9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Dec. 11, 2001
9-11
Dear Cindy,
As much as it pains me, I think I have to side with the guys on this one. While I believe JA's work can be read in a feminist light, and even that it's a fun intellectual exercise, I don't agree it's a legitimate interpretation. I hate to beat that old dead horse again, but we mustn't confuse (or extrapolate from) JA's portrait on a tiny percentage of the population with the real world. Jane Austen's men didn't truly "earn" a living anymore than her women did.
I don't know if you're an American or not, but I don't think we Americans can quite understand how completely the class system permeated British society up until the 1960's. Try reading The Lord of The Rings trilogy with a particular emphasis on Frodo's interaction with the other characters. Or look at Fanny Trollope's book on her visit to America (also, see this link). Our society is so completely alien (and frightening) to that of a British woman with pretensions to gentlewoman status that she never grasps even the simplest aspects of the American character.
A hot-headed young college student would probably compare Mr. Bennet to an American slave owner or evil robber baron squeezing the poor for his own profit. The Great Slavery Debate about Mansfield Park can be found in the archives of this web site, Wickham couldn't possibly have supported a family on his pay (6 shilling 4 pence a day, I think???) and even the "employed" Edward Ferrars and Edmund Bertram no doubt spent significantly more of their time running their properties than ministering and preaching. In other words, Jane Austen portrayed a very small and very rich part of British society which had no more in common with the majority of the country than Michael Jackson's family life has with that of my neighborhood.
I've always believed that Jane Austen's entire view of the relationship between the sexes is contained in a single paragraph in Pride and Prejudice.
"Lizzy," said her father, "I have given him my consent. He is the kind of man, indeed, to whom I should never dare refuse anything which he condescended to ask. I now give it to you, if you are resolved on having him. But let me advise you to think better of it. I know your disposition, Lizzy. I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband, unless you looked up to him as a superior. Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life. You know not what you are about."
This isn't a statement of feminist ideals, but it could be that simple truth that you were talking about; or even a "humanist" ideal.
Unfortunately, we don't know whether one of Jane Austen's fictional father's ever gave the same advice to a son, yet I suspect it would be so. Note that Jane's unhappy couples enjoy a mutual lack of respect. Mrs. Bennet no more respects Mr. Bennet's cynical wit than he respects her gossipy silliness. Sir Elliot never respected those qualities in his wife that made her so loved by his tenants and neighbors. Robert Ferrars and his wife are both too selfish to ever appreciate anyone else's good qualities.
And I think Mr. Bennet has it right. Happy marriages are those in which each partner sees something superior to himself/herself in the other. The problem is that those who are hostile to the entire concept of marriage choose to believe that only one person in a marriage can be the "superior" one. And sometimes those involved in a marriage buy into this or other cultural lies. Happy marriages are also those where each partner's talents are utilized best. "I've heard men complain about doing women's' work and women complain about doing men's' work, but I've never heard the work complain about who does it."
As I've gotten older I've come more and more to believe that the Women's
Rights movement created a semantic fiction in order to further the political
ends of certain individuals within the movement, not women in general.
Fewer movements have taken the maxim "The truth is so important it must be
protected by a bodyguard of lies." to heart more thoroughly than Feminism. When
a group claiming to represent women in general manufactures lies it discredits
not only the group, but the individual as well and is the main reason why I no
longer consider myself a "feminist" in the currently accepted definition of the
word.
Cheryl
Dear Ashton,
Yes, you are correct. I stand corrected, there is no entailment in Sense and Sensibility. But that is a technical detail, and the fact that no money at all was left to the ladies, for me is still a statement of how things were for women. Left with no money and no way of acquiring any these women were forced to use marriage as a means of economic survival. Therein lies a huge part of the problem and the materialistic marriage pacts that ensue throughout Jane's work. She desires to reveal this very critical fact (among many others). But again, she is revealing the technical truth of the day.
With respect to the beauty of the heroines. It was my impression that Elizabeth Bennett was very pretty, as was her sister Jane. Likewise, I was led to believe that Marianne Dashwood was a beauty and that Emma Watson was lovely too. Lady Susan was a beautiful vixen. I always had the impression that Emma Woodhouse and Anne Elliot were more handsome, but not as pretty. I had the very distinct feeling that Eleanor Dashwood was more plain, as was Fanny Price (this is consistent with her overall deprivation of worldly assets) and certainly Catherine Morland was not pretty. I think of her as attractive. Unfortunately, I am at my office and don't have access to the text--but again, this was my impression. It's true that none of Austen's heroines are as plain and dark as Bronte heroines such as Jane Eyre or Agnes Grey. Bronte characters are also less financially secure on the whole. Although the heroine in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (I don't recall her name) and certainly Katherine in Wuthering Heights is beautiful--but also the least Christ-like of the Bronte heroines.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you regarding the fact that Austen is not cryptically delivering feminist or political messages--but inadvertently she is doing so by revealing truth. And yes, I do believe that real art depicts truth. For me there is nothing of greater beauty than truth, and if art is not revealing truth then it is not art for me. I believe truth is beautiful and love is truth so the fact that Austen displays the world as romantic for me is not inconsistent with truth. Again, I think she cleverly shows us the "as is" and dreams of how things "could be." Both are real, both are true, all she does is truth and beauty. I believe art which is for me truth and beauty is on a far higher plain than politics. As I indicated earlier, it is akin to Christianity and this certainly occupies a higher plain than politics. Politics is man's world, truth and beauty is God's world. And while Austen recognizes that we exist in man's world, she also knows that man's world is God's creation and that his way is supreme. So she doesn't stoop to address such lowly concerns as politics. If one adhered to Christian principles politics would be obsolete.
Art for art's sake is for me truth. As Oscar Wilde said, "we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Austen was most certainly looking at the stars, contemplating the world as it could and should be. Or at least moving us one step closer. And for humanity, that is all we can hope for I think.
With respect to the fact that Austen heroines are great readers, Mary Bennett is an example of an extremist. Certainly, Austen in her wisdom preaches a code of moderation in all things. I believe what Elizabeth Bennett protests to when accused of being a great reader is not that she is not well read, but the idea that she does this to the exclusion of all other activity. That she has buried herself in books to escape life--which I believe is the insinuation of Miss Bingley. I believe Emma Woodhouse is immature in her taste and requires the guidance of someone more mature to cultivate her reading, much like Marianne Dashwood and Catherine Morland. In Emma's case, her natural tutor is Mr. Knightley, in Marianne's it is Colonel Brandon and in Catherine Morland's it is Tilney. - Ahh, a pattern emerges. Austen would like the men to bring her ladies up to speed. She would like these partners to be intellectual ones, as well as room decor. One cannot deny the importance of physical attraction in male/female relationships; this is critical. But it is likewise important to have a meeting of the minds. This is the divine vision and art when inspired, which I believe all good art is, will reveal part of the divine vision.
The ladies are not formally educated. So the only hope they have of acquiring this next level of higher understanding is to be tutored by a mentor, and who better than by the love of their life? But what's even more fascinating is that these gentleman want to participate. They agree, they too want a partner who is not just attractive to them physically but a partner in intellectual pursuits as well. Edmund has schooled Fanny from the beginning, she is his protégé, she is his perfect soul mate as he has groomed her for the part. - How enchanting. Even in this day of "equality" many men are still intimidated by a woman of intelligence, in personal relationships I mean. This dream, this vision is still not quite within our grasp. But again, I believe here Austen displays for us the dream of how things could be.
Does not Anne Elliot advise Captain Benwick (I think that was his name) on his choice of reading--she recommends more prose and less poetry--again a balance, moderation.
When Anne observes that men forget women more quickly she believes it is due to the fact that men have occupation, that they leave home, that they are not left to sit and brew on the past. She says it is not an enviable place that women occupy. I think here Austen makes an observation of women's lives. But again, she is simply saying it as it is. No grandiose plot or drama, simply revealing truth. But in the end, she leaves with Wentworth--we have change--we have non-conformity. Just as Wentworth's brother's wife accompanied him so shall Anne. Those who have the courage to stand tall and do what they believe is right, will win. In this world? I don't think so. In Jane's world, yes. The world as it could be.
With respect to domineering women like Fanny Dashwood, Mrs. Ferrars and Miss Smith--I believe Austen is showing us the kind of women who come to power in a culture such as this one. Because of the nature of things nice girls probably do finish last. This is still true to an extent, there is a great deal of writing revealing the fact that both sexes are historically guilty of being drawn to the worst elements. The clichés that men like "bitches" (excuse the French) and women like misogynists and rogues are not entirely without truth. Returning to the Christian theme, its that old original sin rearing its ugly head again. When Austen shows us these women, she shows us the way the world is. Marianne's attraction to Willoughby, even Elizabeth's attraction to Wickham, or in Bronte's work, Kathy's attraction to the dark and brooding Heathclith. When Jane shows us the Fanny Prices, the Anne Elliots and the enlightened Elizabeth Bennett with men such as Edmund, Captain Wentworth and Darcy she shows us how life could be. If men wanted to educate women, if they recognized them as intellectual partners instead of just possessions. If something more than money mattered in making a match.
I believe there were few marriages in this social class at this time that came about as a result of love. They were primarily economic ones, so in this regard Austen is defying convention and calling for change. But again, this is delicately revealed in a depiction of reality revealing truth which is always beautiful and always a work of art.
In my thesis I chose to discuss how Austen revealed the plight of women and indirectly called for social change. One must have a fairly narrow topic when writing a paper and this particular aspect of her work interested me. I could likewise have chosen many things that she reveals and none of it is intended to be cryptic. Was Christ cryptic or just teaching and revealing truth in a marvelous and enduring way. A way that has meaning for generations to come. When one reveals truth it is timeless. Again, all real art is timeless because it reveals beauty and truth. All beauty and truth is akin to Christ and the ultimate truth, way and light. They cannot be mutually exclusive.
If we all followed his golden rule there would be no power struggles, no evil, etc. Again, Fanny Price personifies this and as you have observed, she is the beatitudes incarnate. Yes, I agree completely. She is a Christ like figure, and as you observe, has been crucified ever since her creation. But isn't it interesting to note her author did not crucify her? Is this not another example of Austen saying, what if nice girls did win the day? What if the guy really did leave the bitch (Miss Crawford) and marry the good girl? What if they hadn't crucified Christ? What would the world be like if they had laid down their swords and followed him? Isn't this part of Austen's truth as well?
With respect to the equal rights issue--its a matter of degree of classification as you observe. Are any 2 people genetically alike? Look at the war we are fighting right now. How can we split hairs over males and females when we can't get along among our own sex either? I like your idea that evolution improves the species, although I'm not sure I we see evidence of that in our world today. Do you believe that ultimately evolution and its natural selection will ultimately eradicate the plague of original sin and enable us to achieve perfection, the garden of Eden? Or do you subscribe to traditional Christian scripture that this can only be achieved by the second coming of Christ at the end of the world? I tend to adhere to traditional thinking on this front. And yet, I believe it is our duty to continue to strive, as Jane did, to imagine the world as it could be. As Martin Luther King said, "I have a Dream..." and we must hold fast to its principles. As Shakespeare said, "Hope springs eternal in the human heart..." While that hope is often a tragic plague it beats cynicism and moves us closer to perfection--although we will never achieve it.
I hope I addressed your points. Thanks and look forward to everyone's
comments. Good day!
Cindy
Dear All,
I believe it was the buffoon Polonius who advised Laertes "to your own self be true." Shaw (and others) have criticized Shakespeare because his characters were not consistent. Indeed, this is a perfect example. Shakespeare could not resist allowing even his foolish characters to relapse into intelligence (and even genius), if it allowed William to show off with a brilliant speech.
Ashton is exactly right that my complaint about "equal but different" is simply that it doesn't mean anything. We could reasonably say, "Men and women have identical (equal) intellects." Or we could say, "Men and women are equally intelligent, although the nature of their intellects differs." It seems to me that Austen would say the latter, not the former.
Ashton is also right about the beauty of Austen's protagonists. Marianne is a dark-eyed beauty (almost a gypsy). In other words, she looks nothing like Kate Winslett (was her weight problem the REAL reason the Titantic sank?). Emma is admired by all (even a disapproving Knightley). Fanny looks quite becoming, all dressed up, as does Catherine. Anne lacks a little bloom (being an old biddy of 27), but the sea air quickly refreshes it.
It seems to me that Austen is not an activist, but a humorist. She is a bit like Mr. Bennet (of whom she disapproves, which leads me to wonder if she disapproved of herself). She likes to sit quietly, laughing at her neighbors' foibles and inconsistencies. The fact that she only seldom turns her wit against male chauvinism hardly suggests that she thought it one of the worst of these foibles.
Dear Cindy and Bruce,
I agree with Cindy that Jane Austen created a true world in her novels, and that quality defines her art. I strongly believe that. This is just one of the elements of the present discussion that makes me feel quite comfortable. I love Cindy's comment about Fanny Price: "... [Fanny] is the beatitudes incarnate. ... She is a Christ like figure, and ... has been crucified ever since her creation." Now, that is the best explanation I have ever heard for the phenomenon of Fanny-Price bashing on the Internet. I could have picked out many other observations with which I am in full accord.
The bad news is that I have always said that our Lady's world is so real that people make the same mistakes in reading her novels that they make in understanding the world they live in. Before I get into that, I will cover some more technical details.
A woman's beauty is a great beauty indeed, and Jane Austen would not have missed that fact, nor denied that gift to any of her heroines. Bruce is exactly right about Anne Elliot, the sea air and Mr. Elliot's reaction to her - his subdued flirtation with her, revives the beauty that had flagged during her eight-years of grieving. Catherine Morland starts life as a tomboy and Fanny Price as a waif. Jane Austen has both suddenly blossom into a lovely young woman. Refer to that period in Mansfield Park just after Sir Thomas returns from his trip. Fanny has distinguished herself in both his and Edmund's minds which causes both to take a good look at her, and both then notice and comment on that loveliness. Jane Austen describes that kind of blossoming much earlier in the text of Northanger Abbey.
It is quite true that Knightley is Emma's mentor. That is interesting because all of Jane Austen's mentors were older, family men. First of all, her father was her teacher, so we should all be eternally greatful to him. Next, older brothers James and Henry encouraged and mentored Jane Austen to a great degree. Elizabeth Bennet meditates on the fact that Darcy could have taught her much about the world (see that chapter just after Darcy and Bingley have returned to Longbourn and Elizabeth misinterprets Darcy's shyness as rejection.) I wonder though, is not Brandon's influence on Marianne too little to admit of a mentoring relation? Edmund is very kind to Fanny on her arrival when no one else is. Fanny is grateful to him for it - loves him for it. But, was he her mentor? Actually, he was mostly away, at boarding school and then at Oxford, when Fanny was growing up. Henry Tilney is too much the smuck to be much of a mentor - he does not even warn Catherine about his father's intentions when dad invited her to visit the Abbey. And, he will not listen to Catherine when she begs him to separate his brother from her brother's intended.
Anne advises Benwick to read more prose and less poetry because the poetry is deepening his grief and emotions.
And now to the suggestion that Jane Austen represented the economic plight of women in her times. Nearly everyone says that - believes that. It is believed that, in this way, Jane Austen's feminism is manifest; it is a "subtle" not an "encrypted" feminism, or so the thinking goes. I am sorry, I don't see it. Elizabeth Bennet, Miss Bates, Jane Fairfax, the Dashwood sisters, and Anne Elliot are in a dire economic situation (or what passes for "a dire economic situation" in that class) and for similar reasons. The previous generation had run into bad luck or had been guilty of mismanagement. But what about the men? Wickham, Willoughby, Colonel Fitzwilliam, John Thorpe, and Mr Elliot also depended on a "good marriage" to make their way in life. If you say, "yeah but most of those guys were bad apples", let me remind you of Lucy Steele and Isabella Thorpe. Too many readers don't notice the situation of the men in the novels; but, a more interesting neglect is of all the powerful and rich women in the novels. The Bingley sisters inherited 20,000 pounds each and Darcy's sister inherited 30,000 pounds. A good way to start an argument is to convert a Jane Austen pound into current American dollars, but there can be little doubt that the true conversion of 20,000 Jane-Austen pounds is many millions of current American dollars. Only Darcy in P&P is as powerful and influential as Lady Catherine. Similarly, we have Emma Woodhouse, the younger Mrs. Dashwood, Mrs. Ferrars, Mrs. Jennings, the wife of Mr. Elliot, the wife of Willoughby, etc. etc. Where is the difference between the economic status of the sexes in our Lady's novels? I say, "nowhere!"
To the question, was there any difference of this kind in Jane Austen's time? I would reply, perhaps or likely, but you would not have found it in the class of people that Jane Austen was writing about. The problem is that Jane Austen was so brilliant, that everybody wants her on his side.
The Dashwood women were not destitute after losing the estate. The income from their inheritance was a six-figure income in today's purchasing power. True, they were no longer millionaires, could no longer wield the power and influence they once did, but the daughters were hardly required to marry the first man that might put a scrap of bread on the table. Don't believe that scene in Emma Thompson's revisionist film where Elinor is struggling with a food budget, that scene is spurious.
Dear Ashton, Bruce and others,
I have read your comments regarding the idea that there were many males in the same boat, as it were. But isn't it true that while there may have been men who found themselves in similar economic circumstances, they did have the option to earn a living. An option that was not open to the women who found themselves in these straights. Didn't Captain Wentworth make his fortune and literally change the opinion of many about himself? How could a woman do this except through marriage, and somehow, this just doesn't seem to give one the same freedom. Wentworth could acquire his fortune through his talents and then be free to choose the woman he loved. Even Mr. Elton has a profession and some sort of living--he is a clergyman--however, he is greedy--that is certain. Ultimately, the dis-inherited Edward gets the living on Brandon's estate, and while it is "modest," it is a living and his connections are maintained.
Isn't Marianne in large part devastated by Willoughby's lack of inertia in marrying Miss Grey and her 50,000 pounds, when he could have pursued a career in a more noble way such as Edward and Wentworth did and consequently marry the woman he loved? Doesn't she lament that he didn't love her enough? Don't we think that Wickham should have done something similar? Certainly we cannot assume that there are women and men who take the easy way out, but isn't it so that women had no real choice? Whereas, men did?
A woman, on the other hand, had no choice but to focus on marriage as her primary mechanism for survival, if she was unfortunate enough to be without funds. And while it may be true that the Dashwood girls were not destitute, the point is that they could have been. But had they been, they would have been removed from the social circles Austen could write accurately about. I'm sure there were such cases, but being the technician she was, Austen would not delve into waters she didn't know. The integrity of her work would be at stake. Certainly the yardstick for destitution in these circles was a far cry from poverty such as we see in inner city slums or in Appalachia. Austen had no familiarity or understanding, I'm sure, of the poverty and lifestyle in cockney London. Of course poverty is relative to the social status one has occupied. And certainly we see many characters clamoring to stay within the confines of this genteel world. But again, I use Wentworth as a perfect example of the option open to men that was without doubt or argument denied women of the period. Can you contest that fact?
Do you believe it is necessary that Austen's heroines possess the gift of physical beauty? I don't believe that she herself did, so I wonder that she wouldn't assign this lot to at least one of her heroines. I strongly agree that inner beauty contributes greatly to external beauty, and that all of her heroines possessed this inner beauty. And certainly those who possess both are as close to perfection as we can hope to see. But didn't Edmund and his father look more closely at Fanny and see the beauty of her inner self in a way they hadn't seen it before? I am not suggesting these heroines were grotesque, but it was my feeling that they were more handsome or average, and that their inner beauty made them beautiful to their lovers. And to all those who looked that deeply. But perhaps that is a distinctively male perspective--that the heroine must be beautiful. Or is that a sexist statement. Bruce, your comments about Kate Winslet's weight are very disturbing to me. While she is not a petite woman (and I am by the way just so you don't imagine I identify with her in any way on that count) nor is she slender--I think she is quite lovely and I have known men who do. I can respect the fact that you may not find her appealing, but to describe her as you did is somewhat disrespectful. And you are ignoring her talent and just focusing on her body size. I am, I must confess, a little offended by that perspective. It strikes me as very chauvinistic.
Oh yes, I agree that Emma Thompson did take great liberties with the film Sense and Sensibility. But I cannot deny that she brought attention to Austen that was sorely needed. And I don't think she was as far off the mark as the most recent adaptation of Mansfield Park that I had the misfortune to watch. I could never sit through that again and I have enjoyed Emma Thompson's version, despite its inaccuracies many times over. It is entertaining, if not true to the book.
I think that Edmund has been Fanny's mentor. Age alone is not a factor, but exposure and knowledge. Certainly, as you say, Edmund had the advantage of attending school and he conveyed his knowledge to Fanny when he could. No doubt he passed on much of what he learned to her in that room where they spent hours reading Cowper and contemplating the stars. He was her educator, her teacher. Tilney, while you may not like him, also saw Catherine as a naive girl he could mold. She was unruined and he could make her into what he desired. Because men had the advantage of education or a broader one, they would always be the educator in Jane's world. Wentworth would educate Anne when he took on journeys to worlds she could never have hoped to see without his intervention.
Brandon has only just begun his coaching at the end of the novel. In a way, I think the lessons have only just begun when the novels end because it is then that there is the greatest potential for educating and sharing. Subsequent to marriage. I believe that as the ladies are exposed and taught, they will begin to think for themselves on an even footing. Only then will they be equal partners, and I think that that is Jane's ultimate vision. But being the technician, she couldn't possibly write about this, as she had never experienced it. She could only imagine it. Perhaps by some men's standards she is another Mary Shelley creating a Frankenstein or opening the Pandora's box that women's freedom has become. But knowledge was the first step, then earning potential, economic equality--and alas--chaos. But that is because it was not tempered with a respect for the feminine. Because women abandoned their softer side--or tried to and this has proven disastrous for them and civilization.
Oh yes, I understand that Anne advises Benwick to read more prose for the reasons you suggest. However, my point is that she is well read, that this is an important fact about Austen heroines and that she recommends moderation as a solution to the extreme that bogging him down in emotions and grief. I also recall a conversation between her and her cousin Elliot in which she describes good company--and Elliot advises her that she has described the best company. I believe he is intimating that this is rare as well, and being well read--would be a part of it.
And Bruce, I think the allusions to the male/female relationship in Jane's work dominate it. If you take a strictly modern feminist view then yes, those types of comments are few and far between. But I don't think she was one, and I believe she gives us a softer brand of "feminism" for lack of a better word. I think she wanted better human relations between all people. But particularly between men and women. Just my opinion mind you.
Well, I hope that speaks to the issues raised as I see it. Quite a
volley of ideas here. Take care and good evening!
Cindy
Dear Voices,
After I managed to get my computer working again, then I went down for the count with a bug. Since I can barely type my comments will have to wait until I am back on my feet.
I now have your comments printed out for my study. Cindy, briefly, I can't thank you enough for your work. I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote. Now I had best go recover some more before I fall out of my chair.
My very best wishes,
Linda
Links