Dear Gentlemen,
I wonder how many other men love the novels of both Jane Austen and Patrick O'Brian.
In A Room of One's Own, Viginia Woolf asks us to imagine the sort of writer Shakespeare's sister might have become. I propose that if one of Miss Austen's brothers had written novels about the Royal Navy, we would have something very like O'Brian's "Master and Commander" and its progeny. Am I the only one that saw, in the superb film of Persuasion, a man who would have made a great friend to Captain Aubrey. O'Brian himself has admitted that he knows no finer writer than Jane Austen.
Dear David,
Welcome to the community. Did you notice a number of male friendships that Jane Austen portrays in Persuasion? The friendships between the officers are obvious, but the friendship between Wentworth and Charles Musgrove is absolutely crucial to the plot. That is the friendship that keeps Wentworth in Anne's company and it is the main reason for the composition of the party to Lyme. I believe that JA gets the character of a good male friendship exactly right.
You may or may not know that I keep a collection of things that men have said about Jane Austen. Here is the link to that. If you can give me the reference to the O'Brian comment on Jane Austen, I will post it there with, of course, an acknowledgement to yourself.
Dear Meister,
O'Brian said this, as part of "A Conversation between Patrick O'Brian and Charlton Heston", at UCLA in, I believe, 1995. (It was the year "The Commodore" was published). I don't have the URL, but there is an excellent O'Brian site, full of experts (it is informally called "The Gunroom"), and Norton has an official (publisher's) site.
I don't have an exact quote, although I remember he said that he wished to emulate her sentences, and I would add, her perception. He has said (in print, I can't tell you where) that he wished to study human interaction in a confined enviornment, for greater focus, and that a ship was the ideal situation. The sound-byte version: JA wrote about women at home--O'Brian, the reincarnation of JA's brothers, writes about men on a ship.
Dear Meister,
You may be as relieved as I am that there are some points on which we can agree. I refer to your recent reply to Val. No, Darcy was not openly rude to Lizzy at their first meeting and Yes he is essentially the same man at the end of the novel as he is at the beginning, even if the changes that have come about are, I believe, more significant than you feel them to be.
We differ over whether Darcy is class- conscious. How can he be otherwise in
a society which is founded on it, where "knowing one's place" is thought to be
not only essential to the keeping of order but actually divinely
ordained?
"The rich man in his
castle
The poor man at his
gate
God made them high or
lowly
And ordered their estate"
Class conscious was not then the vice it is now, just a fact of life There are a number of instances in the novel which show that it was Lizzy's position in society, not just the behaviour of her family which gave him "natural and just" qualms about marrying her: "Could you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your connect- ions? To congratulate myself on the hope of relations whose condition in life is so decidedly beneath my own?"
"---the want of connection could not be so great an evil to my friend as to me"
"The situation of your mother's family, though objectionable,---"
"His sense of her inferiority--of its being a degradation --of the family obstacles which judgement had always opposed to inclination"
As I say, I can't really fault Darcy for simply being a man of his times---although, like Val, I've never much fancied him. He does, after all condescend to meet Lizzy halfway across the class divide (though would he have done so if she had been a shopgirl instead of the daughter of a gentleman?) And he does associate with the wealthy heir of a man who was in trade, if not the man himself. To that extent he may embody the spirit of compromise and moderation which saved England from revolution and the Terrors which had afflicted that other class-ridden society across the Channel.
Do you see, as some observers have and I am beginning to, that the whole novel is Jane Austen's response to the French Revolution?
Dear Kate,
It is so very good to meet you here again. Why should you care if we ever agree on anything; if you will look around this place, you will find that most take your view of things and you don't need me for validation. I am neither an academic nor a scholar and so there is no special value or merit in an agreement with my view of things.
Julie Grassi posted on 9/5/98 and you and she have, independently, come to the same conclusions. I hope that you will read my response to her on 9/5/98 because I believe my remarks apply equally well to your posting. I won't repeat those here except to say that Darcy and Elizabeth come from exactly the same class so that his complaints cannot be construed as anything like class consciousness. They are a cold, hard, and accurate assessment of her meager economic contributions to a marriage and are not based upon some stereotype that Darcy may or may not be carrying in regards to a lower caste. Do this as a favor to me: Read the passage were Elizabeth walks with Colonel Fitzwilliam just before Darcy's first proposal. This is the place were Elizabeth learns that Darcy was responsible for separating Jane and Bingley, but something else happens there as well. Colonel Fitzwilliam also tells her, in the subtlest and most gentlemanly way possible that he, himself, could not consider Elizabeth because he would only marry if enough money was brought by the wife. (Elizabeth has a hilarious reaction to that message.) Do that and tell me if you think the Colonel was being class conscious. Also, does Darcy say anything in this regard that the Colonel does not? Finally, what do you think was Jane Austen's purpose in writing this passage? The impact of what the Colonel says is nothing like that of Darcy's statements because Darcy is distraught and out of control and, I believe, we don't like anyone speaking like that to OUR Elizabeth. I choose to cut Darcy some slack at a time like that but you choose to accuse him of all the crimes of his age.
Before you go too far on the "French Revolution" thing, there are some things you should know. The first is that Jane's favorite cousin was named Eliza and Eliza was a woman of the world and glamorous and fashionable. Jane and Eliza loved one another and that relationship deepened when Eliza married Jane's favorite brother Henry. You should know that this was Eliza's second marriage and her first husband was a French quasi-aristocrat who was beheaded during the revolution. So think about that. Henry was in the militia for a time and Jane's two youngest brothers were high-ranking Navel officers. All three men were in placed in harm's way by the French and that caused much apprehension in the Austen family. Jane loved all three men most sincerely and most constantly--and the feelings were mutual. Next, you should verify that Pride and Prejudice was published after the rise of Napoleon, after he had crowned himself Emperor, and after many of Jane's countrymen had lost their lives in the bloody peninsular campaign. Finally, if you want to read of bona fide responses of radical English women to the Revolution, then look to Mary Wollstonecraft and others. I promise you will be surprised.
Dear Sir,
I have just been quickly reading your posts of 3/4 September, and while I have not had time to study them in detail, I would like to respond quickly to one contention - 'that Darcy never exhibits class-consciousness'. I feel this to be untrue, for the following reason: 'I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son, (for many years an only child) I was spoilt by my parents, who though good themselves, (my father particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable), allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing, to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world, to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own'.
And at a much earlier point in the book:
'I think I have heard you say, that their is an attorney in Meryton.' 'Yes, and they have another, who lives somewhere near Cheapside.' 'That is capital,' added her sister, and they both laughed heartily. 'If they had uncles enough to fill all Cheapside,' cried Bingley, 'it would not make them one jot less agreeable.' 'But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world,' replied Darcy.
In fact, to see Darcy as lacking in class-consciousness would almost be to imagine the impossible. Class-consciousness was inherent in the social life of the period in England to a degree that we can hardly imagine. What is more, it was seen simply as the natural order of things one 's social position was the will of 'Providence'.
I think the two above quotes (there are many more examples, but I am pushed for time here) show Darcy to be not lacking in arrogance, either, but that does not mean that he may not be shy as well.
It is important, when discussing any novel, to make a clear distinction between positions taken as a result of the text, and those taken on the basis of imagination. I could state, for instance, that Darcy's social ineptitude was a likely product of the infamous Public School system in England. I might well be right, but there is nothing in the text to support this stance. Jane Austen creates such believable characters that people have been wanting more of them since the day they were written (her family often begged for more information - Kitty, we are told, eventually married a clergyman), but for the purpose of serious study, and very importantly, for examination, they only exist within the novel itself. 'You can talk until your head drops off, but if you can't prove it FROM THE TEXT, it didn't happen.
Regards,
Julie
JULIE! It is wonderful to have you back.
The good news is that you make some interesting points. However, I think that you make far fewer points than you imagined, not the points you would have chosen, and even those are higher debatable.
If I understand you correctly, you propose the following principle: If it does not appear explicitly in the text, it didn't happen. You can talk until your head drops off, but if you can't prove it FROM THE TEXT, it didn't happen. When I apply this principle to Pride and Prejudice, I decide that Darcy did not attend Public School. In other words, you do not actually use this too rigid principle yourself and that is to your credit.
I have actually seen you state and apply a far better principle: we must combine the text with biography and cultural history to discern the intent of the novelist. I mean that there is a shorthand used in every writing and that can be deciphered only with a study of the context in which the novelist lived. My application of this improved principle is this--It is highly unlikely that Darcy ever attended Public School. Public Schools were only just becoming popular in Jane Austen's day and attendance at such a place was nothing like the requirement it became in the latter portions of the nineteenth century or that is required in the twentieth. In fact, I believe that James's son and a few of the grandnephews attended a quasi-Public-School. Is that right?-I defer to you on this. However, few in Jane's own generation did such a thing. In her generation, the country gentry, most often, brought in tutors or sent them to live with the family of a tutor. As you very well know, Jane Austen's father was such a man and many young male scholars lived in her home as she was growing up. YES, there it is--I contend that Darcy studied at the Steventon rectory before attending Cambridge! (Incidentally, did you ever notice that Darcy and Wickham were the only characters that Jane Austen educated at Cambridge?)
Of course, Darcy was aware of class distinctions; when I say he was not class conscious I mean that he could judge people on merit and accomplishment and was not basing judgements on class standings. Jane Austen gives examples of the other type of person in the characters of Sir Walter Elliot, Anne Elliot's sisters, and Bingley's sisters. Not one single syllable of your quotations indictes Darcy in this way--not in slightest way! The mistake you make is to forget that Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet are from the same class. Elizabeth says it this way to Lady Catherine "...He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman's daughter: so far we are equal." And she is quite right. What Darcy is complaining about is that she cannot bring much to a match. Let me ask you (and Kate2) something, suppose Darcy's dependent's (servant's, tenants, and estate workers, etc.) were given a vote, do you imagine that they would select Elizabeth over Darcy's cousin? I think not, and I think those dependents had a great stake in the matter. The dependent's would be very much concerned about the economic stability of the Darcy holdings and they would greatly wish for expanded opportunities for their own children. I say all this to remind you of all the responsibilities that a Darcy was made to feel when selecting a wife. And, after we learn what kind of man Darcy was, should we be surprised that he was upset at the prospect of going against his mother's and her sister's wishes when selecting Elizabeth?
The thing about your posting that breaks my heart is your interpretation of the following Darcy quote: "'But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world,' replied Darcy." For you this proves class consciousness but I hardly think that to be Jane Austen's intent. In that passage, the Bingley sisters are spoiling Elizabeth's reputation and Bingley tries to say something in her defense and then, out of the blue, Darcy comes up with this comment about marriage. Why do so many readers strive to make the worst possible interpretation of Darcy? Cannot they understand that JA was only trying to help us understand Darcy's inner turmoil with this passage?
Dear Sir,
Maybe the difficulty here is that we are hesitant to ascribe to a character a set of values that we today find unacceptable. To say that Darcy, or Elizabeth, or anybody else was 'class-conscious' is not to imply a criticism. England was (and to some extent, still is) one of the most class ridden societies in Europe - perhaps that's why they got on so well in India! EVERYBODY was class-conscious! That does not mean that everybody was overbearing and arrogant, in the manner of Lady Catherine or Sir Walter Elliot. The manners of the two latter were examples of extreme ill-breeding.
However, in marrying Mr Darcy, Elizabeth was marrying the nephew of an Earl, which would, in the words of Mr and Mrs Morland have been 'a marriage beyond the claims of their daughter'. These people are not implying that such marriages were with men who were 'too good' for their daughters they are acknowledging the financial contract which was a big part of marriage at the time. When Miss Maria Ward, of Huntingdon, married Sir Thomas Bertram, 'even her uncle, the lawyer, himself, allowed her to be at least three thousand pounds short of any equitable claim to it.' And even Anne Elliot, by no estimation a snob, could remark of her cousin's first wife (who was unknown to Anne), 'but was she not a very low woman?' These sorts of attitudes were simple social reality of the day, and to appreciate the novels fully, we need to accept them on their own terms.
I think that it is very rare in a Jane Austen novel that characters, minor or otherwise, marry with no comment being made on social position. Lady Bertram's youngest sister, Fanny, was 'thrown off' as a result of a socially inferior marriage. Emma Woodhouse is horrified that Mr Elton thinks himself good enough for her, and later on just as horrified that she thought Harriet Smith good enough for Mr Elton! Even Miss Taylor's marriage does not escape comment - it is remarked on that Mr Weston is in a position to marry someone 'as portionless' as Miss Taylor. There is no end to this kind of example, really I am just including some to illustrate my point that this was the way people thought at the time. I suppose, to those to whom a career was out of the question (women and eldest sons?), marriage was likely to be the biggest financial transaction of one's life - at least until the elderly aunts started to pop off - but then that is mere passive inheritance.
Regards,
Julie
Dear Julie,
I have long been puzzled that we disagree on so little and argue so much. Your posting is a perfect example because I believe everything you wrote; although, we may differ on the matter of social status and wealth. It seems that you believe that the two were synonymous whereas I think them only somewhat correlated. For example, the Elliot family was of high social standing but possessed rather little wealth. The same can be said of Bingley's brother-in-law, Mr. Hurst. On the other hand, Elizabeth's Uncle Gardiner had wealth but little social standing. Class standing is a subjective judgement and a product of class consciousness, but the net worth of a family is a fact, an easily made, reproducible calculation. I contend that Darcy is bothered by the relative wealth of the Bennet family. That means that he is not prejudging, he is merely living up to his responsibilities to his family and to his dependents.
Of course, the difference between the social standing and the wealth of a particular family will diminish with time. Bingley is now considered a gentleman and Miss Bates is sinking to a social status commensurate with her lack of wealth. For me, the great tragedy of the events at Box Hill is that Emma is indicating to the world that Miss Bates is no longer worthy of being treated like a gentlewoman.
Those of us that speak English tend to point to England as the prime example of a class-conscious society. Maybe that is a good idea and maybe not. Personally, I expect to find class divisions and class consciousness everywhere I look. I certainly expect to uncover it in every period in England; however, I also expect to learn of it in 13th century Mongolia, amongst the 19th century Lakota, and in present-day Iceland; I expect it everywhere, at the golf clubs of Scotland and even amongst the savage goatherds of Tasmania. I can testify that class divisions exist at my high school and in cat colonies and my understanding is that they exist in lion prides, monkey troops, and whale pods: Let us not forget bee hives and ant hills. Surely, next to predation, class consciousness is nature's worst gift. When, do you think, English society earned its reputation as especially class-ridden? Is that most representative of England in Jane Austen's times or much later during the heights of Empire and Industrial revolution? I had always thought that it was the later period. This is a crucial question for our community because we want to learn if any of this was a special influence on Jane Austen's thinking. Most have decided that it was an influence, but I want to re-open the question.
I think that Pride and Prejudice is one of the greatest love stories ever written. To me Darcy is a very worthy person who, unfortunately, makes the worst possible first impression on the very woman who could most make him happy. And he is just as well suited for her. They are both very proud and so the rift persists and even deepens until matters are reversed and brought to a wonderful resolution. I believe that Darcy is very much like Jane Austen herself and Elizabeth Bennet is everything that Jane Austen would have preferred to be--little wonder that Darcy and Elizabeth are such a perfect match. How would you summarize your view of the novel? Do you think it unfair to summarize your view in this way: A brilliant, spirited woman gives a meddlesome snob his comeuppance. Given that, can you explain to me how is it that Elizabeth then, inexplicably, marries the big poop?
Love,
Ashton
Dear Jane Austen Fans,
I finally got around to seeing the 1996 adaptation of Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow), and noticed, as with any adaptation of a book, some differences, such as the absence of Frank Churchill's explanatory letter after his engagement is announced. I would be interested in hearing other differences that you may have noticed and why you think that the filmmakers chose to make it that way.
Welcome to the community. I have noticed a number of things about the Paltrow version and have set them down in a posting; here is the link to that. I have also commented on two other versions of Emma in that place. I also mention Paltrow in this posting.
Thank you very much for your thoughts on, and apology for, Mr Darcy. I must admit I have never liked him. His reformation has always been, for me, one huge flaw in "Pride and Prejudice". It is just too easy and too glib. I always want to cry out, "No, Jane, you can't expect to get away with that!". On my next reading I will accept your premise that his apparent pride is pure shyness and does not detract from his character. Perhaps Jane Austen is just too subtle for me, but I admit I am still a little skeptical.
Something that no amount of shyness in Darcy can excuse is his vilification of Elizabeth's family and connections. The only fault he can find with them is that they are of a lower class than his own, and that Mrs Bennet and her younger daughters behave inappropriately. These are small faults when compared with the inexcusable rudeness of Miss Bingley and Mrs Hurst, the social ineptness of Mr Hurst and the extraordinary manipulateness of Lady Catherine. Mr Darcy's own rudeness towards Elizabeth at their first meeting is also crueler, and so a greater evil, than the silliness of the Bennet daughters. I just wish Elizabeth had pointed this out, forcefully and unequivocally, at the time of his first proposal and in the interview with Lady Catherine.
I liked your throw-away comparison of Jane Austen to Margaret Mitchell. Before I saw it I had been struck by the similarity between Mr Darcy and Rhett Butler. I find them both unlikable, but I can easily understand their attraction. In both cases, I found myself desperate for the heroines to get the man.
Welcome to the community. You and I certainly have a great deal to discuss. I strongly disagree with a number of things that you have posted, but don't be apprehensive--most others in the community take your view of things.
First of all, please point out, explicitly, the place where I inadvertently made a "comparison of Jane Austen to Margaret Mitchell". I would never intentionally compare a hall-of-fame member to someone from the junior varsity. If you will point that place out, I will delete it and then I will delete several paragraphs thereabouts much as the surgeon attacks a cancer. My intention, always, is to compare Jane Austen to George Eliot and Henry James.
If you are still skeptical about Darcy's shyness and self-consciousness, then it is likely that you will always be so. I can only ask you to learn about Jane Austen herself. It is simply, absolutely incontrovertible that she affected people, in her initial contacts, exactly in the same manner as Darcy. You can maintain your skepticism only if you think this some kind of marvelous coincidence. Incidentally, remember that shyness does not imply that the person is, necessarily, self-effacing, humble, or even passive. It can go either way. My example, once again, is Jane Austen herself.
You and I have many more disagreements; I will describe and deal with them
point by point.
Dear Ashton,
Mea culpa! I can't seem to find what I described as your "throw away comparison of Margaret Mitchell and Jane Austen" anywhere on your page. Could it have been in one of the postings on the bulletin board?
While I agree the two authors are not in the same league (not being American I do not always understand your basketball analogies), I do find similarities in the characters they have created. Both have their realistic characters such as one might easily meet in real life (Elizabeth Bennet, Mr Darcy, Catherine Morland, Rhett Butler), as well as their caricature characters (Isabella Thorpe, Mrs Elton, Aunt Pittypat, Melanie Wilkes). For me, one of the greater strengths of both authors is that their realistic characters are believable enough to attach our sympathies.
I accept your points on Mr Darcy, and will give him the benefit of the doubt on my next reading. I had overlooked the fact that Elizabeth doesn't consider him materially altered in the course of her acquaintance with him. This is obviously significant.
On the point about their respective connections. Mrs Bennet and her younger daughters do behave boorishly in public, and it is as much of an embarrassment to me as it must have been to Elizabeth and Jane. I still maintain, though, that boorishness is not as great an evil as the deliberate cruelty shown by Miss Bingley and Lady Catherine. For Mr Darcy to avoid an attachment with Elizabeth, and to discourage the attachment between Bingley and Jane, because of their connections shows a definite blind spot as regards his own connections.
Thank you for a great site.
Links