We received two reports from Gentle Readers who attended the Jane Austen Evening on January 18, 2008, held by the Society for Manners and Merriment in Pasadena, California.

Alert Janeite Stephanie sent not only a report but a couple of photos as well! (click on the thumbnails to see larger versions)

Walking up the large stone steps of the Pasadena Masonic Lodge, you step into another world: a young lady softly plays piano in a nearby corner, while a gentleman leads his wife past towards the card-room; on the other side of the room, couples gather before a marble fireplace, talking quietly & laughing, as fashionable ladies & gentlemen parade past on their way to the ballroom below; soldiers strut by in full uniform & bravado, while young ladies cluster to the side, giggling behind their fluttering fans: this is the Jane Austen Evening.

This past Saturday, January 19th in Pasadena, CA the Society for Manners & Merriment hosted this annual fun-filled event. A mere $25 will purchase you a full evening of English Country dancing (with live music by the Philadelphia Academy of Music) with a light repast of refreshments, while an additional $17 will buy you a substantial tea spread that afternoon before the dance. The Pasadena Masonic Lodge is the perfect venue for a night of Regency dance & enjoyment: the large ballroom with chandeliers and wooden floors for dancing, the marble fireplace and columns, all lend themselves to a more historical atmosphere.

My sixth time attending this event in the past 6 years, I was thrilled to be able to go again this year: for the past few years the event has sold out within mere weeks of when the tickets go on sale. My younger sister came with me (her second time), and we met up with friends at the ball: what a fantastic time we had! The dances are called (and dance practice available beforehand), making this ball very accessible for beginners & advanced dancers alike: attendees were encouraged to switch partners & ask strangers to dance, so most anyone wishing to dance should have been able find a partner. The majority of attendees are dressed in Regency attire, while a few honored us with their other historical clothing or formal wear: everyone looked so lovely this evening!

I met up with some friends there who live in different areas of CA: we were over-joyed to see each other, and had a great time dancing together! I danced some dances with my sister (as ladies out-number gentleman, ladies do dance together as needed), and danced with my friends and a few ‘strangers’ throughout the evening. My favorite dances this evening were: Mr Beveridge’s Maggot (the one Elizabeth & Darcy danced to at Netherfield), Irish Lamentation, Duke of Kent’s Waltz, Auretti’s Dutch Skipper, Childgroove, Mutual Love, and the finishing dance, Sir Roger de Coverly (ala the Virginia Reel, such fun!). There is nothing quite like a night of dance & enjoyment in Regency dress: what a lovely evening: see you at Jane Austen Evening 2009!

Laurie Viera Rigler also attended the ball and sent us a link to a report on her own blog.

It’s one thing to dance with one of your girlfriends or some random guy you’re not interested in. It’s quite another to stand up with the man you find most agreeable in the whole world, the handsomest man who ever was seen, the man who has a noble estate in Derbyshire, I mean, Pasadena. It was then that I truly got why all that serious courting went on at balls in Jane Austen’s novels, and why women longed for a dance.

Country dancing is sooooo much fun.

We’re listing the scenes missing from the broadcast of MP07 this past Sunday. If you remember another scene that wasn’t posted, let us know in comments. We’ll update this post as scenes are added.

Please note: We don’t yet know if these scenes are missing from the Region 1 DVD. We only know that they were not part of the PBS broadcast.

- Discussion of slavery between Fanny and Sir Thomas
- Mary playing the harp
-Fanny being chided by Aunt Norris before the picnic
-Fanny running down the stairs after Edmund comes home from being ordained.
-Most of William’s dance
-Mary and Henry talking while sitting on the steps in the garden at Mansfield Park (just before or after he reveals his plans with regards to Fanny)
-Talking about the play a couple of Tom’s lines are cut
-In Fanny’s room after refusing Mr. Crawford the first bit of that scene with Sir Thomas is cut
-After Sir Thomas gives the news about Maria and Henry the scene is cut abruptly
-The first bit of Edmund’s talk with Mary about the elopement is cut

So, three down, four to go, counting Miss Austen Regrets. We’re actually rather excited about this one. We just have a gut feeling that it’s not going to completely stink. But then we’re a glass-half-full kind of blog, if you haven’t noticed.

Mopping up the post-mortem for MP08, Alert Janeites Christiane and Lisa sent us this review from the Boston Globe.

Tomorrow night, Piper takes on Fanny Price, the shy, morally sound heroine of Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park.” And Piper wins, big-time, as she pulls poor, pious Fanny over onto the Billie Piper side of life. In this third adaptation in PBS’s Austen “Masterpiece” season, our pre-Victorian introvert is a ravishing wild child who recalls Madonna in a Herb Ritts video, or a stoned hippie chick in “Woodstock,” more than a polite teen in a bonnet and frock. In “Mansfield Park,” tomorrow at 9 p.m. on Channel 2, Fanny’s rather rockin’.

Now, there’s an interesting take–Fanny as the rock-n-roll wild child. Not sure about it, but there you go.

Ultimately, this “Mansfield Park” makes Patricia Rozema’s excellent 1999 version (in which Fanny is made into an Austen-like writer) seem stubbornly loyal to the author.

As Christiane said, he had us up to the “excellent 1999 version.” Huh?

AP, via the San Francisco Chronicle, has an article that combines local and international interest, along with some anecdotes from the set of S&S08.

Dominic Cooper recalled the hash he made initially of one of the novel’s most romantic moments — when his character, the “uncommonly handsome” Willoughby, rescues Marianne Dashwood after she slips and twists her ankle running down a hill.

The torrential rain “did make it quite difficult picking her up from a 90-degree angle on a wet, greasy, green hill and turning back to walk up the hill with a very long, wet coat on,” Cooper recalls. “When I kind of squatted down, the jacket got caught. I fell over immediately and put her head in a ditch.”

Ha!

We found a blogsite dedicated to Miss Austen Regrets. It seems a bit sploggy but we think it’s in earnest. (A hint to the proprietors: To make it seem LESS sploggy, try writing some original content.)

The Jane Austen’s House Museum has seen visitors rise from past productions, and is seeing a surge of interest due to That Made Up Film last year and S&S this year. Also, for our UK readers who are feeling a bit left out of the Complete Jane Austen excitement, there will be an exhibition of costumes from S&S08 at the museum starting in March. If you go, send us a report!

We are not quite sure what to make of this.

It is a truth, if not quite universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be at the mercy of a potential wife’s online search.

Had the Internet been around 195 years ago this month, when Jane Austen introduced the world to Elizabeth Bennet, would we even have Pride and Prejudice?

[. . .]

After a few minutes at PheasantsNotPeasants.org, www.brits-blue-blood.net, www.notsogentlemanly.com and a few other sites, Elizabeth would have known everything:

Charles Bingley — amiable, warm-hearted fellow with good fortune; has sisters (one particularly snobbish) and a taciturn close friend.

Fitzwilliam Darcy — exquisite estate at Pemberley; charming younger sibling and imperious aunt; possibly a very warm heart beneath that cool exterior!

George Wickham — member of the local militia; extensive gambling and other debts; talk of attempted elopement with a former benefactor’s young daughter. DON’T LET THIS RIFFRAFF NEAR YOUR SISTER!

Uh…

We’ve posted previously about economic subjects in Jane Austen’s novels, but this is an interesting tie-in, if perhaps a bit of a stretch.

But the relative economic simplicity of marriage in contemporary America contrasts with complexities still faced by many people in other countries. As in Austen’s day, payments tied to marriage play a key role in the income and wealth of both parents and children for many people throughout the world.

Austen was a masterful observer of social life. All of her novels center on the conflicting forces of romantic love and financial expedience in British matrimony 200 years ago.

Her heroines’ paths to marital bliss require hurdling obstacles created by the large payments of money between families common to marriage for upper- and middle-class Britons of her era.

Austen’s heroines needed to find a husband wealthy enough to support them in the style to which they were accustomed

Uh, no. That makes them sound like golddiggers. They just needed enough to live on. Look at Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood–they couldn’t marry on the Delaford living plus Elinor’s small bit, but a nice bit of capital from Mrs. Ferrars puts them over the top. They’re not exactly living at Pemberley.

…and to buttress their own parents’ finances.

Is there any example of this in Jane Austen’s novels? Or perhaps it’s just an awkward way of describing the fact that the Bennets, for example, had not provided for their daughters after Mr. Bennet’s death.

But the higher their social class, the more important it was that their prospective partner come from old wealth.

Marrying a rich businessman would cause a loss of social rank.

Now, hold on; the only ones who care about such things are the likes of Sir Walter and Miss Elliot, snobs extraordinaire, who deplored Mr. Elliot’s marriage to a rich woman whose father had been in trade. Anne also deplored it, but because Mr. Elliot had not loved his wife, married her only for his own gain, and treated her badly. Slight difference.

Impecunious parents of a socially desirable young man similarly might expect that his marriage to the daughter of a wealthy family would bail out their own finances.

A social faux pas or moment of lust by either partner might bring financial doom to someone.

True enough.

BBC History magazine has named 1812 as Britain’s “anni horribile” “annus horribilis:” the worst year ever.

Historian Derek Wilson, who singled out Britain’s “anni horribile” today, said: “So many things went wrong in that year, facets of life that affected all sorts and conditions for people.”

He dispelled the notion of a confident society depicted by Jane Austen and added: “The historian’s job is there to put the record straight.”

According to the study by the BBC History Magazine, 1812 was a bad year for many reasons, not least because Britain had been waging war with France for nearly 20 years.

Combined with a series of disastrous harvests, this meant taxes and prices were at record levels. Luddites added to the chaos as they destroyed new-fangled machines to protect jobs, and more than 20 were hanged.

And 1812 also witnessed the only assassination of a prime minister - Spencer Perceval was shot dead in the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, King George III was mentally unstable and his unpopular son George, who later became George IV, ruled as regent.

Following a dispute over trade with France, America declared war on Britain.

And Jane Austen was preparing Pride and Prejudice for the press.

(We are most amused by the fact that the editor of BBC History magazine is named Dave Musgrove. Bookish and learned enough for Lady Russell, do you think? )