LITR 4328 American Renaissance / Model Assignments

Sample Student Research Project 2016: Essay

Cassandra Waggett

From King to Companion: Evolving Views of Masculine Authority in Susan B. Warner’s The Wide, Wide, World

          At the time that Susan Warner wrote The Wide, Wide World, the American people’s understanding of the mechanics of religion and gendered society were in flux. The teachings of the Second Great Awakening had informalized and democratized Christian worship by depicting God as a watchful father rather than a distant king. This new paradigm emphasized the power of the individual, rather than that of the church, an institutional intermediary. It also brought God from the throne, a public space, into the home, a woman’s space. Simultaneously, and not unrelatedly, dialogue had sprung up challenging the concept of men as necessary intermediaries between women and public society.

          In The Wide, Wide World, Warner explores the question of how to reconcile submission to a male god and to male relatives with new possibilities of feminine autonomy and power through the alignment of a male god and mortal men; Ellen’s interactions with each of the men she encounters constitute different views of her relationship to God. Ellen’s progression from a confused and helpless child to a mature woman capable of adeptly navigating power-relationships parallels the journey that Warner and her female Christian contemporaries undertook to adapt to a new understanding of Christianity and femininity. Consistent with the pattern of the Second Great Awakening, the goal of feminine empowerment, and the events of the American revolution, Ellen’s relationship with masculine authority evolves from the obligatory and austere subjugation she experiences with Mr. Montgomery to the rewarding and mutual affection she experiences with John Humphreys.

Mr. Montgomery is a cold, distant king rather than a father. While Ellen is intensely disturbed at the thought of being separated from her mother, she has no emotional attachment to Mr. Montgomery. When at first Ellen believes that the consequence of the law suit is Mr. Montgomery’s departure, she quickly says “Well, mamma, that is bad; but he has been away a great deal before, and I am sure we were always happy” (Warner 11). Ellen expresses that there has been a great deal of emotional and physical distance between her and Mr. Montgomery. Additionally, the flat statement “that is bad” combined with “I am sure we were always happy” communicates that Ellen did not feel any loss at the prospect of being separated from her father but that she was happier in his absence. There is no shred of emotional intimacy between them. Concerning Ellen’s departure, the primary feeling that Mr. Montgomery harbors is anxiety—anxiety to send her on her way. After securing her passage with Mrs. Dunscombe, he is “quite relieved” (58). He is totally and inhumanly incapable of empathizing with his wife and daughter’s sense of loss. He asks “Why in the world should you wake her up, just to spend the whole night in useless grieving?” (59). This absurd question makes it clear that he himself feels no grief and has no understanding of the bond between parent and child. Additionally, Ellen “did not feel the touch of her father’s hand, nor hear him when he bid her good-by . . . . She knew nothing but that she had lost her mother” (64). Ellen’s relationship with her mother is complex and profound, while that with her father is shallow and strained. At this point, she is estranged from him, just as she is estranged from God.

Mr. Montgomery is an unjust, parasitic authority, much like Warner’s own father. After the losing the law suit, he is ‘“too poor now to stay [there] any longer.”. This poverty incites the move and separation. In a society in which the word father is synonymous with breadwinner, he has failed to financially provide for his family.  In the Afterword, Jane Tompkins writes that Henry Warner bankrupted his family through a series of mistakes and lawsuits. A lawyer himself, apparently, he had “failed to protect his interests in writing” (Tompkins 589). Although little detail about the law suit is given, Mrs. Montgomery does not empathize with her husband or defend him but resigns herself to the consequences of his loss, saying dispassionately “That’s right Ellen—, he has lost it” (Warner 11). In Woman’s Fiction, Nina Baym write’s that Warner, her sister, and her aunt made every effort to conserve money, but that their efforts “had little effect on Mr. Warner’s massive disbursal of cash, and the women had neither the legal or the physical ability to restrain him” (141). In the same way, Ellen and Mrs. Montgomery have no input in the decision to move; it is simply mandated to them as law. Mrs. Montgomery tells Ellen that Mr. Montgomery “thinks now… that it is very important for [her] health that [she] go with him” (Warner 11). Ellen immediately responds with despair at the loss of her mother, understanding that Mr. Montgomery’s opinions are equivalent to inevitable actions. She “entertained not the slightest hope of being able by any means to alter her father’s will” (20). The authority Mr. Montgomery exercises over Ellen is an imposition on her own desires. Ellen obeys him because as a female and a child she has no other choice, not because of any loyalty or deference.

While Ellen is under Mr. Montgomery’s power, she struggles to envision the paternal love of the Christian god. As Nina Baym states in Woman’s Fiction, “At the beginning of The Wide, Wide World, two powerless women are struggling to accept the apparent injustice of two fathers, injustice for which they have to recourse” (Baym 144-45). Mr. Montgomery is depriving Ellen of her mother by forcing her to travel, and God is doing the same by allowing that and also by ending Mrs. Montgomery’s life. New to suffering, Ellen cannot help but feel uncertain about the fairness and affection of such a heavenly father. Additionally, while she strives to know the god her mother has such faith in, Ellen’s understanding of love and faith is largely limited to her experiences of maternal affection.  Conversely, her attitude towards paternity is one of anxiety. Before her departure, she harbors “a feeling of indignation at her father’s cruelty in not waking her earlier” and “she [can] not pray” (Warner 62-63). Later, she tells George Marshman that she cannot love the savior because she “[loves] mamma a great deal better” (70). He says to her “it is not your mother, but [Christ] who has given you every good and pleasant thing” (72). Ellen struggles to open her heart to masculine affection after her experiences with Mr. Montgomery have made her wary.

In addition to causing Ellen to lack confidence in male figures, Mr. Montgomery’s actions directly threaten to prevent her from coming closer to God. In order to buy Ellen’s Bible and clothing, Mrs. Montgomery “applied to her husband for the funds”, much as one might apply for a loan from a bank, a financial intermediary (29). He “[gave] her a sum barely sufficient for [Ellen’s] mere clothing” (29). Unjustly, Mr. Montgomery has failed to generate income, disrupting his family’s way of life, and yet he still retains the authority to withhold funds because he is a man. He abuses that power in an effort to deprive Ellen of a Bible. His cruelty obstructs her path to a relationship with a divine father.

However, Mrs. Montgomery overcomes this obstacle by selling her mother’s ring, thus making a connection between maternal love, which Ellen fully comprehends, and God’s paternal love, which is yet abstract to her. While “the sacrifice cost her something”, and that sacrifice was “not thrown away upon [Ellen]”, what was gained through it was a binding of maternal legacy to the Bible, and to faith itself (Warner 29). Financing the Bible through her grandmother’s ring works to fortify Ellen’s connection to her mother while providing Ellen with the means to grow beyond the negative impression of masculine authority that has been impressed upon her by Mr. Montgomery.

Mrs. Montgomery’s decision to sell the ring also presents an example of a woman resourcefully finding a way to realize her will without defying masculine authority. For Mrs. Montgomery, selling the ring is an autonomous, unsanctioned act that she hints at when she tells Ellen that she cannot ‘“leave quietly [her] all in His hands”’ (Warner 11). ‘“His”’ refers most explicitly to the Christian God, but as this statement is contained with the discussion of Mr. Montgomery’s loss of the law suit, it also refers to Mr. Montgomery himself. Like Mrs. Montgomery, Ellen must learn to navigate power relationships and operate within the restraints imposed on her by men.

Ellen’s first alternative to Mr. Montgomery is the nameless old gentleman, to whom she completely surrenders control of herself. He is “her protector” who swoops in to rescue her from the unscrupulous Saunders (Warner 49). His benevolence takes the form of many lavish gifts. He tests her altruism by asking whether she would prefer a gift for herself or for her mother, and she responds “Oh, for mamma, sir” (52). Still, Ellen’s admiration of him is largely predicated upon material gifts and so is childish and simplistic.

Ellen’s encounter with Mr. Marshman goes a step further; he acts as her confessor, causing her to reflect on the nature of God’s love, and particularly on her obligations to God as his child. He tells her ‘“It is all—all God’s doing, from first to last; but his child has forgotten him in the very gifts of his mercy”’ (Warner 72). This discussion prompts Ellen to gravity, rather than childish joy.

Ellen’s understanding of God evolves over the course of her journey, finding completion through her relationship with John Humphreys. Although John is very possessive of her, telling her ‘“I think you belong to me more than to any body,”’ it is ultimately Ellen’s choice to return to America and marry him (Warner 563). Before departing to Scotland, she tells Mrs. Vawse ‘“when I am old enough to choose for myself… then I shall come back; if they will let me”’ (493). According to Tompkins, “The novel’s dramatization of dominion and submission… is sexualized from the start” (599). Indeed, John’s relationship with Ellen is fraught with sexual tension even from their very first encounter when he demands “a brother’s right” of a kiss (Warner 274). While there is something manipulative and darkly sexual in John’s mentorship of Ellen, it is not entirely void of benefit for her. According to Baym, “Marriage is the means of establishing a family that is not a biological unit but a community of loving adults assembled under one roof” (Baym 149). When Ellen chooses to leave the Lindsays and subject herself to John’s authority, she is exercises her own authority over her person. In this patriarchal society, she requires the protection of a male authority, but she chooses John, who has treated her far better than her blood relations. This is a choice she made as an adult woman, fully aware of the way power and gender operate in society.

Tompkins further asserts that in the unpublished chapter, when Ellen marries John, “reinfantilization, along with luxury and ease, is Ellen’s reward for years of suffering and discipline. She is entirely free of responsibility, and entirely dependent on others” (601). Tompkins contends that this is a regressive moment for Warner in which she “gives her heroine everything she herself wanted and couldn’t get” (601). However, while John does blanket Ellen in immense wealth, he also communicates his desire for her to be autonomous. Still in her youth, Ellen tells John “I will tell you everything about myself; and you will tell me how I ought to do in all sorts of things . . . . And then you will keep me right” (Warner 564). At this point, Ellen still conveys a childish desire for instruction, but John replies “I won’t promise you that, Ellie… you must learn to keep yourself right” (Warner 564). After their marriage, Ellen again tells him “I assure you I would a great deal rather you should know what I do”, and replied “I assure you I would a great deal rather not. No—Ellie—I leave it to you” (Warner 582). According to Amy Howard Green, author of “From Sinner to Saints: Emerging Agency in American Women’s Novels Before the Civil War,” “John is truly an idealized companion for Ellen, then, because he refuses to allow her to defer her sense of authority and self righteousness to his own judgment” (212). Even though John is possessive of Ellen, he does encourage her, and perhaps even requires her to think for herself. In contrast to Mr. Montgomery, who sought to suppress Ellen’s emotions and thoughts, John encourages her to find new ways of expressions, such as drawing (Warner 317).

While it is evident that John molds Ellen into his ideal wife and in his own image, John requires Ellen to make the choice to marry him herself. And even within the marriage she possesses financial responsibility, the very power that Mr. Montgomery had lorded over her mother (Warner 582). As Tompkins herself stated, in Warner’s time “Learning to resign oneself to the will of God was not regarded as cowardly or defeatist behavior but as a realistic way of meeting the facts of real life” (Tompkins 593). Similarly, Ellen’s submitting to a chosen masculine authority is not an act of hegemony, but a necessary action that is not altogether unpleasant for her. Regardless of whether John’s motives for educating and training Ellen were manipulative, his presence undeniably gives her genuine joy.

Ellen begins as a young, helpless girl living under the hand of an unjust and cold father. At the end of the narrative, she is a wealthy woman empowered by both her marriage and her faith. She chooses her husband and defers to him out of love, rather than duty. While this resolution is not as radical and rebellious as many modern readers may wish it to be, it is realistic. Ellen’s journey reconciles religion and deference to male authority with a new emphasis on the power of women, arguing that women can exert a great amount of influence while still operating within social norms.

Works Cited

Baym, Nina. Woman’s Fiction: A Guide to Novels by and about Women in American 1820-1870. Cornell University Press. 1978.

Green, Amy Howard. "From Sinners To Saints: Emerging Agency In American Women's Novels Before The Civil War." Dissertation Abstracts International 74.11 (2014): MLA International Bibliography. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.

Warner, Susan and Tompkins, Jane. The Wide, Wide World. The Feminist Press. 1989.

"Great Star" flag of pre-Civil War USA