'!

g41;4*-

Draining the Amazons'Swamp: Civilizing Our Pastin

,l

d
"Our Societyat Cranford"
ElizabethGaskell's {,\,''rl
'I
\'

Patrick McEvoy-H alston

97 12576

English200CS01

Dr. M. E. Leighton

Universityof Victoria

28 March 2002
 McEvoy-Halston I

,, 1
inh/'Our
Gaskell,
Elizabeth Socie
ty atCranford," for herselfa meansof
creates

revisitingthe maternalmatrix from which we all emerge,the long gestationalperiodwith the

mother. As the desirefor symbiosiswith the mother--whois "our original primary sourceof

25)--isalwayswith us, we experiencethroughout

pleasure,security,andidentity'' (Koeningsberg
'return' to thematernalmatrix" (Koeningsberg
our lives 'oaregressive
longingto 26). At the
*u
{Hiriorr"
same trme, as i with the meansTo
mothermeans
Ie moTner to expenence disintegrationof the sel{4a
experienceaa ulsurtcgratru
)

of one'sown self-constructed
disappearance identityraswell asfeelingsof "re-capture"r,bY the
J
"devouringmothrffitto
,l destroysat will or retributively''(Rheingoldl8), this biological,cYeated
--'
"pu11"to make a return soon generatesdesperateattemptsto pull ourselvesback out. It is a

hazardousjourney. However, there are strategiesfor making it an easierone. Gaskell, for

instance,goes on the journey secondhand through a constructednanator; further, she brings

with her "totems" of maleness--thatis, representationsof an "other" that all mothers carry with

them as representingsomething alien and distinct from themselves. Their male essenceacts as a
| * .,
! l

L ,*O^ttnl t ' l,t,' : ' 1a rp t t ' (f ' t ' ti .'' ' , , '
C
the matrix andto effecl anirgeniilub-goal;but
repellent,providingtime for her to re-experience ,t4

'lnanly'' source(the outsideworld), is quickly drained. Gaskell

its potency,detachedfrom its

of malenesswithin her narrativeto

thereforeneedsto generatesuccessiverepresentations

accomplishthe transformationsheis attempting$@4tfin. Her goal is nothinglessthanthe

replacement(the death) of her own internal representationof hermother--the one she projects
,i
onto whaQver object representsher mother on her journeys--with one less terrifying, one less
\, ,
threateningto drain her own individuality from her. She is assistedby men, but it is a heroine's

journey towards a most valuable prrze; after braving such a journeY, and daring such a feat, she

becomes"entitled" and empoweredto keep this transitional "mother" as the one she returns to on

successivefufure journeys.

Before we begin this, our own journey, which likely threatensto be moving inwards to its
 McEvoy-Halston 2

own strangelyalluring (hopefully)while alsomenacing"swamp"(hopefullynot), to help lure the

our readermay
readerin, we will makesomeattemptto anticipatesourcesof apprehension

currentlybe having. l) Thoughwe believe(unlike,say,Freud)thatthe quality of paternalcate

variesenonnouslyandis moreimportantin determiningthe adultpersonalitythanone's sex,our

argumentis based(like Freud)on a biologically fixed way all mothersreactto their differently

sexedchildren. Our studyis not inspiredby thebrilliant work beingdoneon the instabilityof

semanticboundariesover time--theview that stablemeaningsmay satisfya psychicneed,or a

hegemonicpower,but arefalsehoodsin the rhetoricallyconstructeduniversewe cannever

andNew Historicism
escapefrom. We believe,though,thatcriticalschoolsof Deconstruction

offer journeyssimilar to the onewe will be describinghere. They setoff from an "enlightened"

age--oneawareof the fundamentalinstabilityof meaningandof the multiplicity of selves

of criticaltheorieswhich providethe
(deniedto thosetheysetout to "visit")--in possession

powersto safelyorientthemselveson ajourney into amatnxthey associatewith the

-l
&4lte
disintegrationof selfhood. Theytoo areattemptingto effdcttheidown heroism: by

they (ironically) effectorderout of

demonstratinga text's incoherenceandheterogeneousness,
of the
disorder;with the prizebeingthatthey leavethe text, formally a formidablerepresentation

literary canon,"de-fanged"--itbecomesa lessthreateningobjectto "play with" andreturnto

(BarnetandGilbert I 22-123).2) We are identiffrngthe narratorwith the author,but we qualify

this fusion. We seethe narratorin "Our Societyat Cranford"asthe objectgeneratedby the

authorto locateherselfwithin the text; the narrator'sstatus,whether"flattenedout" within the

plural pronoun"we," or stronglyindividuatedwithin the personalpronoun"I," we believeserves

the author'sown "state" ataparticularpointof thetext andto generate

to both represent

plot developments.Sincethe distinctionbetweenauthorandnarratoris so often

subsequent

madethesedays,we acceptour reader'sdisapproval,but askfor an oner(lirindedconsideration

 McEvoy-Halston 3

entriesinto
servesto help makesubsequent
of this possibility: perhapsovrbrazenness

"Cranford" alittle different,andperhapsa little moreinteresting,thanthey hadbeenpreviously.

The first severalparagaphsof the storyestablish,for both the readerandfor Gaskell

herself,that we areaboutto revisit the maternalhome. As childrennaturallyseetheir motheras

vastlymorepowerfulthanthemselves(sheis tneirfirst "god" andthe sourceof their future

2€
senseof godliness), and with the father (especially in the past, but so often thesedays too) often

either largely absentfrom the home, or'odistant" when in the home, the maternalmatrix (i.e.,

home) is a place where the mother "is in charge."l Cranford, as the narrator tells us, "[i]n the
'oisin the possessionof the Amazons" (1453). The Cranford women are
first place" (l 453),

described as if they are best identified by what they have in common with each other as members

theyall"frighten.. .away
of a"clan": theyall"keep... gardensfullofchoiceflowers"(1453);

littleboys" (1a53);they all "rush out at geese"(1a53);they all "decid[e] . . . questionsof

literature and politics without troubling themselveswith unnecessaryreasonsor arguments"

(1a53); they all "obtain . . . clear and correctknowledge of everybody's affairs in the parish"
','!
l'',',
(1a53); they are all "kind . . . to the poor" (1453); they are all "sufficient" (1453). They are all
'
the same. At our entranceinto Cranford we encounterthe devastationto in(r/rduality, to kn'*'
personhood,that returning to the maternal matrix represents.

As we crave the love of our mother and as an attempt to revisit and reclaim this love

t This, we know, goes against most accountspatriarchal family life--especially stories involving female
judge any
emancipation from the home. We wish that no woman (or man) be confined to certain spheres,and
societyihat does so sadly immature. However, we believe that patriarchy in society comes out of experiencesof
matriarchy in the homes. For further exploration of this idea please seeElaine Showalter's essay,"Feminist
Criticism in the Wilderness" in New Feminist Criticism. Showalter, ? prominent feminist scholar, explores the
consequencesof boys spending so many years "under" their motherffessentially saying that this is where patriarchy
comes from. It is a pleasure to encounter a scholar whose first instirlct isn't to explore the relations between the son
and his father. Rareiy, if ever, do boys spend as much time with their fathers as they do with their mothers in their
childhood, yet biogpafhies almost always begin, "so and so's father was a chemist, or aminister . . . " with little or
no mention of their mothers. Our own amendment is this: patriarchy is not inevitabt{)so much dependson the
quality of care between mqfhers and their children. Culture, as Foucault notes, is veqyftagile; it can be completely
re-invented in a generatioffist give girls and boys the love they deserve,and we will live in a society which could
not imagine frustrating anyone's ambitions and dreams.
 McEvoy-Halston 4

motivates our journey, the narrator takes care not to be too critical of the way the mother "keeps

her house." So, despite the description she hasjust presentedof Cranford as a whirlpool from

whichmen "disappeaf'(1453) and into which goesthe Cranford women's individuality, the

narrator assuresherself (and us) that "each [of theseAmazons] has her own individualitt''

(1453). But she immediatelyjuxtaposesthis descriptionof the Cranford women with one clearly

indicative of a collective, sharedpersona. We are told that "good-will reigns among them to a

considerabledegree" (1453). There is only one distinctive individual who residesin Cranford:

the formidable, "devourirg," mother-figure Miss Jenkyns. She is found further into the story--at

its "heart"--rather than along its "perimeter." '

, ,. \'t'
,.
\" r:1"
The journey into Cranford is a journey into the past. Their (Cranford women's) dress is tr(,r,.{,
i i) \ !l
very independentof fashion"( I asf'1yre lasttight andscantypetticoatin wearin England,was \ f \ , -'' =,, '
r0(c' "\
seenin Cranford"( I 453). Specifically,the Victorian Gaskellis creatingaj ourneyto a pastwe
.fl4,.,
, (i''i,tt"!t fl
havealfelneriett"ed: it is ajoumey to our own pastwhenwe weresubject"to rulesand
t
regulations"(l 454)ofour own mothers. The narratortells us that it takesbut a few day!)stayin
'1iberty'' (1454),
Cranfordfor youngpeople(who arejust visiting) to losetheir autonomy,their

theyhoped
presumably,
andto "internalize"(1454)Cranford'srules. Theseareth; samenrules,
A'tt)lr,t0 | &
,.adulthood" and belonging to an outside world might shorn_-th.T But to be in Cranford, for
9f.

Gaskell as well as for us, is to regressto the powerless stateof the child to the mother. It is to re-
o'yourmarnma has told you" (1454) and to find yourself
experiencethe authority of all that

accepting her rule. The result is that we lose our adult senseof autonomy in our speech('ono

absorbing subject was every spoken about" (1454)), in movement ("the inhabitants . . . clattered

t This is somewhat misleading. Some children experiencerules as guidelines (with mature parents); others will
experience them as commandmentsto keep their very bad selves in line (if they are unfortunate enough to be the
chitdren of badly traumatized parents).
 McEvoy-Halston 5

home in their patterns" (1455)), in time ("the whole town was abedand asleepby half-past ten"

(1455)), and in dwelling-place ("baby-houseof a dwelling" (1454)). In her work Nostalgia and

Recollection in Victorian Culture, Ann Coley arguesthat "Cranford" is a creation born out of a

"yearn[ing] for a time and place that seemsto compensatefor and soothethe rough incongruities

of the present" (76). We concur; but considering that such shaping and softening means the

obliteration of one's own distinct personality,we think "Cranford" at least as much, ormore,
fi
\
{\-tl'{
\t
a representsGaskell's attempt to grdercut the longing for such an idyllic past" (Coley 76). In fact,
\ )-\')
" r \\ ."r' - ' \ .i
nl
t*'
'! if we were not driven by our need--setby our early experiencesof our mother as the sourceof
i\," ) r

love and human wannth--to re-experiencethis "idyllic" environment, we would likely prefer to

"skip the trip" altogether.3

Our narrator, in fact, just as she is beginning, with her successivestep-by-stepitemizing

of the particular regressionsCranford involves, to slowly acclimatizeherself to Cranford, pulls

herself "out": sheleavesthis "space" within the text she calls--andwe think of--as Cranford.

She withdraws to her "starting point," her present existencein the city of Orumbl7 She is able

to do so becauseshe has not firmly identifiedhercefbeing, in the presept tghse,within the

/
town of Cranford. Further, she has a "mascu lVAl^ce to return to. This {tu"",this city

Drumble, is associatedwith commercialism, modern technolo Ey, aquickness in pace, and with
i/
an authoritative, almost defining judgment of the "old" as of bad taste. It is a masculine "now"
(r" ' (t
"'.
completelyof its "feminine"past. Sheusesa descriptionof
preparedto ruthlessly_sirornjtself
'eleganteconomy"'(l 455)to remindherselfthat sheis no longer
Mrs Jamiesonas"practic[ing]

in Cranford.Whensherepeatsto herself,"[e]leganteconomy!"(1455),andremindsherselfthat

shewas "fall[ing] back" andhow easyit l,sto "fall backinto the phraseologyof Cranford!"

ofjolts--thetwo
(1455),sheis forcingherselfinto her adultmindsetwith a succession

' Pleaseexcusethe pun.

 McEvoy-Halston 6

exclamationmarks,eachfollowing the other. The na:ratoris losingherselftoo easilywithin the

collectivepronoun"'we" in the text, despiteher attemptsto sustainthe singulat"I." Shebecomes

of smalltalk . . . andwerepunctualto
part of the "we" that "kept ourselvesto shortsentences

to the rulesof Cranford

our time" (1454),adespiteearliertrytng to identify thosewho acquiesced

asyoungvisitorsto the town.

i' At this point in the text the singularpronoun"I" is claimedby the narratorprincipally

v its nature.Fornow,
outsideconcerning
while shestandsoutsideCranfordtestifuingto someone

the "I" is associatedwith the commanding mother-type who transforms the visiting youth and the

narrator into a complicit "we," that is, the one who offers scolding lectures ("I dare say your

marnma has told you, my dear, never to . . . " (1454)) to them. However, the narrator is merely

testing the waters; she knows from the beginning what is required to explore Cranford without so

readily dissolving into a non-entity: sheneedsto bring along "[a] man" (1453): a representative

of--and one metonymically linked to--the "outside world" who will get "in the wat''(la5a) of

the homogenizing forces at work in Cranford.

She createsone; ffid, after her successiveand nearly endlesslisting of the "smothering"

forces at work in Cranford, shebegins her "re-entry" into Cranford with a successivelisting of

the masculine attributes of her guardian--CaptainBrown--which enableshim to resist meekly

conforming to Cranford "laws" when he entersCranford. He is describedas'btazen" (1455),

and he is. He speaksopenly ("abouthis being poor" (1455) "in a public street!"(1455),and "in

a loud military voice!" (1455). He is "invadfing] . . . their territory" (1455). More importantly,

he scaresthem (women of Cranford) with his "connectionwith the obnoxiousrailroad" (1455).

He is empoweredby his "masculine gender" (1455) so that, ratherthan being made to feel like a

child upon entering Cranford, he "ma[kes] himself respectedin Cranford . . . in spite of all

o An accurate synopsis of advice given to freshman studentsof literature?

 McEvoy-Halston 7

to the contrary"(1455).
resolutions
i

The narratorlikely meansfor "masculinegender"to be readas"sex," andthoughh. it ,

,_ i

' i '',
. l i r
. r + l

clearlynotan "ordinary''man,it is of
largelybecause CaptainBrown's sexthattt" s-o
1l j l
I , t
t

,, 1

empoweredto remaina distinctentitywithin Cranford *oq"T automatically. / : '

''.- i

LTl\: !*I"_tl J , t I

" : l

y dffirent fromthem;whereasfemalesare-
reactto their male childrenasif they arefundamentall . l - . . /

, . \
t
l

identifiedby mothers,at somelevel,asessentially&'te*rem.s Thatis, femalechildren(i.e., '. Ir\-

fv'1 '
oi,-, ' l'
girls) understandearly on that "freedom"--i.e.,an identity distinct and separatefiom their ,f |
,.
r' . . t ' ,
mother--hassomethingto do with being a male. As we will explore,freedomcanbe a terrifuing , l' | .

thing and fear of experiencingfreedomis the inspirationfor the Cranfordwomen's "scaring off'. , , , ',
.t
'
of tfti'all the (unexceptional)men in town. But freedomis unceasinglyalluring. It is something ".
..
/ Do.,) \it $'
to be desiredand somethingwe all require. And thuswe understandthe Cranfordl-adieYultimate ,; ,,\. 1)
'' "
athactionto the exceptionalman (CaptainBrown), who canremainundauntedafter experiencing -! t
. / ' t''/
\Y t ,c.r',
the Cranfordhomeffg'best efforts to either expel him or make him conform to Cranford "law."

Captain Brown, "[a] man" (1453), by seemingto keep Cranford's smotheringforces in

check, makes it "safe" by for the narrator to re-enter the text. She can now revisit her memories

with her mother without experiencing an overwhelming senseof re%1sion and a flattening out
f),)
of her autonomyand individuality. He is her "agent," and her lead-iffifter he triumphantly

establisheshimself in the town, as "conqueror" of the Amazons, the narrator establishesherself,

in the present tense,as being within Cranford.

While in Cranford, Captain Brown servestwo primary pu{posesfor the narrator: I )

CaptainBrown, as he doesnot take his "appointedhouse" (1455) and, instead,"ha[s] taken a

small houseon the outskirts of the town" (1456),thereby offers the narrator a place to situate

herself so that she can be, so to speak, at Cranford,but not wholly in Cranfotd. Ann Coley

-5 see,
^ .
m panlcurar, the works by Margaret Mall_er for elaboration on this thesis.
.. a

{,
t-
 McEvoy-Halston 8

arguesthat Cranford'sritualswhich "softenandsmoothout the effectsof change"(75) permit

:.'l

CaptainBrown (*h-o,Fe describesasrepresenting"a moremodernageor progress"(75)) to "be

admittedfrom the peripheryinto the center[of Cranford]. . . without rupturingits core" (75).

We appreciateher focuson the varioussortsof textualspacesin Cranford,andmight agreewith

her that Cranfordeventually"integrates"CaptainBrown within its society,but stronglyargue

thathis very purposefor beingintroducedby the narratorinto Cranfordis so thathe can"rupture

will helpbring the

andessence,
its core"(75)l 2) CaptainBrown,with his masculineotherness

with the motherherself,andnotjust with her immediate

narratorto her goal--are-encounter

of "Death"(1455),destroythe
environment.As mentioned,hewill also,asarepresentation

authorityandpotency(a kind of death)of Cranford'stown matriarch,Miss Jenkyns,throughthe

narrator'ssacrificeof him.

CaptainBrown,this earlyinto Cranfordandinto the text, is capableof dramaticdisplays

of his .'manhood";but it soonbeginsto drain away.We areoffereda senseof both who he is (a

master)andwho he will become(a servant)whenhe againdistinguisheshimself from the

louderthanthe
Cranford"crowd," this time at church. "He [CaptainBrown] madethe responses

clerk--anold manwith a piping feeblevoice" (1457). Thetext soonaftenvardsshowshim

andinaudiblefeebleness.Importantly,though,asif
fluctuatingbetweenloud brazenrress

by his dominanceof the Churchcrowd,he is ableto leadthe narrator

energizedandencouraged

encounterwith Miss Jenkyns.

to his one-on-one

At a party of Miss Jenkyns,CaptainBrown still "dominates"the Cranfordwomen

(.,sharpvoicesloweredat his approach"(1457))but his masculinityis beginningto be more

frequentlyidentifiedwith his courtesyratherthanhis brazenness.CaptainBrown, we are told,'i

theman'splacein theroom" (1457). However,he still has

immediatelyandquietlyassumed

enoughmanly impudenceto challengethe hostessin her home. Almost like duellingshamans

 McEvoy-Halston 9

summoningtheir Godsfor battle,CaptainBrown andMiss Jenkynspit their literary "Deities"

againsteachother. Miss Jenkyns'Dr JohnsonwarsagainstCaptainBrown'sMqgot. Miss

o
Jenkynsattemptsto transformCaptainBrown's literarytaste,telling him, "I haveformedmy
/r')
own styleuponit; I recommendit to your favourite"(1459). Her friendsalreadyconsiderMlss
].
'',
Jenkyns'"[e]pistolarywriting asherforte"(1459), However,he rebuffsherby tellingher,"I

shouldbe very sorryfor him to exchangehis stylefor any suchpompouswritingl' (1459). It is a

I.
braveconfrontation "Amazon";but alsoonethatrequire/most,if not all,
with Cranford's,chief
", ''',,
' " ,'
I l', ..1, ,'.'- r;', , t, \ " i a, ,, ,,
,.-,,
to a childlikestatewhile
of his adultmasculinity,i.e.,he showsclearsignsof regressing ':'.

"duelling" with her. While listeningto her,he "screw[s]his lips up, anddrummedon the table,
,\'
I

but he did not speak"(145g)+asif a child afraidto confronthis motherdirectly. He asksher a 4J

I

t '
defiantquestionbut "in a low voice,which [thenanatorthinks] Miss Jenkynscouldnot have

heard"(1459). And, aftermanagingto deliveruponMissJenkyns"a personalaffront"(1459),

"he waspenitentafterwards,ashe showedby goingto standnear[her] . . . arm-chair,and

to beguileher" (1459). In short,in this scene,wherehe doesact the part of the

endeavouring

triumphantShaman,he alsoplaysthe part of the sometimestimid, sometimesremorsefulacolyte.

The personalsufferiqgof CaptainBrown's kin, andhis repgatedattemptsto placateMiss

f , - ' 1i ' i . . ' rr t'2,

Jenkyns,dominate/muchof what immediatelyfollows this scenein the text. We immediately

hearof CaptainBrown'sdaughter's(MissBrowl. t) ")?tering, incurablecomplaint"(1460);

'f ),, '. -)
",
ffid, asif her conditionis linked to Miss JenkynYfiiryat CaptainBrown's impudence,we readof

CaptainBrown tqiing repeatedly"to makepeacewith [her]" (1460). The nalrator,asif in

responseto
CaptainBrownos his "placidity'(1460))coupledwithsignsof
lossof "potency''(i.e.,

asbeing"bade"(1460)by Miss Jenkyns),

to Miss Jenkyns(sheis described
her own obedience

leavesCranford(for Drumble)while still empoweredto do so.

The narator introducesa new sourceof manlypotencyinto the text to help rejuvenate
 McEvov-Halston 10

her saggingCaptainBmwn-Lord Mauleverer. Lord Maulevereris a sourceof energy: he

'br[ings] his lorilship
[into the] . . . little town" (1461;my ernphasis).He hascomeon a visit to

CaptainBrown andbrings to him associationsof manly performancein "the 'plumed wars"'

(1461)andthe power to "avert . . . destruction"(1461)--justwhat CaptainBrown needsto avoid

losing the individuality which hasempowerd him thus far in Cranford. As formerly with

CaptainBrown, Lord Maulevereris describedasexcitingthe town"i.e., he, like aswith Captain

Brown, "tames"the Cranfordladiesandtherebymakesit safefor the narratorto re-erfer

Cranford. Her next visit is describedin sucha way to makeCranfordseemreadyfor another

energizedhappening: "[t]here hadbeenneitherbirths, deaths,nor marriagessinceI was there

last" (1462). The stageis set,v/ith a newly energizedCaptainBrown, for the delivery of another

powerfrrlblow to their head'lrophetess" (1461).

Lord Maulevererdoesindeed"do somethingfor the manwho savedhis life" (1462):

CaptainBrown becomes"as happyandcheerfulasa prince" (1a62). Newly energized,Captain

Brown is primed to usherin the narrator'scoup-de-grace:sheuseshis newly reinvigorated

associanonwiththe outsideworld (his experiencein wars,andhis friendshipwith lords) to bring

,/
7 in a'hasty [and] . . . cruel" (1462)fraia into Cranfordto run over CaptainBrown. The train

might havebeeninfroducedat any timg but it is bestintroducedwhen it canmost readily be

associated(perhapsmetaphorically)with CaptainBrown. This associationis likely only when

CaptainBrown seemsenergizedsothe train's dramaticenfranceremilds us of his own brazen,

penehating'lnvasion" (1455)into Cranford. It could not, however,be introducedat the ,

', lqi't't, bt,l',' rt.^"
beginningof the tex! becausethe narratorhad rdquiredtime to effec.ta clearassociationlof

WhenthetrainentersCranford,Captain
, furyWeaynVfier.
CaptainBrownandMissJenkyn
L ,

Brown and Miss Jenkyns are now firmly identified with eachother. He is always placating her,

and our impression of her is of being interminably infuriated with him. Further, just as Captain
 McEvoy-Halston 1l
,

Brown's associationwith Lord Maulevet[?H Saptain Brown a "prince," CaptaiHBrown's

-',..,O..-
associationwith Miss Jenkynsbrings ffinher his early associationwith death.

We remember that when we first "meet" Captain Brown, his own associationwith the

railroad also associateshim with death. In two sentences,one following the other, we seethese

two key words (railroads and death) linked together with Captain Brown's own behaviour. The

text reads, ".y' [along with] his connection with the obnoxious railroad, he was so brazen as to
/
talk of being poor--why, then, indeed, he must be sent to Coventry. Death was as true and as

common as poverty; yetpeople never spokeabout that,loud in the streets"(1455). Captain

Brown brings "Death" (1455) into the text of "Cranford," and it permeatesmuch of our

experienceof Cranford thereafter.

Death is first characterizedas if it is similar to poverty--bothbeing "true" (1a55) and

o'common"(1455)--but a distinction is made betweenthe two terms: Captain Brown loudly

speaksof his povertybut doesnot speakof death. Why, then, ifhe doesnot speakof death,and

the Cranford ladies certainly do not, does the narrator attach this word to Captain Brown, so

early into the narrative, and brazerly capitalized? It is not simply an apt comparison to make to

help convey to us how inappropriate his opennessabout his poverty is deemedin Cranford. It

servesthis purpose,but the selection of death as the associationto be paired with poverty is not

an arbitrary one, i.e., it is not one.of seleral possibleassociatio4s^thflcggld have been used.
'--- ^ il
,,r(!,''i-tr"1t'/t i:
Rather,it is a cluethatid itreh#ator, and'tothe Cranfordwomen,to openlyacknowledgeone's

poverty is to bring about thoughts of death. Therein, in fact,lies the true reason the Cranford

women deliberately "blind" themselvesto poverty.

The na:rator complains of the Cranford ladies "blinding [themselves] to the vulgar fact

that we were, all of us, people of very moderatemeans" (1455). She offers a reason--ahighly

suggestive,though badly misleading one--for their sel@linding: it is so they are not

 McEvoy-Halston 12

'lrevent[ed] . . . from doing anythingthey wished" (1a5fl. Arguably, the op'positeis tue: if the

and,instead,permit themselvesto openlyacknowledge

Cranfordwomendo not blind the,mselves

andcommenton their poverty,they migbt be taking the first steptowardsincreasingtheir status

'.i.

materiall9trlther than imaginatively. That is, theymight stopcompensatingfor their "fallen"

")/

stateand"arise" throughthe efforts requiredto amassmaterialaccumulations.

Changerequiring the alteringof habitsmight leadto personalgrowtb, to seltdiscovery,

to individuality, andthus to emergencefrom the matemalfold; blindnessleadsto a staticlife in .,1

r(4"./ n t
which *doing anything [one] . . . wish[es]" really amounts(aswe haveseen)to doing more-or-

lessthe samethings aseveryoneelsedoes. The real reasontheyblind themselvesis becauseif"

they allowed themselvesto individuate,becauseindividuationby a child is so often imaginedby

the mother asa rejectionofher, it would bring aboutreal feelingsof abandonmentandofhaving

incurredan intolerableloss. '"Theperceptionofloss is not bearable,it cannotbe integratedby

tl
the ego" (Koenigsbergl0)."The child is so dependenton the mother,therl . . . attachmentto her
" l 1 '
i\'

so intense,that separationfrom the motheris experiencedto be equivalerfito the deathof the

;

! ] sef' (Koenigsberg14; italics in original). To be blind is to loseindividuality, to remainin

lt

symbiosiswith the mother;but to allow oneselfto "see'is to risk losing oneselfaltogether.The

double-bindwomenarein explainsCaptainBrown's possessionof "totemiC'powers. Because

the mother's original conceptionof the male is assomeone"different" from her, CaptainBrown

can exist outsidethe maternalfold (in the realm of death),andstill clai"' the attentionof the
!
mother-figure. This is, aftdall, the original way in which the motherand son experienceeach
I
I
other.

Soonwe encounterMss Jenkynsidentified with CaptainBrown (as a warrior) andthus

to deathaswell. The narratorimaginesMiss Jenklms'bonnetas"a helmet" (1464)" at Captain

Brown's funeral. However,Miss Jenkynsresiststhe fate the narratorhasin mind for her. She
 McEvoy-Halston l3

usesthe powerher own hegemonyover Cranfordstill offersher to attemptto overwhelmthis

/1,, ''/.)',^ -n ,1 llr.:t4sl'
whd'seeksher destruction.Our narratoris momentarilyin a weakposition: she
::4nnrator
haskilled her own guardianwho not only facilitateddepartueform Cranford,but alsoprovided

a safepositionon the peripheryof Cranfordrn which to locateherself.

s'=
Miss Jenkynsis powerfulin her deathkne9l. Sheis describedasboth commandingand

angry ("Miss Jenkynsdeclared,inanangryvoice. . . " Qa66;my emphasis)).Shereducesthe

narratorto a child-like state,"c[atching][her] cryrng"(1466)andmakingher "afraid lest she

would be displeased"(1466). Miss Jenkynsinsiststhat CaptainBrown's remainingdaughter--

Miss Jessie--"staywith her" (1466),leavingher (MissJessie's)own house"desolate"(1466).

CaptainBrown's houseis not locatedon the periphery,contraAnn Colley's opinion,becauseit

will taketime for him to integratehimselfinto the Cranfordcommunity;the peripheryis instead ,/,/

the idealpositionto be at while the "core" of Cranfordis underMiss Jenkyns'hegemony.Much

to nurtureone'sown voice,is on the peripherywherethe 'hegemonic"hold of the dominant

power'sideologyandlanguageis loosest.6

Lackingnow a conceptionof Cranfordashavinga "strong"centreand a "sturdy''

periphery the narratoris helplesslybejx$drawninto its coreandis showingsignsof losingher

,/
Her "adulthood"is beingdrainedfrom her assheloosesher
self-commffid,her self-possession.

meansof resistingMiss Jenkyns.Sowe hearthat she"durst not refuseto go where

established

Miss Jenkynsasked"(1466). However,Miss Jenkynshassuffereda mortalwoundshecannot

of powerfulmanlinessinto Cranford,
recoverfrom. The narrator,by introducinga representative

with Miss
andby imagining a way to sustainhim sothathe canbecomefirmly associated

Jenkynsin our minds,is ableto bring the destructivepowersof a train straightinto the heartof

6 A psychoanatytically might be in order.

inspiredstudyof New Historicalnarrativesof emancipation
 McEvoy-Halston 14

kj
Cranford. The power that sustainsMiss Jenkyns-hermaternalworld of Cranford-i s U,rlj8anst

the powersof the exteriorworld-and it is no contest. In fact, the tremendouspower of "the

wtt ( ',
IndustrialRevolution" (l) to "v"rolght" (l) "changes"(Leighton l) upon little placeslike

fictional Cranford,is owing to our needto imaginean "extemal reality'' in sucha way.

In order to assistour escapeof the matemalmatrix we mustimagine an outsidewhich

"compels" us to leaveour homes-to makeit so thereis no choicein the matter! Becausewe

createa situationin which we nust leavethe matemalhome,we canimagineour mothersasless

inclined to interpretour departureasa rejectionof her. The corollary is that nostalgicre-

visitationsto our family home--howeverwe fashionthem--atestill possible. An industrial

societyis a conceptionof this kind. Victorians imaginethat they must adjustto the "new

realities," whetherregretfully, or enthusiastically.They might alsoimaginethe harshnew

,/\ |
| {realtiesassuchthat they servethe few andpunishthe many. They do not often imaginethat this

dislocating ever-changing,ruthlessnew world is asmuch asa clevermachinationof their own

'tdyllic" past: it servesboth the humandesirefor
fashioningasnostalgicreconstructionsof an

autonomyandthe humanright to createher/hisown world.T

However,sincewe needto re-visit this past,we canmakeour retum easierif we can

avoid, asmuch aspossible,re-experiencingthe traumasassociatedwith childhood. It is best

(without therapeuticguidance)not to recall with verisimilitude, actualexp**i3]. tt

Tj"f.: l, I I'
-/
betterto revisit theseexperiencestransformed.frayl;rm therninto fiction (so they arenot
\l.ri '
real), disguisethe real identity ofthe mother,andlou lay the foundationfor replacing,or

reshapingour own memories. We arearguingthat this is what Gaskellis up to when shestrips

Miss Jenkynsof her potency: sheis readyingher for a replacement-MissJerl6ie.By bringing to

,!!\ v
-..i /' " .-/
----------------
7Sucha world is "helpfirl" orily whenchildrearingis still lessrh'n adequet€.Given warmerrelationsbetween
childrenand their parents/therewould be little or no needto imagineandcreatea societythat functionsto combat
the inward pull into the familY.
 McEvoy-Halston 15
"r ''u'-' " t
,',t'''t!''
the fore a formidable Miss Jenkyns lrftufu*'text;rh.'pi*es memories of her own mother when

her mother seemedmost powerful to her. Then, with theseold memories newly "awakened," she

replacestheir sharedassociationwith authority-rtvhich preventstheir being tampered-$vith an

associationwith depletion and exhaustion. fhe net effect is that, unconsciously, she can feel

herself "permitted" and empoweredto effect a permanenttransformalion of her own memories,

,1i..il,et

makingthemless"scary," andthusbetterfit for futurere-visits:6.A"can "revisit" the warmth

of her childhoodwithout regressing.

Miss Jenkynsi, ,roti.iilJ'", the endof 'oCranford";sheis weakenedandthenreplacedby

CaptainBrown's daughterMiss Jessie.But a weakenedanddefeatedMiss Jenkynscanno

longersetthe tonefor the restof Cranford. The Cranfordladiesnow "orbit" aroundMiss Jessie.

"[H]er house,herhusbffid,her dress,andher

Miss Jessiehasa firm senseof self-possession.

looks" (1467)all drawpraisefrom the Cranfordladies. Miss Jenkynsis "old andfeeble"(1467),

/
andher.r"ifiris effectivelyover. To help ensurethat end,GaskellintroducesMajor Gordoninto
\\ . '

the text. Major Gordon is a young military man with an identity associatedwith freedom of

movement, ffid with much grander distancer locals than even Captain Brown was. Major
Td
,fi't' {
Gordon, who 'had been travelling to the east/1467), ivill now reside within Cranford. With

Major Gordon in place in Cranford, Gaskell firmly lodges a very potent male presencethat will

reside not only in this fictional creation,but within her own memories of her childhood

experienceswith her mother as well. She is creating a strong father figure both to accompany
I

herown memoriesof her motherandto,y'oppor/thoo.

With the Cranfordladiesnow readingDickens,not Johnson,thereis a sensethat the

narratorleavesCranfordmuchdifferentthat it wasat her entrance:no longerwill it be a haven

for Amazonswho threatento scareawaymen,andstrip awaywomen'sindividuality. Now that

our heroinehasfreedthemfrom the enfrapmentof formerlysmotheringtaboos,next time young

 McEvoy-Halston l6

visitors go to Cranford,perhapsthey'll bring with themsome"commerceandtrade" Qa5$ and

offer the Cranfordwomensomenew waysof living andbeing.

We, of course,havebeenattemptingour own heroicjourney. We hopeour visit to an

example of nineteen@entuV Victorian literature leavesit "changed" for new and bold

explorations by others who care to pay the period a visit. We imagine that those interestedin

nostalgia in Victorian and Edwardian England may now have, if they wish to explore it, evidence

that nost algqais,and has always been, better understoodas nostalgia for our mothers' love than

as a longing for a previous society. They may also have a new hypothesis they could test: is it

possible that nostalgrc re-visitations are better understoodas expeditions involving brave

encounterswith primal fearsanddangers,ratherthanasthe sortof thing indulgedin only by the

evenof
foolish andfeeblewho cannotfacethe "real world?" If true,is novelreading--perhaps

nurturing and progressive, so long

f
/\
both
thekinds of novelsso fearedby Victoriansascorruptingandde-generating--potentially

theVunconsciouslymove their readersto face and easeold\

i

I
,$.r
traumas?Perhapsthe shortstoryf'Our Societyat Cranford"andits ilk, if widely read,havea 1
I

I
claim on havingworkedmole y'ersonal(andthus societal)improvementin the nineteenthcentury
J
thanthe work of "serious"essayistssuchasNewman,StuartMill, or Darwin. CharlesDarwin,
{ --\ ^ -i----

however,preparesustoacceptsuchaconclusion:'We..evolved,,fromapes'djh@hynot
&f
av rd "'ndY''
thenalsofrom$opularn6vek andshortstories?
--_ iil

a?
q'4,.^^Va'ff*
i tNll'u' -wo,l*
+ 6*4 cited
tn/vp
Barfoot, SylvanandReid Gilbert. A ShortGuideto rWritingA,boutLiterattne. lst

Canadianed. Addison-Wesley,1997.

Colley, Ann C. NostalgiaandRecollectionin Victorian Culture. London: St. Martin's

Press,1998.

Gaskell,Elizabeth. "Our Societyat Cranford." LongmanAnthology of British

Literatue: the Victorian Age. Ed. HeatherHendersonandWilliam Sharpe.Vol.

28. Addison-Wesley,1999. 1453-t467.

Leighton,ElizabethM. "In-ClassAssigrrment."Universityof Victoria. Victoria. 14

Feb. 2002.

Koenigsberg,RichardA. SymbiosisandSeparation:Towardsa Psychologyof Culture.

New York The Library of Art andSocialScience,1989.

Rtreingold,JosephC. The Mother Anxiety. andDeath: the CatastophicDeathComplex.

Boston: Little Brown, t967.