Jane the Snob?
Alert Janeite Deborah wrote to tell us about an Austen reference in this week’s New Yorker. We were unable to find it on the magazine Web site, but Deborah kindly sent us the relevant passage.
“Hardy always took care to point out that his father and grandfather were not laborers but master masons, skilled craftsmen with employees of their own. Still, his father did business in a very small way, and his mother, Jemima, had been a domestic servant before she got pregnant and married in a hurry–the wedding took place just over five months before Thomas was born, on June 2, 1840. The Hardys were the kind of people that Jane Austen would never have allowed into her parlor.”
Oh REALLY?
Deborah added, “It’s not clear if this Austen reference is culled from Tomalin (who does, of course, know from JA) or is Kirsch’s own. Either way, it seems to me to suggest a snobbish narrow-mindedness that I don’t associate with JA, however traditional and Tory may have been her attitude toward social hierarchy. But perhaps others will disagree…”
Not the Editrix! One of Jane’s best friends was the governess at her brother’s estate. If Hardy’s parents were vulgar, she might have chosen to not associate with them, but not simply because they were tradesmen. That smacks a bit of Miss Bingley mocking the Gardiners without having met them, in our mind. Gentle Readers?
January 9th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Miss Bingley would probably have mocked the Gardiners even if she had met them as all her judgements of people seemed to be based soley on their place in society and how fashionable they were. Jane’s opinions, on the other hand, were founded on their personal virtues and merits. She carried on a warm correspondence with Anne Sharpe (her brother’s governess) that continued even after Anne moved away up until Jane died.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:42 am
In her letter to Cassandra on Jan. 7th, 1807, Jane Austen even mocks such behaviour:
(…)To the Berties are to be added the Lances, with whose cards we have been endowed, and whose visit Frank and I returned yesterday. They live about a mile and three-quarters from S. to the right of the new road to Portsmouth, and I believe their house is one of those which are to be seen almost anywhere among the woods on the other side of the Itchen. It is a handsome building, stands high, and in a very beautiful situation.
We found only Mrs. Lance at home, and whether she boasts any offspring besides a grand pianoforte did not appear. She was civil and chatty enough, and offered to introduce us to some acquaintance in Southampton, which we gratefully declined.
I suppose they must be acting by the orders of Mr. Lance of Netherton in this civility, as there seems no other reason for their coming near us. They will not come often, I dare say. They live in a handsome style and are rich, and she seemed to like to be rich, and we gave her to understand that we were far from being so; she will soon feel therefore that we are not worth her acquaintance.(…)
January 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I think this comment may be an example of the (lazy) use of “Jane Austen” as shorthand for spinsterish/unadventurous/domesticated/class-bound — which reflects, IMHO, a total lack of understanding of the author herself.
But my husband (historian of England, though of an earlier period) thinks the Anne Sharpe evidence isn’t relevant to the question of how JA would have viewed people such as Thomas Hardy’s parents. “A governess and a master mason are two different breeds,” is the husbandly comment–artisans and craftspeople fall into a different (lower) social category than members of a gentleman’s household (like governesses) or members of the professional class (like the Gardiners).
January 9th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I agree with Deborah’s comment that was probably just someone channeling an image of prim and proper spinster instead of actually commenting on Jane Austen the real woman. So the question of whether or not Jane Austen would have associated with Thomas Hardy’s parents becomes rather irrelevant, as it was just a meaningless, silly comparison.
I really need to learn more about Jane Austen herself, though. That will be my next task after finishing her juvenilia.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I found the whole article here as a review of the excellent Claire Tomalin’s biography, simply because this post reminded me to to update my Thomas Hardy community, where I’d already saved that link. Scroll down to the paragraph with the large letter “N” to find the relevant part.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I think the comment was meant more the period of time in which there did exist people who would snub mere masons and former domestic servants. In general, the public does not know so much about Jane Austen.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
As tempting as it is to make Jane a person with our values, I think the mother having been formerly a domestic servant would have been a bridge too far for Jane — at least, the Jane who speaks in the novels, if not the Jane revealed in private letters. I am trying to recall a comment in one of the novels — a comment in the mouth or mind of a character who spoke in part for Jane, not one of the disfavored characters — that supports this impression, but I haven’t found it yet. On top of that, the hurried wedding due to pregnancy bespeaks a lack of chastity that I think would have troubled Jane (at least, the Jane of the novels) a lot.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Thank you sissoed for pointing out what no one else had as yet.
I don’t think social status would have had anything to do with Jane’s attitude toward them if she had any attitude at all. The moral issue is much more likely to have been a hindrance than trade vs gentry. Even so, it’s rather difficult for anyone to say with certainty whether Jane would or would not have associated with them. She’s been dead so long, that we’re basically just guessing.
Even as far as the moral issue goes, one might consider the question of whether Jane’s moral sense was as strict as that of her characters? It’s possible that at times (many times in fact) fiction is just fiction. True that part of yourself will go into your work but truly great writers are capable of writing characters whose views do not coincide with their own. And Jane was a great writer.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Thanks, Ina. My point about “domestic servant” is that in Jane’s time, domestic servant was below “trade.” I think Jane would have had a big problem with equating the two. Can we really imagine Jane sitting down to tea with one who used to serve her tea? Jane of the novels, no, Jane of the letters, probably no, too.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Ok. I didn’t think of the distinction between trade and servitude. That makes some sense, but still, I prefer to think that wouldn’t have mattered to Jane personally. Though I admit that as far as what would be expected of her it might have made a difference.