The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Jan. 1, 2000
Dear Ashton,
You yourself support my view of Fanny: "Both of her aunts treat her as a robust body-servant, and Fanny does nothing to prevent or deflect that treatment." That is my issue with Fanny and with JA's treatment of her. Your view seems to be that Fanny is born and lives, until the moment she refuses Crawford, without the basic free will that every other human being, and every other character in every Austen novel has. Willful inaction is every bit a responsible choice as willful action.
Fanny chooses to let her Aunts walk all over her. If we can excuse her for this choice because "it's her nature" then we have to excuse Henry Crawford's amorality because it's his nature. If we excuse Fanny's behavior because she's a virtual orphan sent to live with her Aunt and Uncle, then we have to excuse Henry and Mary's behavior because are real live orphans who were sent to live with their Aunt and Uncle. I can't excuse Fanny or the Crawfords for any of those reasons.
As for proof from the text, off the top of my head I again refer you to the moment in Portsmouth when Crawford asks for Fanny's guidance. Other proofs in the text are Fanny's lack of action. I challenge you to name one single action on Fanny's part that is truly unselfish and altruistic. Not motivated by fear of reprisal (real or imagined) or for her own comfort, or to make someone else like her better. I don't believe anyone here can come up with a single example.
It's true I'm not satisfied with the novel. (But it's also true that I've read Mansfield Park two or three times for every time I've read Sense and Sensibility or Emma.) When JA turned her penetrating eye from manners and love to morals and religion, much of the brightness of the earlier novels is lost. That's not a bad thing, and there's no question that there was much room for Jane Austen to grow as a storyteller and a writer. But few artists of any sort can be entirely successful when first making such a huge transition in material. Mansfield is formulaic and in making the characters' actions secondary to the formula, JA abandoned her great talent for creating believable human beings.
In case you're trying to be sly, I freely admit that I don't like the religiousness of the novel. I realize that discounting the importance and sincerity of religion in our ancestors' lives is a popular trend, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
My copy of Gaudy Night by Dorothy L. Sayers has disappeared from the bookshelf, but in it Harriet Vane asks (I'm paraphrasing) "why does writing about religion turn a perfectly good writer's brain to mush?" This is what I see when I read Mansfield Park. What this says about Jane Austen as a person, I'm not prepared to say right now, but it doesn't give an outsider a very nice picture of Christianity.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if it takes becoming a saint/martyr like
Fanny Price to get into heaven, I'll go to hell with Elizabeth Bennet, Emma
Woodhouse, and even Anne Elliot, who is no doubt damned by a working intellect
her own independent opinions.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
This is easy - Fanny's treatment of Susan at Portsmouth. Susan was in no more favor in that household than was Fanny herself, and Fanny was not courting any favor, nor could she expect any when she assisted that sister in improving her habits and education and then her living situation.
You want another? OK. Fanny's help to Rushworth in the preparation of his part in the play.
I am not sure what you expect that a disenfranchised, teenaged girl might be able to do, but I can give several examples of Fanny Price's gumption as well. Her refusal of Crawford's proposal and then her defiance of Sir Thomas's wishes.
To me, religion means spirituality and so I see no religion in Mansfield Park. Jane Austen wrote love stories and this novel is about the love that Edmund Bertram and Mary Crawford had for each other. This is a tragic love story because the nature of the two lovers dooms their love from the very beginning. Edmund must have his epiphany just as Elizabeth Bennet had hers (the wrongfulness of relying on first impressions), and just as Emma Woodhouse, Marianne Dashwood, and Anne Elliot must have theirs as well. Mansfield Park was not a departure for Jane Austen, it was merely a beautiful variation of and a counterpoint for our Lady's vision.
Not to worry - the rest of the world feels as you do.
Dear Cheryl,
If by saying that Mansfield Park lacks the "brightness" of Austen's earlier novels, you mean that the heroine is somehow less vivacious and interesting than her previous heroines, I agree. Fanny Price is hardly comparable to an Emma Woodhouse or an Elizabeth Bennet. I liked the story but I must admit that I liked Pride and Prejudice and Emma better, possibly because I found it easier to relate to the heroines of those novels. Fanny is almost a paragon in her goodness, and at times it is frustrating. It is also tragic that Fanny must benefit from Edmund's heartache over losing Mary Crawford, although it is pretty clear that Edmund is the only man that Fanny could really be happy with.
Dear Julie,
I have been struck by your comment that it is interesting that Mrs. Collins, Mrs Elton, and Mrs Norris are all clergy wives.
But so are Mrs Tilney, Mrs Morland, Mrs Grant, Miss Dashwood, Mrs Bertram, and Henrietta Hayter. And so was Jane Austen's mother. Cassandra Austen lived on the inheritance from her deceased fiancé, a clergyman.
The Austen women who marry clergymen for love far outnumber those who follow their heads before they follow their hearts.
The more one thinks of Charlotte, the more one feels admiration for her. As Darcy says, Mr. Collins is fortunate in his choice of a wife.
To you, Julie, to the Meister, to Ray and Dave, to Heather, Anielka, Cheryl, and Laurie, and all other Voices, I wish the very best that this new year, the last year of Millennium Two, can have to offer such nice people.
Happy 2000!
John
Dear Ray and Julie,
Thank you for posting that review, Ray. However, I have to join with Julie's only marginally and slightly picky points (i.e., I don't think they are picky in the least!). It appears that Eleanor Ringel Gillespie hasn't actually read the book. Or if she has I think hers must have been an exceptionally shallow reading or ephemeral memory.
Eleanor Ringel Gillespie has obviously not studied the Mansfield Judgement or read Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstencraft or studied the influence of Evangelical or the Unitarian movements on Jane Austen's writings. And why should she? She is, after all, a film reviewer and probably has to see at least five tedious films a week and possibly one good one.
P.S.: Happy birthday Julie! What an annoying time to have a birthday! As a fellow End-of-December child I am starting a movement to forbid all human acts of procreation between 10th March and 15th April as they are self-indulgent and not thinking of the poor resultant infant.
Dear Anielka,
It is very wonderful to hear from you again. Where have you "bean"?
You stuck a chord with me when you mentioned "half-mulatto"; let me explain that. My daughter is mulatto and so my grandson is half mulatto. He is twenty months old and at that perfectly wonderful stage when his logic is infallible and his inexperience is complete. That means that he logically comes to hilarious conclusions. My wife and I think only of him.
(Incidentally, the word "mulatto" derives from the spanish word for "mule".)
I propose that the community discuss slavery in Jane Austen's time. This is perfect I think; for example, I happen to know that Julie is beginning to study slavery with that typical Julie-Grassi intensity. Would you be so kind as to expand a bit on the "Mansfield Judgement"? Anything you say will be an education for me. Dates would be useful so that we can place the novels in the proper context.
Also, set me straight on one thing; I have the impression that the Prince was Regent during the writing of the last three novels and that the Prince's men were abolitionists. Is that correct? That is important because it means that if Jane Austen had some anti-slavery notions that she wanted to express in a novel, she didn't have to be subtle about it. Do you agree?
Dear Ashton,
I am indeed up to my neck in the slave trade. Not a very nice place to be. One thing you probably should realise, though, is the fact that, in Australia at least, the notion of classifying people according to degrees of ancestry is quite unknown. The notion of applying a name to a genetic mix is similarly foreign. I'm trying to find some common ground here, from which to communicate, but I feel that it just doesn't exist. My children's father is an Italian. I've no idea where the hell I came from (probably Mars), but the concepts of 'quadroon', 'octoroon', or whatever, are simply unknown here. People are known to have come from overseas if they have a foreign accent: that's about it. If you sound like an Australian, then you are an Australian.
As I read further into the history of slavery in America, I begin to understand how these concepts evolved: apparently children who were born of negro women but fathered by white men, were likely to have a higher social status - to become 'house negroes'. I have read several histories, in which the writers explain how they managed to get around the slave system because they 'appeared' to be white. Ye Gods! To me, though, the notion of chopping up a person's ancestry, in order to arrive at a decision regarding their place on the planet, is ludicrous. Who the hell cares? isn't happy, healthy, and doing well at school sufficient?
I'm on a roll here, as you can see.
Julie
Dear Julie,
Actually, words like "mulatto" and "mestizo" are Spanish words, and words like "quadroon" and "octoroon" may be French if not Spanish. In fact, those kinds of distinctions are far more a part of your heritage than they are of mine. Jane Austen used the words "mulatto" and "Creole" in her letters and novels. (Although our Lady used the latter term differently than it is used today.) In America, the long-standing convention is that if you have one drop of African blood, then you are "black". The reason is very simple and very interesting; the European immigrants to the United States were primarily working class and under-class; as a result African-Americans were seen as competitors for jobs and any prejudicial distinction that could be imagined was seized upon. In the British Empire things were quite different. There, as in Spanish America and Brazil, the immigrants were middle to upper class. Their mixed-race children were given special names in order to secure for them opportunities that would not be open to purely native peoples.
In any case, all these words predate the birth of the United States. - they are European words.
I am very glad you think anyone with an Australian accent is considered an Australian. Things are very different in my country: here, many that are considered citizens do not have an American accent. So, for example, many people with Australian accents are actually Americans.
In Mark Twain's Following the Equator, he described his journey around the world, starting in America and ending in South Africa. Along the way he stopped in Hawaii, Tasmania, India, etc. His focus was on the treatment of native peoples by the European immigrants: "I have concluded that there is no inhabited place on Earth that has not been stolen." Everywhere, he reported local evidence of genocide and enslavement. But then, he was an anglophobe; so, perhaps, he should not be trusted.
We must be grateful for the good parts of our European - our English heritage as well, the abolitionist and democratic thinking, for example. And there was that wonderful civilization and cultural heritage. It is very clear that Jane Austen was an abolitionist; however, it is not at all clear to me that this was ever a theme or subtext of a novel. Let me be unequivocal; the slavery issue was never a theme or subtext of a Jane-Austen novel, in my opinion.
Dear Sir,
You know perfectly well that I didn't mean that people without an Australian accent are therefore NOT considered Australian! We have enough to be ashamed of in this country, undoubtedly, from our treatment of our native peoples to our infamous 'White Australia Policy', but these are different issues to those I am reading of as I look at the history of slavery in America (and also, of course, in Britain). It doesn't seem to matter to me where a word comes from it's rather more important to see how it is used. In Vanity Fair, a West Indian heiress is offered as a marriage prospect to the young waste of space who subsequently marries Becky's friend: 'No thank you, Sir, I don't care for the colour' was his reply. I don't recall that she was allocated a quadratic equation of colour, however.
Interestingly, in India a class grew over the generations that were known as 'anglo-Indian', meaning people of mixed British and Indian ancestry. This gets a bit confusing as the term is also sometimes used to describe British people who were born in India.
But, I absolutely agree with you, that slavery is not a subtext of any Jane
Austen novel: references that I can think of off-hand are limited to Mrs Elton
(or rather Jane Fairfax, in her reference to the white slavery of governessing),
and the implied status of Sir Thomas Bertram who, as a holder of estates in
Antigua, must have owned slaves, even if only second-hand.
Julie
Dear Julie,
You are right - I do know better. What I don't know is what is it that gets into me at times.
The mention of slavery in MP is interesting and even a bit puzzling. Edmund and Fanny are in private conversation and Edmund is trying to bolster her confidence and to draw her out.
" '... You must really begin to harden yourself to the idea of being worth looking at.--You must try not to mind growing up a pretty woman.'... 'Your uncle is disposed to be pleased with you in every respect; and I only wish you would talk to him more.--You are one of those who are too silent in the evening circle.'
'But I do talk to him more than I used. I am sure I do. Did you not hear me ask him about the slave trade last night?'
'I did and I was in hopes the question would be followed by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of further.'..."Chapter III, Volume 2
I can't be sure, but I think this passage casts great doubt on the possibility of slavery at the Bertram holdings in the West Indies. The reactions of Fanny, Edmund, and Sir Thomas simply seem all wrong for that possibility. I begin to suspect that some people are using overly simplified equations. Let me just say that one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, was a West Indian and an abolitionist. In fact, he is the individual most responsible for the abolition of slavery in the state of New York.
Dear Ashton,
I just wanted to take this opportunity before the world ends as we know it to wish you a Happy New Year.
In chronolgical order:
The most provocative were
Dear Folks,
Welcome to the last year of the twentieth century and the second millenium. (Don't believe what those other people are saying.) I hope it is a wonderful year for all of you - nearly all of you.
Here is the surprise link for this month. Enjoy!
Dear Folks,
I have completed my first draft of a web page (actually, web pages) of rants on Mansfield Park. Here are individual links to web page, the first; web page, the second; and, web page, the third.
Dear Sir,
I've read the first page of your excellent analysis of Mansfield Park: the first thought that came to mind is I must take issue with you on your assertation that the Crawfords are 'excellent' as brother and sister. I think not. Mrs Grant, indeed, shows genuine love for these two young people, but the pair themselves, to my mind, fall more into the category that Jane Austen ascribes to the Misses Bertram, who are 'very good friends', as long as their is no bone (Crawford bone!) of contention between them. Henry Crawford is an entirely consistent character: he could not accommodate his sister so far as to provide her with a house in which to live, but was quite happy to play taxi-driver if she found it necessary to shunt herself from family to family, in quest of a home. Taken in the context of the time, Henry's conduct towards his sister is unpardonable. At the very least, Henry could have followed Darcy's example, and provided his sister with a household and a chaperone, though one suspects that Mary might not have much relished Mrs Annesley's company!
You have yet to convince me that the Crawfords ever demonstrated real, human love, in any capacity: indeed, I believe that to have been Jane Austen's point, in her creation and development of their attractive personalities: the difference between glitter and gold. Theirs is a hollow relationship, and the same tone exists amongst the Bertram children: good manners take the place of real feeling. Edmund's behaviour towards his sick brother is of course the exception, but I agree with Fanny in her thinking, when Tom's sisters elect not to come home when their brother is so ill. In my own case, neither hell nor high water would keep me from my sister and brothers, if they were suffering. We know that Jane Austen shared my view, from reading her letters: no matter what, the family was there. I can shut my eyes and literally see Jane, caring for her nephews, who arrived frozen from the coach, after the death of their mother, Edward's wife. She took endless time and trouble to help those poor boys - trips up the river, hours spent at their service in playing games and talking - and still, in her corrrespondence, showing a sane and normal evaluation of their state.
One very interesting point: Henry Crawford, the supposedly devoted brother, finds his estimation of Fanny changing, after having occasion to witness her and her brother's mutual devotion. If we can agree that Jane Austen never wrote one word without implying a point, then why is it that Henry is struck by the demonstration of an attachment that Henry is supposed to feel towards his own sister? I find myself once more wondering about 'manners' as opposed to 'feeling' - by which I mean that I think Jane Austen may have been comparing the highly mannered French society of the time, with that of the English. Mary Crawford does at one point tell Mrs Grant that she will applaud her for having 'the address of a Frenchwoman', if the latter can engineer Henry's marriage, and of course, Eliza's presence and influence is also in my thoughts.
I was thinking further about the brother/sister thing in Jane Austen, and now I recall her description of the Knightley brothers' meeting in Emma's drawing room, in which 'the casual greeting belied the real feeling underneath that would have led either, if necessary, to do every thing for the good of the other'. Again, in Persuasion, Charles, 'who really a most affectionate brother, hung over his sister's lifeless form with sobs of grief' - in fact, there isn't a novel or a fragment that I can recall that doesn't give us examples of close relationships between siblings: the Crawfords show us something quite different, though I doubt they would have been aware of the fact themselves. It was between Mary and Mrs Grant that the real relationship developed.
That's enough bombardment for one day.
Dear Julie****,
I not sure that we are as far apart on the Crawfords as you might think. The main difference is that I believe they share an intimacy and an accord that you might deny. My reasons are set down in the second page of my Mansfield-Park rants.
I believe that this is the passage to which you refer:
"... and it was not till after [Mary] had tried in vain to persuade her brother to settle with her at his own country house, that she could resolve to hazard herself among other relations. To any permanence of abode, or limitation of society, Henry Crawford had, unluckily, a great dislike; he could not accommodate his sister in an article of such importance, but he escorted her, with the utmost kindness, into Northamptonshire, and as readily engaged to fetch her away again at half an hour's notice, whenever she were weary of the place."Chapter IV, Volume 1
I assume that Jane Austen meant that Crawford thought he might leave Mary alone too often if she had lived with him, and that because he intended sometimes to keep company that he thought unsuitable for his sister. There is some selfishness in that but maybe not so very much. Perhaps we might think this even a bit considerate. And besides, she had come to live instead with her half-sister, Mrs. Grant. Whatever Mary's view, Crawford might have thought he was doing both women - both sisters a favor. It also seems that he was offering her an escape hatch. Finally, Mary was not dependent, she was independently wealthy by rights of her own inheritance. Unlike Fanny Price, Mary Crawford could make some of her own decisions, such as when she decided to visit London friends.
I want to discuss another part of your criticism, "You have yet to convince me that the Crawfords ever demonstrated real, human love, in any capacity: ...". I won't attempt to say anything more positive about Henry, but I think that Mary does sincerely and deeply love Edmund.
Links