The Relationship of Social Mobility and Parentage in The Hand of Ethelberta and Mary Barton

In The Hand of Ethelberta and Mary Barton, the strong relationship between parentage and social mobility is evident, particularly the maternal relationship and effect on the female protagonists, with the latter being dictated and restricted by the former. As such, Gaskell and Hardy present the harsh Victorian gender roles at play in their respective novels, as neither Mary nor Ethelberta are allowed to move freely through class boundaries on their own accord, rather they both are presented with the possibility of severe repercussions for transgressing against their apparent social class. Ethelberta cannot abandon her family ties and live isolated, yet she simultaneously cannot abandon the image and persona she has created for herself in London whilst Mary cannot attempt to achieve social mobility in fear that she will be outcast from society and end up in a position lower than the one she inherited from her family, like her aunt Esther.

During the Victorian era, motherhood was deemed to be a woman’s highest achievement and so was idealised in society, with many women aspiring wholly to become mothers and nothing else. In her article Ideals of Womanhood in Victorian Britain, Abrams states that ‘the ideal of true motherhood demanded women be constantly present for their children’ with their doting role consuming their entire life and focus, completely restricting them from contributing economically to the household and undertaking paid work. As such, this meant that mothers, particularly those who were of a working or lower class, were bound to exist within the realm of the domestic sphere wherein they had to be sacrificing, caring and all knowing. Victorians undertook the notion that mothers alone were responsible for their children’s upbringing, solely accountable and entrusted by their husbands and society at large to cover all areas of development and essentially ensure they raise moral, intellectual children who were also physically and spiritually whole. Without a doubt, this was the only time mothers, and women in general, were granted agency to adopt superior authority, yet this could only occur within the domestic realm.

The absence of the mother and the role of the acting mother figure in Mary Barton is particularly interesting to note as Gaskell purposefully omits Mrs Barton from the narrative through her early death, leaving young Mary a “motherless girl”. Mary herself declares that “… mother died before I was thirteen, before I could know right from wrong about some things…” blaming her mistakes and errors to the absence of her mother, failing to take accountability for her own actions as she believed that “if mother had but lived, she would have helped me”. She believes she would’ve had a better moral compass or at the very least, regulations to stick to if her mother had been alive in order to steer her away from doing wrong and ultimately teaching her how to be ‘proper’. Her father, John, too was unable to help her as the job of raising and educating children was strictly assigned to women, as mentioned previously, which allowed Mary to have a rare independence and the ability to make decisions for herself, albeit she was initially making the wrong ones, she self-corrects her errors throughout the course of the novel. This freedom and independence meant that Mary was able to manoeuvre out of the rigid confines of her social class, even if it was fleeting, and momentarily detach herself from the social stigmas associated with her class. This however, as expected, doesn’t last long as her naivety meant that although she is able to use her beauty as a means to gain wealth and a higher social status, ‘her “plan” is not well-thought-through and relies on Carson’s undissembling acceptance of her as a valid partner in marriage’ as Jung argues in their essay Liminal Feminiity in Gaskell’s Mary Barton and Wives and Daughters. Whilst young, shallow Mary believed her beauty should make her a “lady” and marriage was the mode in which to do so, relying solely on Carson to change her station in society, her rash courting making her blind to the fact that she loves another man, Jem. Her desire and idealisation of potentially being a lady drives her to totally disregard her father’s urges that she shouldn’t be like her aunt Esther, forgetting the harsh fate she faced for transgressing against society. In her aim to elevate her position, Mary did not consider that the failure of her relationship with Carson has a very severe and very realistic possibility of causing her to be stripped of her already low status and becoming a social outcast. As such, the absence of her mother is most noticeable here through her flawed character and thus evidences the relationship between parentage and social mobility - whilst her father did his best to instil his beliefs in Mary, her mother wasn’t there to enforce it on her and so, the decline in her social status was evermore possible.

Differing from Mary’s notion of her supposed need of a mother, Gaskell doesn’t present a direct relationship between having a mother and necessarily being a good or ‘sound’ virtuous woman in the novel. This is most apparent through the character of Sally, who is described as being “vulgar-minded” despite having a mother who could’ve assisted her to become a proper and virtuous young woman. Rather, her mother encourages her behaviour and has the same demeanour as her daughter. This is then highly contrasted to the character of Margaret, presented as being a virtuous young woman and opposing that of Mary herself, yet despite this, Margaret was raised by her grandfather without a female figure. As such, perhaps Mary is flawed in blaming the absence of her mother as a cause for her behaviour and she should rather divert this blame onto her father, who was present during her adolescence. John Barton’s depression shortly after the death of his wife however, lead him to heavily increase his involvement in the Union as a Chartist, spending increasingly less time with Mary. In doing so, he fails to pass on his beliefs of class and social inequalities effectively onto Mary, rather she eventually adopts the need to help others when she internalises Jem’s feelings for her and saves his life - effectively learning from her lover what she could’ve from her father. In doing so, Gaskell undermines the Victorian notion that female virtue and behaviour is a direct result of having a relationship between mother and daughter as it doesn’t account for daughters without mothers who are virtuous as well as daughters who are influenced negatively by their own mothers to be promiscuous and frivolous. Gaskell rather demonstrates the many differing internal and external factors that dictates female virtue, particularly considering the role of class in determining how sexual or promiscuous a woman could act whilst still being deemed socially acceptable.

Despite the death of her mother and Mary’s personal beliefs that she had no mother figure, she in fact has several women who seemingly fulfil this role in her life throughout the novel, each with varying amounts of influence on her respectively; including most apparently her aunt Esther and Jane Wilson. Mary, however, fails to recognise that there were other women who could’ve satisfied her desire and longing for a mother as a young woman simply because she lived so frequently in the past and so, was blind to these adequate candidates. Rather than seeking maternal help from other women, Mary seeks her dead mother in her dreams of the past. Though Mary ages and matures throughout the course of the novel, Gaskell presents her in a childlike manner when she dreams, transforming into her young and vulnerable self, with her heart calling on her mother “for aid” as she sees he in her “half-dreamy, half awakened state”. Gaskell does so to heighten the “pitiful” loss Mary faced at such a young age, steering away from undermining the sheer influence this had on her development as a young woman. Evidently, whilst these ‘surrogate’ mother characters could satisfy Mary’s need for a mother, her biological mother could never be replaced and perhaps this lack of an existing relationship with her mother is what restricts her from achieving social mobility as well as the lack of relation and interaction with women of higher positions. This is opposed to Hardy’s Ethelberta who had a relationship with her mother, providing a basis for her moral grounding, as well as one with her mother in law who provided her with a means to sustain her newfound class identity.

In The Hand of Ethelberta, Hardy, like Gaskell omits Ethelberta’s mother from much of the narrative, presenting her as having a stronger relationship with her father instead through their frequent dialogue and communication in the letters they send to each other. In doing so, Mrs Chickerel, who is ill, is stripped from her role as a wife and mother and rather becomes a dependent like her own children on her husband and elder working children, and so she no longer has much of an influence on her children. This reversal of roles of mother and daughter is highlighted by Hardy in the novel so as to justify Ethelberta’s motherly concern for her family and her relentless attempts to raise their position on the social ladder. Ethelberta believes “it is my duty, at all risk and all sacrifice of sentiment, to educate and provide for them. The grown-up ones, older than myself, I cannot help much, but the little ones I can”. Mrs Chickerel is described as having “played the part of mother and wife”, the latter being a more suitable description of Ethelberta, who despite being the middle child, is essentially forced to grow up and act selflessly in order to care for her large family - a role which her mother could no longer fulfil due to her declining personal wellbeing. Ethelberta’s relationship with her family as a whole is severely strained due to the class differences operating within the family.

Evidently, it is not only social station and class that divides the family, other factors also increase the tensions including education, language, beliefs and social experiences which serve only to further split the sense of familiarity between them. In order to be able to sustain and provide for her family, Ethelberta needs multiple sources of stable income due to the sheer size of her family. This is what drives her to consider letting lodgings in her London townhouse, using her house as an area to gain monetary value despite the fact that it could tarnish her position in society and dismantle her image if she was found out. She argues that she must disregard the risk involved in the act as “I have thought over every possible way of combining the dignified social position I must maintain to make my story-telling attractive, with my absolute lack of money, and I can see no better one”. As such, Hardy presents Ethelberta as hopeful yet naïve as in order for her to maintain her image, her family would be forced to play a part in her act. There is a theatrical element to this wishful thinking as everyone has a part to play and is being orchestrated by Ethelberta, who can be seen as somewhat of a director in the play that is her life. In the plotting and planning of her act of class identity, she must recruit her family, creating a cast who essentially are more so workers rather than her relatives. The colloquial language used by Ethelberta’s family members is a representation of their internalisation of working-class culture and is done by Gaskell as a means of resistance against the upper and middle classes, including Ethelberta herself, further dividing them.

Another character in Hardy’s novel that fulfils the role of the mother is Lady Petherwin, who takes Ethelberta under her wing, educating her and raising her to be a fine young woman, she took “a deal of trouble about her education” in order to give her the ability to create a sustainable image for herself and to exist without question or detection in social spaces. Ethelberta shortly became her “daughter and companion”, living under her mother-in-law’s roof with the attached condition that “Ethelberta was never openly to recognise her relations”. Though it may seem harsh and restrictive, in hindsight it is clear to the readers that Lady Petherwin did this to protect Ethelberta and to ensure she maintained her station in society without threat. In order to maintain this station, Ethelberta has to keep up appearances as expected by society and particularly those of her class. She cannot be seen with those of a lower-class position let alone live with her family as she desired and often requested, which Lady Petherwin rightfully declined. It is plain to see that Ethelberta’s relation with her mother-in-law, who was initially and immediately before her death a surrogate mother towards Ethelberta, played an integral role in her ability to partake in social mobility, providing her with the tools to become independent.

It is essentially Ethelberta’s family and parentage that weight her down and totally restrict her from otherwise moving up the social ladder and furthering her station, identity and fulfilling her personal desires. Hardy presents that there is not only an economic strain on Ethelberta to provide, but by adopting the role of the ‘mother’ in the family, she must also heavily invest her emotions through genuine care and frequent contact with them - arguably the latter has the ability to be much more harmful than the other as it leaves her more vulnerable to the possibility of being exposed and outed to reveal her true class background. Both Ethelberta and Mary Barton deem marriage as the initial and accessible means to transform their social positions, relying entirely on their male counterparts to heighten them, in the hopes of taking themselves and their respective families out of poverty and into the comforts of life. Both women however lose this prospect shortly after it became possible, Ethelberta’s husband died prematurely and Mary realised her true feelings were for Jem. Ethelberta however had Lady Petherwin who sustained her, provided for her and educated her in order to enable her independence and validate her position in society. Even after being financially cut off however, Ethelberta provided for herself through her literary work and was able to maintain her class position and social identity - an outcome that wouldn’t have been possible without education and mentoring provided by her “mama”.

Despite large social praise for motherhood in Victorian society, which presumably could be a means to further promote motherhood, women were set up to fail by society by placing them with the burden of total responsibility over their children whilst simultaneously being restricted from having any other form of independence or agency in society - undermining their role. In doing so, men were completely barred from having any involvement, whether it be practical or emotional, in the upbringing of their children. Rather, men were accountable for providing financially for their family, most frequently inhabiting and occurring in spaces that were outside of the home. For working class families, this therefore created tension and responsibility on males to sustain their household as the mother couldn’t contribute economically. This is evidenced by John Barton, who spends most of his time outside of the home, leaving Mary with a sense of freedom and independence in Manchester whilst Ethelberta’s father, like John, is isolated from his family working as a butler in London and thus has minimal influence over the family. It is only in their frequent letters that the latter pair maintains their relationship. The similarity in their “moving” about in the same social spheres is comedic and Hardy uses the character of Mr Chickerel, a butler who performs a role above his assigned social station, to present how seemingly impenetrable circles in society are infiltrated. His private voice allows him to share information clandestinely to this daughter and relate to her in a manner that her other relatives cannot.

Evidently, both Hardy and Gaskell present a strong relationship between parentage, social class and mobility, with the female protagonists in each novel having their chances of social mobility influenced by the class identity of their parents and family. In both cases, it is their biological family that restricts them from changing classes. The most apparent difference between the two women being that although both have the chance to access social mobility early on in the novels, it is only Ethelberta who actually achieves it and is able to change classes, whilst Mary deems her inherited station as safer than ‘moving’. Hardy presents Ethelberta as having the knowledge and capacity to be constantly performing and maintaining a certain image in order to access the social mobility she desires with the assistance and advice of Lady Petherwin. It is integral to note that Ethelberta is presented as an anomaly by Hardy, far from the norm, a woman who survived solely off her work and was able to sustain a family of ten was a conscious dramatic exaggeration and so the character of Ethelberta shouldn’t be particularly read through the lens of realism as opposed to the character of Mary who eventually returns to the realities of her class. In both novels, the authors reflect the hardships and frequent social threats these women faced in their attempts to gain and or sustain social mobility in order to present the possibility of social mobility as a female in Victorian society as rare. It is only with the combination of other factors including but not limited to education, economic support, beauty and intelligence that this becomes a tangible reality. The very fact that there is a happy ending only in Mary Barton could be presenting to individuals that they should maintain their assigned stations in society and operate within the boundaries of society.