The Voices of Men in Praise
Of Jane Austen
Messages Beginning c. May 1, 2002


9-11          

Reference: Linda's of 4/30/02

Dear Linda,

I must expand my horizons to include Mary and Bill and thank Ashton for the info on MW Day.

Elizabeth von Arnim was born in 1886 and wrote from her youth on.  She married a German nobleman and lived in what was then Pomerania for a number of years.  The first of her books I read was Elizabeth and her German Garden.  I kept searching for more, including Enchanted April.  She also wrote Mr. Skeffington, which was made into a very good film starring Bette Davis, but of course, years ago.  I think Elizabeth died sometime in the 1950's or 60's.  She was also married to the brother of the philosopher Bertrand Russell (after the Graf von Arnim died), and one or two of her books were authored under the name Mary Annette Russell.  Her books may be in the library, but it is better to go on the internet and buy them I think.  I have a collection and hope to keep adding.  She wrote one book called All the Dogs of my Life that was superb!  Whether you are a dog person or not, you love it.  She intersperses her own life in these anecdotes about her crazy dogs.  Her writing is sophisticated and entertaining and contains a lot of psychological insights expressed with humor.  At least try to find Elizabeth and her German Garden.  You can read it in a couple of days!  Keep the faith!

Dear Bree,

Thanks for the info on Elizabeth von Arnim.  Since I did enjoy Enchanted April I will try to locate some of her works to read.  There is another library book sale in June so I will add her to my list.  I say that just like I really need some more books to read.  But I will 'get around to it' one day. 
Linda

Reference: Cheryl's of 4/29/02 & 4/30/02

Dear Cheryl,

Did you not find '85 a tiny bit stilted, shall we say?  The first time I saw it, it was the best dramatization of P&P I had seen, so it looked pretty good.  But if you look at it twice or more in succession (I confess I have), Garvie and Rintoul both speak as though they were looking at cue cards, and their faces bear out that suspicion.  Actually, Rintoul can hardly get his mouth open enough to get the words out.  He is a store window dummy!  Handsome, yes. So is Mt. Rushmore!  I think '95 tried to give some down to earth situations to develop our hero and heroine's characters.  It didn't actually hurt to watch Colin Firth swimming or fencing, did it?  I mean, could you take David Rintoul seriously when he clicked his heels together every time he bowed?  What was he, some kind of German?  The only thing about '95 was that Mrs. Bennet was turned into a caricature - Alison Steadman overdid it seriously.  But taken altogether, '85 was like a black and white version of a technicolor story.  It did have its merits though.  (Just thought I'd put in my dos centavos!)

Dear Ashton,

I recently finished my Pride and Prejudice essay. I wrote it on marriage and what I believe to be Jane Austen's view on a happy marriage. I had my english teacher look over it and he disagreed with what I said about Jane and Bingley. I would greatly appreciate it, if you had the time, if you could read it over and write me back.

Here are the relevant excerpts from my essay.

In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen portrays her views on marriage by introducing and examining many different types of marriage. Austen's view of the perfect marriage is represented by the marriage of Darcy and Elizabeth. However, before she can come to this conclusion, she addresses the other types of marriages and their faults. ... The marriage between Mr. Bingley and Jane is almost perfect; however, Mr. Bingley is not a strong man and he will not stand up to his wife and servants which could result in financial problems. It is only through the marriage of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth that Austen portrays her view of the perfect marriage. Although Austen does not specifically mention the legal rights of a husband has over his wife, her view of a good marriage reflects her beliefs on these rights.

...

At first glance the marriage between Mr. Bingley and Jane seems ideal. However, Austen makes it apparent that, despite their love for each other, their relationship will have problems. Austen uses Elizabeth earlier on in the novel to explain the problems that will result from a marriage in which a man does not take proper control over his wife:

Elizabeth is describing the problem of her father not controlling his wife as he should in order to keep a respectable family. Austen believes that it is important for a man to have control over his household. Mr. Bingley, just like Mr. Bennet, is not assertive and very likely will not be able to keep control of his family when need be. Mr. Bennet is aware of this character flaw in Mr. Bingley and he even warns Jane of it:

Even though Mr. Bingley and Jane are in love and destined for a happy marriage, it is likely that they will have problems because of Mr. Bingley's lack of command and domination.

Obviously, most couples will have their problems. However, Austen broke down each type of relationship to express her view of the most successful marriage. The ideal marriage must have a man like Mr. Darcy, one who will love his wife, and is confident and strong. The wife must be like Elizabeth, not eager to marry just anyone; she must love and respect the man she is to marry. Austen takes into consideration many marriages to confirm that only the marriage between a couple like Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth will prove to end in complete and utter happiness.

Thank you so much, you and your site have been a great help to me.
Regards
Katie

P.S. This essay is due Friday, so if you could get back to me before then that would be great.

Dear Katie,

I have read your entire essay and find it something of which you should be proud. However, I too am bothered by your interpretation of Bingley and Jane.

The view that you present of Bingley is consistent with those of Elizabeth Bennet and her father. But remember, this is a novel of mistaken first impressions. In fact, Jane Austen's first choice for the title of that novel was First Impressions. Elizabeth and her father are mistaken about Bingley and that is made quite clear in the novel - not explicit but clear. I have collected together those passages in the novel that demonstrate that Bingley was quite someone else. Here is the link to that. I think you will agree that Bingley is not really so compliant; in fact, he is quite rough on Darcy.

Incidentally, at the end of that link Elizabeth is quoted giving her reasons for expecting her marriage to Darcy to be ideal. Her reasons are different from yours.

You might add to those passages the places in the novel where Bingley clearly and directly contradicted his sister every time she tried to denigrate Elizabeth.

Mr. Bennet didn't get anything right; he even had the wrong impression of his own eldest daughter. Elizabeth had all the verve and brilliance in the family, but she was error prone. And, as she made each mistake, it was Jane who noticed and spoke forthrightly to her wayward sister. It was Jane who was the wise one and was willing to voice her opinion when and where it might do some good. She did not grab Elizabeth by the shoulders and shake her - that was not Jane's way; but, her efforts were noticed, appreciated, and ultimately acknowledged by Elizabeth.

No, the prospects for the Bingley marriage are quite good. There will not be the same passion as at Pemberley, but there will be more cool-headedness and nearly as much affection. It is all a matter of taste, but I should prefer the passion and would be willing to pay by giving up cool-headedness.

I agree with your judgment of Darcy, but I cannot get it in my head that he wants to "control" Elizabeth. Pity the poor man if he does. I believe there is a passage near the end where Elizabeth tells him why he wants her. I think she gets it exactly right. Look at those chapters after she has accepted his proposal. Also, read the last few lines where Jane Austen gives us a glimpse into married life at Pemberley. There seems to be little hint of control.

Dear Katie,

Ashton's reply was quite alright but I want to add my two pence though I am a little late and it will not be of use for your paper.

I noticed your use of the words re Mr. Bingley and Mr. Bennett, "not a strong man", "not stand up", "does not take proper control over his wife",  "not controlling his wife", and "lack of command and domination".  Also, that JA appears to believe that "it is important for a man to have control over his household", "to keep control of his family", and be "confident and strong".

Those words grate on my womanly/wifely nerves.  I would have believed that in the 1950s but not now.  I have come a long way, baby!  I do hope the Ladies of this current generation take a lesson from past generations and reject those odious phrases.  I object strongly to such control being given especially to a dishonorable man of Gen. Tilney's ilk.  I have taken a close look at what JA says about marriage and will do so again and what I see is quite different.  Using Darcy and Elizabeth as an example, IMHO JA intends a marriage of equal human beings who complement each other.  Where one has a weakness, the other provides a strength.  If you have mutual love and respect, mutual submission, and mutual service no one has to "dominate" the other.

Your only words I can agree with are: "she [the woman] must love and respect the man she is to marry" and "you and your site have been a great help to me".  I try not to say the latter too often in order to refrain from giving the Meister a swelled head.

I wish you the best on your essay.  I do hope you took Ashton's reply to heart and made some adjustments accordingly.  Please forgive me if I sound vicious about the word "control" but it's personal to me.

Love from Linda who has two daughters (30 and 28) who took her advice without regrets

Dear Katie,

Hi - just read over your reflections on the Bingley/Jane relationship, and found them quite provocative.  However, I think that, regarding Mr. Bennet, the word you want is "responsibility", rather than "control."  Mr. Bennet's failing, aside from that of not putting aside money for his daughters (which he ultimately confesses to), is that he takes the path of least resistance in his family life.  He retreats to his library and his books, and emerges only when he cares to; he makes light of his duties as a father, as illustrated when Elizabeth tries in vain to persuade him not to allow Lydia to go to Brighten with Colonel Forster.  I think Mr. Bingley has more of a sense of connection with the world and responsibility, and certainly an understanding of right and wrong.  Probably his and Jane's good natured dispositions will make for a long and enjoyable relationship.  Personally, I think our Elizabeth will have her hands full with Mr. D.!  He has a lot to learn!!!!!

Dear Linda,

I will look forward to your reflections on the French Revolution since that occurred in Jane Austen's lifetime. Remember, there is Warren Roberts' book, Jane Austen and the French Revolution.

It is true that the American Revolution had many of the same intellectual underpinnings as the French. That is not so surprising since our Founding Fathers were transplanted western Europeans. There were many other similarities and some profound differences and that is what I hope to explore with you today.

Did you know that French women did not achieve the right to vote until 1945? I believe that you had already been born by then.

Did you know that the French Revolution was started by the French aristocracy? The King was in debt and wanted the nobles to start paying taxes; the aristos had never done such a thing, could not imagine such a thing, and reacted with a sequence of extreme political maneuvers against the King. Those actions then ignited a revolution the nature of which the upper classes neither anticipated nor wanted. Next, those intellectuals, who had been clamoring for change, were summoned to the front; for example, there was the man who was, among other things, a feminist—the Marquis de Condorcet. But they were babes in the political woods and were eaten alive—literally murdered—by those who would eventually seize power. Of course, the revolutionary spirit made its way to the streets in the persons of the lower class, the sanscullotes, who were manipulated to take the Revolution to bloody extremes and in directions never imagined by the initial leaders.

The American Revolution had many parallels but different results. Like, how about the conflict being ignited by a group of upper-class men objecting to taxation? We also had our sanscullotes, except we called them "over-the-mountain" men. These were the basically poor and alienated immigrants who would have relished nothing better than watching the Redcoats and the rich Patriots destroy each other. (Unimaginably stupid policies on the part of Cornwallis' sub-commanders converted them into Patriots—something Washington himself could not have done.) However, our sanscullotes lived, literally, on the other side of the Appalachian Mountains. That crucial geographical fact meant that our disenfranchised classes did not have the same access to the upper-class throats that was the case on the streets of Paris.—Lucky for us! Maybe our "Alien and Sedition Acts" can be thought of as a tepid, bloodless mini-version of The Terror, but a better example is the treatment meted out to loyalists ("tories") after the war.

The great difference is that our Revolution did not degenerate into a military dictatorship leading to imperialistic adventures. (Europeans like to point to the fact that we retained slavery after the Revolution without remembering that we inherited slavery directly from them.) The reason why we did not degenerate in the French mode has been associated, by some, with the mind and character of George Washington. That is a claim that is not easily dismissed. In any case, it is a bit puzzling how one can look at the courses and aftermaths of the French and the American Revolutions and prefer to admire the former.

One Revolution you might look into is the Glorious Revolution. That was one the English were justifiably proud of in Jane Austen's time.

Dear Ashton,

I think we may have finally reached the generation gap as I really don't feel as if the US has any guilt over what happened.  In hindsight, yes we should have allowed more immigration, but nothing I've ever read leads me to think that anyone anywhere believed Nazi Germany would go to the lengths it did to rid itself of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, or the retarded.

The reasons I see for US support for Israel are as follows:

At least that's what I'm getting in my daily chats with customers.
Cheryl

Dear Cheryl,

I have searched for the flaw in your posting here and on Mary Wollstonecraft Day, but I cannot find it. I even think you are right about the generation gap. I have seen you brilliant before but never like this. I am only glad you did not take the trouble to "sort me out" while you were at it.

Well, what is the reason for my different view? Is it anything else but generational? Maybe—I want to explore that possibility. I was raised in what I now consider a very odd little town in a coastal valley just north of San Francisco. It was rural and dominated by dairy and egg-producing industries. (There was too much clay in the soil for any kind of agricultural tillage.) Nowadays, the wine industry may dominate, except that now there are a large number of commuters to urban occupations.

I now can see that the ethnic makeup of my hometown was very unique and that may be contributing to my thoughts about ethnicity. First of all, the dominant European groups were southern European—Italian and Portuguese. That means that a Catholic Church was the most impressive building in town and was located at the geometric center. At that time, the nature of chicken ranching (yes, chicken ranches but turkey farms—don't ask!) was such that the ranchers could lead a fairly independent life. The same was a bit true of dairy farms (I said, "don't ask"); but, in that case, the requirement for land, hence capital, was much greater. The upshot is that a lot of people that might have been otherwise alienated from society could settle themselves on a chicken ranch to make a living without the hassle of conforming to community standards. The town's principle racial minority, Japanese-Americans, were so situated when I was growing up. Perhaps five to ten percent of every graduating class had Japanese family names. (I graduated in 1955.) The "mixed marriages" in that village were between Japanese and European ethics.

The town also had a large Jewish community employed in all the standard occupations of society and some of them were situated on chicken ranches as well, but only those with left-wing leanings. Several of my class mates had left-wing views which, in those days, were very carefully muted. I might guess that as many as ten percent of my classmates were Jewish which, I suspect, is somewhat higher than in a typical American community.

OK, so if you graduate in 1955, you must have started school in about 1942 or 1943. That means that as we were growing up, the dimensions of the holocaust were, for the first time, being investigated and revealed. That was something of which we were fully aware and, in the midst of a large number of Jews in our own community, that was also a something which we felt. As to inter-ethnic relations, I can say that those were quite good; although, I can remember the usual Jewish stereotypes mentioned in private in my family and amongst my friends. But, even that was a kind of vestigial thing related to past attitudes, and the stereotypes were never applied to any individual in our community and never intruded on friendships or other types of dealings. My own misconception was to think of Jews as a race, a something that a Jewish friend would correct when I was in college. (If you think about it, the term "anti-Semitism" implies a racial component to Judaism—ironically, Arabs are Semites.)

I want to be careful, there is a "darkness on the edge of [every] town," and my hometown was no exception. For example, while the holocaust was becoming a much talked-about subject, the internment of Japanese-Americans was not. I mean we knew about that but it was a kind of abstract thing that I never once thought of it in relation to my classmates. I was close to a lot of Japanese-Americans—a teammate to many—but I never once thought about the fact that they must have started school in an internment camp. Isn't that odd? I think that is odd. Also, you probably noticed that I didn't mention African-Americans and for good reason, there were none in town even though there were a number of African-American communities in our region—in our interscholastic athletic league.

Yeah, I can see where the times and my own peculiar circumstances have led to the generation gap you posit. So, you are right about even that. But, let us remember your opinions of David Rintoul and Bill Gates.

Dear Bill,

You write of the improvement of  "moral principles of conduct" comparing it to the improvement made in the field of the sciences and ask "why not".  Good question, but as far as I can see, it hasn't happened.  The initial statement you quoted and are refuting, I agree with.

Then you suggest that we should study past "political truth" in order to make improvements in the future.  Ah, but I see no improvement in that area either throughout history or at present.  Ask Cheryl about that!  The other fields of science have outstripped the progressiveness of political truth, but I am hoping that improvement will come soon. I see the beginnings of "saber rattling" in that direction.  I see 'awareness' of the problem catching up, but the ability to act and change are weak yet.

Linda - who is beginning to wonder about herself for responding to someone in your condition

Dear Mary,

Though I may disapprove of your lifestyle, I cannot nullify your reasoning.

I am devastated!  You called me a house slave.  I am now awake.  I can say no more.
Linda

Dear Ashton,

Sometimes I think I have forgotten more than I ever knew about history.  You made a very nice summary and comparison of the American and French Revolutions.  I do believe that I shall have to get my hands on that Warren Roberts book.  I only recently learned who the sans cullotes were.  You have given me some terms to look up - "Alien and Sedition Acts", the loyalists and the "Glorious Revolution".  George Washington did refuse to be "King" and opted for President, bless his heart.

You said:  "In any case, it is a bit puzzling how one can look at the courses and aftermaths of the French and the American Revolutions and prefer to admire the former." Really?  Who does that?  Not I!

A bookshop owner in N.O. recommended a good book on the French Revolution to my friend and I need to ask her for the title.  I now find that I really do not know as much as I should about it.

Somebody said "those who do not know history are bound to repeat it"  - or something like that.  The point of my MWD post being that we evidently have not learnt much.
Linda

Dear Cheryl and Ashton,

Cheryl: If I didn't know any better I would accuse you of being a descendent of Mark Twain, but they have all died.  Next Presidential election I am voting for Cheryl!

Since Ash and Cheryl have posted their views on the guilt question I will add my view to the pot.  Cheryl, in your reply "Holocaust, Occupation, and Terrorism" I took note of your view of the reasons for US support for Israel and the basis - chatting with your customers.

Ash, your view was a "collective sense of guilt" of the holocaust, then you expanded on that with your own personal hometown experience.  You also related how hard it was for the Jews to get out of Europe.  It is very interesting, and I can see where you are coming from.  We should have a sense of guilt for our omissions, and I am sure that we have committed other 'omissions', too.

My experience was a little different, hence a different view.  Our very small town had no Jews that I knew of while I was growing up (the 1950s).  In the 1980s I read the book by Corrie ten Boom about smuggling them out.  I do not remember it saying anything about there being laws against them going to other countries.  So you see, I knew nothing of being guilty, because we had no contact.

But here is where my view of where our (American) guilt comes from.  While I was growing up in the Baptist Church I do not remember being told that the Jews were God's chosen people, but they do believe that.  I heard it in later years that most, if not all, protestant churches believed that they are the chosen people.  Because of Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."  It was for this reason - the fear of cursing the Jews - that the church leaders supported Israel and they in turn influenced Congress to do the same which was not too hard to do since most of the Congressmen were Christians.  I have not in recent days gone door to door in the community to verify exactly how many people believe this, but this is what I learned in these latter years in my Bible study.

Now if you have the time and want an in depth study of "why" there is such turmoil in the Mid-east, I recommend the following for your perusal.  If you like, skip over the Bible stuff, and zero in on the historical study.  The author connects the Bible with actual history.  This is from whence I get "my view".  If anyone knows this to be untrue, please say so.  I will stand corrected.  Here is your History lesson for today in 4 parts.

So, now we have 3 "views"; I wonder how many more are out there!
Linda

Links

Back to the Bulletin Board

Table of Contents

Index and Archive

References and Links

The Male-Voices Home Page