9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Oct. 18, 2001
9-11
Dear folks,
For some reason, Linda's post triggered something - something of what I had read recently. This demonstrates an important difference between the English aristocracy and that of other European countries. My source is the very interesting survey,
"The English aristocracy had the great advantage of being small and stable in numbers. By European standards the English [aristocracy] was miniscule, largely because--unlike elsewhere--only eldest sons inherited titles. In 1688 there were just 160 Lords temporal and twenty-six Lords spiritual (elsewhere they ran into the tens of thousands, some half a million claiming nobility in Spain). There were perhaps a further eighty to a hundred families of great leverage, owning 10,000 acres or more--men such as the agricultural improver, Thomas Coke of Holkham in Norfolk (who eventually consented to become Earl of Leicester). The size of the Lords remained remarkably steady until the 1780s, when Pitt became more open-handed with the ermine. There was however no rash of Lilliput titles, or enobling of small fry. Unlike the French, or even the Scottish, the English peerage carried few passengers; rather it possessed impressive corporate unity."
Apparently, the Tudors had reduced the size of the nobility, probably because aristocrats are the most apparent danger to royalty. For example, I believe it was the actions of aristocrats and high church officials that began the French Revolution; they used slogans and repeated quotations about the sharing of power and putting an end to absolute rule. That sounded good to the folks in the street, but they then applied the ideas to the aristocracy as well. Exactly, the same sequence of events happened in our revolution. The difference was that there was a mountain range between the American aristocracy and the poorly enfranchised. In Paris, the two classes lived side by side.
Dear Linda,
What you mention about the movies, particularly Lawrence of Arabia, is one of the reasons I like Byron Farwell so much. He doesn't attempt to politicize history, he just tells you about it. The main problem with "LOA" is that most of it is taken from his own biography, in which he romanticizes himself out of all proportion. "He seemed to have a knack with the natives" pretty much summarizes Lawrence's contribution to history. The war in Africa was no joke, but it didn't produce the sort of useless casualties of Yrpres or Gallipoli, so it retained much of its romanticism. The G.M. Fraser I mentioned who wrote Hollywood History of the World (a book anyone who enjoys movies should own and I know the Meister is getting tired of me shilling for it) said that as a school boy he was lectured by a friend of Lawrence and never overcame his dislike. Apparently, the friend told them it was a damn shame, Lawrence was worth any number of schoolboys.
The British Empire is one of the most difficult subjects to get one's mind around. There's no question that Europe had no right to conquer (whether through the military or other means) the rest of the world. But history can't be changed. The Empire did many good things like banning the suttee, keeping at least some peace between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims, and innoculating against smallpox (as far back as the 1700's). On the other hand, the Empire, or at least its agents, handed out smallpox infected blankets to Indian tribes in what is now Canada, and, protests notwithstanding, commited atrocities on American revolutionaries (among other things). During the Indian mutiny, British women and children were literally cut to pieces in their beds and the Cawnpore garrison were promised safe passage to the nearest British settlement but fired upon as they boarded the boats ... only 4 survived (out of the original garrison of about 800--around 300 were alive when the safe passage was offered). Something like 100 women and children were captured then given to the "local marketplace rabble" who fell upon them with knives and cleavers then dumped the bodies down a well. When British forces retook Cawnpore, mutineers were forced to lick the blood from the walls and floor before being hanged. Hundreds of others were strapped over the muzzle of cannon which were then fired. See what I mean about trying to judge this?
You may be beginning to understand my bitterness about how the media are covering current events ... Queen Elizabeth I first chartered the East India company in 1600. The British Empire included Muslim countries like India (the north west is predominantly muslim I think), Pakistan, Afghanistan off and on, Egypt, the Palestine, & Sudan yet we are expected to believe that 30 years of American diplomatic bungling has turned the Muslim world against the west. The call to jihad has rung out many times in the past 400 years, long before US involvement in the area. And, of course, Great Britain isn't the only European country to conquer in the Muslim world. (I'm not attempting to comment on US actions, just putting them within the overall historical perspective.)
On to somewhat lighter subjects.
Sometimes it's hard to decide whether a good historical grounding makes you enjoy movies more or less. Overall I'd say more. It's such a delight when they get something rather obscure right. Howard Hughes in The Rocketeer is a nice touch, with the Spruce Goose thrown in for lagniappe. On the other hand, I remember watching Dragonheart which was as harmless a movie as you could imagine but ruined for me because they put a specific date on the action which made stirrups, knitting, buttons, longbows, horseshoes and horse collars (and that's just what I can remember!) anachronistic so this entire stupid movie was ruined for me. Why stick the date in there if you don't know anything about the period. The scene in Titanic when Kate Winslet is about to light a cigarette in the dining salon is another sore spot. Spend the money tracking down original Victorian dresses, but don't bother with the fact that had anyone, male or female done such a thing, they would have been sentenced to take all of their meals in their cabin. Roy finds the 1911 Webley owned by David Warner possible, but unlikely, but that's another story.
I'm of the opinion that fiction in all its forms are an underutilized
historical source. We learn a lot about the Regency from Jane Austen's
novels and we learn a lot about 1939 America from watching films of that
era. We enter as alien a world by reading Miss Marple novels as we do
reading anything by Larry Niven. Actually more so--you serve your Kzinn master
because he'll disembowel and eat you (not necessarily in that order) if you
don't--Miss Marple never even flogged her faithful Gladys confining her
mistreament to pitiful wages and every other Sunday off. I ask you, which
scenario is more logical?
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Every now and then, it just happens - we try to set it aside; but it breaks through at times, doesn't it. I mean all of us are furious; we seethe and dream of a swift Justice standing on our side with bloodied sword in her hand. I think I see that in your posting, maybe I am confused by my own thoughts and feelings; but, I think I sense that.
Our wise ones remind us to be clear and focused. I am proud that so many of us are determined to restrain our rednecks; to remind ourselves and to vow that we will never visit upon another segment of our population what we visited upon Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. That part of our response is certainly grand and wise.
The British have reminded us of what we owe to them. I know you are disappointed with some of the things you have heard said, but our British cousins stand with us. And, we owe them so much. Our culture and our political institutions are neo-British, are they not? Let us not forget the subject of this bulletin board. And, let us acknowledge that much of what is grand and wise about us is a British import.
Dear Cheryl,
There are two more book sales on Saturday I hope to visit. I live within range of one major library (Memphis) and three small local libraries, so I have no excuse. G.M. Fraser is now on my list.
You say,
I have been aware for some years now of what all is going on in that direction, and I have to agree with you.
I do see your point about the "overall historical perspective". I do know those things - they are just tucked away in the back of my mind somewhere, so when I do see it spelled out, I recognize it.
You should have put in blazing red letters the phrase "underutilized historical source". Here is one example of something I learned while I was in the Louisiana woods from reading a historical novel. In Europe (somewhere) the table place setting included a rectangular piece of glass to rest your utensil on after eating. I amazed my uncultured cousin that I should be acquainted with such things when she returned from Europe. I was an armchair traveler. Now I realize that it is woefully underutilized!
On the subject of movies, yesterday I taped Anna Karenina with
Jacqueline Bisset. An extra added attraction was Mrs. Gardiner (Joanna
David). I was able to see the beginning of it and prefer it to the latest
Masterpiece Theater production. The Meister was correct on that one.
Linda
Dear Voices,
I taped Young Catherine the other night and saw it tonight. You know, we grow up seeing all those 'period movies' with lavish costumes, set in palaces, etc. and think "oh, how beautiful!" Then tonight it hit me square in the eyes. Even if half of the lavishness was true, it was awful that the nobility should live like that at the expense of and in view of the poor taxed classes. Not to mention the "politics" with all the scheming and conniving. It is pitiable indeed! It is quite upsetting. Hello? Did I just wake up?
While I am on the subject of movies - I went to IMDb to check on Anna Karenina. There are over 20 versions. I have the Greta Garbo version on tape to see yet, and I just found the Sophie-Marceau version at my library, so dear Meister I will get to see that one too. Then there is one with Vivien Leigh (1948) and another version (UK 1961) with Claire Bloom and Sean Connery (Yes, Sean!).
I did get to the two library book sales today and by chance got a PB of Catherine the Great by Henri Troyat. A site on the Internet stated that the bios written by Frenchmen were not to be taken seriously because they had a motive to smear her. So is there a good (close to the truth) biography of her that you can recommend? And she reigned during our Lady's younger years.
Now I shall take 2 aspirins and go to bed. Bonne nuit!
Linda
From the Meister: Claire Bloom? Oo-oo - that would have been a perfect part for her - yum-mm!
I once owned a biography of Catherine, but I seemed to have misplaced it - sorry. I do remember that she was, indeed, a contemporary of our Lady and that she was German, randy, and officially named "Catherine II". Starting with the death of Peter the Great, Russia was ruled by women for one hundred years - Catherine II was the last in that line. Peter's wife, Elizabeth I, was the first and that is interesting because she began life as a peasant. I also remember that Catherine had a long correspondence with Voltaire that is hilarious because she took it seriously and literally while he did not. Catherine II oversaw the greatest imperialistic expansion of Russia in its history, including an expansion into Afghanistan and into Northern California ("Fort Ross") - all the way to near where I was raised.
Dear Ash,
Last night I saw my fourth "Anna" - it was the 'dynamite' one with Sophie Marceau. My conclusion is that I must do as I did with the yogurt recipes. If I take a piece of this one and a bit of that one, I could make one good movie.
"Anna" with Helen was the first and longest which was fortunate in that I got a lot of the story line from it. Helen was a bit old for the part though I enjoyed seeing Amanda Root.
"Anna" with Greta Garbo was really - how shall I say this nicely - not very well done. It was too short, in black and white, and lacked the oomph.
"Anna" with Jacqueline I really enjoyed. Christopher Reeve was a nice surprise. I did not think I would be able to disassociate him from his "Superman" role, but his accent was impeccable and his portrayal was believable. Paul Scofield was a very good Karenin.
By the time I got to Sophia's dynamite "Anna" I may have been expecting too much. I did enjoy the music. The character who was Kitty's husband had something of 'reflection' to add at the end of the story which the others lacked. The sets were fabulous, but with only 2 hours it was cut short; I felt as though something was missing. And I am well aware of why you called it dynamite!
I would like to see two other versions - one with Claire and Sean, and one
with Vivien Leigh just for comparison. But they will have to wait because
I am just about "Anna-ed" out! I will now have to read the book to
determine just how much they butchered the story. We shall see.
Linda
Dear Ashton and Linda,
Of course you're right about our British cousins and my anger is not directed at the citizens of that country anymore than those of Afghanistan. My reading led to the British, but had I been reading something else, no doubt I could have waxed just as nastily at the Moghul Empire, or Alexander, or the Aryans. I'm really angry at those people who try to create moral black and whites in the supremely colorful landscape of human history.
Does it go without saying that the book I was looking for which deals with questions of Malthus and [over]population turned up right in the bookshelves where I left it? I was just looking for the wrong book. I may write something from that when I have more time.
Give me some time to get into the constitutional questions, which I've been trying to get myself to do for a couple of years now. I remember virtually nothing from my 7th grade civics class and even if I did, it would be the perspective of my teacher, not my own. I don't mean to be more cynical than usual, but the gender neutrality of the constitution speaks rather to my point: how successful would the founding fathers have been without the active involvement of the founding mothers? I'm not a White European Male basher, as you well know. The short term right to vote isn't what I would define as "real gain" after all, black males gained the right to vote just after the civil war, a right that was never constitutionally rescinded, but for all practical purposes they were disenfranchised as soon as they had served their purpose. (We seem to be flying headlong into the "States' Rights" question at breathtaking speeds ... you want to be the North or the South?)
From the Meister: That's easy! I'll be the North. Linda recently hinted at some dissatisfaction with busing, so maybe we can trick her into being the South. I suggest that you start by reading the Constitution. You will be impressed by how easy and how interesting that task is. It won't take you more than an hour or two. Uh-hh, what do you mean, "on the way to work?" You're not going high tech and wireless are you? That's not fair!
Linda; Thanks. One of those sites did have a cider recipe which I'm
happy to say is pretty close to what we're doing except that we're making
"sparkling cider wine" instead of "hard cider". We won't know how it turns
out for about 4 months though...drat.
Cheryl
Dear Folks,
If you are a MV veteran, you might notice some changes around here. Our hosts pressured me into becoming a paid rather than a free site - those #@*^&s. Anyway, what that means to you is that there are no more pop-up adds! So, show your appreciation! That's good, because this is a non-commercial site and now it will look the part. Also, things should load faster (I hope.) The bad news is that these changes have broken a large number of links that I will be repairing over the next few weeks - those #@*^&s.
Hi Ashton,
If you are [that person] from Pemberley.com whose posts I always seek, the following [link] will interest you.
BTW, I like your new 'Male Voices' site very much.
Regards,
Ana
Y.
Dear Ana,
Thanks for the RoP thread. I had wondered about that word, but not looked into it with any depth. It is not a word that I have used. That thread was quite thorough and I have a handle on it now.
By the way, do you post there? In case you don't know, I am "Linda
Fern" over there. And thanks for the information.
Linda
Dear Ana Y.,
Thank you for your kind remarks about Male Voices.
No, I am not that person you take me for. In fact, the only other place I post is at an NCAA football site - have you seen my posts there? Pemberley is the most popular Jane-Austen site on the web, and I am grateful to people like yourself who keep me informed. I hope you noticed that I made prominent mention of your notice of the postings at Pemberley on the erotic passages in Jane Austen's novels. Thank you once again for those - I think them important.
I found this book by Jane Austen, "Pride and Prejudice". I have done a little bit of research and notice that it has been republished but the book I have is very old. Do you know when they started putting copyrights in books because the book I have does [not] even have a copyright in it. I was wondering if this book had any value. Do you know any where I could find out. ...
I don't have any expertise on this matter. I suggest that you make inquiries
at the Jane Austen Society or, better yet, at the Jane Austen Society of North
America. You should be able to find either or both on the web. I can assure you
that Jane Austen, herself, held copyrights on her novels, so that such things
were already in place by the time the novels were originally published
(1811-1818).
Good Luck,
Links