9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Oct. 15, 2001
9-11
Dear Voices,
I've noticed that politicians & essayists who are usually writing either for or against their political beliefs, tend to be interested in women's rights when it's to their advantage. It's no coincidence the "women's issues" are harped upon by the minority party. Women's votes are better than no votes at all. Notice how women's rights immediately become second or third priority once that party gains the majority. Ditto revolutionaries. We didn't see much real gain for women in post-revolutionary America, France, or Russia. A woman's right to dispose of her own money is too trivial to bother about, unless of course the money & property you expect to inherit from your own mother's estate is given away to her 2nd husband's children instead. I recently read that, here in colonial America, rich widows didn't legally remarry, they just lived in "sin" (with the blessings of the state and church I might add) so as to retain their property. Typical American no-nonsense solution I'd say.
Speaking of recipes, we started what we hope will be a batch of hard cider
last weekend. Couldn't find anything in any of our books so we're trying to
adapt apple wine + champagne recipes. We'll see how it goes. (If anyone
has anything on cider making, let me
know. ) It's in the intial fermentation, and while it doesn't look as scary
as some of the beer we've made, it would make a good prop for a haunted
house. And of course the house smells as if we have 100 loaves of bread
rising. Except the part that positively reeks of brugmansia flowers. It's
a pleasant scent in small amounts but 60' 6" blooms all at once and now inside
the house (in case of frost) is a bit much.
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
I am currently constructing a page on women's rights in Jane Austen's time, so your remarks are very interesting to me. Much of what you say is common knowledge these days, but I am skeptical. It is common knowledge, but so is the good works of the Tooth Fairie. Perhaps you can supply some hard evidence that a woman's wealth went to her husband without her consent - I have found nothing like that.
If you supply such a thing, it will be a big surprise to me and will influence the further development of that page. It also would have been a big surprise to Jane Austen and would have required her to rewrite some passages in Sense and Sensibility, Emma, and Sanditon. I also have found direct contradictions of our current, common knowledge in the novels of other women writers in Jane Austen's time.
I scoured the United States Constitution and remarked upon the clear gender-neutrality of that revolutionary document. Perhaps you can point to flaws in my thinking there. More likely, you will find your ammunition in the laws and customs of the individual states; better yet, the article by J.S. Mill, referred to recently by Linda, might give you the concrete evidence you need.
Should this discussion be of any interest to you, you can use an excellent web site associated with the University of Chicago and dedicated to the United States Constitution and its documentary foundations.
In fact, women voted in a few New England states shortly after the Constitution was ratified. That right was revoked a few decades later and, by the time the nineteenth amendment was passed, women voted in only two western states. This parallels the French Revolution; shortly after that revolution, women were given many rights including the right to vote, but that right and others were revoked within a dozen years (refer to Claire Tomalin's biography of Mary Wollstonecraft.) So, I think you are a bit hard on revolutionaries.
Dear Cheryl,
My vision was clouded by my utter amazement that some men may actually care about women's rights. And in the political/essayist eyes, it is not only women's rights but also any other issue du jour. One for instance - I remember that a certain politician promising to end all the school busing in the US. He was elected twice and for the next eight years - absolutely nothing was done about it, and now eight more years later, still nothing!
Compare those "rich widows" of yesteryear to the couples of today who do not marry in order to keep their Social Security benefits. (They might have fixed that, though I don't keep up with it.)
Dear Voices,
Joan Austen-Leigh passed away on Friday, October 12, 2001. Here is a
link to an article in the Vancouver Sun. She appears to be a very
interesting Lady, a la our own Jane Austen.
Linda
Dear Cheryl,
I suppose that alarms go off when the British read that Warren Hastings was the putative father of Jane Austen's cousin/sister-in-law, Eliza; Lord Hastings is such an important figure in their history. For American folks like you and I, these matters can only dawn on us in gradual degrees. I will try to describe what I recently learned about Hastings and his chief antagonist, Edmund Burke, in terms even Americans can appreciate. More importantly, I will provide links to Internet sources.
 Lord Hastings 1732-1818 |
I suppose it is not an exaggeration to say that, in his day, Warren Hastings was the fastest rising young Englishman in India. So, it is especially impressive - I suppose - that he would have chosen Jane Austen's paternal aunt, Mrs. Philadelphia Hancock (nèe Austen), for adulterous pleasures. He was educated, scholarly, sensitive, brilliant, humane, and ambitious. Most agree that he was not a racist; on the contrary, he was enamored of Indian culture and persons. For example, it was under his influence that important Indian writings were translated into English. But, he was harsh with native political leaders that did not comply with his ministerial needs and commands. He was not above immediate confiscation of property as punishment for tardy obedience. |
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was of Irish birth, a Catholic mother and an Anglican-convert father. As was the custom in those cases in those days, sons were raised in the father's religion and daughters in the mother's. (You will find a reference to that custom in Richardson's Sir Charles Grandison.) That seems civilized to me. He was a secretary to powerful political figures before becoming one himself in the English Parliament.
In many ways Edmund Burke seems liberal, in others conservative. He was a Whig who strongly supported conciliation with the American colonies before our Revolution. Also, his conflict with Hastings arose over his sincere concern over the welfare of the people of India. On the other hand, Burke seems to have been a person who consistently resisted change and he lashed out at political reformers and idealists in his writings and speeches. He was a leading critic of the French Revolution. Burke brought a mixed bag to Parliament.
Here are some links to other web sites.
I am embarrassed to admit that I did not find an e-text of Burke's speech in the prosecution of Hastings before Parliament. That is a famous speech and I did find a number of reviews of modern books that are devoted to that speech - that tells you something. The speech was so compelling that Hastings' defense attorney asked for a two week recess so that he might recover his former, proper attitude. Imagine being the defendant and hearing your side announce that in court!
Dear Ashton,
I just looked at your links to Lord Hastings and Edmund Burke.
Just an FYI that in Nokes' opinion, that the affair between Philadelphia Hancock and Lord Hastings came as the result of Mr. Hancock's close friendship with Hastings at the time of Hastings' wife's and second child's deaths (which I think were separated by only a couple of years.) Hastings stayed with the Hancocks a great deal during this trying time. I believe the Hancocks had been married 9 years without producing a child - if you consider that of any importance.
I just read a fictionalized account of the Great Indian Mutiny of 1858,
which of course is rather past our era. The central issue was the rumor
that the new paper cartridges issued to the native troops were greased with a
mixture of beef & pork fat in an effort to defile Muslims and break the
caste of Hindus. (The cartridges were in fact waxed so as not to cause
offense.) At any rate, among the regiments that did mutiny it was believed
that the current crop of English officers were not the honorable sort of men
with whom the sepoy's fathers and grandfather had served and that their
assurances about the purity of the cartridges couldn't be trusted. The accounts
of the mutiny are the most compelling and horrifying things I've ever
read. A bloody mess in every sense of the word. And if anyone ever
tells you it can be judged for one side or the other, spit in his eye and damn
him for eternity, it will still be less than he deserves. And I can't praise
enough the books of Byron Farwell ... Armies of the Raj, Queen
Victoria's Little Wars (which I think covers the Afghan wars), Mr.
Kipling's Armies, The Gurkhas, Eminent Victorian Soldiers and
I think he also has a biography of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton.
While the books tend to concentrate on the Victorian era, there's plenty of
material that's applicable to Jane Austen's time.
Cheryl
Dear Ash and Cheryl,
I am reminded of the time I was learning to make yogurt. Now what has that to do with Jane Austen you may well ask. Well, unfortunately I will tell you. Years ago deciding to make my own, I consulted the nearest recipe book. Diligently following the instructions, it failed to set. I tried another book that suggested adding another ingredient to make it more firm - no luck, still liquid. The third book said to shake gently to check for firmness, thereafter I did not stir it with a spoon to check it - lo, and behold, I had yogurt! The material point being, all one needs to know about a subject may not necessarily be in one book.
That brings us to the subject at hand - Nokes, Hastings, Burke, and Frank Austen. After Cheryl's critical analysis of Nokes, I will take what he says with the proverbial grain of salt. Ash followed up by quoting Honan who sounded very well indeed. I pulled out my Jenkins that had little of India in it. Thereafter I consulted my Jane Austen-A Family Record by Austen-Leigh & Le Faye. It had an interesting chapter on India and France 1752 -1785, but it wasn't until a later chapter covering 1809-12 that Frank and his exploits in China are briefly mentioned. A follow up question came to mind 'who is Burke?' which led me to scour the many books collected from the recent book sales. I found Eighteenth Century Poetry and Prose which had 87 pages of Burke's writings including excerpts from the Impeachment, the Conciliation, and the East India Bill. Then Ash had the audacit ... added the links in his post, not to mention all the recommendations Cheryl made. All this goes to prove my point - one has to read a lot of material and then make a judgment call. The most disturbing comments were from Cheryl who said "to trade or plunder themselves to riches", "to slaughter every British man, woman, and child they could lay hands on"". I keep getting disillusioned - I try so hard to believe in the good in people, but their wickedness keeps popping up! I guess tis true - there is some good in the worst of us and some bad in the best of us. What really bothers me is - how could Hastings be acquitted when Burke was so eloquent in his impeachment speech, etc.? Was Burke lying, excuse me, "mistaken" is a better word?
I have a lot of reading to do on this, but later. Thanks for the
directions. All this goes to prove that our excursions into other fields
occurring during her era are not wasted. It will be interesting to learn
some of the surrounding history and then read her novels again. Some
overlooked words or phrases may take on new meaning.
Linda
Dear Voices,
Let me throw this in on the Hastings Affair. This is from Jane Austen - A Family Record:
"The close friendship between Hastings and the Hancocks, coupled with the fact that the latter had been childless for so long before Betsy's birth, gave scope for spiteful gossip to suggest that she was not Mr. Hancock's daughter. The rumour was spread by the malicious Mrs. Strachey, whose husband was secretary to Lord Clive, and her slander was successful in so far as Clive wrote to his wife in the late summer of 1765: "in no circumstances whatever keep company with Mrs. Hancock for it is beyond a doubt that she abandoned herself to Mr. Hastings, indeed, I would rather you had no acquaintance with the ladies who have been in India, they stand in such little esteem in England that their company cannot be of credit to Lady Clive.' There is no evidence as to whether Mr. Hancock was aware of this gossip, but he knew that Mrs. Strachey had an unpleasant nature, and some years after wrote to Philadelphia: 'You ought not I think have hesitated to tell Mrs. Strachey that her Behavior to you while in India, which plainly proved her contempt of you, gave her no Right to expect any favor from you. I am much mistaken if Lady Clive's most extraordinary Coolness be not owing to the Pride of that Woman. Surely I did enough for her when I save her Life her return for which was the basest Ingratitude to you.' He certainly had no doubt in his own mind that Betsy was indeed his child, and his fondest hope was that he would be able to spend his latter days in watching her grow up and supervising her education."Le Faye quotes two sources for this information. This is another example of information gathering and then making a judgment call. It also proves that people haven't changed much over the years. Linda
Dear Ashton,
Maybe one does need that y-chromosome. I admit to a certain amount of amusement at sports commentators whose idea of an incisive comment is to remark that, "-- ahead by one run with no outs in the bottom of the 7th, the pitcher DOESN"T WANT THE BATTER TO DRIVE IN THOSE BASE RUNNERS". Gosh, thanks for the heads up fellas. Or my favorite, after a blocked punt that was run in for a touchdown: "Oooh, [coach's name] didn't want that to happen." Give that guy a coaching contract, he's good.
I'm thinking more about what's call the "Sunday supplement" level of popularization of science. Look at the flaps around cloning, genetic engineering, transgenic crops, and global warming. You can read every newspaper article printed about global warming for the rest of your life without ever being exposed to a single element of meteorology, climatology, botany, atmospheric physics, oceanic physics, evolutionary biology, history, geology, archeology, paleontology, paleobotany, or any of a dozen other disciplines that you would need to to make an informed judgment on an issue as complex as the cause (or existence) of global warming. But how many people are there who haven't aligned themselves with one "side" or the other? That's one of the great dangers that I see.
I also feel that the increasing complexity of science calls for some caution. Science is like a pyramid. If we take off the topmost stone, we find something bigger and more complex underneath, maybe infinitely. One discipline splits into many, then splits again. The components which fit neatly together on level three can't be unified on level 4, and on level 64, the various disciplines can't even be unified any more. So I think it's unwise to let those of us who never see anything but the top of the pyramid think that we know it all. Wars have been fought for less.
I'll try to pick up some Malthus when I can. Books are the only thing lately that we haven't been spending money on hand over fist.
Linda: How was Zulu Dawn? George MacDonald Fraser praises another movie about Rourke's Drift that was simply called Zulu. And to show historical naivete isn't just a modern American failing, Fraser says that when the end credits listed the name of the actual men who received the Victoria Cross in the action, one British viewer was upset because one of the movie's fictional characters didn't get it as well. The "Testament of Youth" I mentioned earlier was also a BBC production back in the early 80's, starring Miss Garvie of Pride and Prejudice fame. It's well worth a watch if you can get it from the local library.
I go back to work tomorrow after nearly 4 months off. I'm looking
forward to it, the owners have made some changes that I think will be
great. The only problem is that my "summer project" list remains virtually
unchanged after all this time. There's snow on the mountains to the north
and west, but we still haven't had a frost at our house. Last year we were
still getting tomatoes in November. If we could just get some rain.
We did have "measurable" precipitation last week, which means I can no longer
count the days it's rained this year on "one hand".
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Would you believe - I finally started a written list in Word to record the Book and Movie titles to read/see? My hand written notes do tend to scatter. I started it with your latest recommendations.
Zulu Dawn was great for scenery though if you needed a history lesson, it was a bit scanty. The movie also left you hanging. I was not too sure what was going on. For some background on the historical events I found THIS SITE.
What really bothers me is that in so many movies the British are portrayed as so know-it-all and get-it-wrong. I am thinking also of Lawrence of Arabia that I saw recently. Lawrence had it right but the rest of the Brits were of the other ilk. My question is - how on earth did the British Empire come into existence with such people at the helm? I guess that these movies we have are just snapshots; one has to study the entire historical scope to get the complete picture. It is a dirty, low-down shame what has been done in the name of greed and power. Zulu Dawn is just the tip of the iceberg, I fear.
It is nice to know that I am not alone with an unfinished summer project and I honor you for your resolve to curb your Francophobia. I should do likewise with my phobias.
I do hope things go well back at the job!
BTW while surfing the Meister's links on Burke I found a lengthy essay by John Stuart Mill titled: The Subjection of Women. I just started on the 54 pages, but the last sentence of the first paragraph caught my eye:
From the Meister: It is a universal truth, rarely acknowledged, that the most important feminists were men. (Right away, that should make you suspicious.)
Dear Voices,
I just wanted to mention that one of my husband's fellow employees returned
from Europe last week where she had been visiting her daughter. They were
in Paris during the week of September 11th. She says the French could not
have been kinder. Everyone they met offered condolences, everyone spoke
English as well as they could, (even the customs agents) and pretended to
understand American style French. To honor our allies I therefore resolve
not to say anything Francophobic for at least a month.
Cheryl
Links