Dear Julie,
Sometimes a diagram helps illuminate a literary character. There can be no doubt that Elizabeth Bennet is the chief female character in PP. Jane Austen has surrounded her with other young women. Elizabeth is a young woman of good intellect personal charm, decided but incomplete opinions that develop in the novel through a movement away from error into real understanding, fame as one of great beauties of southern England, a wry and piercing wit, good knowledge of the world, and a lively and pleasant conversationalist in any setting, but a little too fiesty when she feels unfairly challenged and far too certain that all of her judgements are unassailable.
On either side of her are Jane and Charlotte, both level headed and loyal friends to Elizabeth, who stands between them in beauty and philosophical outlook. Charlotte is phlegmatic and even stoic: Her philosophy is much like that of Cassius in Julius Caesar, very observant and capable of seeing through the words and deeds of others but, unlike that noble Roman,... not all envious. For practical reasons. she is moderate in all things, including her expectations of men, marriage, and life. In this novel, she is the Cassandra whom Elizabeth refuses to believe until the turning point of the novel.
Opposite Charlotte is Jane, the most beautiful woman in Hertfordshire and no doubt, the very paradigm of faith, hope, and charity in her unconciously practised treatment of others. Her natural error is thinking too well of everyone and suspecting evil in no one, although she knows that evil exists.
Also in the circle surrounding Jane are Lydia and Miss Bingley, poles apart, Mary and Kitty, also poles apart, and later, Georgiana, off to one side.
All these young women help us see who and what is Elizabeth..
And I must sign off.
John
Dear Julie,
Sometimes a diagram helps illuminate a literary character. There can be no doubt that Elizabeth Bennet is the chief female character in PP. Jane Austen has surrounded her with other young women. Elizabeth is a young woman of good intellect personal charm, decided but incomplete opinions that develop in the novel through a movement away from error into real understanding, fame as one of great beauties of southern England, a wry and piercing wit, good knowledge of the world, and a lively and pleasant conversationalist in any setting, but a little too fiesty when she feels unfairly challenged and far too certain that all of her judgements are unassailable.
On either side of her are Jane and Charlotte, both level headed and loyal friends to Elizabeth, who stands between them in beauty and philosophical outlook. Charlotte is phlegmatic and even stoic: Her philosophy is much like that of Cassius in Julius Caesar, very observant and capable of seeing through the words and deeds of others but, unlike that noble Roman,... not all envious. For practical reasons. she is moderate in all things, including her expectations of men, marriage, and life. In this novel, she is the Cassandra whom Elizabeth refuses to believe until the turning point of the novel.
Opposite Charlotte is Jane, the most beautiful woman in Hertfordshire and no doubt, the very paradigm of faith, hope, and charity in her unconciously practised treatment of others. Her natural error is thinking too well of everyone and suspecting evil in no one, although she knows that evil exists.
Also in the circle surrounding Jane are Lydia and Miss Bingley, poles apart, Mary and Kitty, also poles apart, and later, Georgiana, off to one side.
All these young women help us see who and what is Elizabeth..
And I must sign off.
John
Dear John,
Perhaps I have been looking from the wrong angle, and taking Elizabeth Bennet's views as being those of her creator. We have argued long and hard over the years ('we' being Ashton and myself) over the choices available to women of no fortune living in Jane Austen's time. Our most memorable, perhaps, was that of the status of the governess in society. Jane Austen herself was far too intelligent a person not to realise that, in real life, Charlotte Lucas' decision was one made by many, many women what is interesting I think, is to compare the comparative freedom that English women of that period enjoyed in these matters, compared to their European contemporaries - and don't forget what was done to Colonel Brandon's first beloved, and to Elinor Tilney, when they showe preferences for men of whom their controllers disapproved.
As I have recently pointed out, Jane Austen herself agreed to marry a wealthy man, only to retract her decision overnight I can't believe that she was in love in the evening with this man, (whom she knew well, and who was younger than herself) and then fell out again before dawn. Nor can I believe that a woman of her intelligence and acuity said 'yes' simply because she found it difficult to disoblige him.
Jane Austen was only too familiar with the plight of the dependent woman - she was one. She also lived for many years with Martha Lloyd, whose position was even more potentially uncomfortable. I am forty-five years old, and I have two brothers. I would not wish, thank you, to have to ask them to feed and clothe me pride is now as it was then, and Jane Austen illustrated her exquisite understanding of the situation of poor gentlewomen in Emma. Mr Woodhouse saying how he wished he could do more for the Bates ladies. Poor Miss Bates, condemned to eternal good humour and gratitude. People do not like to have to live in this manner, and I don't blame Charlotte Lucas one bit for her decision. And at the end of the day, the only problem is that the arrangement has to be window-dressed with love and marriage, in order to keep people happy. Had Charlotte been able to become a business partner, housekeeper, and co-manager of Mr Collins' parish, nobody would care. It's just the fact that they share a bed .........
Incidentally, many women in Jane Austen's works marry men with whom they are
in love; many men, also, marry women they fancy, and the results are as
problematic as those of the Collins'. Consider Mrs Tilney, whose son concedes
that she had much to bear during her lifetime. Sir Thomas Bertram, Mr
Bennet, Lady Elliot, who we are told was a good, intelligent woman 'if her
understanding could be forgiven the one indiscretion that made her Lady
Elliot.' At least Charlotte married with her eyes wide ......
Julie
From the Meister: The question is not what
Charlotte
was thinking when she married; the question, for me,
is what she
had led Collins to think.
Dear Sir,
Charlotte led Mr Collins to believe that she would marry him, and so she
did. She led him to believe that she would make him a good wife and, as
far as we know, so she did. What is there to blame in any of
that?
Julie
P.S.: And please don't try to convince me that she inveigled Mr
Collins, a man who contemplated three, and actually made two, proposal, to
different women, in the space of a week. It's just too much.
J.
Dear Julie and Ashton,
My promise to submit a thorough analysis of Charlotte Lucas, one of Jane Austen's most estimable characters, will have to wait longer for its delivery.
Since my eye operations, it has been necessary, for the first time in my life to use reading glasses and although I have a range of diopters available in the house and have bought additional glasses for reading, it has not been a quick and easy transition. But do not misdirect pity toward me: there is another side which makes me vastly pleased, the return of near and distance eye-sight without wearing opticals. It was a considered choice.
The consequence is that it is far easier to read the Voices submissions than it is to read small-print hard copy. I have been dipping into past submissions and have found that some Voices have already expressed understandings so close to my own that it seems necessary to go back to the beginnings of the archives and read everything before beginning to arrange electrons into scholarly patterns. Even the submissions furthest from my own understandings have something to offer in the way of inviting and suggesting arguments that I think can cast friendly light upon the character of Charlotte Lucas. The most egregious statements [a good word, "egregious", and one already used in a posting] can suggest a way through the wilderness and lead to sunlit or shady glades.
The most common error, I think, may be called the Elizabeth Bennet fallacy. Until Elizabeth Bennet's visit to Hunsford and then the receipt of Darcy's letter, Elizabeth is wrong about pretty well everything. Her words and actions do not represent Jane Austen. Pride and Prejudice is a sermon illustrated with plot, characters, and action. To understand this sermon, one must hear it all and not fall asleep on the way to Hunsford. Jane Austen has something to say for the edification of her congregation, and her chosen pulpit is the novel form in which no one has said it better.
It can be only in this light that Charlotte Lucas can be understood it
can be only in this light that we may see why Jane Austen created this
character.
John
To All,
Despite all your hard work, Ashton, I'm still not convinced that Charlotte Lucas is the antichrist. It's true that I wouldn't want one of my friends to engage in such behavior, but I think Charlotte is honest in her assessment that she has as much chance of happiness with Mr. Collins as with any other man. That's just Charlotte's nature. I have a strong suspicion that when the inevitable children arrive, Charlotte really will be happy. As for Mr. Collins, I don't think Charlotte has any business declaring that Mr. Collins isn't really in love with her; for all we know he's Abelard to her Heloise. (And no one seems to have any trouble believing that Willoughby has fallen in love with Marianne in two meetings, do they?) The sad fact is that women have always married for reasons other than love; financial/emotional security, to have children, to have a date every New Year's Eve, to have a fairytale wedding or honeymoon, to show up her girl friends, to make a boyfriend jealous. Women can be as unscrupulous and stupid as men.
From the Meister: Granted.
More so even.
Something I didn't see discussed was how Charlotte's behavior is the very first time we see how poor Elizabeth is at judging and understanding another person's character. She's known Charlotte all her life, and Charlotte has even positively stated "no reasonable offer refused," yet Elizabeth declares "no, you wouldn't really do that, I know better," and seems to believe that's the end of the matter. And Elizabeth can laugh her secret laugh at Bingley's value as an easily manipulated friend to Mr. Darcy, but let's not forget that Lizzie threw herself a pretty big snit when Charlotte chose her own course in life, rather than be guided by her.
Eventually Elizabeth will gain enough maturity not only to judge other people
better, but to realize that the Charlottes of the world can't be blamed for not
being the person we imagined them to be. This isn't to say that Lizzie
will ever forgive or approve of Charlotte's behavior I would guess that the
friendship will gradually fade away once Elizabeth changes her name. And
if Julie will forgive me for drawing conclusions about our Lady Author, I would
say the JA herself probably would approve move of Elizabeth's behavior than
Jane's "forgive and forget" approach.
Cheryl
From the Meister: Great posting. Julie won't forgive
you.
Where have you been - excuse me - where have you bean?
Dear Cheryl,
I agree with you in your opinion on how Jane Austen judged Charlotte's actions. Jane Austen herself, at one point, on receiving a proposal from one Mr Bigg-Wither, was Charlotte in the evening and Elizabeth the following morning, to the immense distress of herself and her sister. The fact that Jane Austen herself was prepared, however temporarily, to consent to marriage with a man she knew she didn't love, because of 'all the horrible eligibilities' of the match, itself illustrates what a difficult position many women of the period were in, where marriage must be 'the pleasantest way of securing themselves from want.' All of my rantings re Charlotte are simply a plea to leave her be - she has made her choice, for her own good reasons, and gives every indication of sticking honourably to her side of the bargain. Nobody, not even Elizabeth Bennet, has a right to lay down the rule of right and wrong to others. It might be worth considering what Sir Thomas Bertram has to say to Fanny, after she has refused Mr Crawford (not that I am defending him, or wishing that Fanny had acted differently): he points out that, by marrying Mr Crawford, she would cease to be a financial burden on her uncle, and would have the means to benefit her large, indigent family, whom he also partially supports. It's almost like human sacrifice, isn't it? But Fanny herself, when exposed to the privations and the misery of Portsmouth life, feels sufficiently for her sister to consider the good she could do Susan, as Mrs Crawford.
It must have been so difficult - it was, indeed, difficult, as Jane Austen's
own experience makes clear - to be offered the chance of financial independence,
as opposed to a lifetime of dependence on one's male relatives, and also,
perhaps, to have the opportunity to benefit one's family - by means of a
'business marriage.' Mrs Austen, Cassandra, Jane and Martha Lloyd, were
never rich - they were dependent on the support of Mrs Austen's sons, and
whatever means Martha may have had. What choices, what standard of living,
would they have had, had not Edward been adopted and named heir by the Knight
family? Jane Austen comments in Emma that poor, single women are
'the proper sport of boys and girls', but then qualifies this by saying,
rightly, that it is poverty that causes this lack of respect and consideration
in the public mind - 'and, indeed, a narrow income has a tendency to narrow the
mind.' Clearly, she had thought on this subject a good deal. I don't
believe that she approved of Charlotte's behaviour, but I don't believe, either,
that she meant to vilify her.
Julie
From the Meister: You are saying a number of things about the Bigg-Wither proposal that cannot be proven. The Bigg sisters were Jane Austen's best friends and the proposal was a surprise - we all know how difficult it was for Jane Austen to disappoint anyone. There are many plausible alternatives to your explanation. Incidentally, didn't you, only very recently, admonish me with "...might I suggest that time spent in fantasising and imagining motives for the characters of Jane Austen's novels might be better spent in actually reading her works. ... I enjoy reading Jane Austen's Life, and her private correspondence, enormously, but I have not the impertinence to hook one up to the other." The attitude you express today makes more sense to me.
Dear Ashton,
I've -- bean-- right here, reading, but I didn't feel as if I had much of anything to add to the current discussions. And most of my time off work the past couple of weeks has been spent picking huckleberries. It would take a Cray to calculate the number of huckleberries it takes to make one gallon. And you'd need to link every computer in the world together to figure out how many it takes to make one gallon when there's bear scat everywhere. Ever notice how much a charging ground squirrel sounds like a charging black bear? Of course when there's bears around, a may fly sounds like a grizzly.
Something I forgot to mention about Charlotte is that I don't think anyone should make too much of her low opinion of men. What JA probably edited out at some point was a second sentence along the line of "As would any young woman who had reached her 27th (?I think) year without inspiring even one young man to undying passion."
Did you mean to say women are more unscrupulous, stupider, (one or the
other) or both? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you,
although on the stupid side, "bikini wax" and silicone implants are no longer
just for women.
Cheryl
From the Meister: They always were intended for a
certain
type of man, were they not? The type that can admire what
others
might find a bit funny.
To All,
Has anyone ever read the Jane Austen mystery series by Stephanie Barron? I recently came across the first volume of the series at the library and became curious. I am sort of afraid to read it for fear I might be disappointed in the way our lady is portrayed. If I do finally read it, I'll let you know how it is.
To All,
I must apologise for my last pompous post. There is never any excuse for bad behaviour, but the fact is that I had just had my beloved dog euthanased in my arms, and I wasn't, perhaps, at my most objective. I sounded like a total (Australian vernacular deleted), and I do apologise.
And, John, please ask me too about Mansfield Park, which is my
equal favourite work, along with Emma.
Julie
Dear Julie,
I feel so badly for you because I know how important your dog was to you. At
least he could have you near. I still think of pets that have been gone for many
years now. I know that your goats are bearing youngs ones now, and I hope that
all that new life can bring you comfort. Remember, you always have a web Meister
to rear and discipline.
Love, Ashton
To All,
The distress was made the greater because Puppy (we called her that because she was one, once) was my daughter's dog, and Kim, who is now nearly twenty, had owned her since she was nine years old. I doubt she can remember a time without her dog. We knew the dog had cancer, and I think the strain of getting up every morning, dreading what I might find - and, of course, like any parent, wanting to spare one's child - knocked me about a bit. Break here for self-indulgent howl.
But it has made me think, and it is interesting to note the absence of animals in Jane Austen's works, and in her life. Let me see: in Northanger Abbey there was 'a charming game of play with a litter of puppies, just big enough to roll around' there is a lame carriage horse, a dicey black mare, and a dead pig in Emma - and a little Welch cow, I suppose Lady Bertram has pugs, but they don't seem to be any recommendation, and Fanny and Edmund between them have the old grey pony and Edmund's mare, which proved 'a treasure'. In her private letters, Jane Austen never mentions a pet animal - no tabby cat, no spaniel, no pet bird. I suppose many people might find this quite normal, but to me it is strange. You, Sir, will be able to compare this with Woodforde's diaries, wherein animals are mentioned constantly - horses were too important to be ignored (and, yes, I do remember Jane's brother hunting in his mother's cut-down riding habit, and selling the pony at a profit), but Woodforde makes note of his dogs (on one hilarious occasion, getting into the storeroom and eating dinner for six!), and his pigs (drunk as lords, apparently). One of his dogs gets loose, and comes home injured, upon which he 'has her hanged immediately' - Good God!
The Brontes were devoted animal lovers, and one of Charlotte's most poignant letters deals with her return home after Anne's death at Scarborough, and Anne's little dog's joy - because, as Charlotte realised, the dog thought that if one sister came home, the other would follow. Much as I dread to say it, I don't think that the Austens were animal people. As if I weren't depressed enough already!
Somebody change the subject, please!
Julie
Dear Julie,
Re: "I sounded like a total [koala?]" Do koala's make sounds? I thought that they merely ate eucalyptus leaves and basked in the affection of the entire world.
I suppose that every Voice has pored over the "Julie Grassi" down-under postings for July to see why Julie thought an explanation was appropriate. Beats me. I could find nothing.
I do not have such a long list of pets to mourn as does Ashton, but I still recall many years later the marvellous little gentleman we called "Georgie", a West Highland White Terrier (whose real name was Starboard Tack of Roseneath--because I thought it would be fun to call "Starboard" whenever I wanted him to cease his explorations.) I was so hard hit by his loss that I vowed never to have another pet. I hope that the little kids can distract you from sad thoughts.
Is it protocol long enacted and enforced by Ashton that a Voice must ask for an introduction to any Jane Austen discussion topic? If so, call me Gaffe. I did not know. The reason that I did not ask any, or all, other Voices to comment on Mansfield Park is that it might have seemed greedy.
I await your perceptions and visions of Mansfield Park at every level
that you see.
John
From the Meister: The rule for starting conversations
around
here is "anything, anyone, anytime". That rule is strictly
enforced.
Dear John,
Australian natives have poorly-developed vocal cords, and generally sort of chitter or hiss (in the case of macropods) or bark (in the case of koalas). Incidentally, they have claws like razors, and are not to be messed with. They mostly sit in trees, the theory being that, what with the constant fermentation of eucalyptus leaves in the gut, they are more or less permanently stoned. Certainly they spend a lot more time sitting still than they do anything else.
I take on all my animals realising, that, in the normal course of events, I am going to outlive them, and couldn't deny myself the pleasure of the german shepherd (no. 3) currently at my feet, or the cats on top of the bookcases (warmest place in the room) for anything.
Mansfield Park: I find it interesting for numberless reasons, but in particular because, from private correspondence, Jane Austen in her novel was developing a subject that concerned her in real life. She was not happy to see Edward's children being brought up, as she viewed it, to be idle and expensive. She was also examining her religion at the time, as some letters to Fanny Knight show. I suppose one could draw parallels between the standards of living of the related families in Mansfield Park, and those in Jane Austen's family. Though she, her mother and sister never lived in the squalor of the Price's Portsmouth house, they certainly did spend time in cheap lodgings - described in Persuasion re the Harville's as 'the common indifferent plight'. Edward Knight's family provided an absolute contrast to this. On another level, of course, she was examining and defending the old country Tory values, then under threat, she felt, by the actions of the fashionable Court of the Prince of Wales (Beau Brummel's fat friend!). Remember how Fanny came to think of London as 'at war with all honourable feelings'? The Crawfords actually give us a toned-down picture of what the fashionabl life of the period was like in some circles, and their sanitised presence was enough to upset Mansfield! Tom, of course, knew all about the unsanitised version, and it ended up almost killing him.
Beware, as those are simply introductory notes.
Julie
Dear John,
I don't think you should anything of such a chewy, indigestible nature, as it may disturb the bandages. I think we all remember parts of Jane Austen's works, from time to time, in a manner found, on investigation, to be not quite as it was in the text. And after all, we are not running a competition here, are we!
And, like Mrs Wilkes, I would be honoured if you would call me 'Julie',
without the 'Miss'.
Julie
Dear Julie,
I find myself in such close agreement with your submission that I cannot understand your opening statement that Jane Austen disapproved of Charlotte's marriage. (Quite the opposite of approval is disapproval.)
If you are willing to revisit Jane Austen's mind concerning Charlotte's decision to marry a man whom she did not love in the usual manner of elegant young ladies--or of any other passionate woman, I, for one, even if I must be in the majority of one, should be glad to see it. Jane Austen's disapproval of the Collins/Lucas marriage is not something that I had noticed, nor is it something that I can credit--but like Mr. Henry Tilney, Mr. Edmund Bertram, Mr. Darcy, Captain Wentworth, Mr. Knightley, and even Mr. Willoughby (too late for Marianne), I hope that I can learn from either instruction or a surprising event.
You could hardly find a more grateful object for your trouble.
John
Links