entirety to the eldest, so it is understood that he will have to make his own way in the world. This gives him an entirely different status from Osborne, his older brother, as Mrs. Gibson is quick to intuit and exploit. Mrs. Gibson, who is known as “Clare” at the Towers because that was her name when she was governess there, changes her social position when she marries Mr. Gibson; her position rises in that, as a governess she would have been a dependent in the house of the Cumnors, but it falls in the sense that she loses that intimate relation and sheds the name of her first husband (a clergyman who was himself a younger son) . As Elizabeth Langland has pointed out, Mrs. Gibson in conventional moral terms seems insensitive and lacking in character, but as the household’s “status manager” she is inordinately successful: “Her masterful negotiations of signifying practices—etiquette (including introductions, visiting, calls, and cuts), dining rituals, household decor, and dress make her a key player in the socially prestigious marriages of Molly and Cynthia, marriages that install them permanently within the upper middle class and remove them from the ambiguous status of doctor’s daughters and potential governesses” (Langland, Nobody’s Angels, p. 134). Cynthia often threatens to become a governess, a position that was considered a last resort for genteel but poor girls. The status of a governess, who occupied a strained position between the family and the servants, replaced the status into which one was born. The genteel woman who was working to sustain herself in the homes of middle- and upper-class families would have had little opportunity to benefit from marriage, the primary conveyor of higher status for women in the nineteenth century.

The character of the land agent—one who manages the day-today affairs of a large estate—in Wives and Daughters has a large role, as does the land agent in Middlemarch, Caleb Garth. The difference between the two characters could not be wider, for Mr. Preston in Wives and Daughters is a romantic adventurer and disrespectful of women and rank, while Garth is the model for the moral and intelligent man. Another character type within the social web of the novel is the London lawyer (specifically, barrister), of which there are two representatives: Cynthia’s uncle, and one of Cynthia’s suitors, Mr. Henderson. These professionals have a fixed status within their London orbits, which someone like Lady Cumnor deprecates, but which affords them a high standard of living. The vast majority of Hollingford’s denizens belong to the classes of servants, laborers, and townspeople. For the most part, the townspeople consist of “ladies,” and indeed it can sometimes feel as one reads the novel that it is a town made up almost entirely of unmarried older women; the Miss Brownings, who are genteel but relatively without means, are at the forefront of this category. Servants and laborers appear in Wives and Daughters, as if to fill out the fabric of the social web being described, but they are not at the center of any of the narrative strains. When servants and laborers do appear, their speech is recorded in dialect, to underscore their difference, as Old Silas’s is here: “ ‘Them navvies—I call ’em navvies because some on ‘em is strangers, though some on ’em is th’ men as was turned off your own works, squire, when there came orders to stop ’em last fall—they’re a-pulling up gorse and bush.... I thought I should like to tell ye afore I died’ ” (p. 334). Those who are outside the social web are those who are not English, their foreignness defined by difference of religion and nationality. The scrupulousness with which membership in the social web is defined is what drives the novel’s primary tragic narrative. And yet that which is most foreign—Africa, where Roger travels on a scientific excursion—is represented as so different as not even to earn the distinction of difference; the Africans whom Roger encounters are so outside the social fabric of Hollingford and England that they do not figure in its conception of itself, but rather are spoken of slightingly in a crude racial comedy.

Perhaps the position that affords the most fluid rank is that of the marriageable girl, which the novel’s most central characters, Molly and Cynthia, personify. Although the rank of the marriageable girl depends in part on her father’s status, the novel presents female beauty as a kind of independent currency on the marriage market. The fluidity of the marriageable girl’s rank is one of the novel’s most sustained topics, and drives much of the narrative interest. Cynthia’s particular talent for pleasing and her beauty result in multiple admirers and suitors; this furthers the plot and supports the premise of the fluid status of the marriageable girl. The novel forecasts a number of possibilities for Cynthia’s future rank by showing how possible it is for her to attract attention from men of a number of different classes—including the landed gentry, the professional class, and the commercial moneyed class. The novel reserves its highest distinction for Molly, however, who through her intelligence and manners succeeds in earning the admiration of the younger generation of the Towers, including Lady Harriet and Lord Hollingford, and who eventually has her worth discovered by Squire Hamley’s family. One way of understanding Cynthia’s ubiquitous popularity (and subsequent class mobility) in light of the more understated admiration felt for Molly is to see that Gaskell’s novel is a limited critique of the commercialization of marriage. Cynthia knowingly parlays her capacity to attract a number of marriage proposals, while Molly’s guileless-ness ultimately is rewarded with the more prestigious marriage.

Cynthia is neither wholly bad nor wholly good, but rather of a mixed condition—a condition that suits her particularly to Gaskell’s everyday novel. Molly, although her character is unimpeachable and her mind lively, is not an angel playing to Cynthia’s fallenness, but rather—as she introduces herself to Lady Cumnor when but twelve—“ ‘only Molly Gibson’” (p. 22). At most, the stability of Molly’s character is contrasted with Cynthia’s chameleon-like quality, of which Gaskell seems particularly critical, at the same time as the novel suggests that this quality in Cynthia is not a character flaw so much as a necessary strategy for survival. That is, the critique is of the society that produces Cynthia, rather than Cynthia herself Gaskell’s novel operates within a realist rather than a melodramatic idiom; whatever subtle distinction is being drawn between the two girls (primarily one of character) does not get enacted through stark differences in their respective fates.

In fact, Wives and Daughters seems to be rewriting some of the more traditional literary scripts for women. Mrs. Gibson is not the wicked stepmother of fairy tales, a genre that is evoked in the novel’s very first paragraph: “To begin with the old rigmarole of childhood. In a country there was a shire, and in that shire there was a town, and in that town there was a house, and in that house there was a room, and in that room there was a bed, and in that bed there lay a little girl.” Two things are important to understand about this opening: First, the “country” and the “shire” are introduced only by way of reducing the topic to what it intends to focus on, which is the story of this little girl. In this way, the novel aligns itself with the tradition of the bildungsroman, which is a type of novel that traces the development of an individual (often beginning with a significant event in a young life) in a social and moral context; as such, Wives and Daughters is akin to such Dickens novels as David Copperfield and Great Expectations. The second thing to understand about the opening is that the tone deliberately evokes the flat declarative style of the fairy tale—a style that is further emphasized by the events that quickly follow. Visiting the great people of the neighborhood, the young girl falls asleep underneath a tree, is woken by a woman who will turn out to be her stepmother, and is likened in fun to Goldilocks: “ ‘Oh, ho!’ said he. ‘Are you the little girl who has been sleeping in my bed?’ He imitated the deep voice of the fabulous bear ... but Molly had never read the ‘Three Bears,’ and fancied that his anger was real; she trembled a little, and drew nearer to the kind lady who had beckoned her as to a refuge” (p. 22). Wives and Daughters evokes the genre of the fairy tale, with its fantastic and cautionary tales of stepmothers and girls who overstep their bounds, in order to contrast its own purpose, which is strongly realist. Molly falls asleep under a tree so that the reader might wonder what kind of world this heroine will wake up to. The world she wakes up to is not a fairy-tale world of good and evil, but one of mixed effects and characters. As such, Wives and Daughters is much more interested in venality—specifically, Mrs. Gibson’s liberality with the truth, and Cynthia’s tendency to fickleness, both to others and her own self—than in actual sin. So the fairy tale is rewritten; there is a dreaded stepmother, but Molly is no Cinderella, Cynthia is no evil stepsister, and Mrs. Gibson, though selfish and silly, does not advance her daughter at the expense of her stepchild.

Instead, the novel refigures that tale as a tale of second families—what we today call blended families—with all their complications, both happy and painful. One of the ways the novel seems most modern, and most astute to the contemporary reader, is in its dissection of the small but persistent tensions within a blended family. Molly resents the changes in her routine and environment that Mrs. Gibson makes, and Mr. Gibson (whose unromantic vision was for a manager of his house and daughter) resents his wife’s banishing of his favorite vulgarity, the eating of bread and cheese for supper. One could point to any number of scenes in the novel that carefully trace the nuances of petty resentments, annoyance, and discomfort that can sometimes emerge in these living situations. In the following example, taken from the scene in which the stepmother-to-be and her future stepdaughter first meet, the narrative captures the sense of suppressed feelings within a scene of forced felicity:

Molly fell in love with her, so to speak, on the instant. She sat there warming her feet and hands, as much at ease as if she had been there all her life; not particularly attending to her mother—who, all the time, was studying either her or her dress—measuring Molly and Mr. Gibson with grave observant looks as if guessing how she should like them.

“There’s a hot breakfast ready for you in the dining-room, when you are ready for it,” said Mr. Gibson. “I’m sure you must want it after your night journey.” He looked round at his wife, at Cynthia’s mother, but she did not seem inclined to leave the warm room again.

... Cynthia rose and followed Molly upstairs.

“I’m so sorry there isn’t a fire for you,” said Molly, “but—I suppose it wasn’t ordered; and, of course, I don’t give any orders. Here is some hot water, though.”

“Stop a minute,” said Cynthia, getting hold of both Molly’s hands, and looking steadily into her face, but in such a manner that she did not dislike the inspection.

“I think I shall like you. I am so glad! I was afraid I should not. We’re all in a very awkward position together, aren’t we? I like your father’s looks, though” (p. 215).

The description of the other family that is dissected in Wives and Daughters is a more tragic depiction of family life than the (generally) comic presentation of the Gibson family. The family of Hamley Hall, equally divided between its ill and dying members and its hardy and stubborn ones, is subject to what feels like an inevitable series of misfortunes resulting from the clash of cultures and personality types within the family. Mrs. Hamley is an invalid in a literal sense, but one senses too that her sickness is a response to her husband: Her London upbringing and refined tastes are at odds with a loving but nevertheless uneducated and provincial husband. The Hamley’s two sons embody the opposition of their parents: Osborne, the elder, golden son, is poetic and destined for a brilliant career at university, while Roger is considered plodding and more like the father in his physical strength and proclivity for the outdoors. Roger, in fact, personifies the doctrine of “muscular Christianity,” a belief system equating moral and physical fitness that became widely accepted in the 1850s: “ ‘This Mr. Mason told me the tutor said that only half of Roger’s success was owing to his mental powers; the other half was owing to his perfect health, which enabled him to work harder and more continuously than most men without suffering’ ” (p. 365). Gaskell portrays the dangers of determining the life paths of one’s children and of patriarchal dominance; the novel’s most tragic plot traces the ill consequences of a son’s fear of his father’s disapproval. Although overbearing and authoritative, Squire Hamley is undemonstratively loving—a combination the novel suggests is particularly dangerous. His fundamental lack of insight into his own emotions is part of a larger preoccupation of the novel about the mismanagement of one’s inner life. When the Squire is faced with an inconceivable loss, the depiction of the collision between the earlier self—dogmatic and unforgiving—with the new self, which fiercely combines love, regret, and pain, is one of the more harrowing presentations in nineteenth-century literature. If not quite a depiction of redemption, Squire Hamley’s transformation is nevertheless a realistic presentation of the capacity for change.

The novel is fascinated with the intelligent male’s capacity for errors in judgment, as well as the role of social mischance in deciding individuals’ fates. Gaskell shares these concerns with George Eliot, who in Middlemarch especially explores how social mischance and errors of judgment can get in the way of human aspiration. Gaskell is interested in these themes in Wives and Daughters but is much less likely to project the cause and effect through a tragic lens. For instance, in Wives and Daughters, when the often-absent Dr. Gibson happens to intercept the ridiculous Mr. Coxe’s missive of love to Molly, the web of effects that drives the story is set in motion, while in Middlemarch there is nothing ridiculous about the determining accidents (the meetings of Dorothea and Casaubon, and Lydgate and Rosamond) that drive their failures and compromises. In Gaskell’s novel certain significant errors of judgment—in particular, errors of judgment about whom one loves—are ameliorated by mischance before an irrevocable step is taken. Like Middlemarch, Wives and Daughters places the most serious errors in judgment squarely in the hands of the men of science. Roger Hamley wins repute by publishing a scientific paper responding to French theorists, while Lydgate’s ambitions to discover a primary tissue also derive from contemporary preoccupations in French medicine. Middlemarch, which was published six years after Wives and Daughters, charts the destruction of scientific ambition by bourgeois marriage. And the grand error in judgment resides with a woman, as it does in Wives and Daughters, with the key difference that Gaskell allows Roger to make a mistake and then rebound from it. As such, one might say that, like Middlemarch, Wives and Daughters meditates on the human capacity for self-deception and compromise, but unlike Eliot’s novel, Gaskell’s novel is less interested in tracing the irrevocable outcomes of a wrong choice. The woman Roger will eventually marry will not impede his scientific aspiration, but rather further it. In this and other ways the register of Wives and Daughters is “comic,” not in the sense that it is humorous but (as in Shakespeare’s comedies) in the sense that it promotes resolution and social harmony. The scientific men who are prone to making poor judgments in Wives and Daughters are not presented in a buffoonish light; on the contrary, the men of science in the novel (including Roger Hamley, Lord Hollingford, and Mr. Gibson) are clearly the most appealing and respected men in the book. The novel is imbued with references to natural history and contemporary (to the 1820s) scientific concerns, including the two-year journey of exploration and natural-history collection in “Abyssinia” that Roger Hamley pursues. As Deirdre D’Albertis suggests in Dissembling Fictions, Roger is patently modeled on Charles Darwin, who when young was a naturalist on the Beagle and who was Gaskell’s relative; Gaskell, in a letter to her editor George Smith, connects Roger’s travels with Darwin’s. Africa (specifically, the east coast of Africa that Roger follows) should be understood as a point in the novel’s triangulated geography: England, France, and Africa are implicated in the novel’s deepest concerns, even though the narrative’s focus does not leave Hollingford. To the denizens of the town, and especially Squire Hamley, France functions as the resented and feared “other” to England’s steady centrality; clearly, the specter of the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars (1800-1815) is still present, for there are repeated unfavorable references to the French, including references to “boney” (Napoléon Bonaparte) and “Johnny Crapaud” (an early version of the slur of the French as “frogs”). The great secret that Osborne keeps from his father has to do with France, for Squire Hamley’s aversion to the French is no secret. The resolution to which the novel ultimately comes suggests that social progress and the casting off of national prejudices are concomitant with each other. Africa, however, is not granted the same status, but rather functions symbolically in the novel as the opposite of Hollingford’s civilization.

When characters leave Hollingford, the narrative does not follow them on their journey; neither Roger, who traverses the east coast of Africa, nor Cynthia, who spends weeks in London, is present in the narrative when away, except through the occasional letter. Africa functions in the novel’s geographical triangulation as the imagined absence or emptiness, the place where one is “away” rather than a location in its own right. This geopolitical nearsightedness is underscored by Roger’s scientific pursuits while there: He is a natural historian collecting “unknown” specimens and “discovering” new places, which are then duly presented to the Geographical Society via letters and in person, when he returns. That Africa conjures up frightening associations for the women of Hollingford is probably a correct presentation of English cultural attitudes; lurid descriptions of Africa (especially of cannibalism) would have been familiar from newspapers and journal reports from the early decades of the nineteenth century through mid-century, when John Speke and David Livingstone made their storied journeys. One of the most jarring aspects of the BBC film version of Wives and Daughters (1999)—replayed in the United States on the PBS ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre series—is the choice that was made to show Roger Hamley occasionally in the landscape of eastern Africa. The visual interruption of the English country scene with the sublime scenery of Africa is one that the original novel does not make; the reader is never even privy to Roger’s letters, which are not reproduced within the narrative nor read aloud by the neglectful Cynthia, so Africa never gets represented in any meaningful or evocative way. Instead, Africa stands in for absolute absence, the place from which one returns.

The scientific exploration that Roger is sent on is but part of the broader discourse of science in the novel. Moreover, Roger’s scientific interest in the natural world, which Molly then adopts, seems to provide an analogy for the work that Elizabeth Gaskell is performing in her narrative. One way of understanding Wives and Daughters is to think of it as an analysis of people in their particular environment—a kind of “social ecology” in which the observation of a single person or specimen in its environment teaches one about general patterns or truths. The methodology of natural history emphasizes close observation of the common or everyday, to better understand how the particular fits into the broader rubric of nature. Likewise, the novel studies or observes Molly and the inhabitants of Hollingford to better understand the broader category of human nature. This scientific-like observation of Hollingford is one way of understanding the rhetorical conceit behind the novel’s subtitle (“An Every-Day Story”); the author and the natural historian share a common perspective and commitment. As a biographer notes, “Gaskell claims simply to look, like Roger Hamley, into a pool which others might pass by: the everyday life of families in a country district. But she knew that her dull-looking specimens would turn out to be rich and rare” (Uglow, p. 585).

Roger Hamley is the character most profoundly associated with the study of nature: “He had been out dredging in ponds and ditches, and had his wet sling-net, with its imprisoned treasures of nastiness, over his shoulder” (p. 115). The study of nature comes indoors as well, where the primary tool of the early-nineteenth-century scientist is employed:

Natural history in Wives and Daughters is more than a provider of analogies for love plots. The value natural history places on “observation” is mirrored by the novel. One of the best examples of this mirroring occurs in chapter 33, when Gaskell’s own observational powers and commitment to the description of natural detail appear side by side with the letter awarding Roger the scientific travel fellowship. The letter says that he had “great natural powers of comparison and classification of facts; he had shown himself to be an observer of a fine and accurate kind” (p. 364). The scene Gaskell describes invites the same kind of praise, and bears citing:

The observer (here, Dr. Gibson) is present in the scene, and the details that are enumerated reveal a sensitivity to the process of observation familiar to a naturalist. In Wives and Daughters, those people who are strong observers are distinguished from those who cannot see the truth. It is no accident that Roger Hamley’s great error of judgment manifests itself as a failure of observation, one in which he cannot see the truth about a woman, but rather only a series of trite poetic images: She was a “a polar star, high up in the heavens, and so on, and so on; for, with all a lover’s quickness of imagination and triteness of fancy, he called her a star, a flower, a nymph, a witch, an angel, or a mermaid, a nightingale, a siren ...” (p. 368). The capacity to observe is equated in the novel with the capacity for truth—qualities most consistently present, not surprisingly, in Molly, the novel’s heroine.

Natural history also functions in Wives and Daughters as a kind of analogy for its narrative procedure. That is, the novel makes a clear connection between interest in “out-of-door things” and the pursuit of a detailed exposition of everydayness, which can be said to be Gaskell’s ambition. In the following economical description of Roger, “everydayness” and “detail” are terms of value that are in line with knowledge of the natural world: “Roger was practical; interested in all out-of-door things, and he enjoyed the details, homely enough, which his father sometimes gave him of the everyday occurrences which the latter had noticed in the woods and the fields” (p. 248). In the same way that looking at objects under a microscope for Molly was palliative in her moment of deepest despair, here the practice of noticing nature knits together a father and son. The kind of knowledge that his father has—gathered from “everyday occurrences” that even this uneducated man had “noticed in the woods and fields”—is like the knowledge that Roger Hamley is pursuing as a naturalist and budding scientist, which in the coming years (but not yet) would become a proper subject at university. Roger’s interest in the “details” is matched by Gaskell’s narrative, which interests itself especially in the economic details of everyday life: how many bank notes are needed for a gown, the price that the Miss Brownings pay for tea, the specific rate of interest Cynthia repays on her loan, the process of insuring one’s life, the cost of drainage works, the worth of legacies, the entailment of land, and so on. The value natural history places on the observation of “everydayness” is like the knowledge that Gaskell herself is pursuing in trying to capture the details of the country around Hollingford, both social and natural. In this way, you might think of Wives and Daughters as a natural history of a society—not only which species inhabit it, but how the ecosystem works.

It is from this perspective that one should understand the specific references to the scientific debates Roger enters into when he publishes a paper in response to debates circulating in French scientific circles. As a result of the paper, he is invited by Lord Hollingford to attend a dinner for scientists at which the guests wish to “meet the author of the paper which had already attracted the attention of the French comparative anatomists” (p. 300). The French comparative anatomists that the novel refers to by name—Georges Cuvier, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck—are the central scientific figures of the early nineteenth century whose debates and early discoveries contributed to the emergence of evolutionary theory ; Darwin himself cited Saint-Hilaire’s realizations about the homologies among species as important to his understanding of evolutionary relationships. The novel thus means us to understand that Roger is working at the cutting edge of the emerging field of evolutionary theory, especially because he is interested in “comparative osteology,” which as a forerunner of evolutionary theory was concerned with the likenesses and dissimilarities among various species (especially apes and humans). Roger, clearly the novel’s ideal of a man, is thus engaged in pursuits that require observation of homely everyday natural objects as well as theoretical pursuits that are attempting to answer the most profound questions about the relationships among species and the origin of humans. It is hard to dismiss these references to natural history as inconsequential—mere attempts to add verisimilitude to the narrative—not least because the references are so many and so detailed.

How might we understand, then, these references to contemporary science? Perhaps one way of understanding their place in Gaskell’s “every-day story” is to think about the status of natural history in the novel. A quick catalog of the various characters shows that the characters who are depicted as either most educated or most admirable are also interested in one way or another in the natural world: Lord Hollingford sponsors scientific endeavors; Roger Hamley is a naturalist, while Molly reads Le Règne Animal, happily receives wasps’ nests as gifts, and scours Roger’s letters from Africa for details about his discoveries (as well as his well-being); Squire Hamley is an untutored observer of nature, while Dr. Gibson appreciates nature’s details from his horse; and Lady Harriet peppers her speech with analogies drawn from nature, while her sister Lady Agnes is an amateur botanist. In contrast, Cynthia is bored by Roger’s naturalist discussions and fails to appreciate the floral language implicit in a bouquet gathered for her, while Mrs. Gibson—otherwise a sharp reader of social hierarchies and distinctions—is unimpressed by Roger’s fame on the London scientific stage. The novel seems to employ natural history as a short-hand for distinction of person, whether that be class, education, or morality. For instance, Cynthia’s lack of feeling is shown when she fails to attend a meeting, while in London, of the Geographical Society, at which a letter from Roger is to be read aloud to the public (women included). In contrast, Molly somehow naturally embodies a kind of distinction that Cynthia lacks.

Lady Harriet, the novel’s shrewdest observer, distinguishes Molly early on as a kind of exception to her class; she employs language that reminds Molly of zoology. When Molly protests that Lady Harriet speaks of “ ‘the sort of—the class of people to which I belong as if it was a kind of strange animal you were talking about,’ ” Lady Harriet responds by saying “ ‘I talk after my kind, just as you talk after your kind. It’s only on the surface with both of us. Why, I dare say some of your good Hollingford ladies talk of the poor people in a manner which they would consider as impertinent in their turn’ ” (p. 162). By likening the way people distinguish themselves from those of a different class as an exercise in observing animals—as a zoologist might—Molly initiates a discussion about class with Lady Harriet. Notice the way Molly does not back away from saying what she means; she clarifies what she means by substituting “the sort of” people with “the class of people.” Lady Harriet’s candid response about equality—a term she employs with reservation—is fascinating in the way it both accepts as natural the distinctions between social classes and yet allows for the possibility that class is not inherent:

This conversation is very telling, for in many ways it holds the key to the novel’s attitude about social class. Molly’s criticism of Lady Harriet essentially makes the point that if social distinctions are “natural”—if members of other classes seem like “stranger animals”—then it is wrong of Lady Harriet to speak with her as an equal. Lady Harriet’s response is an amalgamation of traditional class snobbery and modern notions about class: To her, people of different classes are different because they inhabit (often to their detriment) their rank, while she acknowledges that rank itself is not a “solid thing.” Moreover, Lady Harriet believes in distinction—both of character and talent—and expresses it in calling Molly “simple and truthful” and in appreciating how Molly has joined her brother in his admiration of Roger Hamley.

In the context of the larger narrative strain about Roger Hamley’s success as a scientific explorer, the conversation takes on the coloring of a social commentary. Roger stands for the emergence of a new class of the scientific intelligentsia, one shift among the more widespread power shifts in nineteenth-century British society, as rank loses its status as the dominant wielder of power. Ultimately, what Gaskell is querying in this exchange is the question of whether differences among classes of people are natural or are constructions—a philosophical issue that has significant bearing on the “social ecology” she is sketching in her novel. In a larger sense, the question of whether people can be “taxonomized” in the same way that “strange animals” can be provides an uncomfortable, if unresolved, backdrop to the novel, one that because of the presence of Africa in the novel (and persistent concerns throughout the nineteenth century with race) encompasses race as well as class. Racial theory in the 1860s figured black Africans as so different from European whites that there was speculation they were of a different species. In this light, the fact that Africa primarily appears in Wives and Daughters as a proving ground for Roger Hamley (the epitome of the vital Englishman) suggests the way in which the novel participates in, rather than simply reflects, cultural values about race and nation. And yet the fact that the novel points in its concluding moments toward a kind of hybridity for the future generations is fascinating: The recognized heir of the Hamley estate is part English and part French, the son of landed gentry and a common servant. In this provisional way Wives and Daughters perhaps suggests that (an albeit limited concept of) hybridity, as a social as well as a scientific concept, is England’s future and perhaps best hope.

In a novel as long and as minute in the detailing of everyday life as Wives and Daughters is, it is perhaps niggling to turn our attention to what is not in the novel. And yet what is absent in a novel that calls itself an “every-day story” is itself fascinating, so by way of closing let us consider what Gaskell excludes from the everyday First, there is a decided absence of the depiction of labor in the novel, made all the more glaring because of the number of references to work. So, for instance, Dr. Gibson is often said to be away from home to attend to a patient, but the narrative never follows him to a bedside. Likewise, although we hear a great deal about the “draining works” that Squire Hamley has had to postpone for lack of funds, the reader is never privy to the details of the project even when the work begins again. Indeed, the one laborer (Old Silas) who speaks in the novel is on his deathbed. In a novel about the “everyday,” the lack not only of details but of scenes of labor seems a significant omission and makes the reader question its purport. Although Gaskell is not alone among nineteenth-century novelists in not representing the everyday details of work, another way of understanding the omission is through the lens of the novel’s title, which avows that its subject is the feminine sphere: Perhaps Gaskell wishes to shine light on the work of wives and daughters, and so highlights the private sphere by deliberately avoiding the details of the masculine public sphere of work. Indeed, the very best moments in the novel in which men play a part are scenes of leisure, especially (as the Cornhill editor draws our attention to) the scene of tobacco smoking at the end of chapter 2 3 . Here the conversational rhythms of speech and the import of this masculine ritual are memorably drawn.

The second notable absence in Wives and Daughters is the absence of institutional religion. None of the characters are ever shown attending church on a Sunday, and there is no clergyman among the otherwise large stock of Hollingford characters. When Dr. and Mrs. Gibson are married, the clergyman is implied but not mentioned in the scene; only Old Silas on his deathbed mentions a clergyman who has been to see him—“ ‘Parson’s been here; but I did na tell him. He’s all for the earl’s folk, and he’d not ha’ heeded. It’s the earl as put him into his church, I reckon’ ” (p. 334)—but otherwise clergymen do not enter into the narrative. The absence of the establishment church (the Church of England) in the portrayal seems pointed, for the ritual of churchgoing would have been a mainstay of country life. Uglow suggests that Gaskell’s faith was “so integral to her life that she rarely writes about it”—but this does not quite account for the choice, which would have been contrary to her narrative purpose, to eliminate this everyday feature from the scene (Uglow, p. 451). Gaskell, who was raised as a Unitarian and chose to marry a Unitarian minister, belonged to what was considered a dissenting sect—that is, a sect that had separated from the national church (the Church of England) over doctrinal differences. Unitarianism was an open religion that only asked of its members that they believe in the one God and the divine mission of Jesus. Unitarians debated the nature of Jesus, the notion of original sin, and—most importandy—the doctrine of atonement. That is, Jesus was considered a teacher and a moral example, rather than a divine entity. This was, as might be expected, controversial, with many believers denying that Unitarians were Christians, for their beliefs, including their emphasis on reason and freedom of thought, seemed to fly in the face of the primacy of faith (Uglow, pp. 5-7). This account of the faith to which Gaskell adhered (although necessarily abridged) might give us a biographical answer to the absence of organized religion in Wives and Daughters: The Church of England held no sway in Gaskell’s life, and so it would have little sway in her novel. However, religion might be located in another place in the novel. Rather than in the parish church, to which the narrative does not go, the impetus of religion is felt in the presentation of Molly’s character. The way in which Molly examines her actions and feelings as an individual in light of deeply felt moral principles might be understood as inspired by Unitarian principles and values; hence the absence of religion in the novel is perhaps better understood as an absence of the Established Church.

Perhaps most niggling of all is the complaint that the novel is missing a conclusion, a complaint the reader will nevertheless feel when coming to the end of Wives and Daughters. Elizabeth Gaskell died before she was able to lend her pen to the ending, and while readers can have no doubt of the content of the ending, it is missed nonetheless. The novel ends thus on an odd and unintended note, but one that, owing to the author’s sudden death, takes on added significance. The novel’s last words belong to Mrs. Gibson:

The unintentional humor behind the ever-self-centered philosophy of Mrs. Gibson is heightened here, now that the reader knows that Molly will soon be securely kept from daily exposure to it. That which “dear papa” does not “talk about” is the future that Molly is then contemplating, and that the reader, denied the author’s vision, must necessarily contemplate as well. The urge to fill in the blanks, so to speak, is a general impulse of the reader, and one that Frederick Greenwood explicitly understood when he wrote his “Concluding Remarks: by the Editor of the Cornhill Magazine.” The impulse is one that its filmic adaptors felt as well. The BBC film, otherwise quite true to the narrative, concludes on a note that is extra-textual: Molly stands in breeches, and looks out over a sublime African vista with Roger Hamley at her side. Whether one wishes to applaud or scold the costume designer for the breeches and the director for the interpretation behind the final scene, the reader of Wives and Daughters will understand the impulse and, more to the point, celebrate the delights of a novel that wanted to be nothing more, and perhaps nothing less, than “an every-day story.”