The HistoricalValueof ElizabethGaskell's

N.qrthand South

Patrick McEvoy-Halston
97t2576

History325
Prof.Grant -/
Nov.2811997 ,/
,/
/
/
1'./ i
'rl
i
t_ )il
 ''
.,1 ' ,-

What useis a work of fiction like North and Southasa historical sourcegf lhe socialimpact

of the IndustrialRwolution on England? It is a wort of the time, so perhapsa historiancould

/'
V seethenovelasa reflection withNorthandSouth.
society.Certainly
of Englishindustrial the

ofthe'old society'.,u/rft
worddfind descriptions
historian E cr.Ur'*fi**, JLU" *nooo
.,, , ,;li
"t,,.

societyandHellstone'svillagelif{,andgrthe'newsociety]'yithMltbn.Thehistorianu/edd.-o

typical,of thedifferentsortsof peoplethatcouldbe

perhaps
alsoXintoduoed to characters,

in bothlvorlds. Swely,sucha workis a goldmineof informationfor thehistorian

enoountered
I|ol,rt,r,{^',
thetimel-pdt rrtat aboutthefactthatit is a wor* offiction. Is not fiction
seekingto understand
i"r 'r ' r' '{
' with.townnames
makebelieve, thatdo notexist?Is it nota
like Milton, andcharacters
it\

by onlyoneperson,andtherebynecessarily
-,.' reflectionof thetimesasexperienced limitcdin
al 'g -irL:-.: Jfu5 iar-tt Ar s
breadth?.dtaintedreflectionat thatlfthe biasesthat an authorsurelyhas. beludhg the (<
A
unavoidablebiasof being someoneofthe time, lacking possession of the clear view ofthe

outlinesof a period cflke that only temporaldistancecanprovide. Perhaps,the cautious-

historianmight well be carefulwith sucha work. This goldenteasure, despiteappeorances,

might well be falseto the core!

Ye! still, how well do thesecomplaintson tlre reflectivevalueof a work like North and
..t*^ 4
gegh stand-closeexaminationl Thc criticism that it is a wort of fiction, mustbe viewed in the
A

desirea workof fantasyto allowescape

contextof thetimes,Ifthe writer'saudience ftom

humdrumlives,assomenynovelsservein morerecenttimes,thensurelyenormous
skeptioism

mirrorof societywouldbe
towardsthenotionthata novclcouldserveasanaccurete

desiredtheirfictionto be 'real', to resemble

Whatif, though,thear.rdience
appropriare. their

ascloselyaspossible?Iftue, thenperhaps
ownexperienc€s theworkto be
undentanding

theinventednamesof placesandpeopledonot lie but

fictionalcouldbemisleading.Perhaps
 -a-

reflectan archetypeof what areessentiallytypical placesandpeopleonernightfind in England

duringthe IndustrialRevolution? How differentwould this be from a historianselectinga

subjectto studyfor its capacityto bestrepresentwhat is typical of a periodof time, be it a

certainwork of art, of architecture,etc.? By offeringa reflectionof an essenceof a certain

place,or class,perhapswc arebeingoffereda very valid form of truth.

Whataboutthe criticism thatthe truth to be found in a work of a novelistis necessarily

limited by beingthe work of only oneperson,offeringonly onepoint of view? If this is so,then

not only novelsare suspect,but so is any work of writing not blessedby beingthe productof a

collaborativeeffort. Would a historiandoubtthe work of H,, Perkin'sstudyof the time, Qri4ns

;I

OfMode.q Engli+hSocietyfor this r€ason.,Certainlythe historianwould take into accountthat

Hl t
Perkit/ Oru*r from countlessotherstudiesdoneby countlessnumbersof otherpeoplein
t' f

writing his book. I#'yernn offersthe historianhis voice,but his voiceinformedby the voicesof
,'./;.. :
*: ti- :**.,''
many. The same is true of&. Gaskell. North,apdSoUthdetails worlds-she is quite familiar-widt;

surely,shehad;r r;;rlo *rr, andknow#lv^*r,othe draws* whengivingvoiceto

Thornton,the industrialist,Nicholasthe labourer,h{r. Lennoxthe lawyer,or Mr. Bell the

o '
scholar.Her work,too, is informedby thevoicesof many r , ..
?. 1"': ,'',r,," ,', *
"l
To dismissthe work for beingof its time, andthuswithoutthe benefittime allowsto make

clear what is unescapablyfoggy to contemporaries,is also somewhatunfair. The novel cannot

offer temporaldistance,true,but the authordoesoffer the historiana certainsenseof distance.

which shouldbe considered.If a historianis willing to creditDe Tocqueville'saccountof the

natureof early Americansocietyascrediblefor offering a view from {r Oetachedoutsider,

I

perhapsthe historianwould creditE. Gaskell'sfictional accountof industrializingEnglandfor

the samereason. True, shewasat homein both north and southEngtand,but dfbeing a person
 -3-

onewayof livinBr
hasthesamechanceasDeTocquevilleffi to compare
of bothworlds,she
J

with anotherthat is substantiallydifferent. This allowsa sortof distance,a chanceto observea

L2e-*'''-"t
way of life as^ofdparticularsort,amongstothers, not limited asa firm nativemight be in being
/r

consciousof only one.

Surely,though,thereis someadvantageparticularto beinga work from a personof the time,

particularlyfrom an observerwith remarkableobservationskills suchasa novelistlikep.

Gaskell. If only a historianwft somecredibility,shehasmuch

would allow her observations
j

to offer. For example, North Erd So,uthoffers the readerthe acquaintanceof Nicholas,who the

readercomesto know asprizingthe freedomavailableto him in Milton. By comingto know

him, the readermight be convincedthat life in a northernindustrialtown might havesomemerit

evenfor thosewho workedin the pollutedfactories. The readermight be preparedto acceptthat

be true thatthe only way to get peopleto live sucha liferis to offer little
it maynot necessarily

choice. Ifthis doesreflecta truth, how elsebut from the closepersonalcontactwith a

lthu
labourerofferedby this novel,would hirtorianconvincehimselflherselfthat this might be true.
' "
1,,
1.'t
' ! .

. +'
thatsurelyevenstatisticsofone sortor anothercouldnotcompletely
Thisis anobstacle
"t
l f

Lt.\ overcome.Thenasty,blach crowded,evil industrialtownas,in someways,good!

t .,

Ye! still, thereis legitimatereasonfor doubtingtherpflectivevalueofa workof fiction,even

onewherewe suspect wouldbereceptiveto, andexpecta tue reflectionof

thattheaudience

{ \
'. ,.L
7 ?
*
maywell notbeopento thedepictionof all
theirownworldfromtheauthor.Theaudience
4

4 i",
. rt-t
+- l
tuth. WithNorthandSouthfor example,thereisf t anymentionof sex.Shouldthehistorian :..tl
N t
t

i ,:.'

. ,-{* that thelivesof menandwomenin industrialBritishsocictywaseveryningf.

thenassume
,i:,
l ,i. ,nt
\! !-'

Gaskelldepicts,ontywitiiadditionof sex. this is suspec!surelysucha neatdivisionof E/a

'uf i '
*
naturalimpulsefromall othersis hardto imagine. -
,J ''
,t' -"

, f

i'i
i LLJ
 -+-

Thereis alsoa moreprofoundreasonfor suspecting

the reflectivevalueof a novel'swork,

than the limitations imposedon an authorby his or her audience.What if an authorchoseto

.T

depict his or her time, with the intentionof subtlyshapingthe depictionfor personalbenefiil If
J,
of IndustrialEngtishSbcietyasbathedin a conflict between
oneaccefit#' / Perkdns:view

dl8J*orts fromautho$ hke}f. Gaskell

then,knowingthemassaudience
warringideologies,

recdic{ perhapsthe historianoughtto considerthe work asa part of this ideologicalbattle.

Much of the novel is seenthroughthe perspectiveof MargaretHale, who the readerknows

belongsnot completelyto eitherNorthernor SouthernEnglishsociety.As shedescribes,and

of differentclassesshe
weighsthe relativemeritsof opinionsolthe variousrepresentatives

meets,the readermight neversuspectthat Margare! andher creator,might belongto their own

classwith their own selfrerving ideology.

j _ r

Margaretremindsthe readerof $- Perkinsdescriptionof membersof the professionalclass,

t
whotffi includqauthorswiththeirnewlyacquired ff. Cattttt
respectability.
LL)

doesnotmatchlS Perkins ,*u.tif rilii"r

description herbeing
canhardlyimagine
t',

but so muchelsefits. i,t pr*in saysthat professionals

disinterested, sawthemselvesashaving
L

to keepsocietyfunctioning. In No4h and

importantservicesto perform,servicesneeessary

Sgu&, both the labourer,Nicholas,andthe industrialist,Thornton,cometo understand,to a

certainextent, eachother'sposition.This is throughMargaret'shelp. What seemsto be implied

bVF Gaskellis that without goodcitizenslike lvlargaret,reconciliationbetweenthe classes

i
migtrt be impossible,they woul$& understandeachother. Margaret]rowever,is blessedby
' o'i -rvr-
il r*..t .*
comingto know them alloattunid to ttrc real merit in eachof their positionr]1"*' ihr^^
A
advantageous position of not beingdirectly involved. Is this depictiol;hen..thework of an

ideologueshapingthe depictionof the confrontationbetweenemployerandemployeein a work

 -
'5-
J .

of fictioq soasto placeparticularimportance

F^"role of thecducatdmiddtemaruthc
A
.p'(pofessional? Ifso,caatbowortbctnrebdtobct€flccdvcofsocialrealities?
ce bcmd€.It docs qucstiooablc
sc€m t Pe
o, nirtori",o{CIrittri
I ^-Vn / ' thcqaftir vcrdict
Firally, - t 'i
'Y I " iagi_u^r,o
'-'"
otiat
t accdmcvyothofanovplasaccurdclyrcflcctingapaiodoftime,wittoutsubst " i
'
./ i hrro\^tqil 4; tlt2^ru3l *rAt S<"'t"t- u"1.rtl

,,lrpi ThcrcarcioomtrynossffoniiArisnForandely
,'/*rrmrWwidencc&omothsrsout\lqr. \;Fr"ft -

l#, f urhicbanrrlhor sbapcs

if a nowlir a mcans
tbougb, thcopinioos perticulady
of orthers, a I'
."*"u o'*-
[*$J
a'E - novrlrvrittendruingftemiast@isisibclfa&ctof J\ b^/\^
:-L ta
t-* oonsiderabl€ thc roleof thearlhor b hehing sbepcsociety,
hi!fioical vahn Undcrstanding ,jj^-^,
,b'*
^eF' L.t*r
^\r,
;*: igtt-t*nryffffJfl|hcrsv€nrl€ofim,Estigntionforsehistoriaal:**. t'.."a"1
fri' .
u. d;#*.r-{ffiF*importanccofttesr,cyoroo,,elrg+rrc3t* k r"t.-
t I s.*,1, at e$*l ;**L- tt'- t ul
". t.-ti _ .l
'$J',r" \
""t5{tistortnsectinsloundcrstudapcriod*tro+ltn*r*eli*musUatseelfT'
'lrL'-o
Sr-uJ,^J
{lsl +a h-.'
V.'rArl*d
-n;+otu*
.vr

g
.tW\r\-Q&*A A*.at

e!*t t
 '6-
: .2"

L--'

roor.NQIES

, 1969),p. 255.
| , HaroldPerkin,Originsof ModernEnglishSpciety(NewYork Routledge

) t Perkin,griginsof ModernEnglishSociety,p.259.
 -7-

Bibliography

Gaskell,Elizabeth.NorthandSoulh.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1982,

Perkin,Harold.Qriginpof Mpder.n SociEry.NewYork Routledge,l969

Englis,h t
P. McEvoy-Halston

This essay poses a number of relevant questions in seeking to

assess the value of using a novel , such as North and South, Ets a
historical source on the impact of the Industrial Revolution on
England. It addresses several salient issues, including the
problem of bias and temporal distance. The general argument
advanced is that, despite these problehsr the novel does have value
to the historian. As noted on page 2t bias exists in all sourcest
and the lack of temporal distance is not necessarily a draw-back.
To serve as a useful source, it is argued, Gaskell's depiction of
the period need only be accorded a measure of credibility (page 3)'
Indged, it has to be viewed as credible before it can be employed
as a source (please see the comment in the nargin on page f): Yett
why should the historian view anything in the book as reliable?
How is the historian to gauge the accuracy and representativeness
of Gaskell's depiction of the period? Sirnply because she lived
through these events and wrote about them does not in and of itself
prove that the picture presented is trustworthy. Presumably thg
historian can bnly ascertain the historical reliability and
veracity of the novel by reading other sources in conjunction with
Gaskell7s account. The historian needs to obtain corroborating
evidence. This point is finally made in the paper on page 5t given
the logic of the argument being advanc€d, it needed to be made on
page i. The way the discussion on page 3 is structured at the
inoirent it is nof clear that the general point made on page 5 is
recognized to be applicable.
The fact that information about sexuality is left out of the
novel does not necessarily detract from the value of the book as a
historical source on the period. That this and other topics are
not addressed can tell us a great deal about the sensitivities of
the Victorian reading public and the publishing trade. Often lre
can learn as much from what has been omitted from a prirnary source
as vre can from what has been included.
In terms of writing style, there are some incomplete sentences
in this paper and some of the sentences are ov€r-wordy. Aim for a
clear, crisp style; flowery writing can have the effect of
obscuring the points being advanced. Avoid contractions in
scholarly writing (eg. , use rris notrr instead of rtisn'trr ) . Watch
use of the possessivei for example, on page 4t there are several
places in whicn ttPerkinsrr needs to be repl-aced with trPerkiDt stt ,
whereas ltauthor, sfr needs to be replaced with rrauthorsrt . Do not
split the inf initive forn of a verb: ttto easily acceptrt is
incorrect i the correct form is either |teasily to acceptrr or frto
accept easilytt. Just on a point of style, in the first reference
to an individual he/she should be mentioned by his/her full name -
vLz. E. Gaskell. After that it is not necessary to use his/her
full name, that is unless more than one individual of the same last
name is being discussed.

clsu