In my previous message, I connected three "dots"---JA's mentionings of "cucumbers" in Love and Freindship, Letter 35, and Pride and Prejudice, respectively. However, I deliberately held back connecting those three dots to one additional one, because I wanted to give special emphasis to what I deem to be the supreme importance of the _fourth_ additional reference to cucumbers in JA's writings, which appears in Letter 146 written to JEAL in late 1816, and which goes as follows:
"Tell your father, with aunt Cass’s love and mine, that the pickled cucumbers are extremely good, and tell him also—‘tell him what you will.’ No, don’t tell him what you will, but tell him that grandmamma begs him to make Joseph Hall pay his rent, if he can.”
Le Faye's footnote claims that the quotation "tell him what you will" is an allusion to Hannah Cowley's 1783 comedy of manners, _Which is the Man?_, which apparently was one of the pieces performed during the era of the Steventon amateur theatricals.
I would like, however, to suggest an alternative allusive source, one which holds a much darker meaning, one which Le Faye, if she was aware of it, was not about to point her readers to, for the reasons I will unfold below.
It can be found in the letter written by Robert Lovelace to his confidant Belford in Samuel Richardson's _Clarissa_, after Lovelace has tried to pass himself and Clarissa as already being husband and wife, even though they are not yet married:
[Lovelace] What, my dear, would you have me to say to the captain tomorrow morning?--I have given him room to think--
[Clarissa] Then put him right, Mr Lovelace. Tell the truth. Tell him what you please of your relations' favour to me: TELL HIM WHAT YOU WILL about the settlements: and if when drawn, you will submit them to his perusal and approbation, it will show him how much you are in earnest."
And what is most disturbing is what happens shortly _after_ that moment in Richardson's dark novel. I.e., Clarissa, unknowingly lured to a brothel in Covent Garden run by the infamous Mrs. Sinclair, is raped by Lovelace after being drugged. In the immediate aftermath of this traumatic event, Clarissa raves semi-coherently in a series of delirious, guilt-ridden scribbled notes to Lovelace and various members of her family.
And those ravings sound _very_ much like the ravings in Love and Freindship in which the histrionic heroine, who has also suffered a traumatic shock, refers, inter alia, to her recently deceased beloved Edward as a "cucumber". And those ravings also include a surreal reference to a "present" which is strikingly reminiscent of the otherwise mysterious reference to a "present" in Letter 35, as follows:
Letter 35: "The cucumber will, I believe, be a very acceptable _present_, as my uncle talks of having inquired the price of one lately, when he was told a shilling."
Clarissa'smad talk about a baby wild animal, which changes from a lion to a bear to a tiger within two sentences: "It was made her a present of when a whelp..."
Now, why, I ask, would the 41 year old (and very ill) JA make a veiled but pointed allusion to the mad Clarissa, revisiting a veiled allusion to the mad Clarissa which JA made in her 16-year old fiction _Love and Freindship_? And why would JA go further and veiledly cast her brother James as Lovelace in Letter 146, written to, of all people, James's own son?! And that is, by the way, the same Letter 146 in which JA wrote her famous--and I claim completely insincere--self-deprecation about writing her novels on "two inches of ivory"?
I suggest that JA's veiled potshots at James Austen in Letter 146 are of a piece with JA's report, in Letter 157 to brother Charles, written only 4 months after Letter 146, of JA's relapse into serious illness due to another traumatically shocking event---the same relapse which JEAL deceitfully tried to reframe in his Memoir as having been triggered by Henry Austen's bankruptcy, but which Letter 157 clearly lays at the door of the Leigh-Perrot disinheritance of the Austen women, a disinheritance which would ultimately redound to the exclusive benefit of JEAL himself!
In effect, I suggest, JA is saying in so many words that James Austen is the equivalent of a pickled cucumber, in the Freudian sense---a man who has taken extreme and dastardly advantage of a woman of whom he ought to have taken extreme care--and this event has been so shocking to JA as to hasten her death --which is precisely what happened to Clarissa in the aftermath of Lovelace's abominable act!
I find this all extremely chilling and disturbing.
Cheers, ARNIE
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Jane Austen's Cucumbers
On 7/29/2011 10:30 AM, Diane Reynolds wrote:
> I keep pondering the shilling for a cucumber in Letter 35. I want to think that's about $10 in today's money. Can that be? That seems impossible. But perhaps it's a commentary on how much fresh produce will be in the city, that the Austens grew for virtually nothing in the country. Or perhaps a cucumber was an exotic item?
Diane,
You are spot-on in identifying this passage about a one-shilling cucumber as significant. It is indeed absurd---but the answer to your good question does not lie in eliminating the absurdity, and finding some rational analysis of the actual cost of actual edible cucumbers in Bath in 1801, or in anything else from the real world of food commerce. Instead, the answer must be sought in the _mind_ of the author who wrote the following suggestive and absurdist passages in her fiction, pointing to a very different sort of commerce, and a very different sort of "cucumber" than you've been thinking of:
Love & Freindship:
"Talk not to me of Phaetons (said I, raving in a frantic, incoherent manner) -- Give me a violin. -- I'll play to him and sooth him in his melancholy Hours -- Beware ye gentle Nymphs of Cupid's Thunderbolts, avoid the piercing Shafts of Jupiter -- Look at that Grove of Firs -- I see a Leg of Mutton -- They told me Edward was not Dead; but they deceived me -- they took him for a CUCUMBER --" Thus I continued wildly exclaiming on my Edward's Death."
The great Sigmund himself could not have invented a more Freudian passage if he had tried--and recall that JA wrote this passage as a 16 year old!
Pride & Prejudice:
"It was the second week in May, in which the three young ladies set out together from Gracechurch Street for the town of ——, in Hertfordshire; and, as they drew near the appointed inn where Mr. Bennet's carriage was to meet them, they quickly perceived, in token of the coachman's punctuality, both Kitty and Lydia looking out of a dining-room upstairs. These two girls had been above an hour in the place, happily employed in visiting an opposite milliner, watching the sentinel on guard, and dressing a salad and cucumber. "
Isn't it interesting that the above passage in P&P pertains to a long trip from one place in England to another, just as is the case in JA's May 1801 letter? And we know from so many of the previous letters we've discussed this year that JA embedded many echoes of her novels (especially P&P and NA) in these letters.
And then remember what a "milliner" was slang for in JA's time:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/to-die-of-laughter-school-for-jane.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/highbury-tradesman.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/morality-of-philadelphia-austen-hancock.html
And then imagine what sort of "salad and cucumber", the "dressing" of which would have kept a young lady like Lydia Bennet "happily employed" "above an hour" in a "milliner's" shop near a much-trafficked inn.
And there's a lot more where that came from.....
Cheers, ARNIE
> I keep pondering the shilling for a cucumber in Letter 35. I want to think that's about $10 in today's money. Can that be? That seems impossible. But perhaps it's a commentary on how much fresh produce will be in the city, that the Austens grew for virtually nothing in the country. Or perhaps a cucumber was an exotic item?
Diane,
You are spot-on in identifying this passage about a one-shilling cucumber as significant. It is indeed absurd---but the answer to your good question does not lie in eliminating the absurdity, and finding some rational analysis of the actual cost of actual edible cucumbers in Bath in 1801, or in anything else from the real world of food commerce. Instead, the answer must be sought in the _mind_ of the author who wrote the following suggestive and absurdist passages in her fiction, pointing to a very different sort of commerce, and a very different sort of "cucumber" than you've been thinking of:
Love & Freindship:
"Talk not to me of Phaetons (said I, raving in a frantic, incoherent manner) -- Give me a violin. -- I'll play to him and sooth him in his melancholy Hours -- Beware ye gentle Nymphs of Cupid's Thunderbolts, avoid the piercing Shafts of Jupiter -- Look at that Grove of Firs -- I see a Leg of Mutton -- They told me Edward was not Dead; but they deceived me -- they took him for a CUCUMBER --" Thus I continued wildly exclaiming on my Edward's Death."
The great Sigmund himself could not have invented a more Freudian passage if he had tried--and recall that JA wrote this passage as a 16 year old!
Pride & Prejudice:
"It was the second week in May, in which the three young ladies set out together from Gracechurch Street for the town of ——, in Hertfordshire; and, as they drew near the appointed inn where Mr. Bennet's carriage was to meet them, they quickly perceived, in token of the coachman's punctuality, both Kitty and Lydia looking out of a dining-room upstairs. These two girls had been above an hour in the place, happily employed in visiting an opposite milliner, watching the sentinel on guard, and dressing a salad and cucumber. "
Isn't it interesting that the above passage in P&P pertains to a long trip from one place in England to another, just as is the case in JA's May 1801 letter? And we know from so many of the previous letters we've discussed this year that JA embedded many echoes of her novels (especially P&P and NA) in these letters.
And then remember what a "milliner" was slang for in JA's time:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/to-die-of-laughter-school-for-jane.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/highbury-tradesman.html
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/morality-of-philadelphia-austen-hancock.html
And then imagine what sort of "salad and cucumber", the "dressing" of which would have kept a young lady like Lydia Bennet "happily employed" "above an hour" in a "milliner's" shop near a much-trafficked inn.
And there's a lot more where that came from.....
Cheers, ARNIE
Friday, July 29, 2011
A Little Quiz
I just realized something this morning, which I thought might be a good subject for a little quiz, which is:
Which 2 out of the 6 Austen novels have the greatest frequency of the word "real" (or a variant of the word such as, e.g., "really")?
Hint--the 2 novels with the greatest frequency consist of one of the three shorter novels (NA, P&P, and Persuasion), and one of the three longer novels (S&S, MP, and Emma).
Hint #2: The difference in frequency is very dramatic between these 2 novels and the other 4, i.e., pretty much twice as frequently.
Any guesses? If you do guess, it would also be fun if you speculate as to WHY those 2 novels would have double the frequency of that word as the other 4.
I will give the answer tomorrow morning EST, unless someone guesses both correct answers sooner, and I will also give my own speculation as to why those 2 novels were given this special treatment by JA.
Cheers, ARNIE
Which 2 out of the 6 Austen novels have the greatest frequency of the word "real" (or a variant of the word such as, e.g., "really")?
Hint--the 2 novels with the greatest frequency consist of one of the three shorter novels (NA, P&P, and Persuasion), and one of the three longer novels (S&S, MP, and Emma).
Hint #2: The difference in frequency is very dramatic between these 2 novels and the other 4, i.e., pretty much twice as frequently.
Any guesses? If you do guess, it would also be fun if you speculate as to WHY those 2 novels would have double the frequency of that word as the other 4.
I will give the answer tomorrow morning EST, unless someone guesses both correct answers sooner, and I will also give my own speculation as to why those 2 novels were given this special treatment by JA.
Cheers, ARNIE
Thursday, July 28, 2011
"The other Mary" in Letters 49 & 50....even though Lord Brabourne and Deirdre Le Faye would not want you to connect those two dots
Not to go out of order in our group read of JA's letters, but I happened to come across two passages in Letters 49 & 50 today, which fits perfectly with the notion that JA did not think very highly of Mary Lloyd Austen....and how!
First here is the relevant passage in Letter 49:
"Alphonsine" did not do. We were disgusted in twenty pages, as, independent of a bad translation, it has indelicacies which disgrace a pen hitherto so pure; and we changed it for the "Female Quixotte," which now makes our evening amusement; to me a very high one, as I find the work quite equal to what I remembered it. Mrs. F. A., to whom it is new, enjoys it as one could wish; the other Mary, I believe, has little pleasure from that or any other book."
The standard interpretation of the first part of that quotation is that JA and the other two ladies in her ad hoc reading group, her sisters in law Mrs. Frank Austen and Mrs. James Austen, were all disgusted at the theme of adultery depicted in de Genlis's Alphonsine, and that is why the book was put aside for another. I have never found that argument convincing, and have always believed that JA here is doing what she does so often in her letters, i.e., assuming the voice of another person for purposes of satire and irony--and in this instance, I believe that other person is none other than Mary Lloyd Austen!
Why would JA do this in this case? Because we can see the reason in what JA writes at the end of that same paragraph---"the other Mary, I believe, has little pleasure from that or any other book."
It seems clear to me that Frank's wife Mary is not the problem here, it is James's wife Mary, a prig, who puts the kibosh on reading any further in de Genlis. Here's how i reconstruct the background on this---first, I believe it was JA who brought Alphonsine forward in the first place--after all, it is well known that JA was very interested in de Genlis's fiction. And it could not have been Frank's wife Mary who brought it forward, she was all of _seventeen_ in 1807 (she married Frank at age 16 a year earlier!), and she was hardly going to be bringing forward risque literature for her two much older and more mature sisters in law to read.
So...the barely concealed subtext of this passage is a little power struggle between Jane Austen and James's wife Mary, and the "turf" being contested between them is JA's "home field", i.e., literature.
When Alphonsine is tossed aside at Mary Lloyd Austen's insistence, I see JA as the one who then comes forward with _another_ subversive feminist-tinged text, The Female Quixote, by Charlotte Lennox. And of course Mary Lloyd Austen has little pleasure in it either, which is what prompts JA's openly derisive barb at her Bowdlerizing sister in law.
And which also, I believe, finds its way into Pride and Prejudice, in the mouth of the equally unpleasant Caroline Bingley:
"Miss Eliza Bennet," said Miss Bingley, "despises cards. She is a great reader, and has no pleasure in anything else."
"I deserve neither such praise nor such censure," cried Elizabeth; "I am NOT a great reader, and I have pleasure in many things."
Now _that_ is a sweet revenge on JA's part, to paint Mary Lloyd Austen as Caroline Bingley, getting her comeuppance from JA's most attractive and witty heroine, Lizzy Bennet!
And...what seals the deal on this interpretation, I claim, is the following passage in Letter 50, written exactly one month after Letter 49:
"I should not be surprised if we were to be visited by James again this week; he gave us reason to expect him soon, and if they go to Eversley he cannot come next week. I am sorry & angry that his Visits should not give us more pleasure; the company of so good & so clever a Man ought to be gratifying in itself; – but his Chat seems all forced, his Opinions on many points too much copied from his Wife’s, & his time here is spent I think in walking about the House & banging the doors, or ringing the Bell for a glass of Water."
First, what is noteworthy is that Lord Brabourne, that unashamed Bowlderizer, in his 1884 edition of the letters, deleted everything in that paragraph after the words "he cannot come next week." Of course he does this, because this is an additional unmasked attack by JA on James Austen, and that just won't do to let Janeites see JA being so severe in her judgment on both her elder brother James and his wife.
But note in particular the reference to "his Opinions on many points too much copied from his Wife's", and think about it in connection with JA's assuming the voice of Mary Lloyd Austen in rendering a harsh judgment on de Genlis's Alphonsine. That is surely one of the opinions which James has been forced to mouth in support of his wife!
And finally, why do I suggest in my Subject Line that Deirdre Le Faye does not want us to connect these passages in Letters 49 & 50? After all, she never connects the dots between passages in different letters, whether or not they are controversial passages or not. And she does not delete any of the text of the letters as Brabourne did.
No, what she did was much sneakier, and really is her M.O., always doing her censorious work in the shadows---very simply, Le Faye fails to include a reference to the above passage in Letter 49 in Mary Lloyd Austen's index entry! Therefore, a reader who was not able to deduce who the "other Mary" was, would not be able to connect these passages in these two letters, and realize their full mutual implications when read together!
As they might have said regarding the recently concluded British Open, "Par for the course".
Cheers, ARNIE
First here is the relevant passage in Letter 49:
"Alphonsine" did not do. We were disgusted in twenty pages, as, independent of a bad translation, it has indelicacies which disgrace a pen hitherto so pure; and we changed it for the "Female Quixotte," which now makes our evening amusement; to me a very high one, as I find the work quite equal to what I remembered it. Mrs. F. A., to whom it is new, enjoys it as one could wish; the other Mary, I believe, has little pleasure from that or any other book."
The standard interpretation of the first part of that quotation is that JA and the other two ladies in her ad hoc reading group, her sisters in law Mrs. Frank Austen and Mrs. James Austen, were all disgusted at the theme of adultery depicted in de Genlis's Alphonsine, and that is why the book was put aside for another. I have never found that argument convincing, and have always believed that JA here is doing what she does so often in her letters, i.e., assuming the voice of another person for purposes of satire and irony--and in this instance, I believe that other person is none other than Mary Lloyd Austen!
Why would JA do this in this case? Because we can see the reason in what JA writes at the end of that same paragraph---"the other Mary, I believe, has little pleasure from that or any other book."
It seems clear to me that Frank's wife Mary is not the problem here, it is James's wife Mary, a prig, who puts the kibosh on reading any further in de Genlis. Here's how i reconstruct the background on this---first, I believe it was JA who brought Alphonsine forward in the first place--after all, it is well known that JA was very interested in de Genlis's fiction. And it could not have been Frank's wife Mary who brought it forward, she was all of _seventeen_ in 1807 (she married Frank at age 16 a year earlier!), and she was hardly going to be bringing forward risque literature for her two much older and more mature sisters in law to read.
So...the barely concealed subtext of this passage is a little power struggle between Jane Austen and James's wife Mary, and the "turf" being contested between them is JA's "home field", i.e., literature.
When Alphonsine is tossed aside at Mary Lloyd Austen's insistence, I see JA as the one who then comes forward with _another_ subversive feminist-tinged text, The Female Quixote, by Charlotte Lennox. And of course Mary Lloyd Austen has little pleasure in it either, which is what prompts JA's openly derisive barb at her Bowdlerizing sister in law.
And which also, I believe, finds its way into Pride and Prejudice, in the mouth of the equally unpleasant Caroline Bingley:
"Miss Eliza Bennet," said Miss Bingley, "despises cards. She is a great reader, and has no pleasure in anything else."
"I deserve neither such praise nor such censure," cried Elizabeth; "I am NOT a great reader, and I have pleasure in many things."
Now _that_ is a sweet revenge on JA's part, to paint Mary Lloyd Austen as Caroline Bingley, getting her comeuppance from JA's most attractive and witty heroine, Lizzy Bennet!
And...what seals the deal on this interpretation, I claim, is the following passage in Letter 50, written exactly one month after Letter 49:
"I should not be surprised if we were to be visited by James again this week; he gave us reason to expect him soon, and if they go to Eversley he cannot come next week. I am sorry & angry that his Visits should not give us more pleasure; the company of so good & so clever a Man ought to be gratifying in itself; – but his Chat seems all forced, his Opinions on many points too much copied from his Wife’s, & his time here is spent I think in walking about the House & banging the doors, or ringing the Bell for a glass of Water."
First, what is noteworthy is that Lord Brabourne, that unashamed Bowlderizer, in his 1884 edition of the letters, deleted everything in that paragraph after the words "he cannot come next week." Of course he does this, because this is an additional unmasked attack by JA on James Austen, and that just won't do to let Janeites see JA being so severe in her judgment on both her elder brother James and his wife.
But note in particular the reference to "his Opinions on many points too much copied from his Wife's", and think about it in connection with JA's assuming the voice of Mary Lloyd Austen in rendering a harsh judgment on de Genlis's Alphonsine. That is surely one of the opinions which James has been forced to mouth in support of his wife!
And finally, why do I suggest in my Subject Line that Deirdre Le Faye does not want us to connect these passages in Letters 49 & 50? After all, she never connects the dots between passages in different letters, whether or not they are controversial passages or not. And she does not delete any of the text of the letters as Brabourne did.
No, what she did was much sneakier, and really is her M.O., always doing her censorious work in the shadows---very simply, Le Faye fails to include a reference to the above passage in Letter 49 in Mary Lloyd Austen's index entry! Therefore, a reader who was not able to deduce who the "other Mary" was, would not be able to connect these passages in these two letters, and realize their full mutual implications when read together!
As they might have said regarding the recently concluded British Open, "Par for the course".
Cheers, ARNIE
Barbara Karolina Seeber's article "Nature, Animals, and Gender in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park & Emma"
After rereading (yesterday) Barbara Karolina Seeber's pioneering analysis of the relationship between Sir Thomas and Fanny in her 2000 book _General Consent in JA: A Study in Dialogism_, I became curious to know what else Seeber might have written about JA, and I quickly found another article which is very similar in its intelligent use of textual examples to illustrate her arguments:
"Nature, Animals, and Gender in JA's MP and Emma" in Literature, Interpretation, Theory, 13, 269-285 (2002).
Here is an abbreviated version of Seeber's introductory paragraph:
"The late 18th and early 19th century saw an increase in moral concern for animals and advocacy of vegetarianism. This history...is intertwined with the radical politics of the period. The debate over 'rights'...explored connections among gender, class, race, and species...[Various contemporary books] all argue for vegetarianism. In the light of these texts and ecofeminist theories, representations of nature and animals in JA's MP (1814) and Emma (1816) invite investigation...MP draws structural parallels between patriarchy, imperialism, and the domination of nature: tree-cutting, hunting, and the domesticating and eating of animals. In Emma, food consumption demarcates class and gender lines."
In case any of you are worried about the "jargon" factor--and I am always jargon-averse---less than 10% of the article is theoretical, it consists almost entirely of textual examples and clearly argued analysis of same. And in several instances Seeber specifically (and to my mind persuasively) rebuts Maggie Lane's rose-colored interpretations of food in Austen novels.
My personal favorite from among Seeber's examples is the following:
"Jane Fairfax 'had yet her bread to earn' (165). Comparing the governess trade to the 'sale [...] of human flesh' (300), she demonstrates an astute awareness of the political ramifications of food. Throughout, her consumption of food is minimal: she 'really eats nothing.' (237). Emma is 'tire[d]" of listening to Miss Bates's description of 'exactly how little bread and butter [...] [Jane] ate for breakfast, and how small a slice of mutton for dinner' (168). While Emma is the 'complete picture of grown-up health' (39), Jane's poor health, like Fanny Price's, reflects her marginal social position....."
I love the subtle echo of "bread to earn" in "how little bread and butter", which is classic Austen subliminal textual connectivity. I had noticed that latter quoted passage before, in terms of Jane's not getting enough to eat, but I had not taken full note of Emma's incredibly clueless disregard for Jane's health. Here is the fuller excerpt:
"Jane had spent an evening at Hartfield with her grandmother and aunt, and every thing was relapsing much into its usual state. Former provocations reappeared. The aunt was as tiresome as ever; more tiresome, because anxiety for her health was now added to admiration of her powers; and they had to listen to the description of exactly how little bread and butter she ate for breakfast, and how small a slice of mutton for dinner...."
Emma experiences Miss Bates's anxiety for Jane's health as a "provocation", because, I would suggest, Emma is _not_ entirely callous and lacking in empathy, as might at first be inferred from the above passage. Rather, JA masterfully shows us that on a subconscious level, Emma _does_ have a conscience and _does_ hear what Miss Bates is saying--and Emma s genuinely upset by it. But Emma tries to stuff down this very uncomfortable and destabilizing empathy, and instead her mind turns right back to Emma's multiple jealousies of Jane's accomplishments, and Jane's frustrating unwillingness to satisfy Emma's intrusive nosiness.
In any event, I strongly recommend Seeber's article, it is filled with similar insights and fresh perspectives on JA.
Cheers, ARNIE
[Amended to add the following exchange between me and Diane Reynolds]
"Thanks for the heads up on the Seeber article. I will take a look at that."
You are welcome, Diane, I am sure you will find it as interesting and enlightening as I did.
"To switch gears, I have been thinking about your comments about Sir Thomas and Fanny. I have long found Sir Thomas a mystery, largely because the terror and dread Fanny and the Bertram children seem to experience toward Sir Thomas is not born out by action by him that we see in the text. "
Read the chapter in Seeber's book about this very subject, and then add my gloss from yesterday vis a vis that specific line in MP that I focused on yesterday, and you will have a very good start, but of course, go ahead and reread the rest of the novel in that light as well!
We have the same sort of question here in MP as in Hamlet--the _degree_ of the emotion of the character (Fanny in MP, Hamlet in Hamlet) seems extreme and out of proportion in response to the (apparent) cause----Eliot's famous "objective correlative".
Are we dealing with an oversensitive character, or a normal character responding to an extreme cause? _That_ is the question (or, at least, one of the important questions) in _both_ of those great works of literature. Speaking of "terror" and "horror", words which describe Fanny's feelings at several points in MP, think about Hamlet and his hair standing on end!
And there's another character in MP whose emotion seems extreme and out of proportion in response to the (apparent) cause--Sir Thomas himself, in his book-burning, razed-earth response to the production of Lovers Vows---are we dealing with an overreactive character, a character with a strong moral aversion to licentious drama.....or a character feeling guilty about wrongs _he_ has committed previously?
Ay, there's the rub--a connection between Hamlet and Mansfield Park which I have previously written about:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/sir-thomas-as-ghost-of-king-hamlet-and.html
"Nature, Animals, and Gender in JA's MP and Emma" in Literature, Interpretation, Theory, 13, 269-285 (2002).
Here is an abbreviated version of Seeber's introductory paragraph:
"The late 18th and early 19th century saw an increase in moral concern for animals and advocacy of vegetarianism. This history...is intertwined with the radical politics of the period. The debate over 'rights'...explored connections among gender, class, race, and species...[Various contemporary books] all argue for vegetarianism. In the light of these texts and ecofeminist theories, representations of nature and animals in JA's MP (1814) and Emma (1816) invite investigation...MP draws structural parallels between patriarchy, imperialism, and the domination of nature: tree-cutting, hunting, and the domesticating and eating of animals. In Emma, food consumption demarcates class and gender lines."
In case any of you are worried about the "jargon" factor--and I am always jargon-averse---less than 10% of the article is theoretical, it consists almost entirely of textual examples and clearly argued analysis of same. And in several instances Seeber specifically (and to my mind persuasively) rebuts Maggie Lane's rose-colored interpretations of food in Austen novels.
My personal favorite from among Seeber's examples is the following:
"Jane Fairfax 'had yet her bread to earn' (165). Comparing the governess trade to the 'sale [...] of human flesh' (300), she demonstrates an astute awareness of the political ramifications of food. Throughout, her consumption of food is minimal: she 'really eats nothing.' (237). Emma is 'tire[d]" of listening to Miss Bates's description of 'exactly how little bread and butter [...] [Jane] ate for breakfast, and how small a slice of mutton for dinner' (168). While Emma is the 'complete picture of grown-up health' (39), Jane's poor health, like Fanny Price's, reflects her marginal social position....."
I love the subtle echo of "bread to earn" in "how little bread and butter", which is classic Austen subliminal textual connectivity. I had noticed that latter quoted passage before, in terms of Jane's not getting enough to eat, but I had not taken full note of Emma's incredibly clueless disregard for Jane's health. Here is the fuller excerpt:
"Jane had spent an evening at Hartfield with her grandmother and aunt, and every thing was relapsing much into its usual state. Former provocations reappeared. The aunt was as tiresome as ever; more tiresome, because anxiety for her health was now added to admiration of her powers; and they had to listen to the description of exactly how little bread and butter she ate for breakfast, and how small a slice of mutton for dinner...."
Emma experiences Miss Bates's anxiety for Jane's health as a "provocation", because, I would suggest, Emma is _not_ entirely callous and lacking in empathy, as might at first be inferred from the above passage. Rather, JA masterfully shows us that on a subconscious level, Emma _does_ have a conscience and _does_ hear what Miss Bates is saying--and Emma s genuinely upset by it. But Emma tries to stuff down this very uncomfortable and destabilizing empathy, and instead her mind turns right back to Emma's multiple jealousies of Jane's accomplishments, and Jane's frustrating unwillingness to satisfy Emma's intrusive nosiness.
In any event, I strongly recommend Seeber's article, it is filled with similar insights and fresh perspectives on JA.
Cheers, ARNIE
[Amended to add the following exchange between me and Diane Reynolds]
"Thanks for the heads up on the Seeber article. I will take a look at that."
You are welcome, Diane, I am sure you will find it as interesting and enlightening as I did.
"To switch gears, I have been thinking about your comments about Sir Thomas and Fanny. I have long found Sir Thomas a mystery, largely because the terror and dread Fanny and the Bertram children seem to experience toward Sir Thomas is not born out by action by him that we see in the text. "
Read the chapter in Seeber's book about this very subject, and then add my gloss from yesterday vis a vis that specific line in MP that I focused on yesterday, and you will have a very good start, but of course, go ahead and reread the rest of the novel in that light as well!
We have the same sort of question here in MP as in Hamlet--the _degree_ of the emotion of the character (Fanny in MP, Hamlet in Hamlet) seems extreme and out of proportion in response to the (apparent) cause----Eliot's famous "objective correlative".
Are we dealing with an oversensitive character, or a normal character responding to an extreme cause? _That_ is the question (or, at least, one of the important questions) in _both_ of those great works of literature. Speaking of "terror" and "horror", words which describe Fanny's feelings at several points in MP, think about Hamlet and his hair standing on end!
And there's another character in MP whose emotion seems extreme and out of proportion in response to the (apparent) cause--Sir Thomas himself, in his book-burning, razed-earth response to the production of Lovers Vows---are we dealing with an overreactive character, a character with a strong moral aversion to licentious drama.....or a character feeling guilty about wrongs _he_ has committed previously?
Ay, there's the rub--a connection between Hamlet and Mansfield Park which I have previously written about:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/sir-thomas-as-ghost-of-king-hamlet-and.html
P.S. re Sir Thomas and DSK
For those who might be interested and have not already taken the trouble to browse the Net on this subject, the following is just a sampler of responsible journalists and intelligent bloggers who have all written about Strauss-Kahn's pattern of behavior toward women over many years, and who have also written about the political, legal and journalistic culture of France which has shaped a very different response to same than would ever have occurred in the United States:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-reaction-to-strauss-kahn-case-marks-cultural-shift/2011/07/02/AGZubZvH_story.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/dominique-strausskahn-whats-in-a-reputation-2284965.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/dominique-strauss-kahn-ladies-man-sexual-predator/story?id=13612519
http://www.economist.com/node/18712833
http://youngfeministtaskforce.blogspot.com/2011/07/dominique-strauss-kahn-so-much-for-us.html
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/dominique-strauss-kahn-and-whos-really-being-set-up-here/
The part that I believe would have been of greatest interest to Jane Austen is the hypocrisy, the accommodation to the exertion of male power over women.
Cheers, ARNIE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-reaction-to-strauss-kahn-case-marks-cultural-shift/2011/07/02/AGZubZvH_story.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/dominique-strausskahn-whats-in-a-reputation-2284965.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/dominique-strauss-kahn-ladies-man-sexual-predator/story?id=13612519
http://www.economist.com/node/18712833
http://youngfeministtaskforce.blogspot.com/2011/07/dominique-strauss-kahn-so-much-for-us.html
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/dominique-strauss-kahn-and-whos-really-being-set-up-here/
The part that I believe would have been of greatest interest to Jane Austen is the hypocrisy, the accommodation to the exertion of male power over women.
Cheers, ARNIE
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Edmund, Edward & Mr. Elton: The Three Oxfordians
You know the way Alfred Hitchcock always worked himself into a little cameo in every one of his films? And even though I can't recall at the moment, I am sure there are a number of novels and plays in which the author embedded an in-joke, by having characters from one of their novels slip into the background of another of their novels in which they do not belong, like actors inadvertently stumbling into the wrong play.
These thoughts all arose in my mind as I was reading the following passage in Ch. 46 of MP:
"Just before their setting out from Oxford, while Susan was stationed at a window, in eager observation of the departure of a large family from the inn, the other two [Fanny and Edmund] were standing by the fire..."
Today, I noticed that large family for the first time, and I wondered if there might be any way of knowing _which_ large family that might have been that Susan observed departing from the inn where Fanny, Susan and Edmund spent the evening en route back to Mansfield Park from Portsmouth? I then took that wild thought one giant step further, and wondered if there might there be some sly connection to a large family that we already know from one of JA's _other_ novels? Or was it just, as that passage has always been read when it has been noticed at all, just background detail?
Given JA's precise hidden calendars for all her novels, and putting aside for the moment the question of particular years, I made the assumption that if JA _were_ to play a trick like this, she would make sure that there was a close alignment of both date _and_ location, between two different novels.
So, in MP, I quickly verified that Edmund and the two Price sisters spent that evening at the inn in early May. Then I turned to the other novels to see if any _other_ characters were in Oxford in early May. And it turns out there is one other character--Edward Ferrars, who spends several weeks in Oxford during the spring, and then leaves Oxford in early May, on pretty much the same date when Edmund et al pass through Oxford! So I realized I had enough smoke here to justify some more digging to see if there really might be fire.....
I then noted another parallelism, in terms of the action that occurs at that moment in both MP and S&S. In S&S, Edward leaves Oxford in early May because he has just received Lucy's letter informing him of her marriage to Robert, and then, being free of Lucy, he immediately goes to Devonshire to propose to Elinor. And is it then just a coincidence that it is more or less the same date that Edmund leaves Oxford to take Fanny to Northamptonshire, and then not long afterwards proposes to Fanny?!
And there's more to the parallels, of course. Edmund and Edward are, as I have noted in several messages over the past few years, very similar characters in the Austen oeuvre: they are far and away the two _least_ romantic heroes of the six: they are both phlegmatic, not very romantic, not-very-dashing country clergymen who both wind up with Austen's most serious-minded heroines!
And so I wonder.....is it possible that the large family that departs from the inn in Oxford might have been.....Lucy Steele's Holborn cousins and/or the Richardsons mentioned in Ch. 38 of S&S?:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/search?q=HOlborn
Perhaps their travel through Oxford was for the purpose of attending Lucy's wedding with Robert, prior to the happy couple's decampment to their Dawlish cottage? Perhaps Lucy used some of the money she borrowed from sister Ann to pay for a few frills at her wedding to Robert, to compensate for not having the large wedding that she would have had, had Mrs. Ferrars known and approved of the match.
Yes, it's very speculative, but I find this a very intriguing.
Cheers, ARNIE
P.S. : I almost forgot to mention the following question posed by Harriet to Emma:
"Will Mr. Frank Churchill pass through Bath as well as Oxford?"—was a question, however, which did not augur much."
It may not have augured much to the clueless Emma, but might this comment by Harriet have anything to do with the likelihood that not long before then _Mr. Elton_--like Edmund and Edward, also a country clergyman--would have passed through Oxford on _his_ way to get married to Miss Hawkins in Bath after a _very_ short engagement?
These thoughts all arose in my mind as I was reading the following passage in Ch. 46 of MP:
"Just before their setting out from Oxford, while Susan was stationed at a window, in eager observation of the departure of a large family from the inn, the other two [Fanny and Edmund] were standing by the fire..."
Today, I noticed that large family for the first time, and I wondered if there might be any way of knowing _which_ large family that might have been that Susan observed departing from the inn where Fanny, Susan and Edmund spent the evening en route back to Mansfield Park from Portsmouth? I then took that wild thought one giant step further, and wondered if there might there be some sly connection to a large family that we already know from one of JA's _other_ novels? Or was it just, as that passage has always been read when it has been noticed at all, just background detail?
Given JA's precise hidden calendars for all her novels, and putting aside for the moment the question of particular years, I made the assumption that if JA _were_ to play a trick like this, she would make sure that there was a close alignment of both date _and_ location, between two different novels.
So, in MP, I quickly verified that Edmund and the two Price sisters spent that evening at the inn in early May. Then I turned to the other novels to see if any _other_ characters were in Oxford in early May. And it turns out there is one other character--Edward Ferrars, who spends several weeks in Oxford during the spring, and then leaves Oxford in early May, on pretty much the same date when Edmund et al pass through Oxford! So I realized I had enough smoke here to justify some more digging to see if there really might be fire.....
I then noted another parallelism, in terms of the action that occurs at that moment in both MP and S&S. In S&S, Edward leaves Oxford in early May because he has just received Lucy's letter informing him of her marriage to Robert, and then, being free of Lucy, he immediately goes to Devonshire to propose to Elinor. And is it then just a coincidence that it is more or less the same date that Edmund leaves Oxford to take Fanny to Northamptonshire, and then not long afterwards proposes to Fanny?!
And there's more to the parallels, of course. Edmund and Edward are, as I have noted in several messages over the past few years, very similar characters in the Austen oeuvre: they are far and away the two _least_ romantic heroes of the six: they are both phlegmatic, not very romantic, not-very-dashing country clergymen who both wind up with Austen's most serious-minded heroines!
And so I wonder.....is it possible that the large family that departs from the inn in Oxford might have been.....Lucy Steele's Holborn cousins and/or the Richardsons mentioned in Ch. 38 of S&S?:
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/search?q=HOlborn
Perhaps their travel through Oxford was for the purpose of attending Lucy's wedding with Robert, prior to the happy couple's decampment to their Dawlish cottage? Perhaps Lucy used some of the money she borrowed from sister Ann to pay for a few frills at her wedding to Robert, to compensate for not having the large wedding that she would have had, had Mrs. Ferrars known and approved of the match.
Yes, it's very speculative, but I find this a very intriguing.
Cheers, ARNIE
P.S. : I almost forgot to mention the following question posed by Harriet to Emma:
"Will Mr. Frank Churchill pass through Bath as well as Oxford?"—was a question, however, which did not augur much."
It may not have augured much to the clueless Emma, but might this comment by Harriet have anything to do with the likelihood that not long before then _Mr. Elton_--like Edmund and Edward, also a country clergyman--would have passed through Oxford on _his_ way to get married to Miss Hawkins in Bath after a _very_ short engagement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
