Dear Ashton,

You were right. The latest cinematic presentation of P&P is a wonderful thing, though I did have a few minor quibbles which I'll specify in a bit.

Jennifer Ehle has a wonderfully animated face. One could almost get her dialog by watching her instead of listening. I mean it as a compliment when I write that she could have been one of the great silent screen actresses had she been born eighty years earlier. If I continue to write about her I'll start gushing and look more the fool than I already have in my posting. I'll only add that I would be reluctant to see Miss Ehle in anything else. It would be a shame to see her portraying a junkie in Glasgow or a serial murder victim in Manchester.

The miniseries was fine (I don't want to use the word "wonderful" again). I watched it with Mrs. P and neither of us was bored for a moment. Almost everything seemed right. Mrs. P. was so taken with it that she watched it again the next night while I was at work and then, while rewinding it, watched it again backwards. She told me that she wanted a copy of the tape and so Amazon.com was contacted post haste. She will no doubt watch it with her mother, who is Japanese, and her sisters, who I've been referring to for years as the Bennet sisters. It is the only tape I can think of that she has ever shown an interest in owning. If I'm lucky, she'll let me watch it again. An added bonus is that she's started reading the book, so we may have an Austenite in the making.

Colin Firth was good as Darcy. He was a bit less foreboding than David Rintoul and was capable of showing a man who appeared to others as a cool enigma because of his reticence. It was interesting that the only time he breaks into a full smile is after the wedding when he has he prize (I don't mean to sound sexist by using that expression).

Mrs. Bennet was played too broad for my taste. She was more of a caricature than a character. Such a broadness would be better suited for the stage than film. Mrs. Bennet was a flibberty-gibbet, but I don't think she was intended to be a hysterical hen.

Also, the character of Mr. Collins was too much the smarmy factotum. There was a bit too much of Uriah Heep in the portrayal. And his posture reminded me of Igor in the old Frankenstein movies.

My other problems were more technical than anything else. (i.e. the use of steel pens at that time) but as I said before, it was a wonderful thing.

Thanks to you, Ashton, I've been ruined (or as Brooke Shields used to say, "runed"). I'm awaiting your pronouncement on the film version of MP.

Dear Dave,

I seize any opportunity to create a Janeite, so I want to help you with your wife. Rent a copy of the Amanda-Root version of Persuasion. That should do it. I should warn you though, that this may backfire because both my wife and daughter inform me that the actor who portrays Wentworth is homely. (To me he seemed a big rugby player and, so, was perfect for the part.) Here is a link to a web page for that version.

I know myself a bit, so when I designed this web site, I resolved to speak very little about Jennifer Ehle. I didn't want this site to degenerate into a Jennifer-Ehle fan club. However, if you are interested, here is a link to a 1995 P&P web page; from there you can follow links to interviews with Ms. Ehle and to notices of current and past projects. I think she is absolutely wonderful. You say that you do not want to see her in a contemporary role and that struck a chord with me; I feel the same way. In fact - this is very odd - it will be a personal disaster for me if I ever learn that she has done a nude scene. I can't explain that feeling because I have nothing against those scenes in general. (Well, actually I do, but I can get lost in the moment I assure you.)

There is another young British actress I might bring to your attention: I am thinking of Justine Waddell who played the title role in an A&E production of Tess of the D'Urbervilles. - Wonderful actress in a wonderful production. The English seem to be able to educate generation after generation of talented actresses while we seem never to have produced a single one. We seem only to produce commercial packages that fit into narrow demographic markets. We have the Julia-Roberts market and package or the Steep/Close market and package (ugh), etc.

Dear Sir,

All right, I know I'm late, but it's still Saturday somewhere on this Earth, so I claim exemption on that ground.

From your last post on Fanny, Edmund and Mary, I get the impression that you are really reading, and appreciating, the most thoughtful of Jane Austen's novels for the first time. Mansfield Park is like Fanny Price's feelings:  'a la mortal - finely chequered.' Mansfield Park is unique: with the exception, perhaps, of Mrs Norris (and perhaps Mr Price, though he seems more noise than active malice), it is difficult to condemn any character absolutely:  their creator certainly does not set out to do so.  When trying to understand the Crawfords, their impact on Mansfield, and their subsequent relationships with the inhabitants, it is useful to remember that Jane Austen was being to a degree allegorical: the novel was making a point about the relative merits of solid, established country Tory society, as opposed to the Flash Jacks of London.  Fanny herself comments at one point that she was inclined to view London as the enemy of all relationships:  this is what the Crawfords represent   nice enough, in themselves:  elegant, educated, able to recognise and appreciate principles and merit in others, but lacking insight into their own behaviour:  'a mind dark, yet fancying itself light.'

When considering Henry's catastrophic effect on the lives of Maria and Julia, one needs to bear in mind an interesting point.  Lady Bertram, 'in consequence of a little ill health and a good deal of indolence', gave up the house in town.  This means that the Miss Bertrams were not presented, and did not take their place in London society, as was undoubtedly their social right, and their expectation.  'In the country, therefore, they continued to grow womanly and graceful, and practise their duets.'  And they were bored ratless as a result.  Tom, the only member of the family to have lived in the narrow, fashionable world of London, doesn't even notice the Crawfords.  The sisters, with nothing by way of comparison but the balls of Northampton which 'they occasionally attended', were bowled over.

I can point to parallels in the lives of the Mitford sisters, many years later, whose exploits were hilariously immortalised by Nancy in The Pursuit of Love, and Love in a Cold Climate:  a family of clever, privileged children, kept in seclusion in the country, according to the eccentric rules of their Edwardian father, who burst loose one and all - unfortunately, at a time of great political turmoil.  At least Maria didn't sleep with Hitler!
Julie

Dear Julie, Meister and All,

I have always imagined that Jane and Cassandra would have fought to the death if Crabbe had turned up on their doorstep and said "Hello, anyone care to marry me now my wife has joined the dearly departed?" but Our Lady would have won. Julie would probably have the edge on me if it came to a terminal fight over the affections of the Meister in a bizarre love triangle as I have been as shadowy and inconspicuous as Cassandra of late.

I am in mourning for the death of my innocence. Many people have told me that Shakespeare stole the ideas for his stories but somewhere in the back of my mind I have always steadfastly refused to believe this and supposed him capable of the imagination necessary to create not only Romeo and Juliet but also to invent the entire life of Henry IV, which is patently ridiculous.

Now I am afraid Our dear Lady must join the ranks of those accused of literary theft. I have just finished volume 1 of Richardson's Pamela. And basically it's Pride and Predjudice but written 60 years earlier. Our Pam can be as brilliantly rude and witty as E. Bennet and she has the same trials (though marginally more extreme). She faces Catherine De Bourgh in the person of Lady Davers, gets slapped around a bit, has the presence of mind to escape from a window, you know the sort of thing. She is nauseatingly grateful to her dear, poor parents (who I began to wish would drop dead fairly early on but sadly have made it intact to the end of volume 1).

As the good bookksellers of Perth cannot actually seem to supply me with a copy of Volume two I am resolved to take a break, get up to speed with bizarre love triangle Mary, Fanny, Edmund and contribute fully to the discussion in hand.

I have no opinion as yet but I am fully of the belief that some outrageous theory will occur to me in about ten nanoseconds which I will be unable to resist sharing. Simply pray that I do not develop Pamela's sickening sense of gratefulness at being allowed to participate in this way or else I will drive everyone else from this board with interminable speeches of thanks.

But seriously folks, read Pamela if you want to see where Our Lady was coming from.

From the Meister: Anielka! Where have you been - er - bean? Have you ever heard that old saying, "good writers borrow and great writers steal"?

Dear Anielka,

If you wish to meet Cassandra, forget about the second, or the seventy-third, volume of Pamela, and obtain a collection of Jane Austen's letters that include those written by Cassandra to Fanny Knight, after Jane's death.  Having read those, you will no longer find Cassandra shadowy.

Also, in writing as in life, everything comes from somewhere. Taking relationships as one's subject inevitably means that one is covering 'old' ground:  it's not the story, it's the telling. You have already pointed out some excellent reasons why Pamela is no longer read, while Pride and Prejudice is.
Julie

Dear Ashton and open-minded Folks,

I have for a long time wished to share this with someone but other Jane Austen Boards are perhaps not the place. They are frequently populated with girlies who like a period drama in lovely frocks and rabid Christian Alligators who believe that Our Lady is "nice" and that to suggest anything else is blasphemous.

There's nothing wrong with frocks or Christianity but I think Our Lady has a weensy bit more depth than people are often wont to grant her. Remember she was remarkably clever and she and her family were very clever at double and triple meanings and every sort of word-game. Nearly every name, date or place in The Big Six had a significant derivation or meaning for Jane.

So brace yourself for this one. Our Lady was cracking homosexual jokes at the age of 14. Read her "History of England" for the famous Carr-pet/James 1st joke. And the Fanny/Edmond/Mary love triangle can be read as an equilateral as well as an isosceles triangle. That is, you can read the whole book as either Mary and Fanny "competing" for Edmond or you can read it as "..Edmond and Mary "competing" for Fanny.

Now, the "nice frocks, rabid alligators" amongst you will instantly cry "oh no! Nothing nasty like that in our Jane Austen. Show us the proof" And for most of the proof they answer "Oh no, they are just good friends". And that’s the whole point of a good, clever double-entendre of a sexual nature. It can be read as a perfectly innocent remark. But there are so many in Mansfield Park that you would have to be very resilient to the idea to refute the cumulative evidence that Ms. Austen is giving us a second message to read.

Consider first how we are introduced to Mary. Very early on we sit with her, Fanny and Edmond at a dinner-party and Mary comes out with the immortal lines "Certainly, my home at my uncle's brought me acquainted with a circle of admirals. Of _Rears_ and _Vices_ I saw enough. Now do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat." And of course, short of sticking a flashing neon notice to her head saying "this woman makes homosexual puns" we could not have a clearer signpost of Mary’s character and what she represents. We could then look at my previous bizarre theory, that Mary and Fanny are somehow analogous to Mary Wollstencraft and Fanny Blood, who also had an "obsessive" relationship. Certainly Fanny Crawford’s background is very similar to that of Mary Wollstencraft. Now take the story as a whole. Edmond and Mary constantly end up competing for Fanny in exactly the same way. They both seek her out for play rehearsals. They both give her the same gift, a chain for her cross. And Mary could be seen to encourage Henry’s attachment to Fanny as a way of continuing her own attachment to Fanny. If you reread the chapters you will see that every line can be read as a double entendre eg. (Mary to Fanny) You must rehearse it with me so that I may fancy you him, "Edmond was come on the very same business that had brought Miss Crawford" etc etc. There are hundreds of these lines.

Then there’s all the countless "obvious" stuff.  The "is Fanny out" - discussion between Mary and Edmond The "close friendship" between Mary and Margaret Fraser and how Mrs. Fraser will be interested/jealous of Fanny. Then there’s the stuff that needs a little knowledge of early nineteenth century double-entendres to analyse. The word "queen" has a very old meaning. It started as the old english word cwen for woman which diverged over the years to both cween (wife of the sovereign) and cwean (slatternly downwardly mobile woman). It was then reunited as a double entendre to mean " possibly homosexual man who has female attributes eg. dress" and more loosely, "person whom one suspects of being homosexual" hence the Latin hexameter " during the reign of James 1, apparently famed for being homosexual "Rex fuit Elizabeth nunc est regina Jacobus" (Elizabeth was a king now James is a queen.) Remember all the fuss Henry and Mary make over whether Fanny has the queen and whether "the game" is hers or not? The word "chapel" also had a double meaning that it has lost today. A chapel was a place where homosexual relationships were formed. Then there’s Fanny Price’s name. If you are American you may not be aware that the name "Fanny" has and had (re: book "Fanny Hill") a double meaning suggesting that our heroine’s "virtue" was in some way for sale.

You can easily refute all this and tell me that it’s perfectly innocent and that I’m reading stuff into it. And that’s the whole point of a good double entendre. It requires you to bring a second meaning to your reading in order to see it but makes perfect sense without. The only way to prove it is to look at the other novels, let’s say Pride and Predjudice and try to find the double entendres in that. And you won’t be able to. Because there aren’t any homosexual double entendres in Pride and Predjudice.

I accept that this may be considered too reactionary for the good chaps of Male Voices but I felt if there was a bunch of open-minded Austen fans anywhere, here would be the place.

Dear Anielka,

I am reluctant to correspond with anyone who would advise their friends to read Richardson. And to compare Pamela to Elizabeth Bennet is simply blasphemous.  But I'm surprised you could read Northanger Abbey and not understand that Austen borrows - and improves!  Indeed, that is the cornerstone of good writing.  Her Juvenilia is rife with examples.  But if you love Pamela so much, you should read Fielding's take on it.  That is worth reading but, of course, only after you've read the novel that he is lampooning.  Indeed, my desire to understand Fielding's novel was the only thing that got me through Richardson's.  I have to agree with Julie - there are very good reasons why we don't read Richardson anymore.

Meanwhile, your thoughts on Mansfield Park were intriguing even though I've heard many of them before, especially the Rears and Vices line.  There really is no other way to understand it.  You left out the part about incestuous references, but I suspect you'll get to that later. Anyway, there's a fairly lively discussion of that subject resting in the archives.

As the Meister is always the first to point out, Our Lady was no prude, and your views, in my opinion, are perfectly acceptable, although I can't say I totally agree.  You were very thorough with your explication of "Queen" but are you sure "out" in reference to a young lady's entry into society can be doubly interpreted to mean "out of the closet?"  Or have I misunderstood what you were implying?  I believe the latter phrase would have been completely unknown to Austen, but I could be wrong.

I'd love to type more, but the Squire is banging on my bedroom door even as I type this e-pistle in a feverish frenzy - egads!  He has burst through the door and he's wearing nothing but a candlestick and a lecherous smile!  Whatever am I to think!  How will my parents be able to help me out of this situation? I shall be ruined for sure!

I sincerely hope my typing accuracy has not suffered in this terrible struggle, and that this letter finds you well.

No!  You naughty Squire.  You may not lick my stamp!

Dear Heather,

Well by complete coincidence (well, as a follow-up to Pamela) I have read Shamela. I read it on the beach today and thought it was incredibly funny, particularly the bit where she is writing in the present tense and being ravished at the same time. And the bit where she compares Parson Williams to the sun - if the sun had a pipe sticking out of its mouth. I still stand by my recommendation to read Richardson if only because one could not understand or find Fielding funny without reading it. Next stop, Joseph Andrews, Fielding's second spoof where our Pam's brother hangs on to his virtue. Not read it yet!

Surely not blasphemous? Since when did Elizabeth Bennet become a Saint of Our Lady's creation? The whole wonder is that Our Lady had to get her ideas from somewhere and this, apparently, is one small source. (Or should I say "sauce"? in-joke for Fielding/Richardson readers only) Anyway, Our Lady liked Richardson and if it was good enough for her, it's good enough for me. Apparently Richardson's Clarissa is much better so I shall read that next. Never denied that Our Lady has improved on everything her midas-like pen touched on. Just mired in the reality that it came from somewhere.

No, never spotted the incestuous relationship stuff but I will have a look. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. Simply that when I heard Ms. Rozema had taken this particular interpretation it set me thinking. I thought to myself "I have a choice here. I can either go into a spiral of infuriated denial or I can reread and see if there could be anything in it". So I did the rereading thing first and saw lots of things I'd missed the first time I read it. I then challenged the whole idea and decided that perhaps Ms. Rozema had simply encouraged me to "read things into Mansfield Park" that weren't there. So I reread Pride and Predjudice specifically looking for double entendres. And I didn't find any. Nor can one read things into Northanger Abbey or any of the other three books. Now that is interesting, because of course, you can refute a double-entendre  that's the point of it  it can be explained away with a more innocent meaning. But how are we then, to explain away the absence of double-entendre material in the other five novels?

An English scholar from Oxford once said to me "Jane Austen was so immensely clever, there is not one thing in those novels that isn't there for a reason". I keep asking myself "Why would Jane Austen have Mary Crawford tell a blatantly homosexual joke at that dinner party?". I'm sure there's a reason. But what?

I seem to remember Richardson was accused of titilating his reader whilst trying to illustrate Pam's bid to hang on to her virtue in rather graphic bedroom scenes. I am very worried about the effect you will have on innocent philatelists everywhere with your lurid descriptions of stamp-licking.

I can smell dinner burning so must away to box Mrs. Jewkes ears and send Honest Robin Coachman for a take-away pizza.

From the Meister: Do you not think that Mary's
joke had something to do with the common jokes
about the English Navy? Why think, instead, it had
something to do with her own sexual preference?
And what do you think about Jane Austen's feelings
about someone who would joke in this way about the
navy? Would she have laughed?

Dear Ashton,

Yes, that's an interesting point  I had not thought of JA's brothers being in the Navy and thus the anti-navy joke could in fact be a neon sign stuck to Ms. Crawfords head saying "not a very nice person". (Is that what you meant?) Although she could have just stuck to the original tone of her insults "their flags, and the gradation of their pay, and their bickerings and jealousies". But she doesn't. JA chose to have her tell that joke. And also, JA herself was happy to write the Carr-pet joke which she obviously thought was funny when she wrote the "History of England" Any other reasons?

Meister: Yes, that is my point exactly. To me, Mary's
sodomy joke (if indeed, it actually is a sodomy joke)
is in roughly the same category as Emma Woodhouse's
joke on Box Hill.

Still no-one can answer to my satisfaction why you can read double meanings into Mansfield Park but you can't read them into the other five. Any ideas on this?

(Squire Booby rather liked his burnt dinner, by the way "Why Shamela" quoth he "Thou hast helped me to a most delicious portion and are a great example to all other living women. I am particularly fond of your round-eared cap and the generous helping of cheese carefully melted over the top of my victuals" For indeed, I would not suffer my good master B- to see that I had burnt his dinner and what the eye does not see, the taste-buds apparently do not grieve. Later we indulged in some stamp-licking after the example of that good woman, Mrs. Heather.)

Meister: I am very glad that you have broached this subject with Heather because I have been unable to sleep since our friend made that posting - that description of her extreme cruelty to the Squire. My heart goes out to that brother who is struggling with a new job and must come home to a cold, darkened manor house, carry an unlit candle about, and suffer his beloved's admonition, "NOT NOW, I'm on the internet!". And think about this, Heather, - have you ever thought about this? - you can always use that stamp again you know, you only need a little paste.

Dear Anielka,

You have always been a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and energetic member of this community. I can think of no better example than yourself of the type of person that I had in mind when this board was designed. I hope that you will always feel comfortable here and will continue with your - with our struggle to illuminate Jane Austen's vision.

The recent filmed version of Mansfield Park has not yet reached my neighborhood, but you must know that all reports indicate that the views expressed in your posting are consistent with those of the filmmaker. I must wait for the film, but I can rebut your views now - thank you. (Excuse me as I wipe my chin.)

Most of what you say is not supported by the text; in fact, it is directly contradicted. Here is a list of things that you contend but which are directly contradicted by Jane Austen's text.

• Mary Crawford and Fanny Price were friends
• Mary and Edmund were competing for Fanny
• Mary's nature and views were anything remotely like Mary Wollstonecraft's

I can also touch on the things that you see as double entendre - you are on very shaky ground there. I believe that the given names of Mrs. Bennet and the younger Mrs. Dashwood are also Fanny. Perhaps you will insist that those women were of commercial virtue as well. When William Price recieves his commission, the characters in the novel say that he is a "made man". If someone were to use this fact to suggest that Jane Austen was sending us a secret message that William was a Mafia hit-man, it would be the equivalent of your interpretation of Mary Crawford's use of the word "out".

I don't understand how anyone can deny the relationships that Jane Austen makes so explicit: Fanny loves Edmund; Edmund loves Mary; Mary loves Edmund; and Fanny dislikes and mistrusts Mary. It is all so obvious. Edmund's treatment of Fanny was consistent with those of a generous and feeling man. Those feelings are identical to those of his father except that, during the first part of the novel, Sir Thomas was distracted and more concerned about his own children - that changed dramatically when Sir Thomas came to understand his own respect and love for Fanny.

There is that passage in which Crawford informed Mary that he must have Fanny Price: "But I cannot be satisfied without Fanny Price, without making a small hole in Fanny Price's heart." At first Mary argues with him and points out that Fanny's attraction to Henry was that she did not much like him. She banters rather than remonstrates with her brother before she gives up the matter:

"And without attempting any further remonstrance, she left Fanny to her fate--..."

This is hardly the action of a friend or even of a lesbian predator. Jane Austen continually expresses Fanny's feeling about the Crawfords. Here is an example. Fanny goes to Mary to receive some advice about how to prepare for the ball that Sir Thomas is giving in Fanny's honor (her cousins are not to home). Mary gives Fanny a necklace on which to wear the amber cross, which was a gift from William. After Fanny accepts, Mary tells her that the necklace had come to her from Henry. Fanny is revolted and tries to return the gift but Mary insists. Then Jane Austen tells us this.

"Fanny dared not make any further opposition; and with renewed but less happy thanks accepted the necklace again, for there was an expression in Miss Crawford's eyes she could not be happy with... --[Crawford] was something like what he had been to her cousins: he wanted, she supposed, to cheat her of her tranquility as he had cheated them; and whether he might not have some concern in this necklace!--She could not be convinced that he had not, for Miss Crawford, complaisant as a sister, was careless as a woman and a friend."

Unlike Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Crawford was independently wealthy. She had a 20,000 pound inheritance and her income from interest must have been between 700 to 1000 pounds per annum. That was considerably more than the income of her brother-in-law, Dr. Grant, and he was considered well off. The differences hardly end there, unlike Wollstonecraft, Miss Crawford reveled in high society and was comfortable with the facts of hereditary rule. Can you really imagine Mary Crawford traveling to revolutionary France or ever allowing a man to impregnate her when she could not claim a husband's support? Can you really imagine Mary Crawford to have a political thought?

However, I hope you continue to argue your position. I suspect that you are about to have a big-screen ally. I know what it is like to be the only one who acknowledges the truth. For example, I am currently receiving a lot of ridicule because I am insisting that the third millenium will not start on January 1, 2000 - logically, it can only start a year later. People think me crazy - again.

Links