The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Feb. 1, 2001
Dear Folks,
I am thinking about a novel in which two young people meet, fall in love, and decide to marry. The man has no fortune at present but has prospects. However, the family strongly objects to the man, because of his unfortunate connections, and the young people are separated much to their regret. The family influence is referred to as "persuasion"; in fact, that particular word is used about two dozen times in the novel.
NO! - I am not thinking about Jane Austen's Persuasion (1818). I am referring to Samuel Richardson's The History of Sir Charles Grandison (1753-4). Our Lady died a year before the publication of Persuasion and before Jane Austen could choose the title for her last novel. (Deirdre Le Faye [LeFaye-98] is of the opinion that Jane Austen intended to title the novel The Elliots.) Her brother chose the title we all know because that word, "persuasion", appeared so often in the manuscript. Not only that, the word is used in exactly the same context, and with the same meaning, as in the now less well-known novel of Richardson.
Let me tell you a story from the history of science. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) died about fifty years before Jane Austen was born - that is roughly the relationship of a child born today to Albert Einstein. Newton once said, "if I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." For some reason, many people today don't want to believe that; they want to believe that all that elegant theory came full-grown from the master's brain. Everyone should believe that because Newton was honest, not modest, and because the statement is quite true. Simply put, Newton was a great scholar before he was a creative genius. One of those giants was the German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). I love Kepler. One of Newton's great achievements was to cull the "wheat" of Kepler's writings and throw away the scientific "chaff." Kepler was a curious mixture of mystic and scientist - the best kind of guy. Incidentally, Kepler was also a good son: we know that because he took time away from his busy schedule to defend his mother when she went on trial for witchcraft, a crime punishable by burning at the stake. He got her off - with a plea bargain I guess. Bravo!
Anyway, Kepler had this crackpot theory about the way that God had assembled the solar system. He said that God had placed the "perfect" solids (tetrahedon, cube, etc.) so that the vertices of each inner solid fit at the geometric centers of the surfaces of the next outer solid. Then, the Deity placed the orbits of the planets so as to circumscribe the solids. (I don't know - it all seems reasonable to me.) Kepler thought this theory his greatest achievement and died in the happy knowledge. (Fortunately, for him, the planets outside Saturn were not discovered until after his death; I mean there are only a small number of "perfect solids", not enough to accommodate any more than six planets.) We would not know of Kepler today if not for the fact that he accumulated a vast storehouse of empirical observations to support this "harmonious theory" of the solar system (he said "universe.") Kepler noted, in passing, some empirical principles like the facts that the orbits of the planets were ellipses, the principle of the conservation of angular momentum, and the observation that the sun must be radiating a force inversely proportional to the radius of the planetary orbits, etc. All of these are considered gems today, but were not thought of much interest by their inventor. Newton saw them in Kepler's writings, including Kepler's Harmonice Mundi. He extracted all the gems and threw away the nonsensical overburden. He discovered that Kepler's empirical rules were consistent only if the sun's force varied inversely with the square of the radius. For this, Newton was proclaimed as the discoverer of the "law of gravitation." You be the judge. (Sorry, the story about the apple is apocryphal.)
Think about that story if you ever survey the wreckage that is Richardson's novel, and you run across the gems that Jane Austen honed into some of her greatest novels.
Dear Ashton,
Yes, that is what I have been trying to say about Jane and "influences". She took some here and some there, from other books and her own experiences. Just as we are a conglomerate of our past experiences, environment, genes, etc. Sometimes the "effect" may even be negative. Richardson (or whoever) may state a principle with which we disagree. We found one instance in NA. To me, that is still an "influence".
I can't vouch for all that scientific stuff you said, but it makes sense to me; and I'll accept that you know more about that than I do. I, briefly, went back over your postings about Grandison and am convinced that I have to read it. I picked up some used books the other day (still can't find Grandison though) so I have lots to read.
Taking a clue from another of your posts, I did some nosing around about
Samuel Johnson - the name was familiar, but I didn't have a clue as to what he
accomplished. Now I know. Also, I am looking forward to your
examination of the social and political history of Jane Austen's time. Geez, you
are hard to keep up with! One thing is, that I have completely revised my
belief about the amount of schooling and knowledge available 200 years
ago. They weren't as ignorant as I thought.
Keep on!
Linda
P.S. I tried to submit this on the "form" on the MV page and it wouldn't take it. So I am sending it via email.
Dear Ashton,
In your post 1/24 you recommended Cathy Decker's site. There, she has a paper, Female Self-Treatment: Preventive Medical Regimes, Piety, and the Novels of Frances Burney, Elizabeth Hamilton, and Elizabeth Helme, which was a turning point (epiphany) in my life. It would take several pages to explain, so, briefly, the paper put together the pieces of the puzzle for me, though it may mean little to others. 'Nuff said, unless you have an hour or two to spare.
Simply saying "Thank you" seems so inadequate.
Gratefully,
Linda
Dear Meister,
Being a newcomer to the world of Jane Austen, I am in awe at the wealth of knowledge and time that you and others have dedicated to her works. It was a joy to read P&P as a novice and I am quite surprised by what you noted about the first conversation between Darcy and Bingley. I see how you interpreted Darcy as shy, etc. Reading it with unbiased eyes, I felt a similar reasoning as you. To me, Darcy appeared an extremely private person who would find the trivial, gossipy chitchat of balls invasive to his life. It will take me a while to digest your paper but I have already found it incredibly helpful.
Another thought crossed my mind while reading P&P that I found a little intriguing - Elizabeth's sister, Mary. She appeared to me to be the odd one out. Lydia had Kitty and Elizabeth had Jane. She appears to suffer from the classic middle child syndrome. There is almost a parallel between Elizabeth and Mary. Elizabeth was highly intelligent, Mary longed and contrived to be, but sadly lacked the mind and intelligence of Elizabeth. Music seem to come easy to Elizabeth, yet she had nothing to prove and did not seem overly taken with it. Mary on the other hand did not have the talent but seemed intent on pushing on to everyone at any opportunity, as if to prove something. I thought maybe she had taken Elizabeth as a role model, which eventually turned into a competitive thing. Mary seeing Mr Bennet's cynical attitude towards women and his approval of Elizabeth may have tried to eminate similar qualities.
Do you think Mary, in her clumsy way, was trying to win her father's
approval?
With thanks - Bronwyn
Dear Bronwyn,
May I call you "Bronwyn"? "bluey" sounds like some of the nicknames in my family, but as you prefer.
Middle child syndrome, hmmm, maybe that is what my problem has been all these years. However, IMO, portraying life experience is what Jane is all about. My congratulations on raising four daughters. I raised two, and there definitely was an "Elizabeth" and a "Mary".
Not to worry about being a newcomer to the world of JA, I have only been at
this for about a year. I am also amazed at what I found on the
Internet. Welcome aboard!
Linda
Dear bluey,
In your honor, I, just this minute, updated the Index a little bit. If you will find "Mary Bennet" under "Pride and Prejudice", you can link to some old postings on Mary. (I don't think I found them all, but those should be sufficient.)
That conversation between Darcy and Bingley is the thing that turned me on to Jane Austen. In my opinion, that is a candidate for the best passage in all of literature. First of all, notice that Jane Austen sat Elizabeth next to Mary - a masterstroke! That reinforced Darcy's mistaken impression about Elizabeth's social status - "slighted by other men." The line that everyone skips over in that conversation is Darcy's, "... You know how I detest [dancing], unless I am particularly acquainted with my partner. ..." (In fact, filmmakers always leave that line out, which says volumes about the orthodox understanding and interpretation.) The trick to understanding what our Lady was about here, is to concentrate on the motivation of the two men in that passage and to notice that it is a transient angry exchange. - And both men have a little to be miffed about. Elizabeth certainly has something to be angry about, but she is not fully comprehending either.
I like all your comments about Mary, but I suspect she is more likely trying to please her mom. I mean that Mary is activated by Mrs. Bennet's concern for her daughter's future. - All three of the younger daughter's are actively seeking husbands in response to mom's panic. One of the first things that Jane Bennet says after her engagement is she is so very pleased because she will now making her "entire family happy."
Dear Ashton,
Thank you for updating the Index. I was particularly impressed with your letter of 5/7/99 - "Mary had balls". After raising four girls myself, I may have been a little biased in my impression of Mary. I too have the middle daughter who, until recent times, seemed determined to follow the footsteps of her elder sister, although her giftings lay in a totally different domain. It was definitely a role model/admiration thing which turned into an extremely frustrating time of competitiveness. A competition she was never able to excel in the same way her sister had. So I guess because of my life experience and the sadness I felt for a young girl trying to find her place in the world, I feel Mary was treated quite badly. She was virtually the invisible sister.
Perhaps, I have read too much into a life experience rather than into what Jane was portraying. Thank you for your input.
References: 1/28/00 and 1/29/00
Dear Linda,
There is one other episode in The Virginian where ODJ is mentioned. During the Virginian's recovery from being shot by an Indian, Molly spends part of each day reading to him. One day she starts to read Emma to our wounded hero. His enthusiasm for the book is such that he immediately falls asleep.
The writer of the Introduction, whose name I do not remember, states that Wister intended to slam ODJ with these two scenes in which she is mentioned. I don't know. Introductions to classic novels are problematic to me because the writers of the Introductions have to think of something new to say and so they often say stupid things.
As far a Jeanne d'Arc is concerned, she was an interesting person. She was
the type of person who comes along once or twice every century. I don't know if
she was truly a saint, but I do know that she was somehow able to inspire a weak
prince and rough fighting men. She went into battle carrying a banner that read
IESUS ET MARIA and never drew her sword against the enemy. She had little
formal education, but was able to answer all her Inquisitors questions
concerning religion and morals. She could have a sharp tongue, and so belies the
usual idea of a plaster saint as long suffering. I read two biographies of La
Pucelle, one written by Regine Pernoult and the other written by Fr. George
Tavard. I thought they were interesting, but tastes differ. Here's a website
dedicated to Jeanne:
Joan of Arc
(Jeanne d'Arc)
I don't remember the name of the book I read about the Confederate clergymen. It featured short biographies of three men. The most impressive was Rev. Minnergord (sp?), who was the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, VA. He was impressive because he stayed out of politics, but did his job as a parson, even going so far as to transform the vestry into a hospital for the wounded. St. Paul's was the church that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee attended while in Richmond and served both black and white parishioners.
Dear Dave,
I do agree with you about the writers of "Introductions". And thanks for the site about Joan of Arc. Not too long ago I saw a movie about her and couldn't help wondering how much "Hollywood" was in it. What you said about her has piqued my interest so that I would like to investigate further. Thanks.
Your information about the Confederate clergymen is of interest also. I
will add both these topics to my "reading list". If I ever finish my
"list" I am sure I will have worn out several rocking chairs!
Linda
References:1/13/00 and 1/31/00
I conclude my discussion of Charlotte Grandison of Sir Charles Grandison with mention of Letter 40 in Volume 6. It is gender war.
Taking the feminist position is Charlotte Grandison and the opposition is - this is weird - her brother, the novel's hero, Sir Charles Grandison. The issue is the apparent intellectual superiority of men. Charlotte has it that it is all an artifact of the tradition that bars women from access to the better education. The brother argues that it is a natural tendency; his argument is the usual one of a biological determinism. (Biological determinism is always the resort of those who seek to maintain discrimination.)
This is all very curious because you can wonder whose side does Richardson take? It seems that Charlotte has all the answers and, in many other instances, Richardson seems a feminist; but, why does the author assign the other side to Sir Charles? It is almost as if Richardson had lost control of Charlotte and she broke through to grasp the pen - er, quill. That will sound ridiculous to you unless you take the trouble to get to know Charlotte, at which point you will put nothing past her.
Deirde Bair in her biography of Samuel Beckett quotes him as saying "though Jane Austen had much to teach him, but was disgruntled with what he called her insistent use of the cult of the home". What exactly is he refering to here?
Dear b.,
I couldn't say because I am unfamiliar with the quote or the biography. The obvious thing is to find the context of the statement and then infer from that. It seems to me that he might have been referring to Jane Austen's focus on home life and family relationships. If so, then the complaint is puzzling because our Lady knew little else and insisted on writing upon only what she knew first hand. Unlike Beckett, Jane Austen did not care for the city life nor did she socialize with writers or other artists. Quite frankly, that is a major part of Jane Austen's appeal to me.
Dear Meister,
Thank you for your advice. Have just commenced study for my Bachelor of Arts. The lecturer has asked, in response to Beckett's quote, if Jane Austen is too accepting of 'the cult of the home'? Do you have any thoughts?
Dear b.,
My reply to that instructor would be to quote from a letter that Jane Austen wrote to her niece, Anna Lefroy, on Wed. 10 - Thurs. 18, 1814. Anna had sent her manuscript for a novel to her grandmother and aunts (Jane and Cassandra Austen) for comments and suggestions. The "Portmans" and "Forsters" were two fictional families in the niece's novel. Among the many suggestions, Jane Austen said this.
"... --And we think you had better not leave England. Let the Portmans go to Ireland, but as you nothing of the Manners there, you had better not go with them. You will be in danger of giving false representations. Stick to Bath & the Forsters, there you will be quite at home-- ..."
In other words, a writer should stick strictly to the environment she knows first hand and in intimate detail. Jane Austen, herself, rigorously obeyed this rule. For example, she never even portrayed a conversation between two men outside the presence of a female character. Another example is the fact that she never attempted to portray the lives and habits of servants.
The inference I draw is that this axiom, that Jane Austen held so dear, precluded the possibility of writing about, say, the plight of industrial workers or of the impact of technology on human habitations and relationships; those were among the things that existed only in Jane Austen's "Ireland."
Dear Meister,
Once more I am indebted to you. Although there is a great deal of information on P&P/Jane Austen in the material I have received, there would seem to me to be almost a "prejudice" to Jane Austen's writing style. Suggestions such as "the possibility of being irritated by the firm control aspired to by the third-person narrator" is one example. I have a myriad of questions but I must read the preceeding messages to avoid being repetitious. Thank you again.
Dear bluey,
You are going to find a lot of prejudice at this web site as well; but, 99.5% percent of it tends the other way. We are all a bunch of "Janeites" here, which means that we are unashamedly addled. Link to this quote from E. M. Forster, in which that state of mind is described.
This sort of thing is not allowed - is repressed at any respectable university or coffeehouse. At those places a condescending objectivity is demanded, demonstrated, and imposed - oh well, it takes all kinds.
I am glad that you want to catch up. If you will link to the index for this web site, that might aid you. In particular, scroll down to "Austen, Jane" and then to "her art." (The index is not up to date, but it is useful.) If P&P is to be your focus, then you might look up that title in the index as well. Incidentally, I have a view of P&P that differs from most others: for example, I am convinced that most readers miss an entire layer of meaning in that first conversation between Darcy and Bingley. The result is that the orthodox interpretation of the novel is, in my opinion, in error. It is an error that might have been avoided if Jane Austen's own personality was taken into account more often. Finally, here is a link to the Table of Contents for this web site.
Dear Ashton,
I am collecting your Grandison postings for further study, and I notice that you are up to Vol. 6 out of 7. What I am wondering is, have you gotten a "feel" for what ODJ might have been so enthralled about with the novel?
Or, am I jumping the gun on you - were you saving that for the end? If
so, just excuse the question, and I will wait.
Linda
Dear Linda,
I had no idea that anyone was listening! I had thought that everyone had turned me off when I started this "influences"-thing late last spring. (I will be more careful what I write in future now that I know I am not playing alone.) Your questions are very interesting and will influence my own thinking; so, please interject as I make my postings. Just remember, I am no expert and I am learning as I go along - I will be grateful for any interaction as I develop my own ideas on these matters.
Actually, I finished Grandison some time ago and I have about three more things to post about it. However, it was never my intent to soliloquy; I had hoped, instead, for a conversation. That novel has a very interesting epilogue that turned me to another long book. I will give you a hint - it has something to do with the surprise link for this month.
I have made a decision that when I finish the current book I am reading (which, by the way, is blowing me away), I will put an end to my initial search for Jane-Austen influences. That makes sense because I now feel that I have a faint glimmer of what inspired our Lady. "Faint", but sufficient for my purposes, which is the ability to converse on these matters with others. I mean, I will have something to say and I now have sufficient background to ask useful questions of persons better informed than myself. (That is all I can hope for at my advanced age.) My next project will be an examination of the social and political history of Jane Austen's time.
But, you asked a question: It does not take a genius to understand what enthralled the young Jane Austen. I think you would agree with me should you read Grandison. (Incidentally, I would not recommend that book to most people because there are some long, tedious, and absurd passages; for you, however, the read is a must - I mean you are such a Janeite and have such a strong need to understand everything Jane Austen.) The basic themes of Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion are fully spelled out as themes of Grandison; and, there are resonances in Pride and Prejudice as well.
You see what you have done? - Now that I know that someone is actually listening, I can't shut up!
Dear Cheryl,
I hope you like Udolpho, though I still can't verbalize why I do. I guess I could if I sat down and thought about it, which brings me to the subject of this post. The other night I was doing some hand sewing which does not require one's full attention. I was letting my mind wander when it hit me that Our Lady did a lot of hand sewing, too. She sewed not only for her brothers but also as charity work for needy parishioners. The point being, she had lots of time to "think about" her novels. I just was wondering how much of her novels were "formed" while she sewed. Just a thought. And you guys, in case none of you ever sew by hand, that is how it might have happened. If you even care.
Your angle on the Mother/daughter relationship is very interesting. I am starting a reread of all the novels and I will take notice of that aspect. Bruce mentioned somewhere that Sir Thomas did not love his children. That got me to thinking about it, and I couldn't come up with any examples of any of the parents openly displaying such love, as in actually saying, "I love you" or whatever. It may have to be inferred by their actions. I want to examine the novels for evidence.
Ashton is doing such a good job with Grandison that I may not have to read it, though I will, just to make sure he didn't miss anything.
Good luck with the puppy. With two Grandchildren I don't want anything
more to feed or pick up after, so you have my sympathy in that department.
Sounds like she is already getting lots of love; that is the best
part.
Linda
Links