Category: ENG 216 (Page 2 of 2)

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?

Quote: “She threw herself down on the lying by the side of the road, in despair. Her only hope was to die, and she believed she was dying. She could not think; she could believe anything. Surely life was a horrible dream, and God would mercifully awaken her from it. She had no penitence, no consciousness of error or offence; no knowledge of any one circumstance but that he was gone” (Gaskel 77). 

Comment: I found this reaction to her finding out about Mr. Bellingham very interesting because it highlights her level of dependence on the situation, not just because they have romantic sentiments but because she entrusted him with her livelihood. It might sound like she is a dramatic, emotional, fragile young girl he has rejected. Still, she is an orphan – also of working-class status and has no flexibility in society – who succumbed to a decision viewed as staining her reputation. I am thinking of the similarities and contrasts between Ruth and the novel  Moll Flanders – Moll felt out of place in a lower society just as Ruth did as she suffered in Mrs. Mason’s shop. Yet, Moll uses men like Mr. Bellingham to advance her social position and does not seem ever to let off her guard or put any hope that her well-being will be cared for by anyone but herself.  

Question: I wonder how the audience of this period would receive a character like Mr. Bellington; thinking back to Bodichon’s remarks, he certainly does not appear to be a ‘man of good feeling’ – would they lay the blame on Ruth for falling victim to his charms and vanity or would they look to him as being deceitful and opportunistic. Judging by how the other female characters react to Ruth’s situation, especially Mrs. Bellington, they say that she is obsessed with her looks or that she must have lured him in. Yet, the charity that the Benson family shows to her makes me wonder if those Christain values took precedence over the shameful societal feelings.

Quote: “There is, in the first place, no doubt that when a father has the custody of his children, he is not to be deprived of it except under particular circumstances; and those do not occur in this case; for although misconduct is imputed to Mr. Greenhill, there is nothing proved against him which has ever been held sufficient ground for removing children from their father” ( Rex v. Greenhill 927). 

Comment: After reading the caselaw of Rex v. Greenhill as they moved through the situation regarding Mr. Greenhill, his allegations of adulty, and the acts of Mrs. Greenhill resolved that she could not apply for habeas corpus to take the children out of the father’s custody. It is also interesting to note that the legal experience of married women means that they are one person; therefore, a wife could not make any motions in the legal system without her husband’s involvement. However, in the Custody of Infants Act, the motion now allows, if the mother has not committed adultery, “That after passing this act it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor…upon hearing the petition of the mother of any infant or infants being in the sole custody of control of the father…and if such infant or infants shall be within the age of seven years”(Custody of Infants, 1839) that she could obtain custody of her children. Looking back to Brontë’s novel, it reaffirms the need for this reform as all the previous case law does not see a man committing adultery as a reason for loss of custody. Still, if the mother has allegations of infidelity, her ability to even petition is lost. The novel deals with these ideas surrounding the double standard of women and men when it comes to extramarital affairs, and this seems to continue to be an issue in the legal system as well. 

Question: 

After the 1839 Custody of Infants Act, I wonder what the reality of this reform looked like, as it is the Judges in Equity that can make the order for the petition, was there still a fairly hefty fee? If the mother had to be of a certain virtue, could there be instances where she would be wrongly accused and lose that option to petition? Again, as we see in the novel, the reality of women and the law do not always correlate in ways that are advantageous to women. There are still the norms and social implications that dictate the actions a woman might take, even if the law was on her side, so to speak; there must have been a time of catching up socially to when she would be accepted for making that decision.

Quote:  “There! you’ll find nothing gone but your money, and the jewels – and a few little trifles I thought it advisable to take into my own possession, lest your mercantile spirit should be tempted to turn them into gold. I’ve left you a few sovereigns in your purse, which I expect to last you through the month – at all events, when you want more you will be so good as to give me an account of how that’s spent…” “And so, he said at length, “you thought to disgrace me, did you, by running away and turning artist, and supporting yourself by the labour of your hands, forsooth? And you thought to rob me of my son too, and bring him up to be a dirty Yankee tradesman, or a low, beggarly painter?” (311)

Comment: As I read this passage and the previous pages setting up this scene where he pokes into her writing and demands her keys to all that she possesses, it reminded me of how disjointed those laws surrounding women’s property are. During the whole of their marriage, he evidently regarded the items she has as her possessions or her property – a page before this excerpt mentioned he stated they were to have “a confiscation of property.” The law explicitly states, “What was her personal property before marriage, such as money in hand, money at the bank, jewels, household goods, clothes, etc., becomes absolutely her husband’s, and he may assign or dispose of them at his pleasure whether he and his wife live together or not”(Bodichon 4). In Bodichons remarks, she characterizes this as women being legally robbed of her property by her husband. Helen’s attitude toward this affair, so unfazed, showcases the familiarity she has with this situation – she has no agency to discourage it or any mode of justice.

Question: Later in the novel, when Huntington is dying, she makes him sign a document/written agreement with a witness before seeing Arthur. I wondered where this falls concerning standard practice – would a written agreement have any validity in the legal world? If so, was this an alternative women could look to if the existing laws did not fit in with their marital circumstances, but, as we have witnessed, it takes the acquiescence of their husband. As for child custody, it mentions in the Bodicon reading that “During the lifetime of a sane father, the mother has no rights over her children…”(Bodichon 5), but would alcoholism have been viewed as means to categorize someone unfit and give the mother more rights? 

Quote: 

“Let your eyes be blind to all external attractions, your ears deaf to all the fascinations of flattery and light discourses. – These are nothing – and worse than nothing – snares and wiles of the temper, to lure the thoughtless to their own destruction. Principle is the first thing, after all; and next to that good sense, respectability, and moderate wealth. If you should marry the handsomest, and most accomplished and superficially agreeable man in the world, you little know the misery that would overwhelm you, if, after all, you should find him to be a worthless reprobate, or even an impractical fool”(112).

Comment: 

This quote gave me a strong feeling of foreshadowing the events of Helen’s future marriage, which seems to prove true. Yet, moving out of the confines of the plot, I saw an opening into what women considered when talk of marriage arose. Helen’s aunt is her mother figure for her, and because Helen’s age of 18 is mentioned, we can deduce that it is about that age when society felt women should start thinking of marrying. Remembering the laws surrounding marriage from the Bodichon reading, what her aunt is relaying might feel quite cautionary and too serious from Helen’s perspective; knowing how much of a woman’s autonomy is given up after marriage in the eyes of the law it makes perfect sense for mothers or women authority figures to engrain such a cautionary mindset in young women.

Question: 

This quote also made me think of a part in Barbra Leigh Smith’s remarks section where she says, “It is always said, even by those who support the existing law, that it is in fact never acted upon by men of good feeling. That is true; but the very admission condemns the law, and it is not right that the good feeling of men should be all that a woman can look to for simple justice. This is the usual argument to support all bad laws” (9). I wondered how we might extend the work Brontë is laying out for us here, that women must be cautious and consider men when marrying not for looks, accomplishments, or even love but as this type of cover against the law. If women have no legal recognition after marriage, they must ensure their husbands will not give them a reason to need legal protection. This very case, I feel, is what Helen is struggling with – she does not realize how defenseless her position becomes when attaching herself to a man like Huntington and why there is such an aversion to her feelings toward him from her aunt, who has learned the constraints of a woman’s power. Also, I might ask how this novel paints a “man of good feeling” that differs from those who would put women in a negative place within the law. 

QCQ #1 

Quote: “A man and woman are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture. A woman’s body belongs to her husband; she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus (4). 

Comment: These two laws concerning women seem to encapsulate the themes in many of the more specific laws covered by these pages. When first stated that a man and woman become one when we think of this today; it reads as a nice sentiment and often has religious implications of unity and harmony in a spiritual. Yet, after looking at the rest of the laws and the context of how little agency women had in marriage, it really reads that it isn’t one person shared by two governing bodies but just the absorption of the woman. Also, considering the image we looked at as a class of the life and age of women, it holds true in the law that women are at their most powerful when single. Although I find it interesting that, socially and culturally, it was the norm for women to be in charge of the household and children, the laws that reflect the role of women regarding children hold all the responsibilities to the husband. 

Question: I wonder when socially, the sentiments turned toward women being the most likely to take custody of their children and, most often, the decision maker regarding their upbringing. I also noticed in Brontë’s novel that in the scene where Gilbert and his family address Mrs. Markim’s ability to raise her son, the level of outspokenness seems so progressive, and I wonder about the reception of this part in particular from critics and the public. I remember Brontë mentioning in her preface the critiques of her novel, but with the laws surrounding marriage during this period, I would imagine that her ideas would seem entirely atypical, whereas today, it seems perfectly acceptable.