Ruth by Elizabeth Gaskell

Written in 1853, Ruth was specifically intended as a social-problem novel, with the problem being the attitudes of society, especially the religious elements, toward unwed mothers and their illegitimate children. The title character is a 16-year-old orphan when she is cast friendless into the world and seduced by a rich young man in his 20's. Deserted by her faithless seducer and pregnant with his child, she comes to the attention of a Dissenting minister, who, along with his spinster sister, takes her in because he knows how society will cast her away and believes the way to save her from a life of further sin is to keep her past a secret.

The minister introduces Ruth as a young widowed relative, and she becomes a trusted member of the community, behaving so faultlessly that she is hired as governess for the children of the most sanctimonious member of the congregation. Inevitably, her secret is revealed, with easily guessed consequences.

Gaskell intends to be advocating tolerance and forgiveness here, and she displays considerable bravery in writing about the subject of sexual indiscretion, considering the attitudes of that time. Reportedly, the book was banned from her own household, presumably by her Unitarian minister husband. And yet, she seems to be hedging her bets, so to speak, as she somewhat excuses Ruth's fall on grounds of youth and lack of guidance, while at the same time portraying her as spending the rest of her life in expiation of the sin, even to the point of martyring herself. The implication is that Gaskell herself believed sexual misbehavior for a woman to be so shameful that it must be atoned for even when it is repented. Her Ruth becomes such a paragon of virtue that she ceases to be believable.

For more balanced and sensitive accounts of "fallen women," read The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in America three years earlier, and Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, written almost 40 years later.

The remainder of this review is a rant. Stop here if you prefer not to hear (read) it.

I became so angry at these fictional characters and the author while I was reading this novel that I could hardly judge the merits of the book itself. I know these judgmental people. I grew up with them in the 1950s. I still see evidence of their existence. The Bible contains many references to sins of all kinds, and yet the self-righteous seem perpetually intent on focusing their rejection on a select few sinners, while ignoring the lesson of Jesus about casting the first stone. The scorn heaped on unmarried mothers is no longer so universal or unrelenting, but they have been replaced as the ultimate of the sinful in many minds by homosexual people. Is it inevitable that some will always believe that religious devotion mandates intolerance? Some states, mine included, have passed laws saying it's OK to treat some people as less than worthy because they don't conform to standards of perceived morality. In my viewpoint, that is so wrong on both constitutional and religious grounds. End of rant.