The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Nov. 11, 2000
Dear Cheryl and Ashton,
Notwithstanding your semantics I will jump in. Ashton posted to Cheryl on 11/16/00:
Julie became very upset because, she explained, I was too involved with Jane Austen as a person. ... I can reference authoritative sources, which confidently proclaim that the essence, the reason for being, of Jane Austen's novels was to mock social manners and customs. Is that your view?
Ashton, I also like to get "involved" with Jane Austen (or any other writer/actor). This desire evolved after I passed the bobby socks age and gained some maturity and insight - by saying this I do not mean to "put down" youth not everybody is as "slow" as I am. I finally realized there were authors who wrote for money and not because they had anything of value to say. That's why I want to understand their motivations, purpose, and goals.
As for Jane Austen - "I am on a mission from God!" (The Blues Brothers), to prove you are right. There must be more to her work than the comedy on which everyone dwells. I cannot believe that the goal of someone with her talent was to write predominately "comedies", etc.
Goodness, I can't believe the whole world missed her goal for these past 200 years. Surely, someone has found it out and written about it. I haven't read all those "critical" books, but the Meister asserts (above) that he has and evidently "they" haven't found it!
Could it possibly be that she has so beautifully "wrapped" her message that no one has progressed beyond the "wrapping paper"? I simply can't believe that it has gone unnoticed. Someone set me straight, please! Meister? In the mean time, I will trudge on in pursuit of my mission and since Northanger Abbey is presently on my mind let me share some thoughts about it.
Whenever Northanger Abbey is mentioned the word "gothic" almost always appears in the same sentence. I believe the claim is that NA is a parody of the Gothic novels. I used my paperback edition (Signet Classic) to substantiate the amount of the "gothic" (scary stuff) claim. Out of 217 pages, there were 37 pages (17%) of gothic horror stuff and 180 pages of regular story stuff.
The "horror" begins on the ride to Northanger Abbey when Henry teases Catherine with a "horrifying" description of the Abbey (4 pages of Chapter 20). For 3 chapters (21 through 24) Catherine explores the Abbey with all the gothic accompaniments. In the middle of all this horror, Catherine learns to love a hyacinth - dreadful, isn't it? (Sorry, my sarcasm gets out of hand!) By the end of Chapter 24 she comes to her senses - no more horror stuff.
What happened in the other 217 pages? Answer: Girl goes to Bath, meets boy, goes to dances. Brother shows up; they become friends with unsteady characters (similar to the Crawfords in MP). Brother gets engaged to sister's friend who flirts with another man; engaged couple break up. Girl visits another friend, marries that friend's brother. Ho hum - except in this case, the "ho hum" part is written by Jane Austen who is anything but "ho hum"!
Does the foregoing warrant relegating the entirety of Northanger Abbey to being called a parody of "gothic" novels?
Am I getting too picky here? It appears to me there is more regular stuff than gothic stuff. IMO, the "gothic" plays a minor part. Well, let me stir the pot a little more. In the middle of our Lady's dissertation on the merit of novels (one and a half pages) she sarcastically expounds on the statement of "It's only a novel" with:
... in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language.
Our Lady has the audacity to continue with a degradation of the more "acceptable" works by saying:
Now, had the same young lady been engaged with a volume of the Spectator, instead of such a work, how proudly would she have produced the book, and told its name, though the chances must be against her being occupied by any part of that voluminous publication, of which either the matter or manner would not disgust a young person of taste: the substance of its papers so often consisting in the statement of improbable circumstances, unnatural characters, and topics of conversation which no longer concern anyone living; and their language, too, frequently so coarse as to give no very favourable idea of the age that could endure it.
Now, I ask you, how could someone with the intelligence to write the above then proceed to write only comedies, satires, etc., etc.? I think she has been shortchanged. The record needs to be set straight.
Excuse me, I must return to the nursery now - the baby is
calling.
Linda
Dear Linda,
You must know that I am in substantial agreement with the view that you have expressed. I must say, though, that I am sorry that I gave the impression that I have read all the critical books. - That was not my intention and nothing could be further from the truth.
I certainly agree that Jane Austen wrote more than satire - more than "comedy of manners." However, Cheryl has posted very credible arguments that NA was a parody - see 8/10/00 and 8/16/00. I think we must admit that gothic novels were a target for Jane Austen, especially those written by the highly commercial writer, Mrs. Radcliffe. In fact, I think that "parody" is the wrong term - the proper term is, "explicit ridicule". Here is an example of what I mean - this is a passage from Chapter 23 of Northanger Abbey.
"With the walls of the kitchen ended all the antiquity of the abbey; the fourth side of the quadrangle having, on account of its decaying state, been removed by the general's father, and the present erected in its place. All that was venerable ceased here. The new building was not only new, but declared itself to be so; intended only for offices, and enclosed behind by stable-yards, no uniformity of architecture had been thought necessary. Catherine could have raved at the hand which had swept away what must have been beyond the value of all the rest, for the purposes of mere domestic economy; and would willingly have been spared the mortification of a walk through scenes so fallen, had the general allowed it; but if he had a vanity, it was in the arrangement of his offices; and as he was convinced that, to a mind like Miss Morland's, a view of the accommodations and comforts, by which the labours of her inferiors were softened, must always be gratifying, he should make no apology for leading her on. They took a slight survey of all; and Catherine was impressed, beyond her expectation, by their multiplicity and their convenience. The purposes for which a few shapeless pantries and a comfortless scullery were deemed sufficient at Fullerton, were here carried on in appropriate divisions, commodious and roomy. The number of servants continually appearing did not strike her less than the number of their offices. Wherever they went, some pattened girl stopped to curtsy, or some footman in dishabille sneaked off. Yet this was an abbey! How inexpressibly different in these domestic arrangements from such as she had read about -- from abbeys and castles, in which, though certainly larger than Northanger, all the dirty work of the house was to be done by two pair of female hands at the utmost. How they could get through it all had often amazed Mrs. Allen; and, when Catherine saw what was necessary here, she began to be amazed herself.
Also, it seems fair to interpret Henry Tilney's admonition to Catherine as Jane Austen's admonition to admirers of Mrs. Radcliffe. In any case, I support your view of the novel and hope that you will continue your analysis of the passion and evocative emotions expressed therein.
Dear Folks,
I recently mentioned the Reminiscences of Caroline Austen, and warned that this niece does not say much about our Lady in those remarks. True enough, but Caroline did say a great deal about her Aunt Jane in another place, My Aunt Jane Austen: A Memoir, published by the Jane Austen Society (1952, 1991): ISBN 0 9511035 3 9. You can obtain JAS publications, online, at P.G. Wells.
Someone had better direct a genome project on that Austen family, because those folks could write! This "memoir" covers only 17 short pages, but that was enough to alternately stun and charm me. I love Caroline Austen. More to the point, Caroline loved Jane Austen, who, Caroline assures us, was sweet and pretty. If you want to know more about Jane Austen's personality and habits, you won't find any better-informed or more articulate information than that of Caroline's. If you want to hear only praise, you will never be more gratified than with this "memoir".
The latest edition of this pamphlet also contains the Recollections of John White (1821-1921). White was born after the death of Jane Austen and was an agricultural worker on the Austen-Knight estate at Chawton. His recollections are as cryptic and brief as you might expect of someone in his position, but are poignant because they are his effort to pass on some of his family's history to his daughter - wonderful! They also contain references to the Austen family - did you know that Cassandra had a dog named "Link" that often went with her servant to collect a pail of milk that the dog carried home in his mouth? Way to go, Link! This factoid demonstrates that Cassandra Austen was a "Cassandra" in the fullest sense of the name - demonstrates her prescient knowledge of the forthcoming Internet! We could be more impressed only if we discovered that she had a cat named "Chad".
Dear Ashton,
Your musings sort of match up with what I've been trying to working on with the rivals of Persuasion. If we scrunch up our eyes and look at the novels as personal statements, Pride and Prejudice could be seen as answering the question "When are you going to get married?" The answer of course, being "When I meet my Mr. Darcy." Persuasion, on the other hand, answers the question "How come you never married?"
We know that Jane accepted, then declined a marriage proposal, and I have little doubt that, like Anne Elliot, Jane could have attached to herself any man she might choose. It's very interesting that in Persuasion, Charles Musgrove, is described as Anne's intellectual inferior; Captain Benwick as inferior in maturity; and, Mr. Elliot as morally and ethically lacking. Even more interesting is the fact that Anne almost certainly could have found some measure of happiness as a wife and mother with any of these men. Yet, she refuses to settle for less than her ideal. There may be more Jane Austen in Anne Elliot than I've previously thought.
That's not what's been giving me the difficulty writing about the subject, though. I've come to the inescapable conclusion that in Persuasion Jane Austen makes the case that sexual attraction is as necessary for a happy marriage as anything else. And a strong case against a marriage in which the woman's superiority forces her into the position of being a "mother" to her husband as well. (See Lady Elliot.)
There, I've said it ... Jane Austen thought about s-x. I wonder how
many burning crosses will fit on my lawn?
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Hand me a sword - I will protect your lawn.
To me, Jane Austen is sexier than hell - I don't think I could be as fascinated with her if she were not. I thought D.H. Lawrence's novels were damn sexy - when I was fifteen years old. But now that I have actually had sex myself (do you want to hear about it?), I think he wrote in a state of arrested adolescence. I am not interested in adolescents. I like womanly sex, and our Lady's novels are crammed with that. But, if you are going to take that view, you will have to contend with the orthodox view. Do you have the guts? Here is a test - would you ever call a Jane Austen novel, "a comedy of manners"? That is the orthodox view.
To which of my "musings" are you referring?
Do you find much that is sexy in Marianne's marriage to Colonel Brandon? - Edmund's marriage to Fanny? I think both of those individuals were sexually attracted to others, in the strongest possible way, and that was their dilemma. I do believe that Jane Austen was describing her own sensations as Elizabeth Bennet and then as Anne Elliot - I have always thought that and I grow ever more convinced.
Dear Ashton,
Yes, I would call any of Jane's books "a comedy of manners" ... among many other things such as "pointed satire", "gooey love story" , "battle of the sexes" etc. etc. But, no, I don't find Jane Austen sexy, she is after all not just a woman, but an extremely dead woman. Perhaps you meant that you find her characters sexy? I supposed I'm just surprised, considering how strongly Austen warns of the dangers of marriage based solely on sexual attraction to find it so vital a consideration to Anne Elliot, and dealt with so explicitly (to my mind) in Persuasion.
The "musings" I was referring to are your comments about the relationship between letter writing gaps and broken hearts. I think it's a mistake to assume that any author's character is the author him/herself, no matter how great the temptation. As I've said before, I think Elizabeth represents Jane's viewpoint -- not Jane herself -- at 20 and Anne at 40. I also tend to think that, as private a person as JA appears to have been, she would never have exposed herself so thoroughly, even as a fictional character. I'm willing to admit though, that I may just be prejudiced.
Completely off the subject, I haven't been able to find anything that tells me what (if any) Great House Pemberley might have been based on. I know Hardwick Hall seems to make it into every single BBC production, but other than the fact it's in Derbyshire, I can't find anything to point to it. Does anyone have any ideas?
Dear Cheryl,
Or maybe you will explain to me that she is not a woman because she is dead. - Don't bother, it is an argument about semantics.
What I would like to see is your theory on how any author can get so outside herself that she does not expose herself in a novel. That is a possibility that completely mystifies me - I don't believe in it. But, even if possible, why would anyone want to use such an astounding gift? I mean, isn't self-discovery and expression the motivation for writing?
Perhaps you are rankling over something else - perhaps you are echoing a complaint that Julie Grassi made about me. Julie became very upset because, she explained, I was too involved with Jane Austen as a person. I never understood that complaint; I mean, what is the point of writing and reading if not for that kind of involvement?
I suppose that every novel involves a description of manners, even Frankenstein. But, I am referring to something else. I can reference authoritative sources, which confidently proclaim that the essence, the reason for being, of Jane Austen's novels was to mock social manners and customs. Is that your view?
Incidentally, "musings" was your choice of words, not mine.
Dear Folks,
Linda recently said that she might be interested in doing a detailed chronology for Jane Austen in order to see what might be learned from the exercise. I have been thinking along the same lines and I want to show you what I am playing with. I went through Deirdre Le Faye's latest edition of our lady's letters and plotted the number of letters written in a given month vs the year. Here is the result.
I am looking for gaps so that the Male Voices might suggest deeply intellectual, mysterious reasons. I think I see such things but can't be sure. A better way to see gaps is to plot the cumulative number of letters written since 1796 vs the year and that looks like this:
In this sort of figure, gaps appear as flat portions in the graph and I think I see clear gaps as follows:
Do you agree?
Your first reaction might be wrong - you might say that these gaps are not significant because Cassandra destroyed so many letters that these gaps don't represent what they seem. WRONG! The very fact that sister cut and burned letters is one of the things that make the gaps interesting - Here were periods in which there may have been things happening that were to be kept from our prying eyes - so, we must pry. What say you?
Dear Meister,
You are on the ball! The charts will be very helpful in studying her
chronology. The "gaps" are the very thing that make the study more
interesting. I look forward to figuring some of it out - well, at least
studying it. Thanks.
Linda
Dear Folks,
There are a lot of caveats to make about the gaps; for example, the gaps may simply represent times when Jane and Cassandra were not separated so that there was no need for letter writing. Or, perhaps Jane Austen was simply too busy with her manuscripts to have much time for writing letters - etc. - etc. We simply must make caveats - it's expected! - please supply such things with your own responses - it's expected.
Whew! - I'm glad that's over - now to the fun part.
Let us consider the first gap that I have identified as extending from October 1796 to October 1798. That is the very period of time that I immortalized - must have immortalized by now - in my infamous essay on Jane Austen's Eleventh Letter. I mean this is the two-year period that begins when Tom Lefroy left our Lady's neighborhood and ends with our Lady's eleventh letter - the letter I claim to be so revealing. Mmmm - well - almost - not exactly - I mean that Lefroy actually left in January of 1796. Hmmm! (Not to worry; did you think your Meister to be an unimaginative little elf?) Well my theory may seem spoiled by a cluster of four or five letters written in August and September of 1796 - such impertinence! However, by eliminating that cluster from your thoughts, the gap actually extends from January 1796 to October 1798 - and thereby irrevocably establishes my Tom-Lefroy theory in a circumstantial way. Thank you - I am gratified.
What else was happening during this period? For one thing, Cassandra's fiancé died of illness in February 1797. Also, Jane Austen wrote her first draft of First Impressions, the novel that you and I know as Pride and Prejudice.
It is not that I hate caveats, I only fear them.
Dear Cheryl and Ashton,
Ashton - I reread your comments on the Emma movie versions. When it comes to movies our tastes and opinions differ. I am spoilt by P&P A&E. I have not seen Emma-A&E, but I have seen Emma-96. Since you like Emma-BBC so much, it would be unkind to make disparaging remarks. So I will limit myself to two comments.
- If Harriet Smith had said, "Yes, Miss Woodhouse" one more time ...(argh)
- On the other hand, when Harriet introduced Mr. Martin to Emma, I did sniffle a little. I don't know why. I just did.
French democracy - It is truly amazing what we discover in our research vs. what we are taught in school. Thinking back (that was a long time ago) it seems like the French Revolution was supposed to be about democracy. The spotty reading I have done on Rousseau inclines me to agree with you.
You said, "Incidentally, I did know that Louisiana law was based upon the Napoleonic Code, because I am familiar with Streetcar Named Desire." I should have known!
Cheryl - Thanks for the book on tape recommendation. I will have to add it to my wish list. What you said about the Brits knowing their Kings and Queens reminded me of Catherine Marshall's A Man Called Peter. She noted on a trip to Scotland, Peter's homeland, that the natives talked about the people and events hundreds of years in the past as if it were yesterday and they were close family.
Too much to study and too little time (at least for me anyway). I have
a natural curiosity (I want to know everything) and an analytic mind (I analyze
everything). Thank goodness for this board, I have learned a
lot.
Linda
To All,
I am writing a thesis on the use of euphemsim in literary works, and would greatly appreciate any references that you could pass on to me. I will concentrate on DH Lawrence and Jane Austen, with the focus on sexual euphemism and the window it gives us into the society of the time. Any links, quotes, or ideas gratefully received.
Thanking you in advance, K. Ham.
Dear K.,
There is little doubt that the place on the web, with the most detailed information, is Henry Churchyard's "Jane Austen Information Page." Search there, and you will find several sections devoted to cartoons, gossip, and sexual innuendo of the Regency Period.
Incidentally, don't miss what DH Lawrence said about Jane Austen. Also, if you will check out our own Passionate Passages pages, you will find some related material. Well - related in some remote way.
Dear Ashton,
Since you asked...
Yes, I did notice the predominance of biographical information, and yes, I was wondering where the democracy was. It is "funny" but sad about the contradiction between the stated goals and Emperor Napoleon and his codes. Speaking of which, I would not have you ignorant (excuse the presumption) of the fact that Louisiana (former French colony) is the only state not using the English Common Law but uses the Napoleonic Code.
Yes, the thought crossed my mind, "How could Josephine get away with that?" I had forgotten about the "sponge".
Thanks for suggesting the movie about Mary, Queen of Scots. It sounds interesting - that means "worth my while if it is indeed historically accurate!" I did some research about Mary in "Encarta" (came with my computer), then Bartleby.com, then britannica.com. I am ready to throw away the "Encarta" CD. Britannica has them all beat.
Now, if you will excuse me, I am trying to finish viewing the
Emma (BBC) movie you like so much.
Linda
From the Meister: My point is different and more startling - I am contending that I begin to suspect that there was no contradiction! We in the USA naturally assume that the French Revolution must have been about democracy because they killed their king, which was good, and democracy is good, so there must be that equation. But, as I begin to read Rousseau, etc. I don't see the same commitment or even understanding of democracy that we are familiar with in the thinking of our own Founding Fathers. Of course, all of our Founding Fathers were Brits - Adams, Franklin, Washington, etc. I mean it may be that all our notions of democracy originated in Britain and not at all on the Continent. Try that out, and you will find that a lot of things that mystify Americans about the French Revolution become plausible. For example, I contend that the Napoleonic Code did, in fact, codify the goals of the French Revolution even though it did not institute democracy! Incidentally, I did know that Louisiana law was based upon the Napoleonic Code, because I am familiar with Streetcar Named Desire.
Dear Linda & Ashton,
You're right Linda, it is a catty remark, but it's also very true. Along with Lady's Susan's assessment that Mrs. Vernon really dislikes her, not because of her behavior, but because of her efforts to prevent the Vernon's marriage.
Speaking of Mary's and Elizabeth's ... I recently purchased a book on tape
called The Kings And Queens of England which is 8 tapes and 12 hours
long. It's a series of essays written by different authors, but it's
seamlessly edited together in a very coherent way. The only problem with
it (my problem, not the tapes') is that it's clearly written for Brits who
already know all their Kings and Queens and other major players, all in proper
chronological order. I recommend it highly, even for those folks who don't
have a 90 minute drivee to get to the movies. In a parallel vein, my husband
bought a book on tape which is that part of Winston Churchill's History of
The English Speaking Peoples which deals with the United States.
Churchill's style lends itself well to being read (The Kings and Queens of
England was written specifically for the tapes), but it can sometimes be a bit
much to have a foreigner, no matter how well respected, making bold statements
about the legendary historical figures of one's country. Don't EVEN get me
started on his worshipful assessment of Robert E. Lee.
Cheryl
P.S. Proud Plant Parent alert! Our Brugmansia has about a dozen blooms (white trumpets, approx. 7" long or 10" with calyx) It's truly a sight and scent to behold! Now we just need some moths for pollination.
Links