In my
last post… http://tinyurl.com/pnzz3vj … I wrote about the passages in
Psalms 12 and Proverbs 16 which I believe Miss Bates slyly alluded to in order
to covertly express outrage and defiance to Emma and Mr. Woodhouse, when she
said “our lot is cast in a goodly heritage” and “You quite oppress her”. Such
outrage and defiance is of course the opposite of the gratitude Chapman
believed Miss Bates was expressing via Psalm 16, which Chapman (in my view mis)identified
in 1933 as Miss Bates’s Biblical touchstone.
Shortly
thereafter, I received an extraordinary suggestion from Summer Kinard (an
author and avid Janeite): “But the most
salient and foremost memorable casting of lots for any Christian is of course the
Passion of Christ. The mockery is more likely writ larger than you supposed.
Not only does she lambast them for leaving her scraps, but she compares their
pork to the suffering Christ.” Of
course, the Biblical passages Summer had in mind re the casting of lots are to
be found in the following parallel verses in three of the four Biblical
Gospels:
Mark
15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, CASTING LOTS
upon them, what every man should take.
Matthew
27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments
among them, and upon my vesture did they CAST LOTS.
John
19:
23 Then
the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four
parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without
seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They
said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but CAST LOTS for it,
whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They
parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did CAST LOTS. These
things therefore the soldiers did.
Did
you notice Matthew’s curious reference to “casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet”? And
did you wonder, as I did, which prophecy it was that Matthew believed was being
fulfilled by the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’s garments? A quick
online search revealed to me what someone much better versed than I in the
relationship between passages in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian additions
thereto would already know---that the essence of the Gospel crucifixion
accounts is to be found in the following verses of Psalm 22, of course from the
Hebrew Bible and written centuries before Jesus’s lifetime:
1 My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me,
and from the words of my roaring?
2 O
my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season,
and am not silent.
6 But
I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All
they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the
head, saying,
8 He
trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he
delighted in him.
11 Be
not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
15 My
strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and
thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For
dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they
pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may
tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and CAST
LOTS upon my vesture.
And
so the casting of lots for Jesus’s garments in the Gospels, as well as Jesus’s
loud forsaken cry to God (Mark 15: 34 & Matthew 27: 46), and the piercing
of hands and feet, all find their origin in the above verses
of Psalm 22 (just as, not coincidentally, Jesus’s summary of the Lord’s Prayer
in Matthew 6:9-13 derives from the very next Psalm--#23).
And that
brings me to my main point—i.e., even though I didn’t know about that textual
linkage, I am pretty darned sure Jane Austen did, and therefore so did Miss
Bates! And so my first response to Summer was “Brilliant and spot-on!”, because
for some time I’ve seen Emma’s humiliation of Miss Bates on Box Hill as a
parody of Jesus being mocked by the soldiers on Golgotha. And I’ve also long seen
Miss Bates in general during the whole course of the novel, as a Christ figure
who suffers at the hand of “Caesar”, i.e., the reigning authorities of
Highbury—the Woodhouses and Mr. Knightley.
So to
now find such unexpected textual support for that reading in both the Hebrew
and the Christian Bible was a delight for me, and a validation of my reading. I
read Psalm 22, above, as yet another impassioned cry by Miss Bates, forsaken by
her former equals, on behalf of herself but also for the poor powerless folk of
Highbury whose commons have been “inclosed” by “the wicked” large landowners
like…Mr. Knightley!
And,
best of all, Summer’s brilliant insight led me to fresh, fruitful lines of
inquiry. First, I went back to the Hebrew Bible and found two additional
passages there, in addition to Psalms 22 and Proverbs 16, which I also claim Jane
Austen subtly wove into the subtext of Miss Bates’s riddling and surprisingly
complex Biblical paraphrase about casting lots and goodly heritage.
First,
in Leviticus 17, we read:
7 And
[Aaron] shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door
of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall CAST LOTS upon the two
goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the SCAPEGOAT.
9 And
Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a
sin offering.
How
about Miss Bates as the scapegoat who has actually drawn the unlucky lot, and
has been cast (but in another sense has also escaped?) out of the “community”
she was born into, meaning the secure, healthy, bountiful life of a prosperous
gentlewoman. As Knightley memorably put it:
“Were
she your equal in situation—but, Emma, consider how far this is from being the
case. She 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. It was badly done, indeed!”
And
by the way, the above is congruent with the following observation I made in
2013, having no idea re the above allusion: “the whole discussion between Miss
Bates and Mr. Woodhouse about the gift of pork from Hartfield to the Bateses…is,
among other things, a very sly sendup of Leviticus 11:
7 And the SWINE, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of
their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are
unclean to you.”
But
even more germane to Miss Bates’s aphorism is Joel 3:2-5, which is actually the
only passage in the entire Bible
which contains all four of the keywords
that Miss Bates used: lot, cast, goodly, & heritage. Therefore, it
logically has the strongest claim of all as the primary source for Miss
Bates—and it is a rabble-rousing speech!:
Joel
3:
1
For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the
captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will
also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of
Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them
there for my people and for MY HERITAGE Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my
land.
3 And they have CAST LOTS for my people; and
have given a boy for an HARLOT, and sold a girl for wine, that they might
drink.
4 Yea,
and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of
Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and
speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;
5 Because ye have taken my silver and my gold,
and have carried into your temples my GOODLY PLEASANT things:
6 The children also of Judah and the children
of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from
their border.
7 Behold, I will raise them out of
the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your
own head:
8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters
into the hand of the children of Judah, and
they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.
This
is the life of the Bates family in a nutshell—stripped of all wealth, and their
humanity so devalued by their “conquerors” that they literally have had no
option but to give up their babies to other families, which is what I see
happening to both Miss Bates a generation earlier (when she gave up her “niece”—i.e.,
her daughter---Jane!), and also to Jane, when she gives up baby Anna to Mrs.
Weston.
And
then, finally, armed with insight into all that Hebrew Biblical subtext, I went
back into the text of Emma, and found
the following additional winks by JA at Jesus and the Gospels.
First,
Emma callously describing Miss Bates’s life to Harriet:
“…Those
who can barely live, and who live perforce in a very small, and generally very
inferior, society, may well be illiberal and CROSS. This does not apply,
however, to Miss Bates; she is only too good natured and too silly to suit me;
but, in general, she is VERY MUCH TO THE TASTE OF EVERY BODY, though single and
though poor. Poverty certainly has not contracted her mind: I really believe,
if she had only a shilling in the world, she would be very likely to give away
sixpence of it; and nobody is afraid of her: that is a great charm."
It’s
not just the “cross” reference (so to speak), it’s also the sense Summer Kinard
picked up on with the Woodhouse pork as the suffering Jesus – Miss Bates, like
the pork, tastes good, to those who “feast”
on her flesh—we are right back to the homage of Swift’s Modest Proposal that Diane Reynolds and I see in that same passage!
So once again, bravo Summer!
And
then, at Donwell Abbey & Box Hill as parodic Golgothas, we have a myriad of
“cross” references, with Frank’s overheated angst an over the top, extended parody
of Jesus’s horrific suffering on the cross. To grasp the parody, just pay close
attention to the passages I’ve put in ALL CAPS, and think about how they relate
to the thirsty death and anticipated second coming of Jesus as told in the
Gospels, with Frank as the “crossed” Jesus, and Emma as the God who does not
really “hear” him.
First
at Donwell Abbey, Frank describes (if you will) the “stations” of his “cross”-ness,
including his doubts and his suffering [only four chapters after we read in
Chapter 38 how “Frank Churchill returned to HIS STATION by Emma.”].
“The
heat was excessive; HE HAD NEVER SUFFERED ANY THING LIKE IT—ALMOST WISHED HE
HAD STAID AT HOME—nothing KILLED HIM like heat—he could bear any degree of
cold, etc., but heat was INTOLERABLE—and he sat down, at the greatest possible
distance from the slight remains of Mr. Woodhouse's fire, looking very
deplorable.
"You
will soon be cooler, if you sit still," said Emma.
"As
soon as I am cooler I SHALL GO BACK AGAIN. I could very ill be spared—but SUCH
A POINT HAS BEEN MADE OF MY COMING! You will all be going soon I suppose; the
whole party breaking up. I met one as I came—Madness in such
weather!—absolute madness!"
Emma
listened, and looked, and soon perceived that Frank Churchill's state might be
best defined by the expressive phrase of being out of humour. Some people were
always CROSS when they were hot. Such might be his constitution; and as she
knew that eating and DRINKING were often THE CURE OF SUCH INCIDENTAL COMPLAINTS,
she recommended his taking some REFRESHMENT; he would find abundance of every
thing in the dining-room—and she HUMANELY pointed out the door.
…"You
are not quite so miserable, though, as when you first came. Go and eat and DRINK
a little more, and you will do very well. Another slice of cold meat, ANOTHER
DRAUGHT OF MADEIRA AND WATER, will make you nearly on a par with the rest of
us."
"No—I
shall not stir. I shall sit by you. You are my best cure."
"We
are going to Box Hill to-morrow;—you will join us. It is not Swisserland, but
it will be something for A YOUNG MAN SO MUCH IN WANT OF A CHANGE. You will
stay, and go with us?"
"No,
certainly not; I SHALL GO HOME IN THE COOL OF THE EVENING."
"But
YOU MAY COME AGAIN IN THE COOL OF TOMORROW MORNING."
"No—It
will not be worth while. IF I COME, I SHALL BE CROSS."
"Then
PRAY stay at Richmond."
"But
if I do, I shall be CROSSER STILL. I CAN NEVER BEAR to think of you all there WITHOUT
ME."
"These
are difficulties which you must settle for yourself. Chuse your own degree of CROSSNESS.
I shall press you no more."
At
Box Hill the next day, they continue this conversation as if it never ended,
first looking back:
…"How
much I am obliged to you," said he, "for telling me TO COME TO-DAY!—If
it had not been for you, I should certainly have lost all the happiness of this
party. I had quite determined to go away again."
"Yes,
you were VERY CROSS; and I do not know what about, except that you were too
late for the best strawberries. I was a kinder friend than you deserved. But
you were humble. You begged hard to be COMMANDED TO COME."
"Don't
say I was CROSS. I was fatigued. The heat overcame me."
The
punning has only just begun on the Mosaic “commandments” of God (Emma) and also
Jesus (Frank) passing on to the gathering on the mount known as Box Hill the
new Christian version of those commandments we call The Sermon on the Mount:
"It
is hotter to-day."
"Not
to my feelings. I am perfectly comfortable to-day."
"You
are comfortable because you are under COMMAND."
"Your
COMMAND?—Yes."
"Perhaps
I intended you to say so, but I meant self-COMMAND. You had, somehow or other,
broken bounds yesterday, and run away from your own management; but to-day you
are got back again—and as I cannot be always with you, it is best to believe
your temper under your own COMMAND rather than mine."
"It
comes to the same thing. I can have no self-COMMAND without a motive. YOU ORDER
ME, WHETHER YOU SPEAK OR NOT. And YOU CAN BE ALWAYS WITH ME. YOU ARE ALWAYS
WITH ME."
Apropos
that last line of Frank’s, recall what the resurrected Jesus says in the final
verses of the Gospel of Matthew:
16 Then
the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, INTO A MOUNTAIN WHERE JESUS HAD
APPOINTED THEM.
17 And
when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And
Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth.
19 Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I AM WITH
YOU ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But
Jane Austen cannot resist one more virtuosic double Biblical flourish, as Emma
inadvertently enters into Frank’s extravagant, sacrilegious Biblical metaphor,
and then Frank starts orating:
"DATING
FROM THREE O’CLOCK YESTERDAY. MY PERPETUAL INFLUENCE COULD NOT BEGIN EARLIER,
or you would not have been so much out of humour before."
"THREE
O’CLOCK YESTERDAY! THAT IS YOUR DATE. I thought I had SEEN YOU FIRST IN
FEBRUARY."
"Your
gallantry is really unanswerable. But (lowering her voice)—nobody speaks except
ourselves, and it is rather too much to be talking nonsense for the
entertainment of seven silent people."
"I
say nothing of which I am ashamed," replied he, with lively impudence.
"I SAW YOU FIRST IN FEBRUARY. LET EVERY BODY ON THE HILL HEAR ME IF THEY
CAN. Let my accents swell to Mickleham on one side, and Dorking on the other. I
SAW YOU FIRST IN FEBRUARY." And then whispering—"Our companions are
excessively stupid. What shall we do to rouse them? Any nonsense will serve.
They shall talk. Ladies and gentlemen, I am ordered by Miss Woodhouse
(who, wherever she is, presides) to say, that she desires to know what you are
all thinking of?"
Do
you recognize the joke behind Emma’s insistence that her command over Frank
began when he showed up at Donwell Abbey at 3 pm the day before, all “out of
humour”? Of course, this is Jesus who (per Mark) was crucified at “the third
hour”! That would indeed be the moment when Jesus died and his spirit ascended
to God, no longer “out of humour” suffering on the cross, and he entered
Paradise.
And
what about Emma saying she saw Frank first in February and then Frank repeating
it twice more (the last time, orating to the assembled multitude on Box Hill)? What’s
that about?
Well,
it is of course true that Frank finally shows up in Highbury in the first week
of February—but how might that relate to Jesus? We must travel backwards from
the very end of Jesus’s life all the way to the very beginning thereof:
Luke
2:
21 And
when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name
was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in
the womb.
22 And
when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were
accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.
In
the Church of England, the events reported in Luke 2:21-22, commonly referred
to as “The Presentation of Christ in the Temple”, are celebrated on the
Anglican liturgical calendar as a Principal Feast either on February 2 or on
the Sunday between January 28 and February 3. So, isn’t it very curious that
Frank shows up in Highbury during the first week of February, and then this
fact is repeated, for no other apparent reason connected to the unfolding of
the plot, a total of three times by Emma and Frank? Of course, this is the
bookend to the Gospel significance of “3 o’clock yesterday’!!!
And
actually, that threefold repetition of what appears to be a very “dull thing” is
also, I now see, the inspiration to Frank for his spontaneous proposal of a new
game--that someone come up with three dull things. And how fitting that this
frivolous proposal eventually prompts Emma to humiliate Miss Bates by limited
her to saying a maximum of three dull things at once—which brings us full circle
on Miss Bates’s “our lot is cast in a goodly heritage”—to Emma, just another
one of the many “dull things” Miss Bates pours out at a rate so alarming to
Emma, but to the knowing reader, a truly goodly heritage---that is, of the
Bible read through the “spectacles” of the subversive, outside-the-box,
heretical genius of Jane Austen!
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode
on Twitter
