Well said!
2 Likes
- Did you like Frederick? Were you sympathetic to his predicament?
I’m of two minds on this one. I like Frederick. He takes a big risk by coming back to England to see his dying mother. He’s kind and sensitive, and genuinely loves his family. But I don’t think we’re supposed to admire Frederick. The easy conversion to Catholicism would have been distasteful to Gaskell and much of her audience. And mutiny—even if he’s on moral high ground—is a big deal. I think Gaskell subtly suggests that a man with more strength of character would have stayed the course and gone through proper channels on his return. There’s something about Frederick that just might be a little bit…volatile.
Margaret took in his appearance and liked it. He had delicate features, redeemed from effeminacy by the swarthiness of his complexion, and his quick intensity of expression. His eyes were generally merry-looking, but at times they and his mouth so suddenly changed, and gave her such an idea of latent passion, that it almost made her afraid.
In the Goodreads discussion of North and South, a poster writes:
If you read carefully, you can see that Gaskell is casting Fredrick as rather impetuous. So although the mutiny has some moral credibility, there might have been room to doubt Frederick’s judgment here. I really like Gaskell’s constant challenge, though, to blandly following authority in various aspects. She seems to be making the reader ponder when and where it is important or wise to follow individual conviction as opposed to obeying/following the regular rules/authority.
I think this is so true! Like Frederick, Mr. Hale faces his own version of “following individual conviction as opposed to obeying/following the regular rules/authority.” And Nicholas Higgins does the same, when he pushes back against the will of the masters by leading the strike.
Mr. Thornton tells Margaret early on that “despotism is the best kind of government” for his workers, “so that in the hours in which I come in contact with them I must necessarily be an autocrat.” But this opinion gradually loses its force as he engages more with Nicholas. Later describing the lunchroom, he says:
“I rather obeyed the men’s orders conveyed through the housekeeper, than went by my own judgment…I think they saw how careful I was to leave them free, and not to intrude my own ideas upon them; so, one day, two or three of the men—my friend Higgins among them—asked me if I would not come and and take a snack.
Autocrat no longer.
And finally, near the end of the book, Margaret decides that she will no longer be “docile to her aunt’s laws":
…she had learnt in those solemn hours of thought, that she must one day answer for her own life, and what she had done with it; and she tried to settle that most difficult problem for women, how much was to be utterly merged in obedience to authority, and how much might be set apart for freedom in working.
It’s a running theme throughout the novel — both the oppressed and the oppressors are struggling, searching for a middle ground between absolute adherence to authority and complete free will.
2 Likes
I wondered about Frederick. He seemed kind and loving. He risked his life going to England to visit his mother. I couldn’t help but wonder if he was on the right or wrong side of the mutiny. We really only got his point of view.
1 Like
I enjoyed the Schmoop summary of Frederick. Schmoop descriptions always give me a laugh and they’re usually spot-on:
3 Likes
Frederick was an interesting character.
I thought the relationship with Nicholas/Bessy/sister seemed far fetched. The idea of encouraging cross-class interaction is nice, but I’m surprised readers of the day liked it.
1 Like
I have a somewhat different take on Frederick. Remember Lydia in P&P. Her behavior causes her family pain and needed secretiveness; Frederick’s behavior causes his family pain and needed secretiveness. Fortunately in both cases the secrets get revealed (Higgins/and Lizzie’s aunt) but only to … Thornton and Lizzie respectively … Our favorite couples reunite.
In North and South Frederick has now fulfilled his character’s purpose as unidentified male with Margaret, never to be needed in the book again. He conveniently marries Dolores and lives happily ever after in Spain. Thornton is relieved that Margaret is not acting with impropriety - it’s her beloved brother, not lover - and Margaret’s lie is understood.
I’m a touch cynical about Frederick and his scandal. Poor man … used by Gaskell … and then booted out of the story.
4 Likes
I think Frederick has more of a purpose than a Lydia-esque plot device (though I agree that in both cases, their reckless behavior causes pain and chaos for the family).
As I mentioned above, I think Frederick’s story reinforces the authority vs. rebellion conflict that so many of the characters are dealing with. But I also think Frederick is present as a contrast to Thornton and his concept of what it means to be a man. At one point, Thornton describes the difference between being “a man” and being “a gentleman”:
“A man is to me a higher and completer being than a gentleman.…’gentleman’ is a term that only describes a person in his relation to others; but when we speak of him as ‘a man,’ we consider him not merely with regard to his fellow-men, but in relation to himself,—to life—to time—to eternity. A cast-away lonely as Robinson Crusoe—a prisoner immured in a dungeon for life—nay, even a saint in Patmos, has his endurance, his strength, his faith, best described by being spoken of as ‘a man.’ I am rather weary of this word “gentlemanly,” which seems to me to be often inappropriately used, and often, too, with such exaggerated distortion of meaning, while the full simplicity of the noun ‘man,’ and the adjective ‘manly’ are unacknowledged—that I am induced to class it with the cant of the day.”
Frederick is a gentleman by birth, but is he a man? I would say not by Thornton’s standards, if you consider how the mutiny reflects (or affects) Frederick’s “endurance, his strength, his faith.”
The word “manly” is never used to describe Frederick. He is, however—more than once–called the "young gentleman.” Whereas, when Margaret first describes Thornton, she tells her mother that he is “nothing remarkable—not quite a gentleman…altogether a man who seems made for his niche.” It wasn’t intended as a compliment, but in retrospect, it definitely was.
As for Frederick’s “happily ever after,” I hope so, for Dolores’ sake. But her name does mean “Sorrow” in Spanish. Who can say whether that might be a bit of literary foreshadowing?
In any case, I hope Frederick and Dolores are happy long enough to allow Margaret and Thornton to enjoy a pleasant honeymoon visit in Cadiz.
4 Likes
If this were a historical novel, I would say the author had taken some liberties with the social mores of the time by having Margaret walk about unescorted at all hours and befriend the lower classes. But it must have been behavior that was at least possible in Manchester in 1855 (when North and South was written) – which would have been a very different place from Meryton in 1813 (when Pride and Prejudice was written).
I had the exact same thoughts. And as we know there was some push back on the befriending.
I thought the whole conversation around creating the lunch room was fascinating. Nicholas was adamant that the bulk of the work needed to be done by the workers. He wanted to own the project. I thought Gaskell was pretty spot on about the psychology of hand outs vs hand ups.
Oh and I just have to throw this out there because I thought it was hilarious. Margaret’s father is chiding Margaret for being “quite prejudiced against Mr. Thornton”. She then replies, “He is the first specimen of a manufacturer- of a person engaged in trade - that I had ever the opportunity of studying, papa. He is my first olive: let me make a face while I swallow it.”
6 Likes
@mathmom, I love the olive comment. 
There are some pithy lines in the book, many of which come from Mr. Bell. I enjoyed his flippant humor. For example, when Margaret tells him about her troubled conscience, he responds:
"I always keep my conscience as tight shut up as a jack-in-a-box, for when it jumps into existence it surprises me by its size. So I coax it down again, as the fisherman coaxed the genie.”
He’s mischievous, too, when visiting the new Vicar and his wife: “Margaret feared that Mrs. Hepworth would find out that Mr. Bell was playing upon her, in the admiration he thought fit to express for everything that especially grated on his taste."
I see Mr. Bell as much more of a deus ex machina character than Frederick. His late appearance in the novel 1) gives Margaret the opportunity to discover that her beloved Helstone is not, in fact, a paradise (omg, the roasted cat 
); and 2) unexpectedly turns Margaret into a very rich woman, which sets the stage for her final, successful meeting with Mr. Thornton.
1 Like
I took the lazy way with this selection, only watched the mini series, which I loved !
Move over Darcy and Elizabeth,
move over Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester,
and Scarlet and Rhett,
adding Margaret and John to epic love story couples.
But, I will remember this one, fondly, because of the political / economic class structure commentary! Yes, @Mary13, the socialistic elements appealed to me, and I will remember Gaskell as an empathic, feminist, commentator about the labor movement in England, mid 1850s.
Interesting Milton was based on the real city of Manchester, where Engels, and Marx would meet.
Marx would visit Manchester in 1845, seeing the inequalities and struggles of the working class.
But, Gaskell’s Unitarian beliefs, her husband was a minister instilled in her the ability ,to see all sides of things, having faith that dialog between dissenting groups, would end in harmony.
She didn’t depict the Thornton’s owners of production, the evil enemies, as all bad. Nope, John Thornton would Break Bread, with the workers, he would see their humanity.
I loved the ending and thinking of Margaret, A WOMAN and John, controlling the “ means of production “ as humane, benevolent, and more civilized mill owners. Hope for society.
Re: Frederick, which his presence mini series , as @ignatius says to create mystery and jealousy between our star crossed lovers, but Gaskell also, sprinkles the idea of
“Abuse of power” on the high seas, of the need for MUTINY against evil authoritarian figures. She also questions the fairness of the legal system, too.
Another example of Gaskell’s portrayal of “power” struggles between groups of people.
Yes,North and South is Jane Austen sprinkled with socialism, and I’m a fan.
7 Likes
“The German industrialist and Marxist philosopher Friedrich Engels lived in Manchester in the early 1840s and was employed by his father’s cotton thread manufacturing firm in Weaste.
During his time in Manchester Engels made many detailed observations leading to the publication of his influential work The Condition of the Working Class in England.
Karl Marx, who lived in London, was a frequent visitor to Manchester, and in the summer of 1845 he and Engels developed the habit of studying together at the table in the alcove of the Reading Room.
Evidently the Library made a strong impression on the two men. Writing to Marx many years later in 1870 Engels commented: “During the last few days I have again spent a good deal of time sitting at the four-sided desk in the alcove where we sat together twenty-four years ago. I am very fond of the place. The stained glass window ensures that the weather is always fine there. Old Jones, the Librarian, is still alive but he is very old and no longer active. I have not seen him on this occasion”.
“ Originally addressed to a German audience, the book is considered by many to be a classic account of the universal condition of the industrial working class during its time. The eldest son of a successful German textile industrialist, Engels became involved in radical journalism in his youth. Sent to England, what he saw there made him even more radical.
In 1844, in Paris, Engels met and formed his lifelong intellectual partnership with [Karl Marx.
1 Like
@Mary13 In the novel do you expect Mr Bell, to have romantic intentions ? He appears in the mini series, half heartedly asks Margaret, to marry him and when she refuses he gives her all his money, conveniently goes off to die. 
Themes[edit]
Unitarianism urges comprehension and tolerance toward all religions and even though Gaskell tried to keep her own beliefs hidden, she felt strongly about these values which permeated her works; in North and South, “Margaret the Churchwoman, her father the Dissenter, Higgins the Infidel, knelt down together. It did them no harm.”[30][31]
I feel like he wants to make sure she has a place to go. I don’t think he pictures her happy living with her aunt Shaw and Edith. It’s also why he insists she pays for room and board while staying there and has the money to leave when she chooses.
I know Edith loves her in her own way but that way includes Margaret fulfilling a subservient role.
5 Likes
There’s no half-hearted proposal (“I’m a bachelor, and have steered clear of love affairs all my life”), but the spirit of it is there — meaning that Mr. Bell adores Margaret and would be pleased to live out his days with her in his household. At one point, he suggests—mostly in jest–to Mr. Hale:
“…you and Margaret should come and live at the parsonage—you to be a sort of lay curate, and take the unwashed off my hands; and she to be our housekeeper—the village Lady Bountiful—by day; and read us to sleep in the evenings. I could be very happy in such a life. What do you think of it?”
Then he wonders if he can find a spouse for her at Oxford, half-kidding:
“I can’t match her yet. When I can, I shall bring my young man to stand side by side with your young woman, just as the genie in the Arabian Nights brought Prince Caralmazan to match with the fairy’s Princes Badoura.”
And finally, in a serious moment (when traveling to tell Margaret about her father), he says to Mr. Thornton:
“I would take a live dragon into my house to live, if, by hiring such a chaperon, and setting up an establishment of my own, I could make my old age happy with having Margaret for a daughter.”
But Mr. Bell knows that would be no life for Margaret. He has a keen eye and sees the attraction between her and Mr. Thornton that the others have missed.
When he mentions it to Margaret’s father, Mr. Hale says, “…why Margaret would never think of him, I’m sure! Such a thing has never entered her head!” Mr. Bell responds, “Entering her heart would do.”
And when he mentions it directly to Mr. Thornton on the train, the response is curt, but revealing: “Mr. Bell,” said he, “before you speak so, you should remember that all men are not as free to express what they feel as you are.”
I think he’s “feeling out” Mr. Thornton, looking for other options for Margaret. As @ignatius said – searching for an alternative to Aunt Shaw and family.
3 Likes
Mr. Bell clearly loves Margaret, but I think as a father not a lover. I think in another era he’d have been written as gay.
6 Likes
@jerseysouthmomchess, that’s interesting about Marx and Engels. Gaskell must have been familiar with The Condition of the Working Class in England, as it was written a decade before North and South.
Per an academic essay I found online:
The first Marxist critic of the work of Elizabeth Gaskell was probably Marx himself. He included Gaskell as one of the “splendid brotherhood (sic) of fiction-writers in England, whose graphic and eloquent pages have issued to the world more political and social truths than have been uttered by all the professional politicians, publicists and moralists put together.” But he also found her middle class characters “full of presumption, affectation, petty tyranny and ignorance.”
Gaskell and Marx never met, but they had a mutual acquaintance, William Rathbone Greg. Greg was a textile mill owner in Manchester, who “advocated firm but benevolent management without any meddling from unions or from parliament.” He was fiercely critical of Gaskell’s first industrial novel, Mary Barton.
Although Greg was an outspoken foe of Gaskell’s novel, he was also a family friend, and Gaskell seems to have taken his criticism quite seriously. Seven years after Mary Barton was published, in 1855, she published a second industrial novel. North and South was also set in a textile town and also peopled with militant union members, and it explicitly discussed problems of political economy, not only in heated conversations between masters and men but also woven into the unfolding of the plot.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000117303534
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. The English edition wasn’t published until in 1887 in New York and in London in 1891. That said, she did travel to Germany and certainly floated around in circles that may well have discussed it.
2 Likes