Quote: “ By the white misery that turned her face to stone – by the wild terror in her imploring eyes – by the gasping breath, which came out as the carriage drove away – he knew that he had seized the spell to make her listen at last” ‘He will take him away from me! He will take the child away from me!’ These words rang like a tolling bell through Ruth’s head. It seemed to her that her doom was certain. Leonard would be taken from her! She had a firm conviction – not the less firm because she knew not on what it was based – that a child, whether legitimate or not, belonged of legal right to the father” (Gaskell 235).
Comment: I thought this quote was significant regarding the previous chapter, where Ruth continually attempts to dodge Mr. Donne (Mr. Bellingham) as he tries to explain his leaving her, to then that opening of the next chapter where a very jarring and emotional outcry from Ruth. After her own personal pains in seeing him again and most likely feeling threatened that her past would be revisited, the point that sticks out to me is that her next thought is immediately consumed with Lenoard and the worst possible outcome. Not unlike TWH by Brontë, I feel like there is a separation of the personal feelings toward these men when children come in – almost like they sacrifice themselves to be able to either stay with their children or, in Ruth’s case, now have to acquiesce to the decision of Mr. Donne in meeting with him as she fears for both herself and Leonard now.
Question: I know the novel was published in 1853, but I wondered if there were specific dates the plot is supposed to be taking place within that might allow us to connect Ruth’s case to relevant reform acts or similar case law. I know she alluded to the fact that, legitimate or not, the child would be in the legal care of the father. Yet, it seems like no one was urging for that as a necessity to adhere to either social norms or the law when they found out she was pregnant and abandoned – I’m thinking of the Benson’s here as they seemed to diverge from those norms on all counts, perhaps it would have been a practice to alert the father of a child? I also wondered about the significance of Mr. Bellingham changing his name. I might have missed that detail, but I know that with his position in Parliament, having an illegitimate child would challenge his reputation and status. Did he not want any trace of his youthful wrongdoings, regardless of his not knowing about the child, to be associated with that former name?
