9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Dec. 13, 2001
9-11
Dear Cheryl and Linda,
Thanks for your thoughts. First, to answer your question Cheryl, I am an American, but my Mom was born and raised in England and her family is still there. I have spent time there and lived with my relatives. I think I have a better than average American comprehension of the class system.
While I agree and understand that these people did not "earn" a living, I believe that people did lose fortunes or suffer losses in standard of living. I agree and understand that Austen's stories are limited to a small percentage of the population. And yet, I still believe so much of their value lies in their comprehension of basic human nature, which I believe transcends economic class.
Money is a good thing to have and it makes life more pleasant and gives one the greatest gifts of all which are leisure and freedom. However, much of what Austen addresses in her work, to me, supercedes this. I believe she respected a man who had the initiative to pursue a "profession" because it showed some inclination towards a sense of self worth and productivity--independent of its providing income. I believe that she wished this for women as well.
You did not mention Captain Wentworth. And I think it is clearly noted that he has acquired wealth in his travels and it has made him not only an acceptable match, but in fact a desirable one--at least to the Musgroves. I can't help but feel that Austen does admire the character of Wentworth and in large part due to the fact that he has achieved this. While it may not be the kind of rags to riches story we relish in America, considering her perspective and where she is coming from, it seems to mirror it. In Persuasion, she likewise allows Anne to speak in an almost envying way of men, there ability to exert themselves in the world and to accomplish something. I think this again reflects her feelings regarding the human need to feel worthwhile. That profession is not just to support oneself, but to give one's life meaning and purpose. And while she may not have put this under the heading of "feminism" per se, I think she is acknowledging the value in being useful and having choices and freedom which was denied to women.
I think she respected men, who despite their financial security, sought to pursue a profession in order to have a sense of accomplishment. I think she would desire this option for women. And in those cases, such as Wentworth's, where that option enabled them to rise in social rank, or we may infer, in other cases where it may allow basic survival--I think she is an advocate of this. Again, realizing that she is limited to the scope of her world, but that their are elements of human nature that transcend economic conditions. I think for Jane the ability to pursue one's talents and feel useful and free were basic human rights denied women at this time.
I certainly agree that the most recent production of Mansfield Park depicted slavery in an incorrect light. I also feel that Fanny's character was virtually mutilated in this story. For me, this movie distorted Jane's work more than any movie I have seen to date.
I love the passage from P&P that you have cited. And I agree whole heartedly that this passage is not about feminism. Although, the idea that men and women could be equal in something other than financial trappings, may not have been one commonly held at this time. I believe it was a view of the world that Austen saw as it "should or could be" but not as it was at that time. And certainly the idea that this was important, was no doubt a novel one--particularly in this social class. I believe Sir Thomas Bertram's reaction to Fanny's rejection of Mr. Crawford is far more the attitude of the day. Who cares for his character or tastes, compatibility was not even a consideration--it was his wealth and social position that Fanny should be concerned with. No, I don't think Sir Thomas would have agreed with Mr. Bennett--certainly not at that point in the story. And unfortunately, I think Sir Thomas is more reflective of the views of the day. Although, in true Austen optimism, he does come around and see the value of Fanny for his own son (although--her bloodlines are as blue as his wife's in that her mother is his wife's sister--albeit her blood is polluted by the likes of her father).
After all, what Austen doesn't really touch on too much is the importance of bloodlines in breeding. But as those of us who are familiar with British culture understand women were and continue to be to this day--breeding machines for the upper classes. Princess Diana's story is a vivid depiction of this being part of this culture to this day. Diana was a breeding machine for blue blood genes, that was her soul purpose for the royal family and Prince Charles. He has all but admitted he never loved her and those of us who understand the British culture don't find that terribly shocking. He needed to produce heirs. And while this was not discussed openly by Austen (alluded to though), we know it to be true for the aristocracy as well. And at the rate that women died in childbirth this role was a treacherous one. Perhaps it still is based on Diana's fate.
No, I think in many ways this passage from P&P still eludes us. Partly because equality is hard to define and in our culture it is still defined in part by economics, culture, etc. The ugly face of original sin still has a huge part to play. Certainly Lizzy alludes to the desire to remain single many times, and yet, how would she live once her father died? Again, I think Jane would have liked her heroines to have a choice. But I also think, she desired better relationships between men and women--many of the things she dreamed of, we still dream of today. Its that basic human nature issue and to me, it does transcend economic class.
I too, think Mr. Bennet has it right. And I too like to think he would give a son the same advice. But I question the realism of that--I would conjecture that is what Jane would have liked a father to do and be. But probably found more of them to be akin to Sir Thomas' guidance of Fanny and even his own daughter Maria's horrible pairing with Mr. Rushworth. And as I said, Prince Charles never felt comfortable with Diana, in his mind, she was his intellectual inferior. But she was good breeding material. And that was the purpose she served. Sorry to be so blunt. But this is the reality of the British aristocracy you mentioned most Americans not comprehending. I had that insight from my Mom the day of the royal wedding, while most Americans labored under the delusion that Diana was a "commoner." She is no commoner. Her bloodlines are as blue if not bluer than his (Prince Charles').
Sorry, but I feel very badly for Diana. She was certainly a victim of this social structure and class system. A tragic one at that. I love British culture, art and literature. I am fortunate to have had so much exposure to it and I feel it is a true gift from God. But if we possess integrity, we must be honest and truthful. No culture is perfect, and this one isn't. Jane knew it and I know it. So she tried to show characters that made it better, that showed the world as it could be if everyone behaved as they should. While also showing us what happens to those who don't. Consequences for bad behavior. Ahhh, the beauty of novels and a world in which we control the outcome.
I don't think I consider myself a feminist really. I believe in equal rights for all people of all sexes and all races. I believe there is a great complexity in human relationships and that one of the hardest to fathom is that of love between a man and a woman. But in the final analysis--I believe follow a Christian philosophy would heal most wounds and resolve most conflicts. I think Jane believed that too. That's the dream she and I share.
Linda, I'm glad you agree and hope you feel better soon. Look forward to your comments.
I'll leave you with those thoughts ...
Cindy
Dear Cindy et al,
I hope you noticed just what were the opportunities open to the men in Jane Austen's novels. Let us review those. First we must agree upon the state of England at that time. It was rich and powerful. It was under siege, intellectually and literally. James Watt died about a year or two before Jane Austen, but his steam engine had not quite - almost, but not quiet propelled England into the first industrial revolution. (The factory system was already in place in the mills on the English streams and rivers but was limited to only those regions. Watt's engine made that system portable and ubiquitous.) England was in the first stages of a mighty population explosion. The English government had only recently wrestled the administrative control of the Empire from private corporations. Am I right in any of this? Charlotte Bronte was a toddler when Jane Austen died, but her England would have been unrecognizable to Jane Austen because all of these "explosions" were in full bloom in Charlotte's day.
The significance to our discussion is that all of these developments opened up possibilities and opportunities for men that Jane Austen could not be expected to imagine. In contrast, think about the narrow range of possibilities open to Jane-Austen heroes. There were only three. There were the landowners - meaning landlords who benefited from the labors of tenant farmers (like Mr. Martin in Emma). There were military men like Wickham, Fitzwilliam, and Wentworth. Finally, there were the clergymen. There was nothing else - nothing. There are no doctors, because most folks used apothecaries who had the status that today might be accorded automobile mechanics. Among Jane Austen's men, there were no architects, no engineers, no publishers, no writers, no colonial administrators, no entrepreneurs, etc. I believe that this is a faithful depiction of a time when no "gentleman" would retain that title in any of those professions. In that sense all those professions were closed to Jane Austen's men. The law was another matter - another transitional matter (think about the different way Elizabeth's Uncle Phillips is treated compared to the treatment of Knightley's brother, John.)
There was upward mobility in England and in the novels (and in Jane Austen's family.) Bingley's dad had been an entrepreneur, much like Elizabeth's Uncle Gardiner. However, the elder Bingley was not a "gentleman" because he did not own land; apparently, he was too busy making money to buy land. He enriched his son and his daughters, and his son decided to give his family the gentility the father had earned by buying an estate. This is what he was doing at Netherfield. He had been there as a boy, liked it, and was now trying to decide if this would become the family estate. (This is why he was so furious with Darcy's "stupid manner" at that first dance - Bingley was eager to make a good impression with the other gentry who might very well end up his neighbors.)
Let us talk about those "opportunities"; let us focus on your choice, Captain Wentworth. We are not told the steps that man took to get where he was, but we can infer a great deal from the experiences of Fanny Price's brother, William, and Jane Austen's brothers, Frank and Charles Austen. Wentworth could not have entered the naval academy by taking an exam or by filling out an application. He would have needed a "connection", someone who could and would write to the right people to get his appointment. The connection could only have been a "gentleman" or an aristocrat. If successful, he would have entered Portsmouth at age twelve. The opportunity would have been closed to him after that tender age - can you imagine it! He would have stayed there and studied a rigorous course which he would have completed at age sixteen. Only then would he have been called a "midshipman", and he would have been sent to sea - to war - to serve a kind of apprenticeship. His advancement to an officer's rank was not guaranteed. The advancement came only if he satisfied his Captain and if he had other connections who knew and could call upon Navel authorities in order to secure his commission. (William Price's connection was Henry Crawford's uncle, an Admiral.) How many men could follow this path, for how many men was this a realistic "opportunity"? Of those who got a start along this way, how many would end up a failure like Musgrove? Can you really imagine Wickham or Willoughby going this way?
Wentworth did end up with a fortune as did Admiral Croft and Jane Austen's brothers. But, those fortunes were won in combat. These were the result of capturing an enemy ship; selling off the ship and cargo in the nearest port, setting aside a portion for the king, and divvying up the rest between officers and crew. Those famous crosses that Jane Austen and her sister wore were bought with midshipman Charles Austen's share of prize money; Charles had to come under fire - come in harm's way in order to buy those gifts. Hers must have been dearly, deeply appreciated by Jane Austen - little wonder our Lady would immortalize that gift in her Mansfield Park.
Which of the only three professional possibilities were open to women? Only one, the only one that mattered, that of landowner. So many women heiresses and landowners in Jane Austen's novels and no one notices. But, perhaps you would have opened up the position of naval officer to the women of that class. Which Jane Austen heroine, in your opinion, might have liked that opportunity?
You say that a woman had to marry in order to survive. Can you give an example of an unmarried woman who did not survive in that class? Think about Jane Austen - remember what Emma Woodhouse said.
Dear Cindy et. al.,
Far from finding Kate Winslett unattractive, I find her stunningly beautiful. That's the reason (and the only reason)that I think making fun of her weight (which the tabloids harp about endlessly) is ironically funny.
I suspect that other "male voices" understood the joke, although I can see why women might not. The irony is not that she IS fat, but that she is CALLED fat.
Links