The
Jane Austen world took note yesterday of her finally being cited in a US
Supreme Court opinion, in this case one signed by Scalia, in which the decision
to apply a harsh federal statute in order to impose severe sentencing penalties
hinged on interpretation of a 1934 federal statue’s usage of the word “accompany”:
“In
1934…just as today, to “accompany” someone meant to “go with” him. See Oxford
English Dictionary…defining “accompany” as: “To go in company with, to go along
with”. The word does not, as Whitfield contends, connote movement over a
substantial distance. It was, and still is, perfectly natural to speak of accompanying
someone over a relatively short distance, for example: from one area within a
bank “to the vault”; “to the altar” at a wedding; “up the stairway”; or into,
out of, or across a room. English literature is replete with examples. See,
e.g., C. Dickens, David Copperfield… (Uriah “ACCOMPANIED me into Mr.
Wickfield’s room”); J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice...(Elizabeth “ACCOMPANIED
her out of the room”).
When I first read the above excerpt, I was confused, and it
took a minute for me to realize that it was not carefully worded, and so was inadvertently
misleading. It should have been written as follows:
“The word does not, as Whitfield
contends, SOLELY connote movement over a substantial distance. It was, and
still is, ALSO perfectly natural to speak of accompanying someone over a
relatively short distance…”
The defendant’s attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to
interpret the word “accompany” in the statute narrowly, so as to ONLY refer to
long distance movement.
Now, let me first be clear-- I entirely agree with the Court’s
holding, and note that this decision was unanimous, meaning that the entire
liberal wing of the Supreme Court joined with Scalia and his conservative wing
on it. Okay, so the defendant probably did not imagine or desire that his
elderly hostage would suffer a heart attack when he forced her into another
room in her house, but that is what actually and tragically happened, and so a
strict karmic justice seems to have been decisive in this instance – the defendant
was unlucky, maybe, but he assumed that risk and his victim paid a terrible
price.
But
aside from those very real-life and significant legal considerations, I do have
a small curmudgeonly axe to grind with the choice of fictional textual examples
in the decision. The quotes from Dickens and Austen about characters accompanying
one another over a very small distance are not the most on-point examples. Why?
Because they do not involve NONCONSENSUAL accompaniment!
And perhaps
that non-onpointness should not be surprising, given that although the words “accompany”
and “force” seem antithetical, they were strung together by the draftsman of
the 1934 Act of Congress.
All
the same, I wondered whether Scalia’s law clerk, had (s)he analyzed more
deeply, and then had gone back to the original sources, i.e., Austen’s novels
themselves, rather than the OED, could have found better examples.
And I
just determined, after less than 10 minutes of searching, that there actually
ARE a handful of very apt examples in JA’s novels of nonconsensual accompaniment,
which would have been much more satisfying in supporting the Court’s rationale
for its decision on that crucial point of statutory interpretation. And here
they are, without further ado.
First,
we have Fanny Price who finds herself unable to avoid being accompanied from
the Parsonage back to the big house at Mansfield Park:
“Fanny's
hurry increased; and without in the least expecting Edmund's attendance, she
would have hastened away alone; but the general pace was quickened, and they
all ACCOMPANIED her into the house, through which it was necessary to pass.”
Second
there are two examples in Emma, both
pertaining to Jane Fairfax.
The
first has to do with Emma’s speculations about why Jane was not forced to accompany
the Dixons to Ireland:
“Considering
the very particular friendship between her and Mrs. Dixon, you could hardly
have expected her to be excused from ACCOMPANYING Colonel and Mrs. Campbell [to
Ireland]."
The
second is about a very different, musical sort of “accompaniment” which
nonetheless perfectly fits the context of the Supreme Court’s decision, because
the coercion of accompaniment is foregrounded:
“One ACCOMPANIMENT
to her song took her agreeably by surprize—a second, slightly but correctly
taken by Frank Churchill. Her pardon was duly begged at the close of the song,
and every thing usual followed. He was accused of having a delightful voice,
and a perfect knowledge of music; which was properly denied; and that he knew
nothing of the matter, and had no voice at all, roundly asserted. They sang
together once more; and Emma would then resign her place to Miss Fairfax, whose
performance, both vocal and instrumental, she never could attempt to conceal
from herself, was infinitely superior to her own.”
Then,
after Frank has in effect coerced Jane into accompanying him in song for too
long a time, Knightley angrily intervenes:
"Miss
Bates, are you mad, to let your niece sing herself hoarse in this manner? Go,
and interfere. They have no mercy on her."
And
finally, in Northanger Abbey, Chapter 22, we have the best example of forced
accompaniment in the Austen canon, courtesy of that Montoni of forced coercion,
General Tilney. As the host at the Abbey, and also (implicitly) as a suitor for
the heroine’s hand in marriage, although she does not realize it, he wants to
show his digs off to her:
“Something
had been said the evening before of her being shown over the house, and he now
offered himself as her conductor; and though Catherine had hoped to explore it ACCOMPANIED
only by his daughter, it was a proposal of too much happiness in itself, under
any circumstances, not to be gladly accepted; for she had been already eighteen
hours in the abbey, and had seen only a few of its rooms. The netting-box, just
leisurely drawn forth, was closed with joyful haste, and she was ready to
attend him in a moment. "And when they had gone over the house, he
promised himself moreover the pleasure of ACCOMPANYING her into the shrubberies
and garden." She curtsied her acquiescence. "But perhaps it might be
more agreeable to her to make those her first object. The weather was at
present favourable, and at this time of year the uncertainty was very great of
its continuing so. Which would she prefer? He was equally at her service. Which
did his daughter think would most accord with her fair friend's wishes? But he
thought he could discern. Yes, he certainly read in Miss Morland's eyes a
judicious desire of making use of the present smiling weather. But when did she
judge amiss? The abbey would be always safe and dry. He yielded implicitly, and
would fetch his hat and attend them in a moment." He left the room, and
Catherine, with a disappointed, anxious face, began to speak of her
unwillingness that he should be taking them out of doors against his own
inclination, under a mistaken idea of pleasing her; but she was stopped by Miss
Tilney's saying, with a little confusion, "I believe it will be wisest to
take the morning while it is so fine; and do not be uneasy on my father's
account; he always walks out at this time of day."
That
passage perfectly captures the coercion thinly concealed beneath the General’s
superficial politeness. He, like Don Corleone, truly makes Catherine a hostly
offer she cannot refuse—and then JA allows Catherine, her innocent, but very
insightful, heroine to be the one to unwittingly show that the Emperor is
unclothed, when Catherine “with a disappointed, anxious face, began to speak of
her unwillingness that he should be taking them out of doors against his own
inclination, under a mistaken idea of pleasing her.”
And
then, in a fitting counterpoint, when Henry Tilney finally grows a pair, and
revolts against his father’s selfish dictatorial control, we read:
“He
steadily refused to ACCOMPANY his father into Herefordshire, an engagement
formed almost at the moment to promote the dismissal of Catherine, and as
steadily declared his intention of offering her his hand. The general was
furious in his anger, and they parted in dreadful disagreement.”
Bravo
Catherine and bravo Henry!
And in
closing, perhaps the largest point I take away from the above examples, which all
involve a woman being forced to accompany a man, is that Jane Austen herself
would have concurred in the Supreme Court’s decision to impose a harsher sentence
on a man who made a tragic decision to force a woman to accompany him against
her will.
An
issue which sadly remains in the forefront of our criminal justice systems, as
women rightly around the world rise up against such coerced accompaniments in
every form.
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode
on Twitter
