April 2024 meeting: Mansfield Park, Vol. 2

If any Austen book is going to bring her fans to fisticuffs, chances are it will be Mansfield Park. Some members in our group don’t like it at all, while others like it to different degrees, with one admitting to its being his favourite.  These differences became evident at this meeting which focused on volume two (chapters 19-31), with the differences of opinion relating in particular to Sir Thomas. 

But let’s start with our guest. This month we again, quite coincidentally, had an American visitor join us, and again she had done her homework! How lucky are we, particularly as this visitor, a generation younger than we are, was reading Mansfield Park for the first time. How often do we wish we could speak to someone reading an Austen book for the first time!

Discussion

Our young American said that while she has read Austen and other classic authors, her main reading, currently, is romance and general fiction. So, as she was reading Mansfield Park, she looked for tropes common to the romance genre. And, she found two significant ones, which could cement Austen’s reputation as the mother of the romance genre! The tropes are the idea of friends (or, here, cousins) becoming lovers, and the heroine’s belief that she’s “not like other girls”. She’s not as pretty, not as outgoing, and so on, as her rivals. Fanny makes just this observation in a discussion with Edmund about her interest in hearing Sir Thomas talk about the West Indies. She suggests she is “graver than other people” and concludes:

… but then I am unlike other people, I dare say.

Those who are not fans of the novel included one of our absent members who emailed that she wondered why she found MP such a chore to read, compared with the other novels. She decided that it’s because she doesn’t like the characters, doesn’t care what happens to them, and so is not eager to read about them. However, she admitted that the novel is enlivened whenever Henry Crawford appears, and she does admire the creation of Mrs Norris.

Some members agreed that they find the novel a chore to read, or at least the first volume. A couple found volume 1 a bit tedious and wanted Austen to get on with the story. Not everyone agreed, however.

One of the members who loves Mansfield Park finds the characters fascinating even if they’re obnoxious. In terms of Volume 2, she was interested in the “amber cross” and the necklace/chain issue. Did Mary and Henry contrive, she wondered, for Fanny to pick “his” chain? We don’t know. Regardless, Austen is pointed about the contrast between Edmund’s chain which was simple and just right for the cross and Henry’s elaborate necklace. It works as a metaphor for the two men and their understanding of, relationship with Fanny.

She also briefly discussed Henry’s behaviour. He goes from playing with Fanny to falling in love with her, but never considers that she mightn’t like him. Interestingly, it doesn’t occur to Fanny that he might like her, which some suggested was a rare lapse of perception in Fanny. As for Henry’s letter, which is delivered by Mary, our member wondered what Henry had told Mary about the situation.

The other member who loves the novel, calling it his favourite, enjoys watching Fanny, and loves the language Austen uses in the novel, such as this description of Mrs Norris, upon Sir Thomas’ return. She

was now trying to be in a bustle without having anything to bustle about, and labouring to be important where nothing was wanted but tranquillity and silence.

And this of Maria when she realises Henry Crawford is not interested in her:

She must escape from him and Mansfield as soon as possible, and find consolation in fortune and consequence, bustle and the world, for a wounded spirit.

He also likes Austen for the broader picture she gives of society, including, here, references to the slave trade. He noted Edward Said’s postcolonial interpretation of slavery in the novel, and John Wiltshire’s refutation of Said’s ideas.

Other issues that interested him included Crawford’s desire to “improve” Thornton Lacey and turn it into something impressive, into a “place”. And Fanny’s comment on memory:

“If any one faculty of our nature may be called more wonderful than the rest, I do think it is memory. There seems something more speakingly incomprehensible in the powers, the failures, the inequalities of memory, than in any other of our intelligences. The memory is sometimes so retentive, so serviceable, so obedient; at others, so bewildered and so weak; and at others again, so tyrannic, so beyond control! We are, to be sure, a miracle every way; but our powers of recollecting and of forgetting do seem peculiarly past finding out.”

Other members found other issues of interest in Volume 2. The theatricals, for example. Tony Tanner (1969) argues that the theatricals are key to understanding the novel. They encompass the concept of danger and change. The family all knew Sir Thomas would not be happy. A dichotomy is presented between being a good citizen and being an actor. Pointedly, Henry Crawford is recognised as the “best actor”, in the play – and, we see, in reality. Henry our member said, put his heart into his acting, and his acting into his heart. Mary is in her teasing, tempting element during the theatricals. The play, Lovers vows, itself, promotes unnatural and dangerous relationships, and all are doomed because of their insincerity. Tanner also argues that the play reveals the novel’s “ordination” theme.

We all had quite different ideas, from this volume of the novel, about the novel’s subject matter – at least as we saw them in this volume. So, another member saw the idea of appearance versus reality as coming to the fore in this volume. She focused on the first two chapters of this Volume (chapters 19 and 20), and the language Austen uses conveys the dichotomy between appearance and reality. She linked the destruction of the theatricals to the breakdown of the family, and sees Sir Thomas as the problem.

She liked this sentence describing Fanny joining the family upon Sir Thomas’ return:

Too soon did she find herself at the drawing–room door; and after pausing a moment for what she knew would not come, for a courage which the outside of no door had ever supplied to her, she turned the lock in desperation, and the lights of the drawing–room, and all the collected family, were before her.

Sir Thomas, this member argued, wants to bring his governance back, to put Mansfield Park back in order. Fanny, she said, has no voice in the family, and fears Sir Thomas. This member sees Sir Thomas as having been harsh about Fanny when he’d suggested to William (in Volume 1) that he might not find her much changed at 16 from how she was at 10. Overall she saw him as having a negative impact on the family.

Not all agreed with this assessment of Sir Thomas, however. One member, for example, complimented Sir Thomas on ordering a carriage for Fanny, despite Mrs Norris suggesting otherwise. She approved the way Sir Thomas regularly put Mrs Norris in her place. This member finds Mrs Norris infuriating – but then most of us do! – and is still thinking the book could be a satire, as she’d suggested during our Volume 1 discussion. She described Fanny as the arch-introvert, one who is observant and perceptive.

She was particularly taken with John Wiltshire’s discussion of the disempowerment of women. He argues that nursing (caring for) servants and the working class is a traditional role for the genteel but otherwise disempowered woman, but that “this benevolence has a Janus face” in that it replicates the inferior-superior social relationships that characterise the wider social system. Mrs Norris, Wiltshire argues, “punishes others for her own dependency and frustration, whilst being able to hide this from herself in the guise of generosity to the recipients and loyal service to the system”.

Similarly, all at Mansfield Park have, through their “adoption of the poor niece Fanny Price … basked in the pleasure of benevolence”. But this has fed “other, less creditable impulses, including Fanny becoming Mrs Norris’ victim. Both Fanny and Mrs Norris are outsiders, “fringe-dwellers”. In other words, both are single, defenceless females who are “not part of the family except by courtesy. The one lives in the small White House, on the edge of the estate, the other in the little white attic at the top of the house”. Wiltshire argues that Mrs Norris prescribes onto Fanny “the worthlessness, inferiority and indebtedness she is so anxious to deny in herself”.  Fanny becomes the scapegoat upon whom she can “exercise her frustrations and baffled energies”. By scolding and punishing Fanny, Mrs Norris “can momentarily appease her own sense of functionless dependency and reaffirm the strictness of the social hierarchy which gives meaning to her life”.

Another member reiterated her response to volume 1 that the book continues to be, partly at least, about the selfishness and self-centredness of the well-to-do. Examples abound in this volume, including Lady Bertram’s self-congratulations for sending her maid to Fanny (too late) to dress for the ball, Mrs Grant using Fanny to entertain Mary, Henry’s assumption that Fanny will be pleased to marry him, and so on.

This member also argued that Sir Thomas is not all negative, but she did see this volume as being partly about the education of Sir Thomas. He is strict, but he loves his children. He’s kind to Fanny. And he does offer Maria a way out of her engagement – albeit he is happy, because it suits his wish “to secure a marriage which would bring him such an addition of respectability and influence”, when she insists, for her own reasons, that she wants to go ahead.

Just as the theatricals tell us much about the novel, this member suggested that the game of speculation, which includes the discussion about improving Thornton Lacey, also offers much to readers in terms of the novel’s characters and themes, particularly regarding competitiveness and money versus unselfishness and generosity.

Our meeting ended with more points being put forward, including that Sir Thomas’ absence had helped people change, that Sir Thomas represents new (and somewhat unstable) money, that he restores some stability on his return, and that, for many of us, his kindness to Fanny is genuine.

Next month, we move on to Volume 3, or chapters 32 to 48.

Sources:

Tony Tanner, “Introduction”, Mansfield Park, various Penguin editions (1966, 1969, 1985)

John Wiltshire, Jane Austen and the body, Cambridge University Press, 1992

March 2024 meeting: Mansfield Park, Vol. 1

JASACT commenced the year with what has become a first-meeting-of-the-year tradition, a February meeting at the Oaks Brasserie. We like easing ourselves back into meetings with a relaxed gathering under the trees. This year we tested our brains on a selection of puzzles from the Pocket Posh Jane Austen 100 Puzzles book. After some early trepidation, we all came through with flying colours, though the character name anagrams did provide a bit of brain teasing.

We are now into the third year of our second cycle of slow reading Austen’s novels, which means we are up to Mansfield Park. In March, therefore, our focus was volume 1 (chapters 1-18).

Discussion

Mansfield Park is, for many, the most problematical of Austen’s novels. This may be because, as one member offered, it’s her first truly adult-written novel, given Sense and sensibility was probably started between 1795 and 1797, and Pride and prejudice first drafted over 1796 to 1797. By contrast, Mansfield Park was conceived and written at Chawton, between 1811 and 1813, by which time Austen had experienced some of life’s big blows. Compared with her first two novels, Mansfield Park’s characters are less appealing to some readers, and its themes more complicated. As a result, slow reads can not only bring new insights, but the occasional change of mind.

One member provided some publishing background that she gleaned from Christopher Browne’s Sensibilities article. The novel was initially published at the Austens’ expense so that Jane could retain ownership of the copyright. It was published in three volumes on the 10th May 1814 at 18 shillings, in an edition of 1250 copies, and was sold out by November of the same year. The second edition of 750 copies was published by John Murray in February 1816. They didn’t sell so well and by 1820, 498 copies were remaindered at 2s. 6p. As our member said, Who would have thought Jane Austen could ever have been remaindered? Not us!

So to our insights. We started with two brief comments mailed in from absent members. One shared that she had always focussed on the sort of fairy tale opening – “once there were three sisters” – without realising that the beginning is all about the trauma of relocating a child out of her home into another, about how Fanny must adjust not only to a new family but also to a new culture and be grateful for it! Austen explores, she wrote, the impact of this and its psychological consequences.

The other mailed-in impression came from a member who offered, among other things, the observation that Mansfield Park, of all the books, has the least number of admirable characters. It feels, she said, as though Austen had just had a surfeit of Bath and wanted to paint ‘real’ people as she saw them, with all their flaws (with the exception of Mrs Grant!) (Her first truly adult novel, in other words?)

Somewhat related to this idea were those of the member who has always disliked this novel intensely, so this time she listened to it, choosing an audio version by Juliet Stevenson. She felt that Stevenson “over-egged the characters” which made them feel like caricatures, and made her think the novel might be satire. Mrs Norris is exasperating, annoying, aggravating, unjust; Edmund is an unperceptive prig; Sir Thomas is happy to leave the children in Mrs Norris’ care, knowing their mother/aunt is not up to it; Austen is facetious about Maria and Julia’s beauty; and Mary is self important, self-centred, an “influencer” (which description we all liked), a “city-slicker” who is due to be punctured. So, satire, she again asked?

Other members’ impressions got more into the nitty gritty, looking at the characters and what they represent or tell us about people and society.

We all liked the suggestion that the three Ward sisters who open the novel represent three levels of society: Lady Bertram the well-to-do, Mrs Norris the genteel middle-class, and Mrs Price the poor. Sir Thomas feels he can bestow goodness on others, and Fanny appears as a Cinderella. Austen, it was suggested, then uses the play – the theatricals – to move people around, to show some of their true colours.

The novel, said another, offers rather a bleak view of marriage and families. She can see, she said, why it was remaindered! Also looking at the opening chapter’s introduction of the Ward sisters, she argued that we are given primarily a materialistic view of Maria Ward’s (Lady Bertram’s) marriage, that there is no evidence that Elizabeth (Mrs Norris) was happy in her marriage, and that, is is made clear, Frances (Mrs Price) married to disoblige her family.

Many reasons are given for Fanny’s relocation to Mansfield Park, but none involve consideration of her feelings (or that of her brother to whom she was close). Fanny had status as the eldest daughter in her own family, and suddenly she had none. In terms of Fanny’s family, there is no evidence outside of William that they tried to maintain contact with her, and again, besides William, she does not appear to miss them.

There is much focus on marriage, but it is all hard-hearted. Mary Crawford looks at Tom Bertram as a marriage prospect, but it’s a venal tick-the-boxes view with no consideration of feelings. It’s been suggested, this member continued, that Mary was inspired by Jane’s sister-in-law Eliza who flirted with two of Jane’s brothers, albeit she did marry one eventually.

Henry Crawford is a flirt who behaves with a complete lack of consideration towards the young Bertram women.

Rather like Mary, Maria actually makes a tick-the-box marriage decision when she accepts the wealthy Mr. Rushworth. Her reasons are material, but perhaps also involve a desire to escape her family. Certainly, no feelings are involved, argued our member, she is quite aware that he is a stupid man.

As for family feeling, there are few examples of warmth with the exception of Mary and Henry, Mary and Mrs Grant, and of course Fanny and William. Tom and Edmund show so real brotherly love, while Maria and Julia seem to get on – until Henry appears.

The novel presents different family structures: Fanny is essentially adopted out of hers; the Bertram family is intact but not happy (with no one seeming to miss Sir Thomas who is absent for this part of the book); Henry and Mary have been shunted around, somewhat, due to death first of their father, mother and aunt-in-law. All this prompted her to think about the impact of family on people. What we appear to have, our member said, was a microcosm of a certain class of society with which Jane was acquainted. Other members also, not surprisingly, referenced similar points regarding family, the importance of marriage, and Austen’s portrayal of society

Some members looked at specific characters. A couple specifically focused on Fanny, with one being interested in her status as niece and cousin. She’s partly accepted, partly not, but is seen as a second-tier in the family. Another talked of how in her first reading of the novel she’d been annoyed with Fanny, but had more sympathy for her this time. This read she saw Fanny’s understanding of the play and its potential impact. She agreed with those who suggested that Fanny suffered from trauma, from a sort of PTSD, in fact.

Edmund was the focus of another member’s reading of this first volume. He argued that in this volume Edmund’s behaviour is “not entirely honourable”, but that we must make allowances for first love, which can affect our values. Edmund is not yet ordained, but he sometimes preaches like a clergyman, and didn’t seem to always be entirely convinced himself of what he was saying. Edmund, he concluded, is rather insincere in this first volume and not an entirely sympathetic character.

Another member was interested in Lord Mansfield’s abolition of slavery. Was Austen presenting marriage as a form of slavery, with characters boxed-in, being directed as to whom they should marry? We agreed that this was worth thinking about as we read the next two volumes.

Several members commented on the issue of selfishness. Almost everyone, said one member, is self-absorbed, selfish, irresponsible, inconsiderate of other people. Even Edmund is, but he does recognise his failings with respect to Fanny (eg the horse riding story, and the rose picking incident which leaves Fanny with a headache).

For another member, this selfishness was her over-riding impression from this reading of volume 1. Indeed, it made her wonder whether the novel is intended to be a broader commentary on the selfishness, self-centredness, hedonism of the well-to-do, and how it leads to poor behaviour and carelessness of the needs of others, to immorality. References to selfishness recur frequently in this volume, including:

This, from Chapter 2’s discussion of Fanny:

Nobody meant to be unkind, but nobody put themselves out of their way to secure her comfort.

This from Mary on herself:

“… selfishness must always be forgiven…because there’s no hope of a cure.”

And, from chapter 14, Fanny’s observation of the would-be playmakers:

Fanny looked on and listened, not unamused to observe the selfishness which, more or less disguised, seemed to govern them all, and wondering how it would end.

Subsequent discussion explored the above a little more, but also included thinking about the idea of the novel as a farce; on its timelessness as a picture of arrogance, entitlement and privilege; and on the value of hearing it read. We also commented that this novel could be the closest we’ll ever get to an autobiography of Austen. Did, for example, her big “love” Tom Lefroy toy with her, like Henry Crawford does here?

We were pleased to have an American visitor in our midst this month, particularly as she’d done her homework and was able to contribute to the discussion.

Next month, we move on to Volume 2, or chapters 19 to 31.

Source:

Christopher Browne, “Jane Austen and her publishers”, Sensibilities, No. 67, December 2023

June 2023 meeting: Travel in Jane Austen’s novels

Prepared by member Anna.

Our June meeting was smatter than usual, with numerous apologies coming in for the day. However, a reduced, enthusiastic group, fuelled by Maltesers supplied by one of our number, discussed various aspects of travel in Jane Austen’s novels.

Members were asked to focus on one novel in their contributions.

We began by discussing the difference between a journey and the modern concept of travel as recreation. As there are only 2 real instances of holiday travel, ie The Gardiners and Lizzie in Derbyshire in Pride and Prejudice and the party to Lyme Regis in Persuasion, we decided on a broader definition to encompass journeys.

An absent member provided some information from the Adkins’ book, Jane Austen’s England, in which they discusses the types if travel available to everyone – rich to poor – at the time.  They argue that during Jane Austen time travelling became a bit easier than it had been a century before, and name various methods of travel characters use during her novels: walking, riding horses, carriage, stage coach and post-chaises, and of course ships and boats. Several of these forms appear in Sense and sensibility.

Overall, though, we agreed found that fact travel was so tedious, dangerous and expensive that the majority of people travelled no further than 14 miles from home.

One member referencing Sense and Sensibility said that Austen highlights the reality of this with Mrs Dashwood having to sell her carriage, and the impractical suggestion of Willoughby to gift Marianne a horse given their reduced circumstances.

Despite the obvious expense, there are 49 mentions of movement from one place to another and 46 mentions of carriages in Sense and Sensibility, noting how ludicrous is the idea that nothing happens in Jane Austen’s novels.

The changes of location in the novel have a significant impact on the characters.  The Dashwoods move to the country and Barton Cottage, Marianne’s realisation in London that Willoughby has betrayed her, Edward Ferrar’s decision that he prefers country life to the city life promoted by his mother and Marianne’s fateful walk at Cleveland, which almost results in her death.

Another member also considered the impact of travel on characters in Sense and Sensibility. Travel meant not only moving from one place to another but characters having to move out of their comfort zone and confront aspects which are physically and emotionally challenging.

At Barton Cottage, Marianne’s decision to go for a walk results in her being literally swept of her feet by Willoughby as he carries her home. At the end of the novel, Marianne and Elinor walk facing the same hills and she realises “Everybody seemed injured by me. The kindness, the unceasing kindness of Mrs Jennings, I had repaid with ungrateful contempt”. She has matured and grown emotionally through the course of the novel.

A number of carriages and men on horseback during Marianne’s illness at Cleveland heightens the tension with Austen cleverly creating movement to build emotional pressure as Elinor waits.

Another member turned to Margaret Doody’s Jane Austen’s Names and focused on the significance of the places that Austen chose to send her the characters moved to in Pride and Prejudice.

Brighton, a defended port, military camp and highly fashionable resort, was associated with entertainments and illicit sex. A totally suitable place for Lydia’s seduction by Wickham, as was Ramsgate where Wickham tried the same tactics with Georgiana.

Austen makes London central to her plot, serving as the hinge or crossroads of her story, as every important character, except Mrs Bennet either travels or lives there.

Did the Bennets live in Hertforshire because the name lends itself to wordplay, the place where hearts cross and meet? And is Rosings in Kent where Austen’s wealthy relations lived because they treated her with condescension? Hence the “vainglory and sense of entitlement” expressed through both Mr Collins and Lady Catherine.

While another member considered the significance of the journey to Hunsford, which allowed personal conversations between Elizabeth and Darcy leading to the proposal and personal conversations between Elizabeth and Colonel Fitzwilliam which added to Elizabeth’s prejudice.

The problems of travel for women were also discussed and the expense of private coaches. 

Take Emma, in which protagonist Emma is trapped in Hartfield, tied down by her father although other characters move considerable distances. Isabella and John Knighley travel from and back to London, Frank Churchill goes there for his haircut, Mr Elton travels to Bristol to find a bride and Mr Knightley also travels to London to resolve his feeling about Emma and marriage.

But three journeys do have an impact on Emma, herself, all three making her question herself and her decisions. The carriage ride home from Christmas at the Weston’s with Mr Elton, the infamous picnic at Box Hill, and her distress while Mr Knightley is in London and she thinks she’s lost him for ever.

Using Beth Wallace’s essay (citation below) as source material, our remote member considered Mansfield Park and how it is the young men who travel the most; from Tom Bertram’s accompanying his father to Antigua and his profligate trips to the races, Ramsgate, Weymouth and London, to Henry Crawford’s more purposeful journeys to Norfolk, Bath and London. 

Mr. Crawford assures all that he will return to Mansfield Park from Bath, Norfolk, London, York or any place in England at an hour’s notice. Noticeably, these land-bound men, including Edmund Bertram on his journeys to Eton, Oxford, Peterborough and London, do not comment on the travel itself.  

Modest Midshipman William Price travels the furthest and reminisces the most willingly about his naval experiences in the Mediterranean, Gibraltar and Sicily. Travel has indeed opened his mind. 

Female travellers are generally more thoughtful and the countryside is seen according to their moods and characters, such as the silent emotional turmoil during the ten miles in Henry’s barouche to and from Sotherton. 

Money and social class determined who travelled in carriages. Mrs Norris believes that ten year old Fanny can easily get from Portsmouth by public coach under the care of any creditable person who may chance to be going, such as a tradesman’s wife.

Years later, when Fanny and her brother are more respected, they travel by post back to Portsmouth and Mrs Norris ‘sees Sir Thomas actually give William notes for the purpose.’ 

Appropriateness also outweighed distance. Sir Thomas asks Fanny what time she would have the carriage come round when she is going to the vicarage close by. 

“My dear Sir Thomas!” cried Mrs Norris, red with anger, “Fanny can walk,” 
“Walk!” Repeated Sir Thomas ……”My niece walk to a dinner engagement at this time of the year!”

This was a time when consumer culture was escalating, and stories told from the point of view of material objects, their origin, manufacture, and journey taken to arrive with a particular owner, were quite popular. The journey taken by Jane Austen’s material objects, though, tell us so much more about the psychological development of her characters. The journey taken by Mary Crawford’s harp, for instance, exposes her ‘dangerous and siren-like power over Edmund’ and her insensitivity to the essential requirements of an agricultural community which prevent her from obtaining a horse and cart at harvest time. This brilliant use of material culture to focus on character exposé places Austen at the vanguard of the modern psychological novel. 

The meeting ended with quotes after a decision to delay the quiz for a month. It was an excellent topic.

Sources

Roy and Lesley Adkins, Jane Austen’s England. Viking, 2013, pp. 238 – 261)
Margaret Doody, Jane Austen’s names. University of Chicago Press, 2016
Beth Wallace, “Traveling shoe roses: The geography of things in Austen’s works” in Jane Austen’s geographies, ed. Robert Clark. Routledge, 2018

March 2022 meeting: Women of a certain age – in Austen (2)

As noted in the first post in this two-part series, our March meeting was devoted to discussing “women of a certain age”. The first post focused on the definitions, and the contributions of members who looked at the topic more broadly. This post contains the contributions of those who chose to explore particular characters.

It’s important to reiterate that these characters were chosen according to some different understandings of “women of a certain age”.

Mrs Smith (Persuasion)

Many of Austen’s older women, said our member, suffered from a “malady imaginative”, but Mrs Smith’s illness was real. Mrs Smith is not technically middle-aged, by our generally agreed definition, but she was three years older than Anne Elliot, and, because of her experience, she seems much older. However, our member’s main point was that Mrs Smith, by her definition of the topic as being older women who drive the plot, is a significant plot device in Persuasion.

Greenfield writes of Mrs Smith in Sensibilities, likening her to that other important Smith, Harriet Smith in Emma. Both Smiths challenge the judgement of the heroine, and are more than just “objects of patronage” for their heroines. Our member argued that Mrs Smith exposes how callous Mr Elliot could be, but she could also be manipulative. She’s savvy, resilient, complex, and has an “elastic” mind, said our member. She keeps readers uncertain about her true motives. She had married for money, and it’s only on Anne’s second visit to her sick bed that Mrs Smith reveals all she knows about Mr Elliot. Is she sincerely Anne’s friend, or using Anne for her own advantage? She doesn’t expose Mr Elliot’s full perfidy until she ascertains that Anne does not plan to marry him.

Nonetheless, argued our member, Mrs Smith is an interesting friend, because she lets Anne see the fault of her own choices. Unlike Lady Russell, she doesn’t interfere, but she encourages Anne. Women of a certain age, concluded our member, did have powers of persuasion, and in Mrs Smith’s case she helped Anne clarify her decision. She plays a similar plot role in terms of the heroine’s change of mind as the Gardiners do in Pride and prejudice.

Our member didn’t have time to research her fully, but argued that Mrs Churchill, another (much) older woman, plays an important role in driving the plot of Emma.

Miss Bates (Emma)

Jane Austen creates no female over the age of 30 who are marriageable (with the exception of Lady Susan), said another member, and Miss Bates is the only older spinster in Austen’s novels who is a main character. She represents a subset of society, a subset that Austen, herself, and her sister Cassandra, also belonged to.

Miss Bates is introduced in Ch. 3 of Emma, with “she was a great talker on little matters”. She’s in the middle of life, needing to make her money last, which was Austen’s own world. Then we don’t meet her again until Ch. 19 when we are told of Emma’s reluctance to visit her. Emma sees Miss Bates and her mother as “tiresome”, and has a horror of “falling in with the second rate and third rate of Highbury” who regularly visit the Bateses – which of course tells us more about Emma than those women. And yet, Emma and Miss Bates have a few things in common: both care for aged parents, both are unmarried, and both seem happy.

Miss Bates is a great talker and on Emma’s visit she talks for 5 pages inspired by Jane Fairfax’s letter. Norton asks how readers react to her: do we find her “amusing or delightful” or does the sight of page/s devoted to fill us with “gloom”. These questions determine whether we share Emma’s reaction to her. Emma is exasperated by her and shows little tolerance or empathy, and yet others in Highbury, including Mr Knightley, show remarkable kindness to Miss Bates. 

Norton discusses how Austen presents Miss Bates – the use of double dashes to convey the frenetic nature of her speech. He also suggests we try to imagine being her, and read her speeches aloud.

Our member did disagree with Norton’s statement that readers are amused by Emma’s witticism about Miss Bates at Box Hill. She argued that most readers, like Mr Knightley, are appalled.

Miss Bates is more than a comic element, but plays an important role in the plot: she reveals significant pieces of information, particularly regarding Jane and Frank.

Beyond this, Norton argues that Miss Bates is important to Austen’s deepening vision of humanity, to her dealing with women with compassion.

Mrs Jennings (Sense and sensibility)

Mrs Jennings, said our member, plays a useful role in Sense and sensibility. She is always where the action is or she makes effort to know what’s going on (going so far as to ask her servants to obtain information from the servants of others). She’s generous and good-hearted, but a gossip, so she keeps the plot moving along, like Miss Bates. However, she can get “the wrong end of the stick” at times, such as putting Colonel Brandon and Elinor together.

She appears in at least 25 of the 50 chapters. She sees through affectations like Fanny Dashwood. She’s described as “cheerful, agreeable”, but Marianne finds her boring, interfering. But, proposed our member, this reflects more on Marianne’s character than on Mrs Jennings’.

She’s wealthy, and she’s never invisible. Things don’t bother her. Having married off her daughters satisfactorily, she is keen to do the same for the Dashwood girls.

Mrs Norris (Mansfield Park)

Our member who chose Mrs Norris started with her name. Doody suggests that “Norris” might derive from the French for “north” or Nourrice (nurse). Mrs Norris is harsh as the north, and, ironically, un-nurturing. “Norris” is also the surname of John Norris, a cruel pro-slavery delegate portrayed by Thomas Clarkson, who was a leading writer for the abolition and whom Austen read.

Barchas refers to an article by Kathleen Fowler, who argues that “Jane Austen plants for us an emblem for the entire novel” in the moor park apricot tree, which is praised by Mrs Norris and judged as “insipid” by Dr Grant. Fowler argues that Austen uses plants to help delineate characters: the Misses Bertram make artificial flowers while the life-draining Mrs Norris dries roses.

The moor park apricot discussion (Ch. 6) also serves to reveal character of he two Grants and Mrs. Norris, who discuss it. This discussion, for example, raises the issue of taste and discernment. Mrs Grant says that Dr. Grant cannot even recognise the genuine article. But he is not alone, because, repeatedly, characters fail to recognise “the natural taste” of real fruit: the Bertrams and Crawfords fail to recognise Fanny’s virtues; and Fanny fails to recognise real strength and “natural” behaviour in her Portsmouth family.

Mrs Norris gets it wrong all the time, not only about the nature and taste of the apricot. She:

• takes the credit for engineering Maria’s engagement to a man she does not love (Mr Rushforth) while missing what is going on between Maria and Henry Crawford
• promotes the theatricals, not appreciating (unlike Fanny and Edmund) that Sir Thomas would disapprove
• is cruel, particularly to Fanny, but also the Mansfield Park servants
• is mean (and the examples abound), but it is epitomised in her refusal to have Fanny live with her and her spending as much time as possible at Mansfield Park to save money
• is a sycophant, obsequious, particularly to Sir Thomas
• is a snob, and emphasises the difference between Maria and Julia, and Fanny

Our member wondered what modern personality disorder we could ascribe to her: passive aggressive?mid-life crisis? relevance deprivation syndrome (which she experiences twice, first after the death of her husband, and then when she is banished with Maria).

Does she have any redeeming qualities? Blogger Sarah Emsley shares the thoughts of George Justice (from Arizona State University). He says:

We learn in the novel’s first paragraph that Mrs. Norris was the older sister of Lady Bertram and, subject to the marriage market of her time, had to watch her younger sister marry first (and marry well) and eventually find “herself obliged to be attached to the Rev. Mr. Norris, a friend of her brother-in-law.” The double passive of “found herself obliged” and “to be attached” signals the novel’s latent sympathy with the character. Mrs. Norris is characterized both explicitly and in the action of the novel as having a “spirit of activity.” Therefore, being put in the position of being acted upon in the single most important life moment that society imposed on young women of her social class—marriage—is not a punishment of her but the signal moment shaping the narrative of Mrs. Norris’s life. Mrs. Norris is female activity repressed by patriarchal society.

Justice continues to suggest that as the active spouse of a clergyman, she would have had plenty to do, the most important of which would probably have been raising children, but Mrs. Norris is dealt another blow by life: she had no children. Austen writes of her frugality, suggesting that

Had there been a family to provide for, Mrs. Norris might never have saved her money; but having no care of that kind, there was nothing to impede her frugality. (Ch. 1)

So, says Justice, Mrs. Norris’ ill-judged encouragement of Lovers’ vows can be understood in terms of her having “clawed her way to significance through assuming a role in the economy of Mansfield Park”. She is “a middle manager, a factory floor shift supervisor despised by both the owner … and the workers …”. With Sir Thomas absent, and no-one taking charge, she does, he argues,

the best she can. Like many middle managers … she can only act on her best understanding of the intentions of her superiors in relation to those she is managing—who are, at best, resentful, and at worse filled with enmity and contempt.

So, he says, we could see her as “a victim of an unjust society: widowed, ill-educated, and requiring patronage to maintain her human dignity”. What does it say about us, he asks, if we’d rather she be Miss Bates, who is “powerless and ridiculed, existing solely on the basis of charity”? Looking at her this way, he suggests that “Mrs. Norris, given her limited opportunities, is as hard-working as any of Austen’s female characters”.

Another member saw some redeeming qualities, suggesting her economising is a positive quality in a woman managing on her own.

Academic Moira Ferguson also hints at Mrs Norris’s affection for Maria as a redeeming feature, but she also likens Mrs Norris to the role of “overseer”.

Perkins explores how the idea of slavery plays out in Mansfield Park. The article makes interesting reading, finding analogies between the institution and practice of slavery, and the treatment of people, and particularly Fanny, at Mansfield Park. For example, as the master of Mansfield Park, Sir Thomas Bertram has ultimate responsibility for years of humiliation and pain inflicted upon Fanny by her authorised overseer, Mrs. Norris, even if he didn’t fully intend this evil. Mrs Norris, who has little power herself, seems to relish this role of subjugating someone below her on the ladder. Sir Thomas leaves his plantations under an overseer.

Sources

• Barchas, Janine. Matters of fact in Jane Austen: History, location and celebrity, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013
• Doody, Margaret. Jane Austen’s names, University of Chicago Press, 2015
• Eddleman, Stephanie. “Past the bloom: Aging and beauty in the novels of Jane Austen“, Persuasions, no. 37, 2015
• Emsley, Sarah. “Angry white female: An apology for Mrs Norris“, sarahemsley.com, 1 August 2014 (Accessed: 17 May 2022)
• Ferguson, Moira. “Mansfield Park: Slavery, Colonialism and Gender,” The Oxford Literary Review, 13 (1991): 118-39
• Fowler, Kathleen. “Apricots, raspberries, and Susan Price! Susan Price: Mansfield Park and Maria Edgeworth”, Persuasions 15 (1991)
• Greenfield, Sayre. “Alias Mrs Smith”, Sensibilities, no. 37, December 2008
• Norton, David. “Emma and Mr Knightly as lovers: Keeping secrets and telling tales”, Sensibilities No. 51, December 2015
• Perkins, Moreland. “Mansfield Park and Austen’s reading on slavery and Imperial Warfare”, Persuasions Online 26 (1), Winter 2005

May 2017 meeting: Who advises Jane Austen’s heroines?

Prepared by member Mary.

Our topic for the May meeting was “who advises Jane Austen’s heroines?”  A wide-ranging topic with a difficulty in distinguishing between advice, persuasion and bullying.  We considered those who may be in a position to provide helpful advice, including parents, siblings, relatives, friends and suitors.  Often they tended to do more harm than good.

Several people quoted Fanny Price’s belief that “we all have a better guide in ourselves, if we wanted to attend to it, than any other person can be.”  Despite her many trials, Fanny always keeps true to her own “better guide”; and all of Jane Austen’s heroines eventually find strength and guidance from their own moral integrity.

Margaret Mary Benson’s paper discusses the relationship between Mothers, substitute mothers and daughters in the novels of Jane Austen (Persuasions No. 11, 1989).  A mother’s role is to take care of her daughter’s early education and endeavor to develop a personal sense of responsibility.  But in Austen’s novels mothers are either absent or totally inadequate.

Benson points out that even Mrs Morland fails as a source of morality as she has “too many children to concentrate on the guidance of any individual daughter or son.”  In Bath Catherine is left to the care of Mrs Allen, who is incapable of giving advice of any kind.  When asked, Mr Allen advises Catherine that it is not seemly to be driving about the country side in an open carriage with John Thorpe.  Although fond of her brother James, Catherine questions his wisdom in encouraging a friendship with John Thorpe.  The contrast between the behavior of Isabella and John Thorpe with that of Eleanor and Henry Tilney helps Catherine to distinguish between false and trusted friends.

Catherine is mortified when a shocked Henry realizes that she has imagined that General Tilney murdered his wife, but he finds a way of being her mentor and guiding her judgment.  By the end of the novel Catherine has matured and she “acts with real dignity when she is sent home from Northanger Abbey.  ….. but like Emma, her husband will always be her mentor and superior, theirs is not a marriage of equals.”  (Benson, ibid).

Emma Woodhouse is motherless.  Clever, headstrong and self-reliant she has been managing her father’s household from an early age.  Her substitute mother is “poor Miss Taylor”, now Mrs Weston, who has been with the Woodhouse family for the past 16 years:

Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her temper had hardly allowed her to impose any restraint; and the shadow of authority being now long passed away, they had been living together as friend and friend very mutually attached and Emma doing just what she liked; highly esteeming Miss Taylor’s judgment, but directed chiefly by her own. (Emma, Ch. 1)

Likewise Mr Woodhouse can find no fault with Emma.  He is a valetudinarian who uses emotional blackmail to keep Emma at home to care for him and entertain the limited society of Highbury.  But he is no companion for her.  “He could not meet her in conversation, rational or playful.” Frank Churchill deceives Emma. He uses his flirtation with her as a screen to hide his secret engagement to Jane Fairfax; although he claims he was not at fault: he “only supposed Emma as quick-witted as she believed herself to be”.

Mr Knightley has known Emma all her life and is in the habit of lecturing and judging her. He advises Emma not to interfere with Harriet’s relationship with Robert Martin, but she is determined to prove him wrong and plays matchmaker with disastrous results.  When all is resolved between them, Mr Knightley questions whether he had the right to judge and lecture Emma, who must have done well without him.  But Emma replies “I was often influenced rightly by you – oftener than I would own at the time.  I am sure you did me good.”

Anne Elliot is also motherless.  She has a very ‘conceited, silly father’ and an elder sister who both regard Anne and her younger sister as ‘of very inferior value’.  Anne’s substitute mother is Lady Russell, to whom she is “a most dear and highly valued god-daughter, favourite and friend.”  Lady Russell advises Anne to sever her relationship with Frederick Wentworth with whom she had fallen deeply in love with when she was 19.  Lady Russell, who valued social status, considered the relationship inappropriate for Anne with all her claims to birth, beauty and mind, to throw herself away at nineteen on a headstrong man who had nothing but himself to recommend him, and no hopes of attaining affluence, but in the chance of a most uncertain profession.  Lady Russell feared that such a marriage would sink her into a state of most wearing, anxious, youth killing dependence.  Not marrying Wentworth has done exactly that to Anne who has noticeably lost her bloom, and is faded and thin.  In one sense Anne does not regret having done her duty to Lady Russell in following her advice, but in another, later regrets being persuaded not to marry Wentworth – she felt that were any young person, in similar circumstances, to apply to her for counsel, they would never receive any of such certain immediate wretchedness, such uncertain good. (Persuasion, Vol 1. Ch.4).

Lady Russell encourages Anne, at 22, to accept a proposal from Charles Musgrove, but in this case Anne had nothing left for advice to do.  Later Lady Russell encourages Anne’s marriage to her cousin, William Elliot, the heir to Kellynch Hall.  But now at 27 Anne is no longer dependent on Lady Russell’s advice.  It was now some years since Anne had begun to learn that she and her excellent friend could sometimes think differently; and it did not surprise her, therefore, that Lady Russell could see nothing suspicious or inconsistent, nothing to require more motives than appeared in Mr Elliot’s great desire for reconciliation.  Benson notes that not only is Anne more perceptive than Lady Russell in terms of motives, but she also differs in what she truly values in her friends – such as the open-heartedness of the Musgrove family and especially of Frederick’s fellow sailors and their families – the Crofts and the Harvilles.  More than any of the heroines, at the end of Persuasion Anne totally separates herself from her family in favour of Fredrick’s open-hearted sailor friends. (Benson, ibid)

Marianne Dashwood resembles her mother who encourages Marianne’s excessive displays of romantic sensibility. Elinor, the eldest daughter “possessed a strength of understanding, and a coolness of judgement, which qualified her, though only nineteen, to be the counsellor of her mother…… Her feelings were strong, but she knew how to govern them: it was a knowledge which her mother had yet to learn.” (SS. 6).   John Dashwood, who promised his father that he would support the family, is persuaded by his wife that he need do nothing at all; but that does not prevent him from offering unwanted advice to Elinor that she should marry Colonel Brandon, and cultivate her friendship with Mrs Jennings in the hope that Elinor and Marianne would inherit some of her fortune.  While Mrs Jennings and Sir John Middleton are kind and hospitable, and Colonel Brandon offers practical help and the comfort of a good friend, they do not advise Elinor nor does she seek their advice.  When Edward’s secret engagement to Lucy is revealed, Marianne is astonished that Elinor has known for four months.  She exclaims “how have you been supported?”  Elinor replies “I have had all this on my mind without being at liberty to speak of it to a single creature.” (p.228).  Mrs Dashwood belatedly realizes she had been inattentive to her eldest daughter.  “Marianne’s affliction, because more acknowledged, more immediately before her, had too much engrossed her tenderness, and led her away to forget that in Elinor she might have a daughter suffering almost as much, certainly with less self-provocation and greater fortitude.”  (SS p56).

Elizabeth Bennet has two unsatisfactory parents. Because of her intelligence and ‘quickness’, she is her father’s favourite.  She is her mother’s least favourite daughter, and to Lizzy her mother is a constant source of embarrassment and irritation.  Mrs Bennet has neglected her daughters’ education, and is also “equally indifferent to her daughters’ moral education – and, in fact probably is incapable of providing them with any moral example.” (Benson, ibid).  Lizzy falls further out of favour with her mother when she refuses a proposal from Mr Collins, but she will not be bullied into accepting him.  She also stands up to Lady Catherine, and will not be bullied by her.  Lizzy and her sister Jane are close companions, but Jane only sees good in everyone, and does not really advise Lizzy.  Fortunately there is Aunt Gardiner, her role model and friend: “Unlike Mrs Bennet she is capable of giving real advice.  She is the only one to advise Elizabeth against Wickham; later, she is the physical instrument of Elizabeth and Darcy’s reconciliation at Pemberley.” (Benson, ibid).  Darcy seemingly remains aloof throughout, insulting Elizabeth at the ball and with his first proposal.  His letter changes her mind and her realization about herself: “How despicably have I acted! … I, who have prided myself on my discernment! … Till this moment I never knew myself.” (PP, 236).

At age 9 Fanny Price’s mother farewells her from Portsmouth and greets her return from Mansfield Park 8 years later with equal indifference.  At Mansfield Park Lady Bertram, who should have been the substitute mother, pays no attention to the education of her daughters – ‘thinking more of her pug than her children, but very indulgent to the latter, when it did not put herself to inconvenience.” (MP, p20). She delegates all the responsibility for the education of the Bertram girls and Fanny to Aunt Norris.  While Aunt Norris indulges Maria and Julia, she is cruel and vindictive towards Fanny.  She “… had no affection for Fanny, and no wish of procuring her pleasure at any time.” (MP, 79).  Fanny is gentle, sensitive and obliging: Tom calls her a “creep mouse” and the girls virtually ignore her.

It is only Edmund who kindly guides Fanny in the superficialities of life at Mansfield Park, advising her on books to read, and helping her to become more confident.  However, Edmund can be insensitive and not perceptive.  He doesn’t understand why Fanny is so appalled at the suggestion she should live with Aunt Norris.  Fanny is afraid of Sir Thomas, but stands her ground against his anger at her refusal to accept Henry’s proposal.  The only advice Lady Bertram ever gave Fanny, echoing her husband, is to tell her “It is every young woman’s duty to accept such an unexceptionable offer as this.” (MP, Ch.33). Edmund, also echoing his father, advises Fanny to accept the offer.  Fanny must be forever grateful to Henry for procuring her brother William’s promotion in the navy, but unlike the others, she recognizes his “corrupted mind” and will not marry him.  Fanny also resists Mary Crawford’s manipulation and emotional blackmail to influence her in Henry’s favour.  Fanny does not need advice.  Her moral integrity allows her to make better decisions for herself than any of her advisers.

Next Meeting:  17^th June 17: Sharing and discussing biographies of Jane Austen.

January 2015 meeting: Food in Jane Austen’s novels

Prepared by member Cheng, with help from Anna’s notes.

It would be reasonable to assume that after the indulgences of Christmas our interest in food would have staled. Not so. Our opening meeting for the year had all the enthusiasm and happy chaos of a night at the Musgroves.

First we swapped newsy items and discoveries such as the fact that the 1st edition of Persuasion & Northanger Abbey auctioned last December 6th in Sydney sold for just over $6,000. What a bargain! We examined, reverently, an 1837 5th edition of Sense & Sensibility which had been presented to one of our members on her recent retirement and we read about it in Jane Austen Cover to Cover by Margaret Sullivan. Handling a book 178 years old and published only 20 years after Jane Austen’s death, looking at its engravings and remarking on the good condition of pre 1840’s rag based paper as opposed to later 19th c acidic wood based paper, was a rare treat.

The discussion opened with the statement that, as always, Jane Austen doesn’t waste a word – she uses food to illustrate character.

Maggie Lane was extensively quoted, from both Jane Austen in Context and Jane Austen and Food. Importantly, Lane argues, no hero or heroine or other character who enjoys the narrator’s approval ever willingly speaks about food. They merely refer to the mealtimes of breakfast, dinner or tea, etc. Any mention of a specific foodstuff in Austen is made by a character who is thereby condemned for being greedy, vulgar, selfish or trivial – Mrs Bennet boasting about her soup and her partridges, Dr. Grant salivating at the prospect of turkey are good examples of this, as is Mrs Jenkins kind-hearted concern over Elinor & Marianne’s preferences for salmon or cod and boiled fowls or veal cutlets.

However, even more nuances of social class can be read into this because Mrs Bennet is also letting it be known that she has access to a game park. Many of the subtleties of Jane Austen’s wit are lost on 21st c readers.

Emma contains the most references to food and they also have a deeper meaning. The heroine is part of an interdependent village community where some have more access to food than others. She is portrayed as caring and sharing – broth to a sick cottager, a whole hind-quarter of pork to the poor Bates’, arrow-root to Jane Fairfax. Food in Emma, its production, processing and distribution is a metaphor for neighbourly love.

However, the author also uses it as a background for some of the most amusing scenes in all her novels – the strawberry excursion to Donwell Abbey and Mr. Woodhouse’s digestive foibles.

Mr. Bingley’s white soup symbolises his wealth but at the same time his wit and generosity as he knows Mr. Hurst likes French food and Mr. Darcy can afford a French cook.

When Mr. Hurst scorns Lizzie for preferring a plain dish to a ragout he’s condemned and Elizabeth endorsed for their respective tastes by the narrator. French food was considered suspect and dishonest, just like the French, and unpatriotic.

The only meal specified in Sense & Sensibility is Willoughby’s snatched lunch at a coaching inn in Marlborough – cold beef and a pint of porter – this has a moral dimension because it shows he is behaving honourably and with feeling at last. He doesn’t foolishly starve himself in his haste to reach Marianne but neither does he waste time by ordering an elaborate dish. Some of the sterling character associated with the roast beef of old England attaches to Willoughby: he is reformed.

We strayed into related topics:

• food adulteration, particularly in flour for bread (as possibly in the French-bread that Catherine Morland ate at General Tilney’s breakfast table), the changing size of a penny loaf and the political importance of bread to feed the people.
• table etiquette: the extraordinary quantities of food consumed and the likelihood of actually being able to access every dish laid out.
• mealtimes: breakfast was as yet elegant and light and consisted mainly of tea or coffee and a selection of breads, eaten on fine china. Even Henry Crawford faced a journey to London on a few boiled eggs whilst William Price ate some cold pork with mustard. Heavy hot dishes on a groaning sideboard came later, in Victorian times.

To add even more variety to the meeting, a member had brought a facsimile copy, made of hand forged steel with bone handles, of late 18th c to early 19th c cutlery of the type used in Royal Navy ward rooms. The knife was unusually large and had a very broad blade intended for carving up one’s portion of beef. We realised that eating peas with one’s knife could have been accomplished easily. However, the much smaller 2 pronged fork was intended primarily only for transferring the pieces of meat to the mouth.

In the second half of our meeting members had brought food for afternoon tea that had featured somewhere in her novels. Our task was to identify the novel and who ate the food. Apples, walnuts, olives, seed cake, strawberries, even ratafia biscuits – all had been carefully researched and the game was brisk and laughter laden.

Food from the novels

Extremely interesting was the plate of “Stilton cheese, the North Wiltshire, the butter, the cellery, the beet-root” that had impressed Mr. Elton at the party at the socially aspiring Coles’. These cheeses were only made in certain small localities (the North Wiltshire being difficult to make), had been transported a long distance and hence were considered delicacies.

These expensive cheeses signalled that not only the Coles’ were rising financially and socially but that Mr. Elton, faced with the luxuries that the rich could command, was in raptures. Jane Austen’s readers would have known immediately that he would never marry Harriet Smith!

Our meeting rounded off with a devious quiz from our Machiavellian quiz mistress  – to see if we remembered what we had studied last year!!! We left feeling that we had had a particularly satisfying meeting.

July 2014 meeting: Fictionalising the legacy of slavery in Mansfield Park

JASACT members were treated to a wonderful talk this month by ex-member (whom we hope will return one day) Roslyn Russell, author of the Mansfield Park sequel novel, Maria returns: Barbados to Mansfield Park. In this novel, she imagines that some ten years after being banished to the country, and upon the death of her companion Aunt Norris, Maria Bertram goes to Barbados and learns about slavery and the abolition movement. Ros titled her talk Maria returns: Barbados to Mansfield Park: Fictionalising the legacy of slavery in Mansfield Park.

Jane Austen, Mansfield Park and Slavery

Ros commenced by telling us that most of the characters in her novel are fictional, but some are based on real people. Before discussing this further, however, she read the excerpt from Mansfield Park which contains the only reference to slavery:

“But I do talk to him more than I used. I am sure I do. Did not you hear me ask him about the slave–trade last night?”

“I did—and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”

“And I longed to do it—but there was such a dead silence! And while my cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested in the subject, I did not like— I thought it would appear as if I wanted to set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiosity and pleasure in his information which he must wish his own daughters to feel.” (MP)

She noted how this shows Maria and Julia’s lack of interest in the source of their family’s income. She then referred to cultural theorist Edward Said’s discussion of the novel and his statement that it is not appropriate “to expect Jane Austen to treat slavery with anything like the passion of an abolitionist or a newly liberated slave”. Said, she told us, did not apply 21st century attitudes to his assessment of Austen, but suggested that her work, as that of an author who belonged to a slave-owning society, should be analysed in context and in terms of what she does and doesn’t say rather than simply attacked as being complicit.

Ros then briefly outlined some of Austen’s known or probable connections with plantations:

• the family’s close relationship with her father’s friend, the plantocrat James Langford Nibbs who was also Austen brother’s godfather. Nibbs apparently took his son out to his plantations in Antigua to settle down his unruly behaviour, which rather mirrors Sir Thomas’ taking Tom out to his plantation.
• Austen’s aunt-by-marriage, Jane Leigh-Perrot, who was born in Barbados, though went to school in England.
• Mrs Skeet who is mentioned in Austen’s letters. Skeet is a common name in Barbados, suggesting she had a connection to slavery*.
• the Holder family of Ashe Park, also friends of the Austens. Holder, too, is a common name in the Caribbean.

The title Mansfield Park, itself, could also reflect Austen’s awareness of the slavery issue, as it may have been inspired by Lord Mansfield who was famous for adjudications which contributed significantly to the eventual abolition of the slave trade. (This is the Lord Mansfield who became guardian of his mulatto niece Dido, fictionalised in the recent film, Belle).

Barbados and Maria Returns

Russell then turned to her own book, first addressing the question of why she had set it in Barbados and not Antigua, where the Bertrams’ plantation was. Firstly, she said, she has been to Barbados several times and knows its history. She couldn’t, she said, write about a place she didn’t know. And Barbados is also the location of a historical event she uses in her novel.

Mansfield Park was written 20 years before emancipation (i.e. the formal abolition of slavery in 1834). Maria Returns is set about 15 years after MP, and so during the time when the abolition movement was becoming more vocal. Ros explained that the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 did not seriously affect the Caribbean plantations as they were “breeding” their own slaves and were essentially self-sufficient. However, the abolition of slavery was a major threat and the plantation families were deeply concerned. By the 1820s the abolition movement was becoming active – mostly among Evangelical Anglicans, Methodists and Quakers. At the close of her talk, Ros told us that slave owners in the Caribbean were, in total, given £20m compensation, while the slaves received nothing. One hundred years later they were still earning the same dollar figure (i.e. not adjusted for inflation) they were paid after emancipation. Barbados is extremely poor and is now asking for reparation.

Ros talked about how her book, though fiction, draws from history. For example, at the dinner party in the English village where Maria first meets abolitionist John Simpson, he talks of a trial in Barbados in which slaves were apparently unjustly convicted of and executed for a murder. This trial did occur and is a reason Russell chose Barbados for her setting. The trial was witnessed by James Stephen** who, though he lived a little earlier than our fictional Simpson, is Russell’s model for her character.

Simpson also talks at this dinner about a slave rebellion, led by African-slave Bussa, that occurred in Barbados in 1816. Bussa was killed in the rebellion. Such slave rebellions resulted in plantation owners becoming harsher. Simpson makes it clear which side he is on. This is a wake up call for Maria who:

had not been aware of the strength of feeling in the wider community against the institution of slavery, from which her own family had benefitted so materially. (MR)

After Maria arrives in Bridgetown she meets or hears of other abolitionists, such as the historically real free coloured man, Sam Prescod (who, with Bussa, is now a national hero) and plantation owner Josiah Thompson. Thompson is fictional but, as a former owner who downsized his estate and treated his slaves-now-servants well, he has historical antecedents. Men who behaved like he did faced hostility from other Barbadians – and so, in the novel, Thompson is a lonely man who is keen to host Maria and her friends at his home. His willingness to import a teacher from England to teach his slaves also has precedents, Ros said. Maria realises again that she’d never wondered about her father’s plantations, but she begins now to wonder what her father might think about the people she’s meeting.

Ros then spoke about the treatment of slave women by their white owners, particularly in relation to sexual predation. This forms an important part of the story – but I won’t spoil it here for those of you who haven’t yet read the book. However, she again spoke of historical precedents – not that we really needed any for this one!  We weren’t, though, quite prepared for the example she gave us, one Thomas Thistlewood who kept a diary of his plantation life. Wikipedia confirms what Ros told us: his diary chronicled “3,852 acts of sexual intercourse and/or rape with 138 women, nearly all of whom were black slaves”.

Ros illustrated her talk with some wonderful illustrations, such as the painting used on the cover of her book, Agostino Brunias’ The Barbadoes Mulatto Girl, and a contemporary painting of Bridgetown by Percy William Justyne. She also mentioned some of the sources she used in her research, like Andrea Stuart’s Sugar in the blood: A family’s story of slavery and empire.

The talk concluded with more discussion of her novel:  how she drew from the Mansfield Park characters, how she developed and used those characters in her story, and how she tried to keep it historically accurate.

Q & A

Several questions were asked, in the short Q&A that followed, about both Barbados and the novel.

One point that intrigued us was her point early in her talk that Barbados had been first settled in 1627. “First settled?” our politically aware Australian ears wondered? Yes, said Ros, there was no-one there when the British landed. (There is evidence of Amerindian occupation but they had disappeared long before the British arrived). Ros also filled us in on the role of transportation, convicts and indentured labour in the Caribbean. These people formed another community, and were known as “Redlegs“.

Regarding a question concerning Sir Thomas and sexual behaviour in Barbados, Ros said she wanted to preserve him as an upright person. She was also, we discussed, kind to Tom, by showing him to have feelings for his slave paramour and by letting him off lightly in the novel in terms of the repercussions of his behaviour. We felt that Ros’s depiction of her Austen characters was credible, and we liked the way she wove the slave plantation history through her novel.

There was more … but this has hopefully provided a good enough summary for our absent members who missed a highly enjoyable and informative meeting. We concluded by thanking Ros and Bill for, respectively, giving us a wonderful talk and providing an excellent venue for it – and we then enjoyed the afternoon tea provided by Bill’s venue!

* Names that are common in slave areas are usually so because slaves tended to take on the surnames of their masters.

** Wikipedia tells that Stephen was great-grandfather of Virginia Woolf.

May 2014 meeting: Jane Austen Festival Australia Discussion

Prepared by member Cheng

Canberra’s 2014 Jane Austen Festival Australia, held from 10-13th April at University House, was the topic for discussion at JASACT’s 17th May meeting. Most members attended the Sunday Symposium, however, one member had also spent Friday at the Festival and she enthusiastically regaled us with her adventures and personal impressions. After the amusing saga of discovering the route to the Stanner Room, she described Tony Miller’s brilliant lecture on Josephine as being so good that she forgot to take notes. Nevertheless, we still heard some extraordinary facts and anecdotes about the Empress. Our member declared it her favourite session of the Festival!

Afterwards she had watched, in awe, the Country Dancing class led by John Gardiner-Garden and decided that she would have needed a brain programmed by IBM and the constitution of a de Castella before she even stepped into an 18th c. ball room. Just to browse through the ten tomes of historic dance patterns on sale was exhausting enough. Despite her being one of the few not clad in Regency garb she still felt that she was made welcome and found it easy to chat to those who were costumed – they were just as willing to explain the construction of their gowns as she was to admire them. It was definitely a family event with young people of all ages participating in the dancing with their parents and a really friendly atmosphere.

The Jane Austen Festival Book Club lead by Alison Goodman was a lively discussion of Mansfield Park, with a surprising range of opinions. As we have already studied this novel thoroughly at our meetings, she found it interesting to listen to some fresh ideas and gained a couple of possible areas for future research.

Lunch was a treat for her because as a vegetarian she is accustomed to having to forage at most public gatherings but on this occasion different diets had been catered for and she grazed gratefully. It was a good example of the care and thought that Aylwen Gardiner-Garden lavishes on the Festival. If only all conferences handed out booklets at Registration containing useful information on every facet of the event! (Though perhaps next time it could contain a map…..to that shy and elusive Stanner Room…) The Market Tables drew lots of attention during the lunch break and Festival goers had a diversity of temptations from which to choose.

John Potter’s talk on the Napoleonic era Canadian-American War of 1812 was the last session that our member attended that day and we learnt many odd facts about the NSW Corps which had re-formed into the 102nd Regiment of Foot and participated in this war. The chief one being that an Australian, Andrew Douglas White, the son of naval surgeon White, had enlisted and gone on to become the only Australian present at Waterloo! Another member had just returned from a holiday in Toronto, Canada and was able to tell us about Fort York and battle sites relating to this war that she had visited.

Mansfield Park Symposium

The Sunday morning Symposium started with apologies from the two male speakers, Markus Adamson and Will Christie, which disappointed many of the attendees. However, the four female lecturers were so engaging that everyone felt well satisfied and even wondering whether the scheduling of six might have pushed us into overload.

Janet Lee spoke on the importance of letters and letter writing in Mansfield Park. With liberal examples she drew our attention to the many instances of Jane Austen’s using letters to drive the plot. In fact, Jane Austen used them in this novel far more than in any of her others to inform both the characters and the reader.

“Mansfield Park and Education” was the subject for Heather Neilson’s talk and it overlapped and complemented that of the following speaker, Gillian Dooley’s “No Moral Effect on the Mind: Music in Mansfield Park”. Our discussion tended to blend both talks and covered the contrast between an education that produced a character of true moral worth and that which resulted in merely sophisticated, superficial ‘accomplishments’ – the difference that was illustrated by the moral intelligence of Fanny versus the cleverness of her cousins and the Crawfords and that eventually had to be acknowledged by Sir Thomas Bertram. We particularly appreciated the musical examples that Gillian Dooley used and wished she’d brought more. It was an interesting point that musicians in Mansfield Park were seen at a disadvantage. The characters with musical accomplishment having serious personal flaws. So was Fanny’s want of emulation a sign of her strength? One of our members had been surprised to discover that a harp cost five times as much as a piano, or the same as employing a housemaid for 10 years or buying a house in London.

The final talk, “Mansfield Park and Landscape Gardening” by Christine Alexander was the one of most interest to our group because we had recently researched this subject with reference to Gilpin and the concept of the Picturesque and the Sublime. Improvement of the estate and the country house ideal are strong themes in Mansfield Park. In both literature and poetry of the times there was the town life versus country life debate – the longing for a return to nature. Whilst London was the home of liveliness and gaiety, social manners and graces, it was also a scene of debasement and filth. Fanny’s situation in Portsmouth was described as ‘alien to proper moral growth’, whereas her love of Cowper was a sign of her embracing his belief in the natural world of the countryside bringing peace of mind with free and luxurious solitude. The natural landscape could inspire virtue. Accomplishing this transformation on one’s estate was usually done with the aid of a landscape gardener such as Repton. However, Jane Austen subtly sketched the difference between respecting ‘the genius of the place’ and imposing upon it a ‘naturalistic’ vista. That Sotherton’s chapel had fallen into disuse revealed the loss of the family’s, and therefore the house’s, solid spiritual basis that no cosmetic landscaping could replace. At Mansfield Park, on the other hand, it was Fanny’s presence and values that brought integrity and true worth back to the property.

Our meeting ended with the usual swapping of ‘show and tell’ items, a round of quotes and a devilishly hard quiz. Yes, we did indeed enjoy the April excursion to the Festival and look forward to attending it again next year, perhaps with even a full day Symposium?

Congratulations and sincere appreciation go to the dauntless Aylwen Gardiner-Garden and her team of volunteers for such a successful weekend. That gleeful Friday attendee of ours has even been glimpsed fingering frock patterns…….

April 2014 “meeting”: Jane Austen Festival Australia

Prepared by member Cheng.

Our April meeting was an excursion to ‘Mansfield Park : 200 years’ – an enthusiastic four day celebration of the 200th anniversary of the book’s publication, held by our sister society, the Jane Austen Festival Australia, at University House, Canberra. From Thurs 10th to Sun 13th April the program was packed with talks, demonstrations, tours, workshops, balls and a half-day symposium.

Our next meeting on Saturday 17th May will be a discussion of this wonderfully successful Festival. Our thanks go to its director, Aylwen Gardiner-Garden, for so kindly inviting us to share the event* and indulge our fascination and love of Jane Austen and her world.

* We did of course pay our way, but our attendance was inspired by Aylwen’s attendance at our January meeting at which she outlined the Festival for us.

Invitation to a book launch on 3 May 2014

Bobby Graham Publishers and author Roslyn Russell invite interested readers to a launch of Russell’s novel:

Maria Returns: Barbados to Mansfield Park

at

The Common Room, University House, ANU, on 3 May 2014 from 2-4pm

The guest speaker will be Susannah Fullerton, President of the Jane Austen Society of Australia.

Russell’s novel is being published in the year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the publication of Mansfield Park, Austen’s third novel to be published. In her novel, Russell explores what might have happened to Maria Bertram after her disgrace and exile from Mansfield Park at the end of the novel. As you might have surmised from the subtitle, a visit to the sugar plantations in the West Indies seems to be part of her future! What will Maria think of slavery when she sees it first hand?

Please RSVP by 25 April 2014 to: mariareturnsrsvp@gmail.com