In Austen L and Janeites, Diane Reynolds wrote the following:
"...Emma could have been simply a burlesque or caricature, but
all through the novel there is the steady undercurrent of the woman who
does send the entire back end of the pig to the Bates women and slices
them large pieces of cake and does try to take care of her father and
enjoys her nephews in a sensible, wise and good-hearted way and has
learned enough of her place in patriarchy to indulge and placate the
powerful males in a way that smooths the social intercourse. Are Emma's
motives, like a real person's, often mixed--a mix of guilt and
selfishness and the desire to look good to others, a lack of critical
approach to patriarchy -- yes, but we do find a thread of kindness and
generosity that runs through Emma's character in a consistent way. "
Nancy Mayer responded thusly: "But Emma is not a dolt, no matter how clueless she might be
about matters of the heart. She is a competent woman in many fields. It
is only on matters of marriages and sexual attraction that she errs and
that is because she has not yet been awakened . The business of Elton &,
Frank Churchill gives her an inkling. However, it is when she starts to
imagine Mr. Knightley getting married that she starts to have adult
thoughts about men and marriage. Emma is a competent manager of the
house and her father. She takes care of the less fortunate as well as
any lady of the manor. Clever doesn't mean that she has a high IQ
necessarily, or that she is academic, or that she has ideas beyond her
years but that she has a quick mind and is anything but a dolt."
I have previously written about Emma's extreme cluelessness about her
own economic privilege, her own fantasies about what a generous person
she is, when actually her attentions to the poor are of the most extreme
Exhibit "A is the following priceless bit of moral satire in Chapter 10,
as Emma takes Harriet along to visit a poor, sick family:
"These are the sights, Harriet, to do one good. How trifling they make
every thing else appear!—I feel now as if I could think of nothing but
these poor creatures all the rest of the day; and yet, who can say how
soon it may all vanish from my mind?"
"Very true," said Harriet. "Poor creatures! one can think of nothing else."
"And really, I do not think the impression will soon be over," said
Emma, as she crossed the low hedge, and tottering footstep which ended
the narrow, slippery path through the cottage garden, and brought them
into the lane again. "I do not think it will," stopping to look once
more at all the outward wretchedness of the place, and recall the still
"Oh! dear, no," said her companion.
They walked on. The lane made a slight bend; and when that bend was
passed, Mr. Elton was immediately in sight....
And the minute Emma sees Mr. Elton, those "poor creatures" vanish from
Emma's mind, not to return for the remainder of the novel.
But that is only a brief eruption of JA's satire into open view. What I
only realized today was that JA has also inserted into the entire novel
a perpetual _subliminal_ ironic subtext, in a wickedly clever
way---_Emma_ is unique among all of JA's novels with its relentless,
frequent drone of usages of the word "poor"----_not_ to refer to a lack
of wealth, but instead to refer to a person's having to deal with some
unlucky turn of events---Mr. Woodhouse's "poor Miss Taylor"'s and "poor
Emma"'s are only the most memorable examples, but there is a flood of
such usages referring to several other characters as well.
I counted them all up--there are 120 usages in Mr. Woodhouse's sense of
the word (as opposed to 70 in MP, 65 in S&S, and 50 in P&P), and only
_ten_ referring to an actual lack of wealth.
This drumbeat of usages portrays for us, subliminally, that Emma swims
in an elitist ocean in which not only are the poor neglected, but even
the word "poor" itself has even been robbed of its simple, hard meaning.
The endless, ticcish reference to very lucky people being "poor", by
negative implication, reminds us that there is no real interest amon
this elite set in _real_ poverty, beyond the occasional ritual of
pretending to care which Emma's and Harriet's visit to the poor, sick
family illustrates. I.e., there is something morally ugly in the way
these privileged people toss that word around so freely, living in a
world where the vast majority of people living in their community were
_really_ poor, in a very desperate way.
Perhaps the coup de grace in this regard is the way JA sets up a subtle
contrast between what Knightley says to Emma in Chapter 43 right after
she insults Miss Bates at Box Hill, on the one hand….
“[Miss Bates] is POOR; she has sunk from the comforts she was born to;
and, if she live to old age, must probably sink more. Her situation
should secure your compassion.”
…and what Emma thinks in Chapter 53 not long afterwards, as she
playfully teases Knightley with what her father’s reaction will be to
her marrying Knightley:
“…I wish I may not SINK into 'POOR Emma' with him at once.—His tender
compassion towards oppressed WORTH can go no farther."
The echoes of the earlier passage in the later one are completely
intentional on JA's part. Sure, Emma sheds tears and gets very upset for
a short while, after Knightley chastises her for her gross insensitivity
to Miss Bates's financial straits. But somehow, within ten chapters,
covering one short month, all that remains in Emma's mind from
Knightley's lecture is a self-protective translation _back_ into the
safe, comforting, totally insensitive usage of the words "sink" and
"poor", as Emma jokingly refers to herself with words which Knightley
used in the most serious way to describe Miss Bates.
Emma pats herself on the back for her moral growth after Knightley's
lecture, but it's just one more self-delusion on Emma's part, aided and
abetted by Knightley's very suspicious dropping of any pretense at
providing moral instruction to Emma. Inside, she is still exactly the
same exact insensitive member of the privileged class she was before,
and Knightley knows it very well, and simply does not give a damn,
because he is getting what he wants---Emma's thirty thousand a year.
And, if Knightley is marrying Emma for her money, as I say he is, it's a
kind of of ironic poetic justice, since she has so little genuine
compassion for the truly poor. He's robbing from the rich to pay....the
rich. Nothing has changed.
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
- Deirdre Le Faye & Me: "I am a scholar, she is a scholar: so far we are equal"
- The Hunger Games’s Veiled Allusion to Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus
- Darcy's "We neither of us perform to strangers": a Radical New Interpretation
- August Wayne Booth in Once Upon A Time: Jane Austen Really IS Everywhere in 2012!
- 20 shades of hero/villain Mr. Darcy