Contemporary Reviews of Mary Barton: Summary and Analysis

I decided to look at three reviews: an unsigned review from the Manchester Literary Times (1848), John Forster’s review from the Examiner (1848) and a piece from Manchester in 1844: Its Present Condition and Future Prospects by Leon M. Faucher (obviously published in 1844). I figured a few reviews were bound to be similar in discussing Mary Barton. That’s why I decided to include Faucher’s review. Unlike the first two reviews, which spoke well of the novel and its anonymous author, Faucher seemed instead to use Mary Barton as a platform on which to write his own political/economical/social commentary of England’s society and industry. “When the evils connected with its industry were first brought to light, efforts were made to divert public attention from the subject and…the existence of these evils was denied.” The only way one might even deduce that Mary Barton had anything to do with Faucher’s ‘review’ is because it can be seen as an example of breaking through the delusion and exposing said evils of industry in manufacturing towns. The anonymous and Forster’s review, like I previously said, were favorable and more focused on the story of Mary Barton, how it was told, and who could’ve possibly written it. They recognized Gaskell’s goal as Forster claims, “fiction may be allowed to enter where philosophy cannot well find its way.” And that is why some reviewers, like Forster recommended Mary Barton.

I suppose for my analysis I’m choosing to focus on the idea of Gaskell’s anonymity when she first published this novel. As we learned from our classmate’s presentation on Elizabeth Gaskell, as a first-time novelist, she published Mary Barton anonymously in case the novel was received poorly. If anything, her standing as a debut author is recognized as the unsigned reviewer from the Manchester Literary Times claims “the writer [is] new to the world of literature.” While there were mixed reviews, Forster’s and the unsigned review were positive and spoke well of the author. Quite a few reviewers attempted to determine the identity of the author. The unsigned reviewer instead notes the “evidence of much higher capacity on the part of the author” but seems unsure as to the gender—which was likely to be a deciding factor on how Mary Barton was received. Henry Fothergill Chorley is among said reviewers, in assuming the author is a “(he?)”. Forster makes the opposite conclusion: “Unquestionably the book is a woman’s.” He claims to have deduced this fact through casual remarks and how the characters of women and children are dealt with. He also makes guesses at Gaskell’s identity by assuming she is “more than ordinarily familiar” with towns like Manchester and the workpeople social class. Forster was open-minded to a female author as she wielded a great power with the sympathies, something a female writer might be better at. While both reviewers, Forster and the unsigned reviewer, seemed preoccupied with determining the identity of the author, they did not allow it to cloud their judgment as they reviewed her novel. And while Forster was keen to assert that the book was not made to be a political novel, it definitely seemed to be an important social matter in determining the gender of the writer who would dare—in the best of ways—to publish a novel which touched so boldly on the current social issues between the middle and working class.

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. Print.