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 noveclass="underline" 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).