By the middle of July, Mrs Gaskell had completed a considerable portion of her biography. George Smith had urged her to take her time: ‘There is no hurry; there would be a great cry of indelicacy if it were published too soon. Do it well, and never fear that the public interest in her will die away.’ However, he had already expressed reservations about her portrayal of Patrick Brontë. Mrs Gaskell was affronted. ‘Now I thought that I carefully preserved the reader’s respect for Mr Brontë, while truth and the desire of doing justice to her compelled me to state the domestic peculiarities of her childhood, which (as in all cases) contributed so much to make her what she was’. She appealed to Ellen, to whom she had read the same section of the manuscript, and received a stout defence: ‘I do not wish anything you have said suppressed only I think your readers will have to be taught to think kindly of Mr B—’.42
Mrs Gaskell also sought Ellen’s advice on her next visit to Haworth. ‘I still want one or two things to complete my materials’, she informed her, ‘and I am very doubtful if I can get them – at any rate, I think they will necessitate my going to Haworth again, and I am literally afraid of that.’ She wanted Monsieur Heger’s letters to Charlotte, the manuscripts of The Professor and Charlotte’s last, unfinished story and Charlotte’s ‘long, constant, and minute’ letters to her father from London. How should she best proceed in trying to prise these things from Mr Nicholls, she asked Ellen, and would it be better to let them know she was coming or ‘take them unawares’?43 Ellen’s reply was not particularly helpful.
I think Mr N. ought to have no reserve with you, his very affection should make him see it is wisest, best, and kindest to tell the whole truth to you in everything that regards her literary life or her domestic virtues – I wish I could talk to him half an hour and convince him that the more she is known the more highly will she shine and be the means of good to the readers of her Memoir.
She did, however, offer one practical piece of advice: ‘I think you may win him by your own heartiness in the work – at any rate you will Mr B., and for a quiet life Mr N. will have to yield where Mr B. is urgent and impatient.’44
In the end, Mrs Gaskell compromised. She reminded Charlotte’s father and widower of her existence by persuading her husband to send Patrick a printed copy of the sermon he had preached on 4 May which had been a Day of National Thanksgiving for the peace with Russia. The sermon had defended both the war and the peace as honourable and drew a sharp distinction between ‘the peace of mere compulsion’, which was simple slavery, and ‘the peace of the gospel’, which was ‘the fellowship of free agents’. Writing to thank him, Patrick could say quite sincerely, ‘The principles, and practices, which, it so ably advocates, are perfectly in accordance with my, own on the great subjects of peace, and war’, adding, with unspoken reproach, ‘We often wonder here, how Mrs Gaskell, is getting on, with Her mournful, but interesting
He was soon to find out. The day after he wrote the letter, when he himself was confined to bed with rheumatism and Martha was away, so that there was only the ‘little girl’ Eliza to run the house, Mrs Gaskell arrived on his doorstep in the company of Sir James Kay Shuttleworth.46 This was a master stroke on Mrs Gaskell’s part. The unexpected arrival of such important guests threw the whole household into chaos, particularly as Patrick insisted on getting up; there was therefore no time for dreaming up arguments or excuses. Both clergymen looked up to Sir James and he was shameless in using his influence and authority over them’. Mrs Gaskell reported to George Smith that Sir James was ‘not prevented by the fear of giving pain from asking in a peremptory manner for whatever he thinks desirable. He was extremely kind in forwarding all my objects; and coolly took actual possession of many things while Mr Nicholls was saying he could not possibly part with them. Mrs Gaskell was anxious to have a photograph taken of the Richmond portrait, but greatly to her annoyance, her previous applications had met with a decided refusal, even when made through George Smith. Here Sir James proved his worth again.
Sir J. P K S coolly introduced the subject of the portrait, as if he had known nothing of Mr Nicholls’ reluctance, asked Mr Brontës leave to have it photographed, wh[ic]h was readily granted with a reference to Mr Nicholls for an ultimate decision, so then Sir James said ‘Oh! I know Mr Nicholls will grant it – and we will trust to Mrs Gaskell to send over a photographer from Manchester, for I dare say he would not like to part with the portrait,—’ & he so completely took it for granted that Mr Nicholls had no time to object. But I can not feel quite comfortable in absolutely wresting things from him by mere force of words.47
In material terms the visit was a great success. Mrs Gaskell and Sir James carried off the manuscripts of The Professor and the last unfinished story; completely unexpectedly, and ‘by far the most extraordinary of all’, there was a packet ‘about the size of a lady’s travelling writing case’, full of the little books written in childhood. Mrs Gaskell described this find in great excitement to George Smith: ‘they are the wildest & most incoherent things, as far as we have examined them, all purporting to be written, or addressed to some member of the Wellesley family. They give one the idea of creative power carried to the verge of insanity.’48
Having involved Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, it now proved impossible to shake him off. Though the manuscripts (like the letters) had only been lent on the understanding that they would give Mrs Gaskell a better idea of Charlotte’s literary development, Sir James took it into his head that The Professor must be published. Mrs Gaskell was alarmed, fearing that the novel (which she had not yet read) might relate even more closely to the Hegers than Villette and might provoke Monsieur Heger into publishing Charlotte’s letters to him. ‘I can not tell you how I should deprecate anything leading to the publication of those letters’, she told George Smith anxiously, adding gloomily, ‘I foresee, if Sir James has set his will upon it, it is to be published whatever may be the consequences. He over-rides all wishes, feelings, and delicacy. I saw that in his way of carrying everything before him at Haworth, deaf to remonstrance and entreaty.’49
Sir James had determined that he himself would edit the manuscript, but this time he was to be thwarted by the more subtle machinations of Mrs Gaskell. Having read so many of Charlotte’s letters she knew that her friend ‘would have especially disliked him to meddle with her writings’, and that his sole reason for wishing to do so was ‘to appear to the world in intimate connexion with her’: she hinted these things while forwarding Sir James’s proposal to George Smith and Arthur Nicholls. Having read the novel she was not anxious to see it published, feeling that it would not add to Charlotte’s reputation as Sir James claimed and that it would simply give further fuel to the critics: ‘there are one or two remarkable portraits – the most charming woman she ever drew, and a glimpse of that woman as a mother – very lovely; otherwise little or no story; & disfigured by more coarseness, – & profanity in quoting texts of Scripture disagreeably than in any of her other works.’ Not wishing to associate herself with the book she declined to edit it personally on the grounds that she was too busy: instead, she recommended Williams, whom she believed Charlotte herself would have chosen.50
In the event, Arthur himself proved unexpectedly firm and refused to bow to Sir James’s wishes, privately telling Mrs Gaskell that he feared Sir James would be hurt but ‘knowing his wife’s opinion on the subject, he could not allow any such revisal’. To George Smith, who was now eager to publish the manuscript which he had rejected three times in its author’s lifetime, Arthur wrote with equal decision.
It appears from Sir James Kay Shuttleworth’s note to Mrs Gaskell that there are some passages in it that he would wish to extirpate. I could not consent to any revisal of the work; at the same time I should not wish to gave [sic] occasion for malignant criticism – If therefore
&
nbsp; A month later, on 20 September 1856, he wrote again to George Smith.
I have read ‘The Professor’ over to Mr Brontë. Our opinion is, that with the exception of two or three strong expressions which might be open to misinterpretation, no revision of the MS is necessary. Indeed if any extensive alteration had been requisite we could not have consented to the publication of the tale. We have erased the few seemingly objectionable phrases.52
Ellen Nussey always claimed that Charlotte’s husband cared nothing for her as an author, ‘literally groaning’ when she expressed a wish to write and once declaring that ‘Currer Bell could fly up to heaven for all he cared’.53 Her malicious comments seem to have gained general acceptance because Arthur made no secret of the fact that he loved the woman, rather than the authoress. Nevertheless, this did not preclude a pride in his wife’s work. Arthur not only consented to the publication of this and other work by his wife but also was absolutely painstaking in his efforts to preserve its integrity; clearly he knew how she had refused to alter the opening chapter of Shirley and the closing chapter of Villette. Indeed, his desire to ensure that his wife’s wishes were carried out overrode any other considerations and he left in passages, such as Hunsden Yorke’s blasphemies, which must have been offensive to him personally as a clergyman. Unlike Sir James, he had no wish to see his own name appear as the editor of the work, but he did the job conscientiously, asking to see proofs as it was printed. On Mrs Gaskell’s advice, the payment for the book was worked out on the basis of its length, and Arthur, having meticulously counted the pages of both Villette and The Professor and done his computation, asked for and received £220 from Smith, Elder & Co.54
Arthur’s editorial policy left Mrs Gaskell and George Smith in something of a quandary: ‘oh! I wish Mr Nicholls wd have altered more!’ she exclaimed to the publisher. ‘I fear from what you say he has left many little things you would & I would have taken out, as
I beg to assure you that neither Mr Brontë nor myself could for one moment think of interfering with you in arranging the details of the publication of’The Professor’. The period of its appearance is a matter entirely for your consideration … Our only anxiety, as I am sure yours also, is that no step may be taken, which could possibly prove prejudicial to the fame of the author –56
Though the problem of The Professor had been so neatly solved, the difficulties over the biography were not so easily to be overcome. Apart from her two visits to Haworth, almost a year apart, and the few letters from Patrick to Mrs Gaskell, there had been no contact between the biographer and the family of her subject. In the meantime, Patrick had perhaps grown a little uneasy. A new pamphlet, which Patrick described as a ‘strange compound of truth and error’ had appeared. He sent Mrs Gaskell a copy, denouncing its account of his marriage as ‘entirely wrong’ and seeking to explain the ‘eccentricity’ which had been credited to him. He made an interesting defence which, incidentally, reveals him to have been a reader of Mrs Gaskell’s novels and to have shared his children’s delight in satire.
The Book-making gentry whose little works I have seen, appear to make me a somewhat extraordinary and eccentrick, personage I have no great objection to this, admitting they can make a penny by it. But the truth of the matter is – that I am, in some respects, a kindred likeness to the father of Margaret, in ‘North and South’ peacable, feeling, sometimes thoughtful – and generally well-meaning. Yet unlike him, in one thing – by occasionally getting into a satirical vein – when I am disposed to dissect, and analyze human character, and human nature, studying closely its simples and compounds, like a curious surgeon – And being in early life thrown on my own resources – and consequently obliged, under Providence, to depend on my own judgement, and exertions, I may not be so ready as some are, to be a follower of any man, or a worshipper of conventionalities or forms, which may possibly to superficial observers, acquire me the character, of a little exccentricity. Thus freely have I spoken to you – in order that in your work, you may insert such facts, as may counteract,
From what has already transpired, I think you will see the prudence of
Patrick’s confidence in Mrs Gaskell’s impartiality was to be sadly misplaced: she, like all the other scandalmongers, would simply repeat the malicious anecdotes she had heard without having the courage to question their supposed perpetrator about their authenticity. Of this Patrick was completely unaware. Though even now he did not actually request to see the manuscript before it was published, Patrick was obviously concerned that this privilege should not be accorded to others.
We begin, now to long for seeing your work in print – And doubt not, you will see the propriety of shewing your Manuscript to none, except Mr Gaskell, your Family, and the Publisher, and compositor. Much harm has often been done, by an opposite line of conduct, Authors, have been fetter’d, bias’d, and made to appear in in other lights than their own – Genius has often been crush’d, and fame mar’d, by officious critics, and familiar Friends.58
It seems that the person Patrick had in mind was Sir James Kay Shuttleworth, whose overbearing conduct on his recent visit to Haworth and attempts to appropriate the editorship of The Professor evidently made Patrick fear that he would also exert his influence over Mrs Gaskell. What neither Patrick nor Arthur seems to have suspected was the extent to which Ellen Nussey had been involved in preparing the biography: they seem to have presumed that she, like them, had simply supplied her letters and left Mrs Gaskell to make up her own mind. Mrs Gaskell leapt to the quite wrong conclusion that Patrick’s prohibition on her showing the manuscript to others was aimed at Ellen. ‘There is some little jealousy (the nearest word, but not the right one) of Miss Nussey on Mr Brontës part, and he especially forbids my showing the MS of my biography to her’, she told George Smith, revealing how much she had herself been influenced by Ellen’s view of things. The prohibition placed Mrs Gaskell in a difficult position because ‘she is about the only person who would care to see it in MS, because she wants to know what extracts I have taken from all her letters; and she has a right to know this, if she wishes’. With typical determination, Mrs Gaskell decided to circumvent the prohibition by inviting Ellen to Manchester and reading the entire manuscript aloud to her. Ellen was thus the only person in Charlotte’s circle to know what the biography contained before it was published: not surprisingly, since she had been the source for so much of the material, Mrs Gaskell was ‘gratified to hear her repeatedly say how completely the life at the Parsonage appeared to her reproduced’.59
Although Mrs Gaskell (and indeed Ellen) acted from the best of motives – a desire to vindicate Charlotte to the world – their cosy relationship meant that the former guarded the latter’s rights jealously; it never seems to have occurred to Mrs Gaskell that Charlotte’s husband and father had equal, if not greater rights than her friend. Her treatment of them was downright shabby. To her they were simply an embarrassment and an irritation, mere obstacles to be circumvented. In her use of Charlotte’s letters she was little short of dishonest with them.
From the very start of the undertaking, Patrick, Arthur and Ellen had all been united in expecting Mrs Gaskel
l to use Charlotte’s letters for information only: none of them expected her to quote from them in her biography which, indeed, they had all assumed would be an article, rather than a full-length memoir.60 Mrs Gaskell was well aware of this but was understandably seduced by the power of Charlotte’s writing. As early as August 1856, when she was about halfway through the biography, George Smith suggested that her extensive use of Charlotte’s letters should be indicated somewhere in the title or advertising. This was an idea that Mrs Gaskell was swift to crush for fear that Arthur would be alerted.
I do not wish the letters to assume a prominent form in the title or printing, as Mr Nicholls has a strong objection to letters being printed at all; and wished to have all her letters (to Miss Nussey & every one else) burned. Now I am very careful what extracts I make; but still her language, where it can be used, is so powerful & living, that it would be a shame not to express everything tha[t] can be, in her own words And yet I don’t want to alarm Mr Nicholls’ prejudices.61
Clearly she hoped to get round this problem by simply not revealing how much she had quoted. Arthur might object once the book was published but by then it would be too late. In the middle of November, however, Mrs Gaskell made a discovery which appalled her. Henry Chorley, the literary critic of the Athenaeum, having learnt that she was intending to quote Charlotte’s correspondence, wrote to warn her: ‘Remember correspondent’s permission to publish goes for nothing; the legal power over any deceased person’s papers lies with the executors … and thus Mr Nicholls may, if he likes turn sharp round on you, and not merely protest, but prohibit’. She wrote in a panic to George Smith.
Brontës Page 120
