The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Feb. 26, 2001
Dear Linda,
No, I did hope that we would discuss the standards put forth by Fielding. I will try to make myself better understood by applying the yardstick to Jane Austen. (Incidentally, I am one of those folks who believe that there is nothing new under the sun, so I expect to find wisdom - the same wisdom - 250 or 2,500 years ago - and I expect all that wisdom to be derivative.)
I think that Jane Austen fails Fielding's fourth criterion: I don't think our Lady conversant with a wide range of social classes. At least, her focus in her novels was primarily on country gentry with a few references to minor aristocracy (e.g., Sir Walter Elliot). Exactly the same thing can be said about Samuel Richardson. Fielding satisfies his own fourth condition, but I call the value of that criterion into question. Fielding gives an excellent justification for its inclusion; but, in the end, I am unconvinced. Do you remember what D.H. Lawrence said about Jane Austen and Henry Fielding on this matter? Well, servants, tradesmen, professional gamblers, bar flies, etc. are, indeed, important characters in Tom Jones, but every one of them is placed in an unflattering light. - They are cheaters, liars, promiscuous, and unfaithful. It is like Fielding himself says in his fourth criterion, "... refinement, elegance, and a liberality of spirit; which last quality I myself have scarce ever seen in men of low birth and education." He certainly never depicted any.
Should we not also examine our yardstick? In any case, Jane Austen certainly meets the other standards quite admirably. What do you say about Fielding's last criterion?
Dear Ash,
In reviewing the fourth criterion, let me say I do consider it valid in that the comparison of the two levels of society would be helpful in understanding each. However, there are so many levels in between the extremes of "high" and "low" that I cannot see it at all necessary to be acquainted with absolutely every level to be able to "get the point". Which brings me to the point of Jane's "experience with all ranks and degrees of men".
After a lot of searching this is what I found about her "sphere". The following was in the Britannica.com site:
Jane Austen's lively and affectionate family circle provided a stimulating context for her writing. Moreover, her experience was carried far beyond Steventon rectory by an extensive network of relationships by blood and friendship. It was this world--of the minor landed gentry and the country clergy, in the village, the neighbourhood, and the country town, with occasional visits to Bath and to London--that she was to use in the settings, characters, and subject matter of her novels.
Please keep in mind that as well as the "Doctor", the "Pastor" in the neighborhood also had access to everyone while performing their respective "services". (I can almost guarantee that "information" was passed around with the biscuits!) Her Father was also a tutor. Those services were utilized by those who were at least higher than the servant class.
After much searching I found this site http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Grey/leigh.html which shows that Jane had some "connections" with the ranks of nobility. From that site I quote the following:
James Henry Leigh, of Adlestrop and Longborough, born 1765, his 2nd cousin Jane Austen visited him at Adlestrop 1806, during the visit, he inherited Stoneleigh from his (and her) Leigh cousins, all went to see Stoneleigh together, Stoneleigh was model for Sotherton in Mansfield Park, meant to be a much grander place than Mansfield Park, died 1823,...
And don't forget Eliza Hancock who married the French Count - for whatever that's worth. Jane had access to her. After considering the all of the above I think Jane was more "universal" than I previously thought. Aneilka and Shinjinee at RoP are working on Jane's genealogy and have made some reports there. This side of Jane is under construction. Shinjinee sent me a note this morning and stated that: Her eldest brother James married firstly a granddaughter of the 2nd Duke of Ancaster, and then a descendant of the 2nd (?) Baron Craven. And dearest Anielka posted that she will send us a family tree - oh, Happy day! That will be very interesting indeed!
One last comment about Jane and her connections: You don't necessarily have to get in the pen and wallow to write about pigs! The sidelines will do. [That could have been more delicately put, because I do not mean to infer that the nobility are pigs! Hopefully you get my drift.]
I looked up your reference to D. H. Lawrence and also in the britannica.com site. I consider his opinion of no consequence after seeing who he was and remembering that when in college I read one of his controversial books [it is unnecessary to say which one]. His works are not at the top of my "to read" list.
As far as the last criterion is concerned, I think by our discovery of the "passionate passages" we have proved Jane to have "a good heart, and be capable of feeling" beyond our wildest dreams. I am quite satisfied!
Dear Linda,
Your first sentence nicely summarizes Fielding's justification of the fourth criterion. Your next sentences express my view as well as your own.
There are a number of important connections of Jane Austen to the aristocracy: her mother was related to a Duke who had once been Lord Mayor of London. Also, our Lady hobbed-nobbed with the aristocracy when visiting her brother's estate in Kent. Of course, her brother Frank would be knighted (after her death). After all, her brothers were important military men and bankers.
And then there was her own family that was considered the de facto first family in the neighborhood because the principle land owner was an absentee landlord. It is my impression that we cannot think of Jane Austen's "Pastor" in the sense that we understand that term in present day America; for example, think of Jane Austen's father. Maybe we should try to imagine a pastor graduated from Harvard, with a salary of about $200,000 p.a., and in charge of churches in two parishes. Then imagine that he rarely gave a sermon or attended the poor himself; instead, he hired other Harvard graduates, "curates", to do all that heavy lifting while he tutored sons of the very rich in order to prepare them for the SATs and entrance into Harvard or Yale. By the way, the salary of a typical curate was about equal to the allowance of the Pastor's daughter. Also - this may be the hardest thing for an American to appreciate - maybe we should imagine this "pastor" is the highest-ranking, federal-government official in our town. Incidentally, it is my impression that Doctors were not nearly as well regarded then as they are today.
Finally, I noticed that the Prince of Wales saw fit to invite her for a personal tour of his Palace - that may say a lot.
Now, there are some differences too. Her family and friends would, most likely, have been Tories while the city-dwelling aristocrats tended to be Whigs, would not have been caught dead in Bath, and were a whole lot wealthier and more influential. Still, I think we might consider Jane Austen as upper-crust; and, her blind spot lie in the other direction - that vast group of lower classes which were, as our Lady put it, "the other 95% of humanity."
Jane Austen was surrounded by tenant farmers, estate workers, servants, and tradesman all her life, but may have felt she did not know much about them. I say that because they are so little represented in her novels. There is Mr. Martin in Emma, and I can remember speeches by Darcy's housekeeper and one by a man servant near the end of Sense and Sensibility, and - that's about it. In contrast, "the other 95%" figure quite prominently in Tom Jones. And, in this regard, we are not talking about people of low character; rather, of people in the lower 95% of income, education, and status.
I certainly agree that Jane Austen had an abundance of "heart." The thing is that I admire Fielding for including this criterion.
Dear Ash,
As you mentioned Jane was surrounded by the other 95%, but IMO it is not necessarily true that she did not know much about them "because they are so little represented in her novels." I believe that they are not there in over abundance because the story is not about them. They are merely minor supporting characters. In almost all, if not all, of her novels, she mentions in passing that one or other of the ladies attended to her workbasket of sewing for the poor in the parish. I want to believe that they were attentive enough to know "who needed what". It will be interesting to compare the people in Tom Jones to Jane's works now that you have brought it to my attention.
BTW you would lose your bet because I don't really know that much about Gen. Sherman. And you better believe we still know who a "Yankee" is! You might also be surprised to learn about our "change in attitude" over the last 40 years. When I grew up in the 50s our attitude was very old Southern. When the civil rights legislation came along in 1954 and 1964 we were led to believe by the media that the only place segregation existed was in the South and we were just awful people for allowing it. I really felt guilty. Then, lo and behold, in the late 60s and into the 70s the disturbances were reported in Boston and other Northern parts about the problems in trying to integrate the Northern schools. We were flabbergasted! We thought they had been integrated for at least a century.
Starting in the 60s by going to school and thereafter working together our attitude changed. We actually became acquainted with one another and thereby tolerant of each other. Not to say there are not still some problems. I am talking about my "sphere". If you notice on TV you will see that both sides are still a little touchy sometimes. Rome wasn't built in a day, but I definitely see progress. Now I can really appreciate what Fielding meant about "universal" experience.
Dear Linda,
No, with "inattention", I was referring to your remark that you hadn't studied Lincoln very much. What about General Sherman? - I bet you know a lot about him.
When I lived in Berkeley, I had a good friend who was born and raised in Georgia. We started sharing some books and things about the Civil War when I noticed that he was sympathetic to the southern generals and soldiers - Of course he would be, but I was shocked all the same.
I had the privilege of escorting six nephews and nieces to Washington D.C. about six years ago (that's a big deal if you live in California). They were teenagers at the time. I started them at Arlington Cemetery because I knew that had been the former estate of Robert E. Lee and had been seized during the Civil War. The mansion is preserved and shown by the Park Service - it is at the highest point of the now-cemetery (by the bye, you have the best prospect of D.C.'s monuments from that front yard.) Anyway, they employ "re-inactors" to dress in era costume and answer questions about the mansion and surroundings. Our party engaged one young, costumed woman who, in the course of our spirited, bantering conversation, referred to us all as "Yankees." We were astounded and charmed; so, people really do say things like that! - not just in movies!
You might take a look at Ken Burns's miniseries, The Civil War. That is excellent! (in contrast to his recent Jazz, which, in my opinion, is a perfect failure.) Also, you might try Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, an historical novel based upon the events of the three-day battle at Gettysburg. That is a lot of fun and informative; it was made into a fairly good film titled, if I remember correctly, Gettysburg.
Links