The Voices of Men in Praise
Of Jane Austen
Messages c. June 11, 2002


9-11          

Dear mv,

Someone commented that Mr. Darcy would not have been able to call Mr. Wickham out because GW was not a gentleman.  That set me to thinking.  In the US, commissioned military officers are said to be gentlemen by act of Congress.  Would that have been respected in England in the early 19th century?  Would a visiting US Lieutenant be considered "gentle" enough for  JA's society?

To carry the idea further, did the purchase of a commission in the regular army (as was done for Wickham) in England make the new-bought officer a gentleman?  Consider Robert Martin, (that yeoman exemplar, but decidedly not a Gentleman, as commonly termed).  Were he to amass a large fortune and leave it to a son to live on without having to work himself, wouldn't that make young Martin the equal of Mr. Bingley, who is certainly a gentleman?  Would/could the farmer's son become a gentleman in one generation?  Any thoughts?  Was such class mobility possible?

Dear D.J.,

I am not an historian (among the many other things that I am not) but I am willing to express an opinion about any damn thing. Basically, I think the "English Gentry" was a purely English phenomenon not reproduced anywhere else, not even by their imitators across the pond.

In plain terms, my answer to your question is, "Yes, definitely! Upward mobility was very common in Jane Austen's time." Of course that could only be accommodated if there had been a downward mobility as well. Also, things were very different in the later Victorian period during which, I think, mobility was far more difficult. And, my surprising opinion is that mobility is likely more difficult today that it was in Jane Austen's time.

Let me explain.

First of all, the fact of the matter. Begin with Jane Austen's own family. Her father was of a very low birth, but look what happened to him and his offspring. Fortunately, father Austen did have a "connection", an uncle who had grown wealthy in a career as an attorney and who undertook to pay for his nephew's education. Papa did very well at Oxford, married a woman from a good if not well off family, and called upon his connection once more to procure two "livings" in the church. From there things really took off. One son, Edward, fell into this Frank-Churchill sort of situation and became Darcy-rich with large estates in Kent and Hampshire. The others made their way on merit. One entered the church, one became a banker, and two became admirals, even Commanders-in-Chief. One of his sons was knighted and a granddaughter married into the aristocracy. Then, of course, there was baby sister Jane who benefited most from the English phenomenon of upward social mobility.

Woman could advance by merit or by other means. For the latter, refer to the stories of Philadelphia Austen and her daughter, or to the history of Lady Hamilton. For examples of the former, refer to comments on Mary Shelley or on Elizabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun.

Let us turn to the novels of Jane Austen, because more details of English social mobility are revealed there. There, characters are undergoing the types of upward mobility experienced in her own family: Lucy Steele in the style of Philadelphia Austen; Frank Churchill in the style of Edward Austen (and in the style of our Lady's maternal uncle); Captain Wentworth in the style of Francis or Charles Austen. There is only so much room at the top, so there must be downward mobility as well. In that unfortunate role, we see Miss Bates and the Elliot family. And we see Edward Ferrars in a downward mobility of his own choosing. Other examples of upward mobility are those of Mrs. Weston (the Miss Taylor that was) and, of course, Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. Emma tries very hard to be Miss Smith's connection but may have failed.

Folks at the top don't want to be replaced, so there had to have been some resistance to the upward mobility of others. Recall the attitudes and actions of Lady Catherine, Sir Walter, and Lady Russell—all doomed to failure by Jane Austen.

I suspect that Jane Austen's time was a special period that was, in part, the result of the actions of the Tudor dynasty. They had made a concerted and highly successful effort to reduce the size of the aristocracy in England (by peaceful means). As a result, and unlike the rest of Europe in Jane Austen's time, there was only a teensey-tinesey aristocracy. I believe the motive was to eliminate that segment of society most dangerous to the King's power. The truth of the matter was borne out in France where it was the aristocracy who began the Revolution (the irony is that the King's power eroded first in England). Well, this left room at the top for mobility and that produced the unique phenomenon of the English "Gentleman".

Maybe not.

Dear M.A.D.,

Based upon your suggestion. I have completed Persuasion, the Amanda Root film first, followed by the book, followed by a browse through the index here for pertinent prior postings.  Much obliged for the recommendation, I am, I am. I am not at all quite ready to leap in with half-baked "insights" and commentary until I have time to further digest the story.

On another subject, I am awaiting the arrival of my BBC/A&E P&P special edition DVD, which will slip in very nicely to the DVD player that my son and younger daughter bought me for my recent birthday.  Mike may well be hooking it up as I write.  For certain I will be saving a ton of video rental fees for the six tapes; the DVD cost less than $30 at Amazon.  I will doubtless soon be looking for DVDs of the other filmed versions of the JA minicanon.  I have been entertained by the wishy-washy, noncommittal reviews of same in this forum (Kidding!).

New Subject.  Has anyone taken on the POB books based on the past week's discussion?  I'd be interested in your reactions. Finis.

Dear Jim,

Glad you enjoyed Persuasion.  It has become my favorite (P&P used to be first) since reading the Meister's Eleventh Letter page, and working on the Passionate Passages pages.  I see so much of 'Jane' in it.  It really breaks my heart.

I am making a collection of all (except one) of the adaptions just to compare them (well, maybe it's because they are JA).  I have my favorites of course.  The books are the best, but the "pictures" are nice to be able to see the countryside, listen to the music, etc.  I recently loaned my VHS of P&P-95 to my daughter who emailed me this:  "I watched P&P last night.  All of it.  Happy thought indeed!!  I just love that movie.  I think the really best parts is when(and how) Mr. Darcy looks at Lizzie.  It makes you warm all over.  Next time I see you I would like to discuss a certain aspect of Mr. Wickham with you." She needed to know what was in the book about him that the movie did not explain very well.  When you get comments back like that, a Mother knows she must have done something right!

My local library has Master and Commander on hand which I will pick up tomorrow.  I insist on reading them in order.  I will let you know how I find it.  In reading some of the bios online it appears that O'Brian did not start writing (getting published) until his 50s.  Maybe there is hope for the rest of us!
Linda

Dear Voices,

Wanting to see one's children happily settled in marriage is a natural concern of all parents, but it doesn't necessarily excuse a parent's actions.  (If we're to believe her lawyers, that woman down in Texas just wanted what was best for her children: heaven.  That doesn't make her a good mother.)  In Mrs. Bennet's defense, we are talking about a time when it was one's duty to marry if possible.  Men should marry as soon as they became financially able to support a wife and children while women should marry when they found a stable man who asked.  And both sexes were expected to follow their parents' wishes in the matter of arranged marriages.  (I've known a few women who never met their husbands until the wedding, and all of those marriages were happy; possibly because they entered the marriage with a more realistic view of married life.)

Be that as it may, whether Ashton wants to admit it or not, many of Jane's characters have hearts of gold and brains of cottage cheese.  We should note that the more outgoing the character, the more likely he or she is to be an idiot.  Yes, Jane meant these characters to be funny; for us to see our neighbors, relatives, and even ourselves in them. Until recently, people had the choice of being friends/friendly with their neighbors or no one at all.  In other words, JA couldn't freely pick and choose  who she interacted with.  She had to take the Darcys with the Sir Johns.  And sometimes you can only either laugh at them or axe murder them in the middle of the night.
Cheryl

References: 6/6/02 & 6/7/02 & 6/7/02R

Dear Voices,

The difference between American and European duelling, at least in the mid-19th century is detailed by Mark Twain in A Tramp Abroad. Mr. Darcy would not have dueled with Wickham because Wickham was below him on a social level, W's father having been steward to the Pemberly estate.  I also don't believe that Mr. Darcy would have knowingly broken the law, no matter what the incentive.  And lastly, he could not have dueled Wickham without Georgiana's reputation being tainted by the question of whether or not Wickham had managed to seduce her.  In Lydia's case, there's no question in anyone's mind that she and Wickham are doing the nasty while in London so Mrs. Bennet expectation that her husband might fight Wickham is more reasonable.

At any rate, it takes months of practice to shoot a modern handgun accurately on a consistent basis. Muzzle loading handguns were notoriously inaccurate which is why most western "shootouts" took place at a range of about 20 feet. (Also, most round balls were home made using a purchased mold and small pigs of lead...not exactly precision-made if you get my drift.) Roughly 34 shots were fired at the OK corral, at a range of 15-30 feet, with 14 hits resulting in two immediate deaths, one deadly wound, and two minor ones.

It should be noted that these guns fired pure lead balls or slugs, not modern "full metal jacket" types which holds the slug in one piece, thereby limiting the wound.  (FYI this is why surplus military ammunition is banned for hunting purposes in the US.) A .50 caliber lead ball shot from a rifled musket would likely kill no matter where it hit because of how the soft lead deformed or even vaporized when it hit; cutting through ateries and bones and leaving a huge exit wound if it passed through.  Hand guns were somewhat less deadly because of their smaller powder charge which limited velocity and of course, not having a rifled barrel which reduced accuracy.

The great historical question in the Burr-Hamilton duel is whether, as the Hamilton camp claims, he deliberately fired his weapon off to the side or, as Burr's supporters claim, the gun misfired as he was bringing it to bear.  In either case, Burr calmly dispatched Hamilton in pretty cold blood. Burr was by all accounts a nasty piece of work and one of only three men in the whole history of the US who should have hanged for treason.

Does it bother anyone else that the two most recent African Americans that Hollywood has chosen to make movies about were men of dubious character whose "profession" was to beat other people up for money? (So rich white guys can bet on the outcome...don't forget that part.)  Without even bothering ourselves that one of these men is a convicted felon and the other is a man whose ego is so overblown that he believes even religion can be manipulated to serve his ends?  Harrumph.
Cheryl

Dear Cheryl,

I am assuming you returned from Florida.  I do hope you had a nice trip.  I managed to get to the library book sale on Saturday and visit Graceland on Sunday.  Now today, Tuesday, I find myself with a sick daughter and granddaughter - a virus has struck again.

In your dueling and boxing post Mark Twain's name popped up again which reminded me of a book of his I found at the book sale:  A Pen Warmed Up In Hell.  The funny part is that what you say and how you say it reminds me of dear Mr. Twain.  I have read only a couple of the articles in the book, but he leaves no doubt that he is antislavery and he is really down on the 'church' in the form of organized religion and rightly so if what he says is true.  He is either the biggest liar around or he has hit the nail on the head and exposed most of the world's garbage.  He really was a social commentator in his day.
Linda

Dear Linda,

Yes we did indeed get back from Florida and the spousal unit took an extra week off to get some stuff done around the house.  We did finally get our garden planted, having decided to wait until our return due to an invasion of marmots the week before we left.  There was a snap of cold weather (down in the 30's) while we were gone, so I'm glad we did.

Unfortunately, the shuttle launch didn't go off until we were back home, which was disappointing, but nothing compared to that of all the foreign visitors for whom it was trully a once in a life time chance. It was of course, very hot and humid and I would guess that there must have been over 50,000 people there that day.

The wedding went off as planned and without any major disasters, although the father of the bride managed to make his displeasure known.

If we visit again it'll be mid-winter when it's cooler and no thunderstorms.  It sounds as if you had a few good days yourself.  I have this coming weekend off, and if the weather cooperates we'll go see if we can find some of these morels everyone else is picking by the pound.

Twain and his brother actually walked off the stage in Virginia City, to be greeted by a local who politely excused himself then rode over and began shooting at another "gentleman."

I don't think Ash is quite right in his assessment of drive-by shootings...the gang assasination goes back at least as far as dueling.  I sometimes think the former attitude "who cares as long as they only kill each other" would be well put to use today.

We actually found the book Twain mentions Vigilantes of Montana at some out of the way national historic site a couple of years ago.  Frankly, I don't set too much store by its accuracy, but it is a "hair raising little book" as Twain puts it.

Twain wrote an entire book debunking "Christian Science", which was truly a case of using a sledgehammer to swat a gnat.
Cheryl

Dear Alack and Alashton,

What exactly were Wickham's intentions toward Elizabeth?  Did he actually have any, or was he just passing the time?

Re: happy marriages, I totally forgot about Admiral and Mrs. Croft.  I was struck by their singular felicity, and don't remember whether they had children, but I don't think so. You don't think Eleanor and Edward Ferrars have a chance?  How about Isabella and John Knightley?  They seem pretty well off, as marriages go.  Another really hopeless case - Louisa and Mr. Hurst!!!

Re: Marianne and Col. Brandon - she has to grow up some, but he will defer to her every wish.  Why wouldn't MW have been a Red Sox fan, or even a Patriots fan?  Wasn't she from New England?

From the Meister: Mary Wollstonecraft was very English and a Jane-Austen contemporary—about the age of Jane Austen's oldest brother. She was married to a proto-communist and she was the mother of Mary Shelley who wrote Frankenstein among other interesting things. She might have rooted for the Patriots precisely because she was an English radical.

"What exactly were Wickham's intentions toward Elizabeth?" - ? - What were Wickham's int—who ARE you? and what have you done with our Bree?!

Dear Splishsplashton,

I don't recall Elizabeth thinking anything nasty about Georgiana Darcy, other than getting the idea from Wickham that she was proud.  What is this "witty mean-spirited thought" she indulged in?  I do recall her rejoicing that Anne de Bourgh would make Darcy a "proper wife."  Another maligned creature, Anne de Bourgh - she never did or said anything bad, her fault being she wasn't healthy or outgoing.  Serious failings indeed!

Dear Breepin' Good,

The passage in question is in Chapter 43. Elizabeth and the Gardiners are being shown about Pemberley by the housekeeper when Uncle Gardiner asks her if Darcy spends much time there.

" 'Not so much as I could wish, sir; but I dare say he may spend half his time here; and Miss Darcy is always down for the summer months'

Except, thought Elizabeth, when she goes to Ramsgate."

Ramsgate is where Georgianna attempted to elope with Wickham. If you imagine an Elizabeth smirk, as I do, then you must also imagine that expression wiped from her face a few days later when she reads those letters from sister Jane.

Dear My-Stir,

You say, "If you read Elizabeth's reaction to Darcy's letter, you will find that Wickham's intention in her regard suddenly dawns on her."

That is from your reply to my questions re Wickham.  I took it to mean Wickham's intention in (Elizabeth's) regard suddenly dawns on her.  Was this incorrect?  Were you referring to May King?  That is why I asked what Wickham's intentions toward Eliz. were - it seems he never had any, and if your interpretation is the soundest, he was a live-in-the-moment jackass.  So he would fiddle around with any girl's attentions for one reason or another.  Why did everybody say he was so attractive?  I didn't think so!  His fluttering eyelashes didn't fool ME!

Now I recall the sort of snide aside at Pemberley.  But was Elizabeth directing it in thought at Georgiana, at Darcy or at her conception of Georgiana?

I would still like to know the basis of your doubtful assessment of the unions between the Dashwood sisters and their chosen spouses (or spice?)

Dear UnaBreeged,

I can't answer for Ashton, but young, beautiful Marianne Dashwood trotting to the alter with rheumatic Colonel Brandon is not a picture which inspires confidence in the future happiness of the couple.  We know, of course, that:

"Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favourite maxims. She was born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as at seventeen, and with no sentiment superior to strong esteem and lively friendship, voluntarily to give her hand to another!--and THAT other, a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former attachment, whom, two years before, she had considered too old to be married,--and who still sought the constitutional safeguard of a flannel waistcoat!"

We also know (or at least Austen leads us to believe) that:

"Colonel Brandon was now as happy, as all those who best loved him, believed he deserved to be;--in Marianne he was consoled for every past affliction;--her regard and her society restored his mind to animation, and his spirits to cheerfulness; and that Marianne found her own happiness in forming his, was equally the persuasion and delight of each observing friend. Marianne could never love by halves; and her whole heart became, in time, as much devoted to her husband, as it had once been to Willoughby."

Ah, as Shakespeare might say, there’s the rub.  Passionate, romantic Marianne falls madly in love with the decrepit, rheumatism ridden old geezer.  Of course we don’t quite buy the restoration of Brandon’s spirits to "animation and ... cheerfulness" ­ the leopard doesn’t change his spots, as Austen points out in novel after novel.  The result: I picture the following scene, some 15 years after the wedding:

And so it goes.

Dear Bree,

Wickham is exactly a "live-in-the-moment jackass".  Hee hee!

Dear Well Breepared,

Elizabeth has her epiphany after reading Darcy's letter. She realizes many things in regard to Wickham, among those are this thought:

"... His behavior to herself [Elizabeth] could now have had no tolerable motive; he was either deceived with regard to her fortune, or had been gratifying his vanity by encouraging the preference which she believed she had most incautiously shewn. ..."

There is one other intolerable motive, in Wickham's mind, Elizabeth might have seemed to offer the same thing that Lydia would later provide—sex. My interpretation is that Wickham did live in the moment. In the 1995 filmed version, Uncle Gardiner reacts to the news of the elopement by saying Wickham would do the right thing with Lydia because he wouldn't risk his career by not doing so. In fact, Wickham does not do the right thing just as he would not have done the right thing by Elizabeth. I have lived near a personality like that and found to my amazement that a person like that can be quite intelligent and still risk everything for instant gratification. It is that quirk which makes him so puzzling after the fact and so effectively dangerous during.

I am not convinced that Marianne and Brandon are compatible in temperment and tastes. I am afraid that she might become disappointed. My complaint about Edward Ferrars is that I know so little about him, and, I am afraid, there might not be much to know.

Jane Austen is not explicit about Elizabeth's thought about Georgianna, but can it be interpreted differently than I suggest? What say you?

Dear Voices,

I still disagree with the Meister that Elizabeth's thought about Ramsgate was vindictive.  JA gives us no other information...no secret smile of satisfaction for instance, or that she watched the housekeeper's face to spot any sign of embarrassment. Elizabeth has already experienced her "epiphany" and is feeling more charitable toward the Darcy family than ever before. I think maybe JA wanted to remind us just how intimate a secret Darcy had let Elizabeth in on and by extension, remind us of how much respect he must have for her discretion and intelligence to trust her with a secret he had withheld from a faithful and intelligent servant. His trust is justified of course, Elizabeth never even told Jane about Wickham's designs on Georgiana.

I planned to spend my day off working outside and watching the '85 version of P&P which I bought a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, P&P is fubar'd and of course it's out of print.  I also planned to get into John Halperin's "The Life of Jane Austen" over my vacation, but never got a chance.  I'm rather prone to motion sickness on airplanes so I can only read for about 15 minutes out of every hour.  I ended up finishing a book I'd started called "The Last Patrol" which details the careers of the US submarines lost during WWII. (Roy got to visit a fully restored diesel sub, the USS Pampanito when he was in San Francisco.) It was interesting, if tragic reading.
Cheryl

Dear Testosterone-Poisoned Webmaster,

Thank you for finally writing something which annoys me more than the people who call Jane Austen "a great woman novelist".  I was beginning to get bored.  Isn't Miss Austen important enough as a novelist, or enough fun to read, for someone to forget her chromosome smears and her sex organs for a few minutes at a time?
Thanks.
David.

Dear David,

You say that your annoyance at those who call Jane Austen a woman's novelist is exceeded only by your annoyance with me. I think you are only pretending to be out of sorts with that other view. You express their thoughts when you imagine that the hormone that defines your sex is a poison, and where you admonish us to forget that a woman is a woman. You are part of that choir that has made you ashamed of your own sex, and that makes you shameful. Testosterone gets things done: things from the music of Mozart or Beethoven to the science of Newton or Einstein. It encourages the invention of the slam dunk and the touchdown celebration as well as the science of scoring touchdowns. None of this can be comprehensible to you—I designed the site for a different sort.

This site has been in existence for nearly five years and you are the only person to mention Jane Austen's "sex organs"—hardly a distinction. That is not the only way in which you have behaved like the worst kind of child; rather than take the time to completely understand the clearly stated objective at this site, you rushed to the bulletin board in order to post your insult—as if it mattered.

Links

Back to the Bulletin Board

Table of Contents

Index & Archive

References & Links

The Male-Voices Home Page