Jane Austen discussion

Hello fellow Janeites, I just posted another entry in my blog series about the characters of Mansfield Park. You can read it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

Thank you - I'll take a look

I think that one aspect of Jane Austen that at least I don't hear much about is how important sibling relationships are to most of her novels: for example, Sense and Sensibility is as much about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood's relationship as it is about their relationships to their respective romantic interests.

And also, Jane Austen herself very seldom gives her heroines brothers. Only Catherine Morland and Fanny Price have full brothers: Elinor and Marianne Dashwood have a half brother and Emma Woodhouse has a brother-in-law. Perhaps it's a plot device, or maybe there's some other reason.

Anyway, one of the quotes from Mansfield Park that has always made a deep impression is about this: "Fraternal love, sometimes almost everything, is at times worse than nothing."

Just compare Maria and Julia Bertram on the one hand:

"Her heart [Julia's] was sore and angry, and she was capable only of angry consolations. The sister with whom she was used to be on easy terms was now become her greatest enemy: they were alienated from each other...With no material fault of temper, or difference of opinion, to prevent their being very good friends while their interests were the same, the sisters, under such a trial as this, had not affection or principle enough to make them merciful or just, to give them honour or compassion.

And William and Fanny Price, who unlike Maria and Julia, who lived their entire lives together, were separated for 8 years (much like Charles Austen, BTW) and only being able to exchange correspondence by letter:

"Once, and once only, in the course of many years, had she the happiness of being with William...Their eager affection in meeting, their exquisite delight in being together, their hours of happy mirth, and moments of serious conference, may be imagined; as well as the sanguine views and spirits of the boy even to the last, and the misery of the girl when he left her."

Years later:

"Fanny had never known so much felicity in her life, as in this unchecked, equal, fearless intercourse with the brother and friend who was opening all his heart to her, telling her all his hopes and fears, plans, and solicitudes respecting that long thought of, dearly earned, and justly valued blessing of promotion; who could give her direct and minute information of the father and mother, brothers and sisters, of whom she very seldom heard; who was interested in all the comforts and all the little hardships of her home at Mansfield; ready to think of every member of that home as she directed, or differing only by a less scrupulous opinion, and more noisy abuse of their aunt Norris, and with whom (perhaps the dearest indulgence of the whole) all the evil and good of their earliest years could be gone over again, and every former united pain and pleasure retraced with the fondest recollection."

Perhaps, because Austen herself never married, sibling relationships took on an importance and significance that might have been either diluted, or perhaps, redirected, towards a spouse?

As for heroine and brothers, again, rather like the 'father failures' of her heroines, so one might assume that a heroine should either have no brothers (like the Bennet sisters, Anne Eliot, and Emma), or else 'useless ones' (like the utterly pathetic and ineffectual and spineless John Dashwood).

A strong, protective brother would have meant the heroine would also have been protected, and so the 'interesting events' of the novel might not have transpired at all!

Even William Price, very clearly a good brother, was simply 'not there' for most of the duration of the novel, simply because he was at sea from such an early age.

That said, I can't remember what William's views were on Henry Crawford's proposal to Fanny. Was he in favour of it?

Juan observes that "And also, Jane Austen herself very seldom gives her heroines brothers."

It's interesting that she gives her less savory and less likable characters brothers. Mary Crawford, Isabella Thorpe, Caroline Bingley, Fanny Dashwood,
Of course, there are some very good brothers - Darcy, Mr. Gardiner and Henry Tilney come to mind.

Yes, poor Mr Bingley - what did he ever do to deserve two such sisters?! Amazing he turned out as sunny and nice as he did.

But at what point do these young people become responsible for themselves?
**

This is the key question, not just for Austen and her novels, but for humanity as a whole! It's a HUGE question, because it deals, effectively, with the origins of good and evil - why DO people become the people they become, and exactly as you say, at what point do THEY take responsibility, not those who raised them.

I think moralists/ethicists and theologians (and parents!) will be debating this one 'for ever'.

It's a huge 'nature/nurture' debate for a start, and it's also interesting to consider why Fanny is not like her cousins - is it because she is crushed by them, and by Mrs Norris, and also is aware that she's been rejected by her own birth family (though arguably sending her to MP has done her good, as she acknowledges in the end after her sorry visit to Portsmouth - she doesn't get any love and affection from her parents - none of her siblings do - so she wasn't really missing anything, and of course MP had conferred all the 'culture' etc that was totally lacking in Portsmouth

I agree Austen makes Sir Thomas carry the can for Maria and Julia's (and Tom's) errors, rather than Lady B, but I think this because Lady B is only about one step removed from being an imbecile, so in that respect she is incapable of any morality??? (Let alone parenting skill!)

I wonder how one would consider the Bingley sisters, if we had as much information about them, from childhood, as we do for Maria and Julia?

What made them the way they are? And how come their brother escaped the same fate!!!

Indeed, what made Edmund not turn out like Tom?

About responsibility: I think it's useful to think of the Bertram family, and Mansfield Park, like an ancient Roman household.

In Roman law, even free, adult and married persons were under the authority of their oldest living male common ancestor, the paterfamilias, which in this case would be Sir Thomas Bertram. The paterfamilias' authority was called "patria potestas" -- "potestas" is a word that means "power", coercitive power, and this same word was used for the power of some government officials -- and the persons under his authority, even if they were free (not his slaves), were said to be "alieni iuris", under the legal power of another. A paterfamilias' power over his wife was called "manus" -- the hand being a symbol of domination in Roman culture and also in the ancient world more generally.

A person who is "alieni iuris" could not legally act for themselves -- the paterfamilias had to give his approval and also sue and appear in court if necessary. The paterfamilias could also be sued for what his dependents did. This status only ended when the paterfamilias died, in which case everyone immediately below him became legally independent. It could also change with adoption into another family, an emancipation, and in certain types of marriages. Moreover, it didn't matter that a person "alieni iuris" held a public office. It's interesting that the formalities for all those acts enact a fictitious sale.

Wouldn't the 'manus' pass to the male heir of the paterfamilias?

Were Roman women ever free legally to be their own women, in any circumstances (eg, spinsterhood/widowhood/divorcee)?

I can't remember how old Maria Bertram was when she married Mr Rushworth, but presumably only if she had already attained the age of legal majority (21) could she have done so without the permission of Sir Thomas holding her in 'alieni iuris' under his paterfamilian 'manus'.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I wonder how one would consider the Bingley sisters, if we had as much information about them, from childhood, as we do for Maria and Julia?

What made them the way they are? And how come their bro..."

I guess that both character and socialisation play a large role in someone's final outlook on the world and themselves in it.
The Bingley sisters were brought up in a family of (respectable) traders. It's only because of their wealth that they give themselves these 'aires', forgetting their roots. I can well imagine that their roots were much more down to earth than those at Mansfield.
The Bertram sisters on the other hand knew from the very beginning that they were in a class above most others, and their upbringing only enhanced that feeling of superiority.
Bingley has probably never forgotten his roots and his character is not easily swayed by wealth or position. Darcy, for example, actually says that he was almost taught to care for nobody beyond his family, i.e. feel superior. Probably because of his status and wealth.
As to Edmund, he is brought up knowing full well that he needs to work for his income while Tom, maybe even despite Sir Thomas' attempts to discourage him from such a notion (or mabe not, we are never told), is brought up with a sense of "all this will belong to me".
We know that Julia is never as much encouraged to think well of herself as Maria is, their characters will therefore differ in their level self-esteem and expectation.

Juan:

I agree that sibling relationships were really important for Austen. The title of Sense & Sensibility refers to Elinor and Marianne and I think the book in large part is meant to show a contrast in how they each deal with similar situations - the man they love being unavailable.

The text you excerpted from Mansfield Park about Maria and Julia is exactly the passage I had in mind when writing the blog post. They are not really close, they just never had a reason to disagree; but when they do the true nature of their relationship comes out.

Your comments about ancient Rome are interesting. I agree that the patriarchy had a lot to do with Sir Thomas being ultimately responsible for his family. But in Austen's time women were generally responsible for raising girls and Edmund even observes at one point (I think) that Mary's deficiencies are a reflection on the aunt that raised her (while disapproving any criticism of her uncle!) The passage about Sir Thomas is given from his point of view, and I think it's more about him realizing what's been going on and taking responsibility because that's his nature. Lady Bertram doesn't have the capacity for the kind of self-searching Sir Thomas does at the end, and he has to know that.

Beth:

I agree with you that sibling relationships were very important to Austen. And her siblings seemed, for the most part, to treat her very well.

A strong, protective brother would have meant the heroine would also have been protected, and so the 'interesting events' of the novel might not have transpired at all!
What a great point!

William Price was indeed a great brother. Here's the passage on his view of Crawford's proposal:

"William knew what had passed, and from his heart lamented that his sister's feelings should be so cold towards a man whom he must consider as the first of human characters; but he was of an age to be all for love, and therefore unable to blame; and knowing her wish on the subject, he would not distress her by the slightest allusion."

I have often wondered how Mr. Bingley could be so good-natured while his sisters are so mean. And he seems to get along with them well enough.

I think Austen was on to the whole nature v. nurture thing. She talks about it a lot. And she seems to understand, as we do now, that someone's disposition is a combination of both. I've never questioned why Fanny is not like her cousins. She was raised to see herself as inferior. But her nature dictates how she deals with it and with a different nature under such oppression, she could have turned out quite differently. It reminds me of the scene in Portsmouth where Fanny is reflecting on Susan:

"That a girl of fourteen, acting only on her own unassisted reason, should err in the method of reform, was not wonderful; and Fanny soon became more disposed to admire the natural light of the mind which could so early distinguish justly, than to censure severely the faults of conduct to which it led. ... Her greatest wonder on the subject soon became--not that Susan should have been provoked into disrespect and impatience against her better knowledge--but that so much better knowledge, so many good notions should have been hers at all; and that, brought up in the midst of negligence and error, she should have formed such proper opinions of what ought to be"

Austen also points out how Mrs. Norris would have done better in Mrs. Price's situation due to her different nature. But there are many times in the novel when she points to the nurture aspect - especially with Mr. Crawford she tells us of his natural abilities and feelings and attributes his bad habits to his upbringing.

Edmund didn't turn out like Tom for reasons of both nature and nurture. he has a more serious disposition and he's not being raised to inherit; he takes his calling to the church very seriously and not just as a source of income and a grapple hook to the life of a gentleman.

Isabel:

I guess that both character and socialisation play a large role in someone's final outlook on the world and themselves in it.

Yes!

We know the Bingley sisters were educated in one of the best seminaries in London and that their brother's fortune was made in trade, but I don't know that they were necessarily brought up in a family of traders. They seem to have been raised to view themselves as pretty superior, but I think they're a little more savvy than the Miss Bertrams, probably due to being raised in London. i think Bingley was just an easy going guy. I agree with your comments on the other characters you mentioned.

I recently read 'Mansfield Park' and do not the Miss. Bertrams. However, I cannot understand why Maria married Mr. Rushworth, except for money, of course. I think that she would have been far happier if she did not marry him.

Florence wrote: "I recently read 'Mansfield Park' and do not the Miss. Bertrams. However, I cannot understand why Maria married Mr. Rushworth, except for money, of course. I think that she would have been far happier if she did not marry him. "

Very true. She couldn't stand him (who could?) and at first it was only the money but when her father gave her an out she married him any way so as not to give Crawford the satisfaction of having broken her engagement and to get away from home.

She married him to save face I think. She'd fallen for Henry Crawford, and, having been brought up by Mrs Norris to always think so highly of herself, she assumed he would fall in love with her as 'everyone' fell in love with her. He didn't, however, and as she had fallen for him, it really hurt her (for the first time in her life I suspect!)

So she married Mr Rushworth to 'show' Henry she didn't care he didn't love her. Quite a disastrous reason, and a disastrous decision.

Even her father has doubts about her marriage, though it is very advantageous in worldly terms (Mr Rushworth is very rich, his wealth is very old, his estate is very grand, etc), but Maria insists.

It's one of the first signs we have that Sir Thomas is not being totally responsible as a father. A better father would have made Maria wait before becoming engaged to anyone at all, including Mr Rushworth, and letting her love for Henry die a natural death, as it probably would have in a year or so. (Or would it????)

Beth-In-UK wrote: "letting her love for Henry die a natural death, as it probably would have in a year or so."

I don't think Sir Thomas knew she was in love with Henry

Beth, you are ignoring the scene where Sir T, having himself assessed Rushworth's intelligence and found it wanting, confronts Maria. He goes as far as he can without saying, "Maria! For God's sake! Rushworth is an idiot!" A man can't really say that about his daughter's fiance, can he?

Ah, not sure if Sir T knows she's infatuated with HC!!

Martin, if Sir T felt that strongly about how risky it was for Maria to marry Rushworth, surely he could have put his foot down, and at the very least delayed the marriage. He could have diverted Maria by whisking her off to London (gosh, getting his wife there would be a challenge, but I'm sure if he got Aunt Norris on side, she'd have helped move Lady B to London - I'm sure Aunt Norris would have loved the chance to swan around London during the season!)

After all, however 'non-vicious' Lady Bertram is, Sir T, and intelligent man, must have realised at some point that she was more hair than wit, and he hardly had anything like a marriage of equals, so one might not unreasonably think he would be concerned that, given his own wife is an idiot (!), his daughter wants to marry one as well!!! ???

At that point, Beth, I don't think our favorite author has given us a peek into Maria's heart, has she? Do not many women smile at compliments even with no reason to believe the flirting one?

And wholeheartedly YES re Sir T having learned a lesson re intelligence in one's spouse.

I'd have to go back and check the text! But don't we know, by the time Maria insists on going through with marrying Mr Rushworth, that she is doing so because Henry is not reciprocating her desire for him??

I do think, for Sir T, that he always behaves in a very considerate and honourable way towards his wife - unlike Mr Bennet, who does nothing it seems to mitigate or improve her....??

Yes, Sir Thomas Bertram does offer Maria to break up her engagement with Mr. Rushworth. But, not because he observes her with Henry Crawford, as Henry Crawford leaves Mansfield Park for a while immediately after Sir Thomas returns -- which is when Maria realizes that he didn't mean to marry her at all. I honestly don't think Sir Thomas Bertram ever finds out about Maria and Henry Crawford until after they run off together.

Sir Thomas watches Maria's behavior towards Mr. Rushworth (cold and contemptuous) and also finds out that Mr. Rushworth is rich, but also quite dumb -- he talks to Maria directly. Maria tells her father she does want to marry Mr. Rushworth, Sir Thomas doesn't really ask too many questions, and is relieved not to have to break up their engagement (for him the marriage is a social and political alliance). The narrator basically says that Maria married Mr. Rushworth out of spite and Mr. Rushworth marries Maria knowing full well that she preferred Henry Crawford.

We know Jane and her sister Cassandra were very close and Cassandra was always her first reader and biggest cheerleader. I would expect that even though they had 5 brothers, the sisters didn't have much of a relationship with the boys growing up. Edward was adopted when Jane was very young and sent away to school, George lived elsewhere, Frank and Charles joined the Navy and James was so much older, his daughter Mary was like a little sister to Jane and Cassandra. Edward's daughter Fanny as well. I except the lack of brothers in the story reflects the way children were raised in that time and place. Today we have smaller families, kids go to the same schools, are forced to go to each other's sporting events, plays and other activities, etc.

Catherine and Fanny are close to their brothers because Fanny's family is poor and William hasn't gone off on his own yet and Catherine and James are close in age and played together a lot. We don't see her as close to her younger siblings, Fanny either. She left home before the younger ones were old enough to get to know.

The Dashwoods are better off without their brother. He's singularly unhelpful, unintelligent and lazy.

James daughter was named Anna his second wife was Mary

Thanks for the clarification about whether Sir T knew Maria was smitten by HC! It doesn't really let Sir T off the 'bad parenting' hook, but at least it mitigates it a bit.

With the Dashwood girls and their brother, I always speculate there may be an untold 'backstory' between them, for example, if John Dashwood resented his widower father remarrying, and a younger woman, and resented his half sisters from the off? It would exonerate him a bit more I think. Though nothing much can really!!

Personally, I think Mrs Dashwood should have bruited it about that she had been left completely penniless and cast on to the world by her appalling step-son and his disgraceful wife. Had it not been for her own relatives taking her in and providing her with Barton Cottage, where on earth would the four of them have gone?

John Dashwood should have been named and shamed and even if that did not result in him actually doing anything for his step mother and three half sisters, he might have disliked the social disapproval.

It would be lovely if the ghastly Mrs Ferrars had a fatal heart attack on hearing of Robert's marriage to scheming Lucy Steele, and Edward's to despised Elinor...and hadn't time to change her will disinheriting either/both of them. Would serve her right. A really nasty piece of work. Like her daughter.

Hi, Beth.

Mrs. Ferrars is truly underrated among Austen's villains. Right up there with Mrs. Norris, no?

Yes, I agree. In a way, worse than Mrs Norris, as she is wealthy, and so has more power to injure others than Mrs N has.

I think JA must have enjoyed knowing she'd got her comeuppance with Robert being snapped up by Lucy. I do think, though, Lucy might 'win' in the battle - she might even manage to suck up to Mrs F sufficiently to get her onside??

I can't remember now who does get Mrs Ferrars' money - was it actually 'hers' to dispose of as she wanted? I've assumed it was as she seemed free to disinherit Edward on a whim.

Nor do I think the Ferrars have a country estate anywhere, do they? (I may be misremembering - haven't read it in a while.)