FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER AND YOUTUBE

@JaneAustenCode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKYzhndOGsI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9WkpqjJPR4
(& scroll down to read my literary sleuthing posts)
Thanks! -- Arnie Perlstein, Portland, OR

Thursday, December 11, 2014

“…she is very much to the TASTE of every body” Emma Woodhouse’s immodest (and appalling) views on Miss Bates, poverty & food




After sending my previous post…
..and then rereading it quickly a short while later, I realized what had been tugging at the edges of my memory---I recalled that there was something very Swiftian about this particular satirical construction by JA—the linkage of Mr. Woodhouse’s constant exclamations about other people beginning with “Poor…” with his constant worried ejaculations about the unhealthfulness of people eating “too much” or “too RICH” (interesting pun there!) food--it was strikingly reminiscent of Swift’s “Modest Proposal” for dealing with hunger in dirt-poor Ireland—the parents should just eat their babies, and (so to speak) kill two birds with one stone!  

I had first discussed that veiled allusion in Emma with Cathy Lamb way back in 2006 (when I was first looking at the Swift subtext in Mansfield Park), and then a year ago Diane independently raised the very  same point to me.

So clearly, Diane, your point about the darkness of Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns about people eating too much was informed by your earlier awareness, and your revisiting it now has prompted me to dive even deeper into this rich stew of allusion, and I think you will really like the way it all tastes in the end!  ;)

To start, this passage from Wikipedia makes it crystal clear that Mr. Woodhouse has been reading Swift on the sly:

“Swift goes to great lengths to support his argument, including a list of possible preparation styles for the children, and calculations showing the financial benefits of his suggestion….These lampoons include appealing to the authority of "a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London" and "the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa" (who had already confessed to not being from Formosa in 1706)….the reader is unprepared for the surprise of Swift's solution when he states, "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."

In addition to all the discussion in Emma of the relative merits of baking, boiling, roasting in regard to the nourishingness and wholesomeness of food so prepared, we should also in particular consider the Swiftian allusion hidden in Miss Bates saying
“there was a delicate FRICASEE of sweetbread and some aspaRAGUs brought in at first, and good Mr. Woodhouse, not thinking the aspaRAGUs quite boiled enough, sent it all out again.”   

I.e., Swift’s “fricaseee, or a ragout” becomes “fricassee of sweetbread and some aspa-ragout..” in JA’s Monty Pythonesque transformational wordplay! But where Swift’s satire was savagely overt, visible to even the most obtuse reader, JA’s pen was a satirical rapier, it pierced its victim almost subliminally, disguised as a fond touch—and so, undiscovered for nearly 2 centuries.  

And so, in that promising vein, I decided to dive back into the text of Emma and search for some further textual clues corroborating that Swiftian food satire that Diane re-raised, and I amplified in my previous post.

And, sure enough, I found it right away, right under my own nose. I.e., when I searched for the word “poverty” in the text of Emma, guess where I found the single usage thereof in the entire novel?  Right there in that same Chapter 10, when Emma visits the poor sick family!!

And that’s when I realized that the entirety of Chapter 10 can profitably be read exclusively from the angle of this Swiftian satire on the rich’s response to widespread poverty around them. I will now quickly sketch the rest of this satire with sequential quotations therefrom (although, for maximum satirical effect, you really should reread the whole chapter with that satire in mind).


“Though now the middle of December, there had yet been no weather to prevent the young ladies from tolerably regular exercise; and on the morrow, Emma had a charitable visit to pay to a poor sick family, who lived a little way out of Highbury.”

So, the question arises, what form will Emma’s charity take? It does not promise well, however, that what is on Emma’s mind is not the  illness of the family or the charity Emma will provide, but that the outing will be good exercise for her and Harriet to take a walk a little way out of Highbury during a rare break in harsh winter weather.


“Their road to this detached cottage was down Vicarage Lane, a lane leading at right angles from the broad, though irregular, main street of the place; and, as may be inferred, containing the blessed abode of Mr. Elton.”

Hmm…so is it just a coincidence that Emma decides to take that walk that day with Harriet, on a route that just happens to go right past the Vicarage? Of course not! As Knightley would have said to Emma had he known about it, “You made the charity visit precisely so that you’d have an excuse to walk Harriet by the Vicarage.”


“A few inferior dwellings were first to be passed, and then, about a quarter of a mile down the lane rose the Vicarage, an old and not very good house, almost as close to the road as it could be. It had no advantage of situation; but had been very much smartened up by the present proprietor; and, such as it was, there could be no possibility of the two friends passing it without a slackened pace and observing eyes.”

Aside from the nauseating snobbery of “inferior dwellings” (you can imagine Emma holding her nose as they passed those unfortunate hovels), we now see that Emma has indeed planned this as an “accidental” meeting between Harriet and Elton.


"I do not often walk this way now," said Emma, as they proceeded, "but then there will be an inducement, and I shall gradually get intimately acquainted with all the hedges, gates, pools and pollards of this part of Highbury."

And, again, we have Emma in effect confirming that she has probably NEVER paid a charitable visit to that poor sick family in her entire life!
And then we have a conversation between Harriet and Emma in which Harriet goads Emma into revealing why Emma feels herself above the need to marry:

"But still, you will be an old maid! and that's so dreadful!"
"Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid; and it is POVERTY ONLY makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public! A single woman, with a very narrow income, must be a ridiculous, disagreeable old maid! the proper sport of boys and girls, but a single woman, of good fortune, is always respectable, and may be as sensible and pleasant as any body else. And the distinction is not quite so much against the candour and common sense of the world as appears at first; for a very narrow income has a tendency to contract the mind, and sour the temper. 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."

You won’t often see “it is poverty only makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public!” in a list of favorite quotations from JA’s novels, because it is so disgusting and shocking an example of Emma’s attitude toward those less fortunately born than she. That she carves out Miss Bates as a single exception to her universal rule does not mitigate the horror of that general rule, it merely makes Emma’s blindness to her father’s “starvation diet” that much more poignant.

But then Jane Austen would surely laugh at my noticing the savage Swifitan irony of Emma saying the following about Miss Bates:

“…she is very much to the TASTE of every body…”

I mean, really!!!-would that be Filet of Miss Bates boiled, baked or in a ragout?  ;)

But let’s return for the rest of Chapter 10. After Emma completes her lecture about wealth and women, we read:

“They were now approaching the cottage, and all idle topics were superseded. Emma was very compassionate; and the distresses of the poor were as sure of relief from her personal attention and kindness, her counsel and her patience, as from her purse. She understood their ways, could allow for their ignorance and their temptations, had no romantic expectations of extraordinary virtue from those for whom education had done so little; entered into their troubles with ready sympathy, and always gave her assistance with as much intelligence as good-will. In the present instance, it was sickness and poverty together which she came to visit…”

So here we have Emma congratulating herself repeatedly for her compassion, understanding, empathy, and assistance-although it is still not clear to the reader what form Emma’s charity will take, beyond a few platitudes spoken before quickly exiting the sickroom.

“…and after remaining there as long as she could give comfort or advice, she quitted the cottage with such an impression of the scene as made her say to Harriet, as they walked away,
"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 greater within.
"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 there, again, is Emma immediately upon catching sight of Elton undoing her own pathetically brief attempt at keeping her mind on the poor sick people. And we still wonder, what charity did/will Emma perform?
  "Ah! Harriet, here comes a very sudden trial of our stability in good thoughts. Well, (smiling,) I hope it may be allowed that if compassion has produced exertion and relief to the sufferers, it has done all that is truly important. If we feel for the wretched, enough to do all we can for them, the rest is empty sympathy, only distressing to ourselves."
Harriet could just answer, "Oh! dear, yes," before the gentleman joined them. The wants and sufferings of the poor family, however, were the first subject on meeting. He had been going to call on them. His visit he would now defer; but they had a very interesting parley about what could be done and should be done. Mr. Elton then turned back to accompany them.
"To fall in with each other on such an errand as this," thought Emma; "to meet in a charitable scheme; this will bring a great increase of love on each side. I should not wonder if it were to bring on the declaration. It must, if I were not here. I wish I were anywhere else."

So more talk about compassion and suffering, but all just for show. And STILL nothing about Emma’s actual charitable acts. And then begins the farce of the faux broken shoelace—and look what’s buried in that same passage:.

“..by the time she judged it reasonable to have done with her boot, she had the comfort of farther delay in her power, being overtaken by a child from the cottage, setting out, according to orders, with her pitcher, to fetch broth from Hartfield. To walk by the side of this child, and talk to and question her, was the most natural thing in the world, or would have been the most natural, had she been acting just then without design; and by this means the others were still able to keep ahead, without any obligation of waiting for her. She gained on them, however, involuntarily: the child's pace was quick, and theirs rather slow; and she was the more concerned at it, from their being evidently in a conversation which interested them. Mr. Elton was speaking with animation, Harriet listening with a very pleased attention; and Emma, having sent the child on, was beginning to think how she might draw back a little more, when they both looked around, and she was obliged to join them.”

So, the sum total of Emma’s generosity to the poor sick family was to give them however much broth a (presumably a small, undernourished) child from the cottage would be able to carry in some sort of jug all the way to Hartfield and back—so, not even any food, but broth (“thin gruel” indeed!), and a pitifully small amount, transported on foot with backbreaking labor by a child, instead of Emma sending over some substantial edibles in a cart (don’t you think James and the horses could be spared?) that might actually save the lives of the sick and undernourished members of that family.

And the worst and cruelest of Emma’s callousness is that the fact that “the child’s pace was quick” ticks Emma off, because the kid keeps undermining Emma’s little scheme of lagging back to give Elton a chance to woo Harriet—when the fast pace of the child suggests to the sensitive reader that the child is famished and/or must get back to attend to some serious duties at the cottage. So Emma’s deliberate slowing down has actually been forcing the child to go much slower than (s)he wants to!

Etc etc etc—the bottom line is clear-Chapter 10 is another crucial component of the Swiftian satire of Emma- and how blind Maggie Lane was to recognize the central importance of food in Emma, and yet have absolutely no clue that it might be the darkest form of social satire.

And by the way, if you want a number of other sharp laughs, search the word “taste” in Emma  with Swift’s “Modest Proposal” in mind, and you won’t be disappointed, they are everywhere!

Cheers, ARNIE
@Jane AustenCode on Twitter

Poor Starving Miss Bates & Poor Married Emma



 Diane wrote:  “Why do we cede so much authority to Mr. Knightley? He is older--but so, of course, is Miss Bates--he has property (though we always operate--or I do--with the suspicion he is short of ready cash) and of course, he's juxtaposed against Mr. Woodhouse, an incompetent paterfamilias ...I am fascinated by how equivocal, how biting, how double-edged, is Austen's prose. “

I am by no means the only Austen scholar to seriously question Mr. Knightley’s apparent authority, and to argue that JA intended her readers to do likewise, and to see Knightley as what General Tilney might have seemed like to an extremely uncritical observer (i.e., Emma). He’s overbearing, unconsciously sexist, dogmatic, easily angered, and somewhat prone to pedophilia. But when viewed through Emma’s rose colored glasses, he’s a hero. Allison Sulloway was the first, way back in 1976, to see Knightley as he really is. And Wendy Moffat did a great job in the same vein in 1991.


Diane also wrote: “Emma's hospitality shines against her father's whose ideas of entertaining conflict with his conviction that it is healthy for his guests to be starved--his desire not to feed his guests to safeguard their health has a sharp undercurrent if we understand they are coming to dinner to get fed--the implication behind the Bateses is that they would quickly go hungry if not for the invitations and food donations of their neighbors. This makes Mr. Woodhouse's desire to withhold food grim and dark as well as comic.”

Indeed, excellent catch, Diane! We are entering into the exact same territory as John Dashwood’s faux solicitude and concern for his stepmother and stepsisters the Dashwood women:

“…whatever I may give them occasionally will be of far greater assistance than a yearly allowance, because they would only enlarge their style of living if they felt sure of a larger income, and would not be sixpence the richer for it at the end of the year. It will certainly be much the best way. A present of fifty pounds, now and then, will prevent their ever being distressed for money, and will, I think, be amply discharging my promise to my father."  

This grotesque “less is more” pretzel logic is worthy of modern day “trickle down” economics. The delusions of the rich who think they are being most generous to those less well off when they withhold valuables from them!

And this is another great example of how JA shapes different readerly responses to the identical situation. With John and Fanny Dashwood, JA layers the irony on so thick, by making the greed and selfishness so blatant, that it is impossible for any reader to miss what JA wants us to think about him—Fanny Dashwood we all recognize as fully cognizant of how she is conning her husband, but we all recognize John as a perfect example of banal evil, a man who does great harm while sincerely thinking himself very generous every step of the way.

But with Mr. Woodhouse, JA gives us the story from Emma’s point of view, so there is not any sign in the narration that it would be grotesque to give tiny portions of food to people who haven’t had a square meal in a long while.

And now I will repay your insight, Diane, with a companion insight of my own, inspired by yours. Now that I think about it, the irony of Mr. Woodhouse’s delusion as to his own generosity is magnified a thousandfold, because we all know Mr. Woodhouse’s go-to catch phrase, the one he used constantly---POOR!!!!  Poor Miss Taylor, the poor horses, poor James, poor Isabella, poor Mr. Woodhouse, poor Harriet, poor Mrs. Weston, etc etc etc--- but, curiously, Mr. Woodhouse never utters the words “Poor Miss Bates”, even though she is the one person close to Mr. Woodhouse who actually deserves that description!

And so now we can see Mr. Woodhouse’s trademark withholding of food as inextricably linked to his trademark exclamation of compassion. In short, the man who does not stop talking about the poverty of those around him who are not poor, is the same man who  also talks endlessly about denying others who are poor the most basic good that poverty makes scarce---food—and isn’t that the quintessential example of talking out of both sides of one’s mouth at the same time?

And, as if we didn’t already know, we soon confirm beyond the shadow of a doubt that Emma has not only never left Highbury her entire life, she also metaphorically has not fallen one inch  from the family tree, philanthropically speaking. She constantly pats herself on her own back for her generosity to Harriet, and then takes Harriet along on her charitable errand to a poor sick neighbor. Note that Emma’s concern for those poor souls does not even survive her turning the corner after leaving:

"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 greater within.
"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 so near as to give Emma time only to say farther,
"Ah! Harriet, here comes a very sudden trial of our stability in good thoughts. Well, (smiling,) I hope it may be allowed that if compassion has produced exertion and relief to the sufferers, it has done all that is truly important. If we feel for the wretched, enough to do all we can for them, the rest is empty sympathy, only distressing to ourselves."
Harriet could just answer, "Oh! dear, yes," before the gentleman joined them. The wants and sufferings of the poor family, however, were the first subject on meeting. He had been going to call on them. His visit he would now defer; but they had a very interesting parley about what could be done and should be done. Mr. Elton then turned back to accompany them.
"To fall in with each other on such an errand as this," thought Emma; "to meet in a charitable scheme; this will bring a great increase of love on each side. I should not wonder if it were to bring on the declaration. It must, if I were not here. I wish I were anywhere else."

Mr. Bennet, for all his flaws, at least knows himself well enough, and is honest enough, to recognize and acknowledge that his own stunted conscience will quickly subside, and his guilty feelings will melt away soon---but Mr. Woodhouse and Emma are both beyond oblivious to their own stunted consciences. And guess what, Knightley’s no better, he just knows right from wrong, and so is able to pretend better to be doing right. 

And so, once Knightley and Emma are married, as Reginald Hill imagined so well 25 years ago, that means “POOR Emma!”  

Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Jane Austen's dreadful Cousin Theo-Leigh Cooke as Mr. Collins in Letter 17 which will shortly be sold for big bucks!

 Just as Eleanor Tilney, in Northanger Abbey, completely misinterprets Catherine Morland's solemn comment that she has "heard that something very shocking indeed will soon come out in London", to the great amusement of brother Henry Tilney, so too news reports out of London in the past few days have surely given to most of the world (i.e. other than knowledgeable Janeites) the entirely mistaken "first impression" that a new Jane Austen letter has just been discovered:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863601/Previously-unseen-letter-Jane-Austen-writes-Pride-Prejudice-goes-public-display-time.html#ixzz3LEvMpeIj

"A PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN LETTER BY JANE AUSTEN in which she first writes about Pride And Prejudice has gone on public display for the first time. The double folded sheet, sent by Austen to her sister Cassandra in January 1799, makes reference to the novel - 14 years before it was first published. The handwritten note, which lay undiscovered in a box file for 60 years, will be exhibited at Torquay Museum in Devon ahead of a planned auction."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-30351264
"A PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN LETTER PENNED BY JANE AUSTEN is set to be sold by Torquay Museum. The letter, from the famous author to her sister, makes a reference to her novel Pride and Prejudice - which at the time had not yet been published. The letter is part of a collection that includes
letters from Charlotte Bronte, John Keats and Abraham Lincoln given to the museum in the 1930s. Director Basil Greenwood said selling the letter could raise £200,000."


In point of fact, the letter in question has been seen by those many thousands of Janeites who have ever read Le Faye's 1995 and more recent edition of JA's letters--it is Letter 17, and it has been reproduced in
those editions in full and with its provenance vis a vis the Torquay Museum fully set forth.

So the only real news here is that the letter is about to be sold for big bucks!!!

All the same, I am glad for these misleading news reports, because they caused me to revisit the post I wrote about Letter 17 three years ago near the beginning of our very long Group Read of JA's letters in
Janeites and Austen L. Here is the link to my post:

http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2011/08/mr-collinss-nothing-meaning-harmless.html


And here is the title and beginning of my post:

"Mr. Collins’s Nothing-Meaning, Harmless, Heartless Civility"
When we discussed Letter 17 (dated Jan. 9, 1799) four months ago, Christy quoted the following passage…
“I assure You that I dread the idea of going to Bookham as much as you can do; but I am not without hopes that something may happen to prevent it; Theo’ has lost his Election at Baliol, & perhaps they may not be able to see company for some time.—They talk of going to Bath too in the Spring, & perhaps they may be overturned in their way down, & all laid up for the summer.”
….and then commented as follows:
“Here, it is obvious both sisters are not enamored with certain `plans`, and according to DLF, CEA cancelled the words, "Bookham", "Theo" and "at Baliol" as the Cooke cousins were not held in high esteem. DLF writes:
“a study of the rediscovered MS enables the three names to be deciphered beneath the cancellations.”
Today, I realized that the Austen sisters retained their strong dislike in particular for their cousin the Revd. Theo-Leigh Cooke (3 years younger than JA) over quite an extended period of time, because there
are two later passages in JA’s letters which demonstrate their continued abhorrence for his company. And once my attention was drawn to this, I realized there was a significant veiled allusion to one of JA’s real life Cooke cousins in one of JA’s most memorable characters."  END QUOTE FROM MY 2011 POST

In other words, I argued in my post that Letter 17's reference to Bookham which Cassandra Austen attempted to cover over was JA's dig at her obnoxious, Mr. Collins-like cousin the Revd. Theo-Leigh Cooke, a dig she revisited in two later letters, showing she held a long standing dislike for Theo-Leigh Cooke. He must indeed have been very much like Mr. Collins.

And that leads me to a few additional observations:

1. Is it possible that at some point the Austen family pressured JA to MARRY her cousin (who was three years younger than she)? That would fit with Cassandra's unusual attempt at very specific editorial suppression -- i.e., it would not just be a non-specific expression by JA of desire to avoid seeing her cousin in passing in the midst of a large family gathering, but it might go a few steps further and suggest that in 1799, JA, at age 24, was under pressure to marry the Revd. Theo-Leigh Cooke???

2. If that were so, then it would also fit very nicely with the other misleading headline in the recent news reports about Letter 17:

BBC: "The letter, from the famous author to her sister, makes a reference to her novel Pride and Prejudice - which at the time had not yet been published"

Daily Mail: "Previously unseen letter by Jane Austen where she first writes about Pride and Prejudice...A previously unseen letter by Jane Austen in which she first writes about Pride And Prejudice has gone on public display for the first time.The double folded sheet, sent by Austen to her sister Cassandra in January 1799, makes reference to the novel - 14 years before it was first published. In the letter, Austen writes of her upcoming novel First Impressions, later renamed and published as Pride And Prejudice in 1813.The book later became one of the most popular novels in English literature, selling more than 20 million copies worldwide.

'I do not wonder at your wanting to read first impressions again, so seldom as you have gone through it, & that so long ago,' she wrote to Cassandra."


So...putting the pieces of the puzzle together, I do NOT believe it was a coincidence that JA suspiciously mentions CEA wanting to read First Impressions again in this same Letter 17 in which JA writes a sharp dig at a close family member who was one of the models for Mr. Collins! What I actually think JA was doing was TELLING CEA to read First Impressions again--why? It was a coded way of telling CEA, "Read FIrst Impressions again so you can see on the page all the reasons why I am so glad I did have to talk to Theo-Leigh Cooke!"

Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter

Friday, December 5, 2014

Priyanka Chopra quotes Mrs. Norris and Malala Yousafzai channels Anne Elliot: Jane Austen’s “one pen” continues to “change the world” for women



I just read an Op/Ed piece in the NY Times today…
…by the Indian actress/singer/activist Priyanka Chopra entitled “What Jane Austen Knew: Priyanka Chopra on Educating Girls”

I urge you to read the whole column, and contribute what you can to her philanthropic cause. Today I want to focus on the part of Chopra’s piece that connects directly, in a couple of interesting and important ways, to Jane Austen:

“… That experience, and the time I spent working with my parents after that trip, are what drove me to use my name and my voice to support the education and empowerment of girls. I was a girl, from a modest background. I have two loving parents who educated me and gave me the opportunity to chase my dreams. I worked very hard, and today I am financially independent and successful in my chosen career. If I can do this, so can countless other girls! They can do it, but not alone.
…[2014] ended with a schoolgirl in the headlines for all the right reasons, being celebrated for her achievements: In October, Malala Yousafzai, a student and an education advocate, and the Indian child-rights campaigner Kailash Satyarthi were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their “struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education,” as the Nobel Committee explained. The committee noted that Malala had shown by example that children and young people can help improve their own situations. We can make 2015 a turning point for girls across the world. As Malala said: “Let us pick up our books and our pens — they are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world. Education is the only solution.”
.. The best part about all this is that no matter where I go, I always find that efforts to improve a girl’s life are rarely about just the individual — the goal is always to help her family and her community as a whole. Girls want to help themselves so they can help everyone they hold near and dear, and that’s where the positive ripple effect of change comes into play.
THIS IS NOT NEW. JANE AUSTEN KNEW IT TWO CENTURIES AGO: “Give a girl an education and introduce her properly into the world, and ten to one she has the means of settling well, without further expense to anybody.”  END QUOTE

At first, I was stumped—where had Jane Austen written those quoted words about giving a girl an education? Google quickly led me to the surprising source---Mrs. Norris, not a character that most Janeites normally associate with female empowerment---in the beginning of Mansfield Park, when she convinces brother-in-law & family patriarch Sir Thomas Bertram to take their 10-year old niece Fanny Price out of the urban squalor of her overcrowded family in Portsmouth, and raise her in the rural splendor of Mansfield Park:

“My dear Sir Thomas, I perfectly comprehend you, and do justice to the generosity and delicacy of your notions, which indeed are quite of a piece with your general conduct; and I entirely agree with you in the main as to the propriety of doing everything one could by way of providing for a child one had in a manner taken into one's own hands; and I am sure I should be the last person in the world to withhold my mite upon such an occasion. Having no children of my own, who should I look to in any little matter I may ever have to bestow, but the children of my sisters?-- and I am sure Mr. Norris is too just--but you know I am a woman of few words and professions. Do not let us be frightened from a good deed by a trifle. Give a girl an education, and introduce her properly into the world, and ten to one but she has the means of settling well, without farther expense to anybody. A niece of ours, Sir Thomas, I may say, or at least of yours, would not grow up in this neighbourhood without many advantages. I don't say she would be so handsome as her cousins. I dare say she would not; but she would be introduced into the society of this country under such very favourable circumstances as, in all human probability, would get her a creditable establishment.”

Mrs. Norris goes on to reassure Sir Thomas that Fanny will never marry one of her cousins, and of course we all know that Mrs. Norris proves to be a poor prophet, as Fanny does indeed marry cousin Edmund, in no small part because Edmund becomes her mentor: “Having formed her mind and gained her affections, he had a good chance of her thinking like him…” 

So, in a way, Edmund wins Fanny’s love through education, adding irony to Mrs. Norris’s statement which Chopra quoted in support of Chopra’s worthy and important advocacy for education of girls in the 21st century in parts of the world, like India, where female education is widely ignored, feared, and even actively condemned and forbidden.

But I hear a distinct echo of yet another, more famous line from an Austen novel in the quoted words of Malala Yousafzai, the incredibly brave young Pakistani woman who narrowly survived an assassination attempt prompted by her advocacies for women, and fearlessly returned to her extraordinary mission on behalf of women’s rights, and just won the Nobel Peace Prize:

“Let us pick up our books and OUR PENS — they are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and ONE PEN can change the world. Education is the only solution.”

Yousafzai has clearly drawn inspiration from the thrilling words at the end of Persuasion, when Anne Elliot defeats Captain Harville in their amicable debate about gender:

“…Well, Miss Elliot," (lowering his voice,) "as I was saying we shall never agree, I suppose, upon this point. No man and woman, would, probably. But let me observe that all histories are against you--all stories, prose and verse. If I had such a memory as Benwick, I could bring you fifty quotations in a moment on my side the argument, and I do not think I ever opened a book in my life which had not something to say upon woman's inconstancy. Songs and proverbs, all talk of woman's fickleness. But perhaps you will say, these were all written by men."
"Perhaps I shall. Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. EDUCATION HAS BEEN THEIRS IN SO MUCH HIGHER A DEGREE; THE PEN HAS BEEN IN THEIR HANDS. I will not allow books to prove anything."

Sure enough, in a 2013 Salon.com piece about Yousafzai, we read “In her new book “I am Malala,” Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai …offers up surprising bits of information about her life in Pakistan, her recovery and her adolescence – including a liking for both Jane Austen and Stephenie Meyer.”

And I found this at the Facebook page for the Jane Austen Literacy Foundation:

“Similar to Jane Austen’s father, who was a rector and a teacher in the village of Steventon, the father of Malala Yousafzai supported his daughter’s education. He explains in this video how he encouraged his daughter to join the school he was teaching at in order to further her 'emancipation through education'.

And...I just found another quote from an article about Malala's father...
 http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/4425185-malala-yousafzai-s-father-ziauddin-speaks-to-students-at-secord-elementary-school/

...which shows that he and his daughter share a love of Anne Elliot's famous quote:

"He enthusiastically said he loved Canada for it had given so much love – honourary citizenship to Malala – to his family. After an uplifting greeting to the kids, calling them “diverse, beautiful flowers,” Yousafzai explained the challenges that inhibit some children in Pakistan and other countries from receiving a proper or any education.
“You can imagine how difficult it is,” he said. “They should have BOOKS IN THEIR HANDS AND PENS IN THEIR HANDS, but they don’t. They have hammers in their hands, some work in workshops, some in domestic child labour.”

So, I believe that if Jane Austen knew two centuries ago that her words would inspire extraordinary real life heroines like Yousafzai and Chopra to carry forward the cause of female education worldwide as they are now doing, she would smile with satisfaction. Why? Because I am 100% certain that Austen’s prime purpose in writing her fiction, even more than to express her creative artistic genius and make an independent living, was precisely that much larger goal—i.e., to in effect give girls and women everywhere another powerful tool for growing their minds—a novel---a tool that would not require taking those girls and women out of their homes, but would empower them to change their own living conditions.

We can see clearly that Jane Austen has inspired Yousafzai and Chopra to grab the pen, as is their right as a human being, because they can see that Jane Austen, even now, two centuries after she published her novels, remains the preeminent female holder of that “one pen” that has indeed “changed the world” -- because Jane Austen recognized that “education is the only solution” and had the vision and genius to wield her pen effectively beyond her own wildest dreams.

Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter