Lefroygate: the Janeites respond
The revolution has begun, Gentle Readers!
Although Lefroy became a successful lawyer in Ireland, he was a conservative reactionary who staunchly opposed Catholic emancipation and almost every other proposal to improve the lot of the Irish people in the first half of the 19th century. In short, he was not a suitable match for someone of Miss Austen’s intelligence, sense of humour, and independence of spirit.
A life spent shackled to Mr Lefroy might well have denied us the pleasure of Emma Woodhouse, Fanny Price and Anne Elliot.
So there!
June 16th, 2008 at 6:37 am
And yet the journalists can not be blamed for creation of Darcy-Lefroy myth, it was well known long before. I have recently watched “Reader, I married Him”, aired on BBC Four in 2006, a three-part documentary about the heroes and heroines of the most popular period novels “Gone with the Wind”, “Pride and Prejudice” and “Jane Eyre” and was surprised to hear some strange opinions about Jane Austen and her heroes: that Jane Austen was only an observer in love life; that Mr. Darcy character is based on Tom Lefroy according to some biographers and Elizabeth Bennet’s refusal of Mr. Darcy’s proposal was presented as an example of refusal for encouragement at the Regency era.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/romantic-fiction.shtml
June 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Poor Tom. All he did was dance with Jane and flirt with her for a few weeks when he was just a young man, and now 200 years later his reputation is in tatters. He’s either Jane’s boy toy, or a conservative reactionary who impeded progress. Either way, he can’t win.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Mimsy books”? “Mimsy books”?!?
June 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Comment 1: “Elizabeth Bennet’s refusal of Mr. Darcy’s proposal was presented as an example of refusal for encouragement at the Regency era.”
Are they saying that Elizabeth’s refusal was for the purpose of increasing Mr. Darcy’s love by suspense, according to the usual practice of elegant females? So Jane Austen really was using Mr. Collins to state her personal philosophy on refusals of marriage?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
the journalists can not be blamed for creation of Darcy-Lefroy myth, it was well known long before. I have recently watched “Reader, I married Him”, aired on BBC Four in 2006… and was surprised to hear some strange opinions about Jane Austen and her heroes… that Mr. Darcy character is based on Tom Lefroy according to some biographers
I do not think we are blaming journalist for the creation of that lie, Boris. We are blaming them for not researching. I remember having listened to that programm and perhaps I am being dumb, as I cannot find a link to relisten it again, since I do nor recall that the assumption about Lefroy and Darcy was mentioned there. What I would like to know is who are those “some biographers” because I do neither remember that any of the biographies I have read said that, not even, as some have pointed out, Jon Spence, who is the one we are really blaming for the mess, since his theory presented as a fact encouraged the production of Becoming Jane which is what the journalists are irresponsibly using as source. When was his book first published? 2002 or 2003?
June 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
A very match for Jane Austen!
A quote of Robin Kempster from June 14, 2008 The Times “… Lefroy became a successful lawyer in Ireland, he was a conservative reactionary ….In short, he was not a suitable match for someone of Miss Austen’s intelligence, sense of humour, and independence of spirit.” And Austen Blog concurred, “So there”.
Well not quite. A contrarian view: Lefroy the “ conservative reactionary” might have been the very match for Austen!
Many Janeites tend to ascribe their own contemporary convictions, aspirations, to Jane Austen, taking her as a Feminist prototype. Ignoring and forgetting that Austen was a contemporary of the early 19th. century, not the 20th. Not of the age of Simone De Beauvoirs’ “The Second Sex.” She was fervent nationalist, a champion of the English navy, even when the Army was gaining popular support after Wellington’s defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig. A champion of the preservation of the manorial estate and its social privileges, even when it’s economics were based on the labor of colonial slavery. A critical reading of Mansfield Park will support this thesis.
Austen’s views of social status can be inferred from the novel Emma. Emma herself immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire has no qualms about orchestrating a marriage for Harriet Smith, described as “the natural [illegitimate] daughter of somebody”. Emma convinces Harriet that farmer Robert Martin is beneath her. However when Harriet fancies herself in love with Mr. Kneightly, Emma is scandalized that Harriet is reaching above her station in life. An apex of irony considering Elizabeth’s conversation with Lady Catherine in Bennet’s copse, “In marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal.”
Jumping a century ahead – consider the pronouncement of Fadela Amara, France’s secretary of state. “This is why I claim the heritage of the French Revolution. I’m universalist. I believe strongly in the values of the republic - liberty, equality, fraternity - and secularism.”
I do not suppose that Austen would not have subscribed to these ideals. Austen was an English conservative of the Regency era.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Aeneas, I could be reading the post all wrong, but I don’t think that neither the OP nor the writer of the original article were implying anything about JA political opinions. I rather thought they were referencing to the fact that given that Lefroy was allegedly (I really know nothing about the man) very conservative, JA could not have written the novels named if she had married him, I suppose because he would not think it right for his wife to do so. (Personally, I would have thought that about she marrying almost anyone; after all, women’s lives were not really all that conducive to having the free _time_ that one needs to actually write)
hl.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:24 am
>Emma herself immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire
Huh?????? 8=[
Did I miss something in the book after multiple readings over multiple years???’
June 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
A champion of the preservation of the manorial estate and its social privileges, even when it’s economics were based on the labor of colonial slavery. A critical reading of Mansfield Park will support this thesis.
Good heavens, you must know that a critical reading of Mansfield Park has supported just about every view of Austen and slavery imaginable, from equating the plight of Fanny to the condition of slaves, to Jane as morally “neutral,” to Jane-as-closet-abolitionist–all from a glancing allusion to slavery in Mansfield Park!
I have to admit that I get very impatient reading some of the critical literature about Austen. I find that all too often, there is something just plain silly about the remorseless–even fetishistic–obsession with wringing out every ounce of potential Meaning from any and every comment of Austen’s, often at the expense of the pleasure of reading the story itself!
But since you also mention Emma, I suppose a critical reading of the following exchange between Jane Fairfax and Mrs. Elton could also be viewed as a statement of Austen’s view of slavery:
“Excuse me, ma’am, but this is by no means my intention; I make no inquiry myself, and should be sorry to have any made by my friends. When I am quite determined as to the time, I am not at all afraid of being long unemployed. There are places in town, offices, where inquiry would soon produce something — offices for the sale, not quite of human flesh, but of human intellect.”
“Oh! my dear, human flesh! You quite shock me; if you mean a fling at the slave-trade, I assure you Mr. Suckling was always rather a friend to the abolition.”
“I did not mean, I was not thinking of the slave-trade,” replied Jane; “governess-trade, I assure you, was all that I had in view; widely different certainly, as to the guilt of those who carry it on; but as to the greater misery of the victims, I do not know where it lies.
I do agree with your comment, that Austen is often burdened by 21st century perspectives that would not have been her own. But I also think her views of social status are more nuanced than you give her credit for–and I’m sure there is some critical literature to support that as well!
As for Emma being “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”–I’m with Reeba on this one. Any young lady who is variously described as feeling a “flutter of pleasure,” of being “in an exquisite flutter of happiness” and one of my favorite bits–”As long as Mr. Knightley remained with them, Emma’s fever continued “– can hardly be accused of being immune to romantic attraction–not to mention the author’s final comment on “the perfect happiness of the union”!
June 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Jane Austen might have been conservative, but she was not anti-Catholic, as the writer claimed Tom Lefroy was (very possible, he was descended from Hugenots or however you spell it, I believe–might have given him an anti-Papist tendency). Remember Jane’s spirited defense of Mary, Queen of Scots in The History of England. Therefore, Lefroy’s anti-Catholicism might have been a bone of contention between them. Also he turned Evangelical and we all know how Jane Austen felt about Evangelicals (and if you don’t, see Mr. Collins). Though at least presumably Lefroy was at least genuine in his faith and not parading it for show as was Mr. Collins. However, that High Church/Low Church divide could have caused problems between Jane and Tom, more so than some modern construction of conservative/liberal would have.
While I’m at it, I’d like to put paid to the notion, expressed in several articles, that Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy discussed Tom Jones as though they both loved it. I am not so sure that Jane Austen did love it. I think that’s one of the very few things Becoming Jane got right. Her comments about Tom Jones were very appropriate and very natural to what we know about Jane Austen. Though it is entirely possible that she did like the book. We don’t really know one way or the other. Anyway, that’s another example of how Jane and Tom were not necessarily soul mates. She liked him, no doubt, and thought about him later (hey, we’ve all Googled a high-school flame, haven’t we?), but to read a great lifelong romance into it and credit it with the inspiration of fictional characters goes too far, AND insults Jane Austen’s genius.
I find the Said reading of MP a great deal too simplistic. My own personal “critical reading” of MP and Emma shows a lot of imagery of confinement, particularly in reference to women. Think about “I can’t get out, said the starling” and Fanny Price being pretty much told where she will go at any one time and Jane Fairfax exclaiming about the pleasure of being sometimes alone. I also feel that any references to slavery were meant to be compared not so much to African slavery as to the condition of women in Jane Austen’s time. Certainly they were not slaves, but they were not free to be independent creatures, either, at least unmarried women, and marriage came with a whole additional layer of control.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
On June 17th Reeba Says
“Huh?????? 8=[…. Did I miss something in the book multiple readings over multiple years???’
I’m quite happy about your “multiple readings over multiple years” as the alternative, video dramatizations, will not support an argument. And taking note of your April 9th, 2008, “I have often used this point in an attempt to protect Emma from Emma-bashing.”, that you have decisive views on Emma. However the topic in - Lefroygate: the Janeites respond – was whether Lefroy, a “conservative reactionary”, was a match to Austen’s “intelligence, sense of humour, and independence of spirit.” and I attempted to point out that there is valid argument to view Austen as a conservative, understanding the designation in the Regency historical content. A discussion on Emma would be inappropriate within the “Lefroygate’ topic.
However if you would initiate the topic, the character of Emma in the novel, I would be happy to listen to and dispute your and Maria L’s protestation that the character as sketched by Austen, can’t be interpreted as “ immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”. That might be an interesting discussion.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
>A discussion on Emma would be inappropriate within the “Lefroygate’ topic.
Why??? Often topics have been discussed within topics here IIRC.
>that you have decisive views on Emma.
Errr….. your views in the first post also sound very decisive
>I would be happy to listen to and dispute your and Maria L’s protestation the character as sketched by Austen, can’t be interpreted as “ immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”.
I would love to hear your reasons.
My reasons are (in addition to those mentioned by Maria L) that;
-JA tells us through Emma about the blindness of her own head and heart!
Now being blind would mean it was there, she just didn’t see it -being preoccupied with *other things* LOL!! And of course the thought of her father.
immune would mean *she feels nothing* even when she is aware of the presence of love from the other side.
Incidentally it would also mean that there are no feelings of love *in her* to which she is blind (as told by JA)
Regarding *romantic attraction* - Well! That was all that Frank Churchill was about, to her.
She muses (on discovering her feelings for MR Knightley);
When had he succeeded to that place in her affection, which Frank Churchill had once, for a short period, occupied?
Only to realise as she mused along;
she had been entirely under a delusion, totally ignorant of her own heart — and, in short, that she had never really cared for Frank Churchill at all!
There you go!
Again that mentioning of delusion, ignorance in addition to *blind*
These three words definitely don’t mean,
**Not affected by a given influence; unresponsive:** (according to Answers.com)
*Now* that she sees, come out of her delusion, and is ignorant no more - she responds.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
>Austen’s views of social status can be inferred from the novel Emma.
I don’t think they were Austen’s personal views. She was just conforming to the society’s ways.
when overwhelmed with Emma-bashing.
And yes, I have clung to Anne’s attitude like a drowning man to a straw
This does not mean that I don’t consider this bashing as loaded with 21st century sensibilities (not forgetting that 21st century attitudes are not all that superior or totally devoid of the Regency ones - they are present in different forms today).
June 17th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Here’s another point of view about Jane and the Evangelicals-
Janet Todd, the author of “The Cambridge Introduction to Jane Austen” seems to feel that Jane’s attitude toward the new evangelicals (who would be the early Methodists, Moravians, etc.)changed some over the years:
“Austen’s distaste for the new movement of Evangelicalism (an enthusiastic tendency which emphasised conversion and an entirely different life in Christ, while seeking to interrupt the lax social harmony of the established Church) is boldly expressed in 1809 to Cassandra, ‘I do not like the Evangelicals’ (L, p. 170). By 1814, the year of Mansfield Park’s publication, however, she had qualified her distaste: ‘I am by no means convinced that we ought not all to be Evangelicals’; she was ‘at least persuaded that they who are so from Reason & Feeling, must be happiest & safest’ (L>, p. 280). In the most ominous years of the Napoleonic War she had come to value Evangelicalism’s seriousness, its implied critique of the triviality of many Anglican members and ministers”.
Sounds like Jane mellowed as she got older- like most of us do!
I can’t remember Mr. Collins doing or saying anything that would give me the idea that he was an evangelical. He does not talk about his personal relationship with God nor tries to persuade others to become evangelical. He is obviously Anglican, however, and very few Anglican ministers were also considered evangelical during that time period.
It might have more to do with being a Protestant living in Ireland.
If Lefroy was a Huguenot descendent, his ancestors would have most probably been Reformed or Lutheran. I read that Thomas was a life long Anglican, so I don’t know how much his ancestors’ ideas affected his thinking. One hundred and thirty years is a long time.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Let’s not forget, also, that had 20-year-old Tom Lefroy suddenly inherited a fortune from a long-lost Australian uncle and thus been freed to marry the smart, interesting, strong-minded Jane Austen, he might have grown up to be a different kind of person. Living with Jane Austen would surely have been a life-changing experience. . .
June 17th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I think ultimately for me what is most distressing about Lefroygate is not the speculation about what may have happened between Tom and Jane, but the fact that through sheer and often stupid repetition the speculation seems to have acquired a veneer of True Fact that is certainly not warranted by the little evidence that does exist.
Could Lefroy have broken her heart? Sure, maybe. The truth probably lies somewhere between the Tom-was-nothing and the Tom-was-Everything camps. But the seemingly endless obsession with portraying Jane Austen as the Victim of Tragic Love every time Lefroy’s name is mentioned, borders on the ridiculous. Moreoever, as Mags rightly pointed out, it serves to demean the very real accomplishments of Austen, trivializing her creation of a whole panoply of fully imagined, witty, funny, nasty, passionate–and yes, romantic– characters, to no more than the byproducts of a thwarted four-week flirtation.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Baja Janeite–While I admire Janet Todd’s work tremendously, I tend to take my lead on Jane Austen and religion from the very brilliant Irene Collins. She spoke at the 2000 JASNA AGM on Mr. Collins and said that his expressed views on dancing and balls and music and novel-reading (and frivolity in general) indicate Evangelical leanings–though they might be all for show. Professor Collins further posited that an Evangelical, at the time of the composition of P&P (1796ish), would have had difficulty getting a living, and that Lady Catherine might have appointed Mr. Collins partly to show the Bishop who’s boss.
I just checked the JASNA site and it looks like her paper wasn’t printed in Persuasions, but I think she covers the same material in Jane Austen and the Clergy. (Brilliant book, and has informed my ideas about Henry Tilney’s inner life tremendously. Read it and understand a big part of my disappointment in the recent film.) If I were home I would look it up, but I’m out of town for a couple of days. Another book you might find of interest is Prof. Collins’ Jane Austen, the Parson’s Daughter.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Oh–and excellent point about the Irish-protestant thing! Wasn’t he from Cork? I forget. But not exactly Ulster. Daresay it was an issue.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Mags- it appears that Tommy Lefroy was from Limerick, just next door to Cork- deep in the heart of Catholic Ireland. Irish Catholics made up at least 70% of the population, but they were victims of an unbelievable amount of discrimination during the mid and late 1700’s. (See the outrageous Penal Laws of 1691-1778.) Lefroy’s opinions were probably typical of those who belonged to the Church of England/Ireland at that time.
I always thought that Mr. Collins reflected Lady Catherine’s views rather than his own religious convictions. He’s so deliciously repugnant and unique that I hate to label him! I’ll have to read Ms. Collins’ books to see how she backs up her ideas. Thanks for the tip!
June 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Perhaps a new culprit: Has anyone heard the on BBC 4 the play ‘Jane and Tom: The Real Pride and Prejudice’ by Elizabeth Lewis? Suspicious title, that.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I missed that one, Cassandra. But considering the date, I do not think it is a “new” culprit, since it is a programm from June 2007. It would be more like the journalists now, that is to count among those who swallowed without thinking the Becoming Jane plot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007llmb
June 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Or someone reading certain biographies and claims of certain scholars and putting two and two together and coming up with six and a half…and thinking it’s a brand-new original idea!
June 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“Jane Austen might have been conservative, but she was not anti-Catholic, as the writer claimed Tom Lefroy was (very possible, he was descended from Hugenots or however you spell it, I believe–might have given him an anti-Papist tendency).”
The Lefroys were protestant and in 18th and 19th century Ireland that meant a great deal, high office and better education were reserved for protestants only. The Austen family politics were Tory by tradition and the Leighs were Jacobite sympathisers (Charles the 1st had taken refuge at Stoneleigh when the gates of nearby Coventy were closed to him.) The Stuarts were Catholic by inclination and sympathy.
“While I’m at it, I’d like to put paid to the notion, expressed in several articles, that Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy discussed Tom Jones as though they both loved it. I am not so sure that Jane Austen did love it. I think that’s one of the very few things Becoming Jane got right. Her comments about Tom Jones were very appropriate and very natural to what we know about Jane Austen. Though it is entirely possible that she did like the book. We don’t really know one way or the other.”
Agreed. Just because she read Tom Jones and discussed it with Lefroy (and may have learnt from his style of 3rd person narration) that doesn’t mean that she actually approved of it. Indeed, we have Henry Austen’s biographical notice that states “she didn’t rank any work of Fielding… so highly (as Richardson’s)… nothing could make amends for so low a scale of morals.” This is HA speaking, but it would fit with her known moral tendencies.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
It seems the name of Mr. Darcy is the only thing related to Tom Lefroy as the name D’Arcy was a well known and distinguished name in Ireland at the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Langlois_Lefroy
http://web.archive.org/web/20030213021516/www.carrigglas.com/family.html
For those who have not read biographers written about the relationship between Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy, this JASNA publication “Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy: Stories”, which resumes shortly the biographer’s main ideas and considerations, might be of interest:
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no1/walker.htm
June 20th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Reeba June 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Why??? Often topics have been discussed within topics here IIRC.”
My preference would have been for separate topic from the Lefroygate, since a discussion whithin is like a conversation in a cocktail party, the ambient noise is too high. So be it. Since the note is off-topic, it’s a reply to Reeba’s and Maria L’s observation.
I’ll have to lay out my argument in several parts since it’s necessary to define it’s background and then use quotations in context from the novel to clarify my reading and this tends to an essay, as opposed to a paragraph stating an opinion. My appologies.
As for Emma being “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”, I can’t claim credit for that. A nice phrase but Austen is too subtle for such a simple characterization. However I do think that there is a grain of truth in it. Something worth perusing in rereading Emma.
I take Austen at her word, a safe start, when she wrote – I shall create a character that nobody but me will like.-. Her imagination had brought to life such individually diverse characters, as Elinor and Marianne( Sense and Sensibility), Elizabeth, Jane, Lydia, Charlotte, Lady Catherine (Pride and Prejudice), Catherine Morland, Isabella Thorpe (Northanger Abbey) and Fanny Price, Mary Crawford (Mansfield Park), characters of layered complexity, that in Emma we should expect nothing less. To read Emma as a romance with a happy ending and Emma Woodhouse as a high spirited, intellectual, and bored young woman indulging in matchmaking, is not to give Austen her due. That would make Emma two dimensional, limited to what Austen directly described, and contrary to her heroines, such as Elinor, Marriane and Elizabeth whose characters are not described but reveled by circumstances.
Thus the question is how does Austen make Emma unlikable but interesting? How will she differentiate from such previous characters as Elizabeth, Elinor, Fanny all likable and all who seek in marriage security and a place to call their ow?. Austen begins, “Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence;” But almost immediately qualifies the utopia by ”The real evils, indeed of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much of her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself”. The new Eve in paradise bears a fatal flaw compromising not only her own happiness but of those around her.
The question of how Austen will do it is not rhetorical. Stylistically Austen has already established her reputation, so the question is only thematic. With Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice Austen has established a thematic formula. Impoverished daughters of the English gentleman class marries upwards thereby establishes a home of her own. The primary motivating factor of marriage as a way to financial security, since a woman’s options were severely limited in the early 19th. century, is too modern an interpretation. Matrimony, a psychological fulfillment as well as the establishment of ‘a place of her own’, were of greater concern. A ‘place of her own’ is described in Pride and Prejudice, “Charlotte took her sister and friend over the house, extremely well pleased, probably, to have the opportunity of shewing it without her husband’s help. It was rather small, but well built and convenient; and everything was fitted up and arranged with a neatness and consistency of which Elizabeth gave Charlotte all the credit. When Mr. Collins could be forgotten, there was really a great air of comfort throughout, and by Charlotte’s evident enjoyment of it, Elizabeth supposed he must be often forgotten.“. In contrast is Lydia’s lack of such, “They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and always spending more than they ought. His affection for her soon sunk into indifference; her’s lasted a little longer; and in spite of her youth and her manners, she retained all the claims to reputation which her marriage had given her.”. These passages illustrate Austen’s view of a successful and of an unsuccessful marriage. The importance of stability of a place, quite apart from the qualities of the aristocratic Pemberly or the manorial Northland. The fulfillment of ‘a place of her own’ was as important as of progeny for the self esteem of a woman.
With Mansfield Park she experiments and with Emma she is ready to break the mold established in the early novels. Emma is secure as the mistress of the Woodhouse estate and preeminent in the locale’s society. She is rich, self assured and not interested in marriage, therefore the characterization “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”, even if Austen would not have been so blunt, may apply. In chapter 10 Emma declares: “And I am not only, not going to be married, at present, but have very little intention of ever marrying at all.”…..”I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a situation as mine. Fortune I do not want; employment I do not want; consequence I do not want: I believe few married women are half as much mistress of their husband’s house as I am of Hartfield; and never, never could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so always first and always right in any man’s eyes as I am in my father’s.”
June 21st, 2008 at 2:07 am
Boris–don’t believe everything you read on the Internets.
It’s fairly obvious that the Becoming Jane fangirls/conspiracy theorists have had their way with poor Tom Lefroy’s Wikipedia entry. Check out this comment on the discussion page for the entry:
If anyone from the Wiki Police were paying attention, it would have been gone long ago. I also present for your perusal another paper from the JASNA site which I think should be read along with the paper you linked for balance: http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol28no1/ray.htm
For those who keep saying, “But he named his daughter Jane!” it should be pointed out that Lefroy’s wife’s mother’s name was Jane, and it is a lot more likely that the daughter was named for her grandmother than for Jane Austen.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Thank you Aeneas for this well written response.
But it has left me confused. In post 6 you seemed to support this statement
>Emma herself immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire
I (and Mary L) were trying to express how inappropriate this statement is when applied to Emma.
In post 25 you say;
>However I do think that there is a grain of truth in it.
Does this mean you don’t think the statement in post 6 is entirely true and has several *non true* grains but only *a grain of truth*?
Regardless of this confusion I will try to respond to points as I understood them.
JA said that she was going to write about a heroine;
“whom no one but myself will much like”
You wish to take it at face value - fair enough.
Though I think that JA was too intelligent to make sweeping statements about *everybody* - (*no one*).
If she had used words like ‘not many’ or ‘most’ I would take this seriously, but as I see it, it was an ironical statement - poking fun at people because Emma was not going to be a *damsel in distress* - something which arouses sympathy and feelings, tilting one in their favour.
In fact most of your post above shows how much ‘not a damsel in distress’ she was.
I have failed to find an equation between;
Not needing a place of her own, because she has one = immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire
The passage you have quoted as said by Emma;
“I have none of the usual inducements [....] I expect to be so truly beloved as in my father’s”
-and we know towards the end of the book that she deludes herself a lot; she did imagine herself in love with FC ( showing that she did not need to marry for a place of her own, but could fall in love)
In fact the book proves there is no such equation because Emma finds romantic attraction (and sexual desire) and gets to keep her own place
June 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
oops sorry;
I missed your point about JA trying to break the mould as established in her earlier novels.
>She is rich, self assured and not interested in marriage, therefore the characterization “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”,
- not interested (these are her delusions) and immune do not mean the same thing
The rest of my post about *no one* will like etc - still applies
June 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Mags, thanks very much for the link to JASNA publication “The One-Sided Romance of Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy”. It is a very interesting article and I heartily recommend it to readers:
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol28no1/ray.htm
I share my opinion presented in two points:
1. The story of the relationship between Jane Austen and Tom Lefroy described by the author is very fun and deserving to be put in a novel indeed: a husband-hunting butter-fly (Jane Austen), being jealous of her already engaged sister (Cassandra Austen), fixes a target (Tom Lefroy) and flirtation begins. But the butter-fly is a little bit silly and instead of an offer of romance expects only an offer to dance and only to reject it because of the target’s white Coat. The not interested target, being unaware of the butter-fly’s silliness, takes her flirtation much seriously and for fear of misleading her, runs away.
2. The article presents an extreme opinion, totally denying any existence of affection of Tom Lefroy towards Jane Austen. The author quotes “Memoir of Chief Justice Lefroy” and points out circumstances of Tom Lefroy’s real situation in life to proof that he could not have been in any way passionate about Jane Austen. But the author forgets something very simple which Mr. Andrew Davies calls “racing hormones” (we are talking about young people of 20 not about robots with technical parameters to be calculated by formulas) which makes a young person forget his/her real situation in life and give way to his/her filings and passions. Tom Lefroy’s flirting with Jane Austen was his own choice and nobody was there in his way to choose another girl or to change the subject or something else. That would not have been a problem for so experienced marriage market player like him.
Tom Lefroy’s story with Jane Austen was only a short flirtation with affection on both sides. He was financially dependant and, as it seems, already involved with another girl and the story with Jane was to be closed as soon as possible as it happened.
I am not Tom Lefroy fellow and “Some of those eager to get Austen and Lefroy together” but I can not believe the image of Jane Austen as a sort of novels writing machine requiring only a comfortable cottage and some money for the machine to be put in operation. It can not be image of a real person.
As for the Wikipedia link, it was only not to be so cruel to “Reader, I married Him” as it a serious production all the same; there are three series of 60 min. It is evident from what is written there that it was not some of Austen biographers’ consideration, otherwise his name would have been put by Tom Lefroy fellows.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Second part of essay on Emma.
In chapter 10, at the beginning of the novel Austen in first person dialog defines a very unlikely romantic heroine ”I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall.” and her behavior is consistent almost to the end of the novel, where Austen in third person voice writes, “Marriage, in fact, would not do for her. It would be incompatible with what she owed to her father, and with what she felt for him. Nothing should separate her from her father. She would not marry, even if she were asked by Mr. Knightley.”
Reeba on June 17th. Note presented the counter argument to my reading that Emma is immune to the emotion of love: -
“Only to realize as she mused along;
she had been entirely under a delusion, totally ignorant of her own heart — and, in short, that she had never really cared for Frank Churchill at all!
There you go!
Again that mentioning of delusion, ignorance in addition to blind
These three words definitely don’t mean,
Not affected by a given influence; unresponsive: (according to Answers.com)
Now that she sees, come out of her delusion, and is ignorant no more - she responds.” -
A possible reading but the phrase is embedded in “She saw, that in persuading herself, in fancying, in acting to the contrary, she had been entirely under a delusion, totally ignorant of her own heart”. The Austen scholar John Halperin defines Emma’s delusion as, “Emma’s inability to subject fancy to reason that causes most of her problems and forms the core of novel’s dramatic structure. Her perception of the world and of the people in it is clouded by her imagination, by misplaced faith in her own powers of deduction, until the final resolution. ”… “She sees less with her eyes than with her imagination, and in doing so constructs a series of realities which have no basis in fact”. - from ‘The Worlds of Emma’ by John Halperin, in Jane Austen Bicentenary Essays. Thus the phrase “ignorant of her own heart” does not signify an awakening to love, as my understanding of Reeba’s quote would suggest, but as a forced shedding of an illusion. More importantly it does not suggest an epiphany, since nothing in the passage indicates a change in character but rather a replacement of one delusion by another.
When we examine the phrase in context of chapter 47, where Emma realizes that Harriet is in love with Mr. Knightely -
“”Harriet!” cried Emma, collecting herself resolutely–”Let us understand each other now, without the possibility of farther mistake. Are you speaking of–Mr. Knightley?”
….”Good God!” cried Emma, “this has been a most unfortunate– most deplorable mistake!–What is to be done?”
…”Have you any idea of Mr. Knightley’s returning your affection?”
“Yes,” replied Harriet modestly, but not fearfully–”I must say that I have.”
Emma’s eyes were instantly withdrawn; and she sat silently meditating, in a fixed attitude, for a few minutes. A few minutes were sufficient for making her acquainted with her own heart. A mind like hers, once opening to suspicion, made rapid progress. She touched– she admitted–she acknowledged the whole truth. Why was it so much worse that Harriet should be in love with Mr. Knightley, than with Frank Churchill? Why was the evil so dreadfully increased by Harriet’s having some hope of a return? It darted through her, with the speed of an arrow, that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself!”
And Emma’s insight into her own heart concludes: “Mr. Knightley and Harriet Smith!–It was a union to distance every wonder of the kind.–The attachment of Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax became commonplace, threadbare, stale in the comparison, exciting no surprize, presenting no disparity, affording nothing to be said or thought.–Mr. Knightley and Harriet Smith!–Such an elevation on her side! Such a debasement on his!”
If we compare how Austen describes Emma’s emotions with those of Jane Faifax’s, of Marianne’s in Sense and Sensibility or Jane Bennet’s when she feels Bingley lost, women in love, we can’t equate the emotions. Emma are based on jealousy, on class prejudice and not the awakened feelings of love.
If we were to dwell into Emma’s mind, these emotions originated in the prefrontal cortex, the decision making part of the brain, not in the amigdola, the seat of emotions. This is quite consistent with the Austen’s characterization, “Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich…. The real evils, indeed of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much of her own way…” or as Halperin put it, “clouded by her imagination, by misplaced faith in her own powers of deduction”.
Maria L’s note of June 17th. agrees with Reeba and is more specific in her objections of Emma “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”.
“As for Emma being “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”–I’m with Reeba on this one. Any young lady who is variously described as feeling a “flutter of pleasure,” of being “in an exquisite flutter of happiness” and one of my favorite bits–”As long as Mr. Knightley remained with them, Emma’s fever continued “– can hardly be accused of being immune to romantic attraction–not to mention the author’s final comment on “the perfect happiness of the union”!
These quotations seem more illustrative of a woman in love, but they suffer a similar problem when taken in context of Emma’s character as delineated in 48 chapters of the novel.
Chapter 45, “What totally different feelings did Emma take back into the house from what she had brought out!–she had then been only daring to hope for a little respite of suffering;–she was now in an exquisite flutter of happiness, and such happiness moreover as she believed must still be greater when the flutter should have passed away.”
“As long as Mr. Knightley remained with them, Emma’s fever continued; but when he was gone, she began to be a little tranquillised and subdued–and in the course of the sleepless night, which was the tax for such an evening, she found one or two such very serious points to consider, as made her feel, that even her happiness must have some alloy. Her father–and Harriet. She could not be alone without feeling the full weight of their separate claims; and how to guard the comfort of both to the utmost, was the question. With respect to her father, it was a question soon answered. She hardly knew yet what Mr. Knightley would ask; but a very short parley with her own heart produced the most solemn resolution of never quitting her father.”
The sentiments expressed, sound morally very uplifting, but given the previous histories of Austen heroines when contemplating marriage, of being resolute in opposition to family obligations and readily decamp the ancestral home for husbands estate, ‘a place of her own’, rings a false note. This is not an emotional decision of a woman in love but a conscious rationalization of conflicting demands.
Chapter 55, “the wishes, the hopes, the confidence, the predictions of the small band of true friends who witnessed the ceremony, were fully answered in the perfect happiness of the union.”. Note that the sentiments are of the onlookers to the wedding, not Austen’s prediction of the future success of the union. This is not a quibble of interpretation: it should not be read as the feelings of a woman in love, only of a conventional ending, satisfying the expectations of the readers of the period. To have made Emma consistent with the characterization of the previous 600 pages. Austen has to produce a happy ending as she had to in Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and in Mansfield Park, else she according to the expectations of the day she would have made a most unfeminine woman, a monster, of Emma. Perhaps the most serious accusation against Austen is not of the narrowness of scope, of the two bits of ivory, but that of the endings, that of the blissful union. She does not venture to describe these marriages five or ten years into the future. Perhaps wisely given the description of the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice.
In the end Austen can not break the mold of a romantic ending. This would have required a tragedy, and it was a decade or two before an author could write a modern tragedy of a woman in love: Catherine Earnshaw in Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë. And several generations before Hardy’s Tess of D’Ubervilles. An ending of women in love, not in happy-ever-after but in death.
Perhaps Austen in Emma, as “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”, was anticipating the future of the Freemale, as described in Jun 2, 2008 in http://www.dailymail.co.uk, “This new breed of singleton has been dubbed a ‘freemale’, because she chooses her freedom over a family….They apparently choose to be alone, and rejoice in a life where they can spend time and money as they wish.”
June 21st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
(We have two conversations going on around each other here, as Aeneas feared, but it seems to be working out so far!)
Hi Boris,
I don’t think that the paper I linked says or implies that Tom Lefroy didn’t have feelings for Jane Austen, just that they were not serious. And I do think that Jane liked Tom, very much, perhaps more than he liked her, for those few weeks that they were together. But I don’t think she suffered over him, nor he over her. I think back to some of the boys I liked when I was a teenager and am SO happy I didn’t go nuts and marry them! I would not have been happy with them. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t like them very much at the time, or that I don’t remember them fondly.
One of the messages of Jane Austen’s novels was not so much that marriage is desirable, but that good marriages are desirable. Jane certainly had at least one offer of marriage, and I think some of the speculation about other offers she might have received is sound. Yet she turned them all down. She was much too sensible to pine over what could never be (Tom Lefroy). That’s what bothers me–I think it’s sad to imagine her like that. And not in a nice romantic sad way, but in a pathetic way that makes me think less of her. Knowing what I know of Jane Austen, I just can’t believe it.
For a romance for Jane, the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea, as I call him, is more interesting to me than Tom Lefroy.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
OK!!! I see where the problem lies!!!!!
We have to consider that Emma is a mystery novel.
So when you say;
> in context of Emma’s character as delineated in 48 chapters of the novel.
I have to mention here that Emma’s character as delineated in 48 chapters was an attempt on JA’s part to mislead the reader and seems to have succeeded splendidly
>In chapter 10, at the beginning of the novel Austen in first person dialog defines a very unlikely romantic heroine..
Of course!!
And if one of the misled paths that can be followed is the ‘immune to love etc’ one, then so much the better.
>” and her behavior is consistent almost to the end of the novel,..
*wrong* IMO
This seeming consistency comes when one misses the *clues*
They are all over. While Emma mouths certain sentiments she leans the other way. Otherwise she wouldn’t think she *could* marry FC, and also imagine herself in love with him – while this makes a dent in her earlier statement giving the reader a clue that Emma is capable of such a sentiment, it also misleads the reader further away from any thoughts of pairing her with Mr Knightley as well as those of FC and Jane Fairfax - and yet there are clues showing us that there is something between JFand FC and Emma’s unconscious attraction for Mr. Knightley.
You have quoted an Austen scholar, John Halperin.
There are many sides to Emma’s character running throughout the book. One is overplayed (the Harriet - Box Hill issue) and the others are underplayed, but there nevertheless.
With all due respect to the scholars, my problem with them is that when it comes to Emma they are astonishingly short sighted.
The subtle nuances of the underplayed part is totally overlooked when forming any theory about Emma’s character.
Her compassion for the poor is belittled because she does not show it to Mrs Bates. That she’s nowhere even near the category of the poor Emma visits is not considered. It’s Mr. Knightley and his views that influence the reader’s opinion. According to him Mrs Bates no longer has the same comfort she was used to and so she is poor.
In short – Mrs Bates’ poverty is relative. She has a fire when cold (Emma worries about the poor in winter), she has Pattie as a maid, but no carriage. Is this the kind of poverty Emma shows compassion for? Emma can distinguish between the two. I doubt if Mr. Knightley ever entered a poor’s cottage. His workers are all well looked after.
She sends pork to the Bateses - not as part of charity. It was the custom to send meat around when one slaughtered a pig etc. The Martins sent Mrs Goddard a goose – I’m sure it was not out of charity. And Mrs Goddard likes ‘boiled’ leg of pork according to Miss Bates (sent by the Woodhouses??)
At the Box Hill while we are very much concerned with Emma’s misbehaviour we fail to give any emphasis to;
“Not that Emma was gay and thoughtless from any real felicity; it was rather because she felt less happy than she had expected. She laughed because she was disappointed;“
Why did Emma feel so!! This is a clue IMO that Emma is restless, she’s dissatisfied and doesn’t know why!! A sign of being in love, I think,
There is more – other aspects of Emma’s character which are always ignored. So the analysis of Emma’s character according to Mr John Halperin is based on the overplayed (as compared to the underplayed) dramatics in the novel.
Example of this one dimensional analysis;
She sees less with her eyes than with her imagination,
I don’t know who to put my question to, you or Mr John Halperin, but here it is;
Always???
There are instances when she sees with her eyes and makes useful decisions. (if you search the underplayed instances you’ll find some).
But going back to your quote and comments;
>nothing in the passage indicates a change in character but rather a replacement of one delusion by another.
Which other delusion is it replaced by??
Maybe this does not suggest an epiphany, but it begins to!!
Blindness when replaced by gradual sight does not focus instantly and takes time to adjust and focus.
The process has started. She begins to realise that she was blind, etc. (I begin to feel like a parrot now)
Every sentence of the passage is a pointer in that direction.
> If we compare how Austen describes Emma’s emotions with those of Jane Faifax’ [….] Emma are based on jealousy, on class prejudice and not the awakened feelings of love.
Jane Fairfax was certainly very jealous of Emma regarding FC, and unfairly treats her rudely by rejecting her offers.
Jane Bennet doesn’t lose Bingley to another woman so cannot be compared. Marianne is another cup of tea altogether. She was in love with romance and reacted accordingly.
If Emma thought she herself could marry FC and later thinks Harriet should – why didn’t she think of class then? Because that is really not the issue here
The real issue is another – her feelings!!!!
She’s certainly very emotional – ¨thus contradictory!!!
At this stage she has already realised her wrong deductions and her interference. So the following does not apply at this stage;
>“clouded by her imagination, by misplaced faith in her own powers of deduction”
(The response to the rest of your post follows
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Aneas: Halperin? You mean the guy with the laundry list of 12–count ‘em–12 guys (including Mags’ Mysterious Suitor -by-the-Sea) who he contends either rejected or were rejected by Austen?! I love Deborah Kaplan’s comment that “[Halperin’s] Jane Austen could be a frequenter of singles bars.” Sure puts Lefroygate into perspective
As for Emma, there is a huge difference between describing Emma as a very unlikely romantic heroine, to making the declaration as you did in your original post that she is “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire.” Given Austen’s strong views about love and marriage it begs the question, If it isn’t for love, why does Emma marry Knightley? She certainly doesn’t need the money, or the social standing. She has family and friends who care about her. She is willful enough to do as she pleases, for the most part. She doesn’t need to marry, yet she does.
When you write of my examples: “These quotations seem more illustrative of a woman in love, but they suffer a similar problem when taken in context of Emma’s character as delineated in 48 chapters of the novel,” you speak as if Emma’s character were fixated for 48 chapters and that at the end of the novel she is just trading one more delusion for another.
But I dare say even Halperin would disagree with your reading. In The Victorian Novel and Jane Austen he writes, “…what the novel [Emma] describes is the heroine’s ordeal of education, the process of her own self-discovery.”
And I think that is the point you miss when it comes to Emma and love. IMO Emma isn’t the story of a young woman who just continues to replace one delusion for another, or who amuses us and herself with her endless matchmaking. It’s a story of a young woman’s growth . Each blunder that Emma makes is another chapter in her education. The Emma at the end of the novel is very different from the Emma of the first lines.
Even Halperin contends that Emma’s “understanding of her feeling for Mr. Knightley is the most important result of her self-discovery and is the resolution toward which many of the novel’s seemingly cacophonous events have been leading. A paramount concomitant of self-knowledge is the discovery of the state of one’s own genuine feelings (not fancies).”
By the end of the book Emma has come to an entirely different understanding not only of herself, but of the individuals (Robert Martin, as one example) and the world around her. And that includes the realization that she can not only inspire love, but return it herself.
I don’t need an Austen scholar (certainly not Halperin, whose Austen bio seems intent on painting her as a woman singularly driven by malice) to tell me what Austen herself does. In addition to the little flutters of pleasure Austen writes about (which is more than she does for her other heroines), she tells us that “The affection, which he [Knightley] had been asking to be allowed to create if he could, was already his!” And as for Emma’s “most solemn resolution of never quitting her father,” that problem is resolved soon enough, not only do they marry but they get to go on a honeymoon trip!
You wrote, “To read Emma as a romance with a happy ending and Emma Woodhouse as a high spirited, intellectual, and bored young woman indulging in matchmaking, is not to give Austen her due.”
I couldn’t agree with you more and no one has suggested that. But acknowledging that Emma can feel love and attraction certainly does not undermine her as a complex and thoroughly interesting character–it just makes her more human and it makes her process of growth and self-discovery more real to me.
And as for Jane and Tommy Lefroy–well that just makes her more human to me as well. But I’ll be darned if I give that little romp credit for her creation of Darcy, or any of her other characters. She was perfectly capable of doing that without Tom Lefroy. And she did.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
That should read Miss Bates and not Mrs in my post above.
>…with her own heart produced the most solemn resolution of never quitting her father.”…[…]
This is not an emotional decision of a woman in love but a conscious rationalization of conflicting demands.
First of all – anything the heart tells you to do is emotional
Powers of deduction come from the head.
Why is this decision of Emma’s not ‘love’? Love for her father!!
She is faced with love on both sides. She loves her father (another feature of Emma’s character belittled by many who think it is just duty).
People don’t believe that Mr. Woodhouse is ill – but we know he dies two years after their wedding). The scale tips more on her father’s side because in addition to love there is compassion for an ill father. This is *selflessness* - that also forms part of Emma’s character.
By your account if Emma had been selfish it would have proved her in love?
No other heroine is faced with such a situation. In fact their marriages are good for the family’s future – not just the heroines.
What would you say about Anne Elliot? She gives in to Lady Russell and breaks with FW.
Is she not in love??
>“the wishes, the hopes, the confidence, the predictions of the small band of true friends who witnessed the ceremony, were fully answered in the perfect happiness of the union.”.
Note that the sentiments are of the onlookers to the wedding, not Austen’s prediction of the future success of the union.
Not Austen’s prediction????
You mean that just by witnessing the ceremony the hopes and wishes – and above all predictions for the couple’s future were answered fully???
Isn’t it the author telling us that the usual good wishes showered on a couple at a wedding came true??
Yes, the style of writing is not the same as in her other novels, but then Emma is written in a very special manner (it’s the best ), and the author has maintained that style throughout.
>Perhaps the most serious accusation against Austen is not of the narrowness of scope, of the two bits of ivory, but that of the endings, that of the blissful union.
I don’t accuse her of this at all (if my opinion counts, as opposed to scholastic views
I applaud her for it – for two reasons;
-the rest is left to our imagination
-considering the size of the novels, if it were to be maintained we would have got very little information of various stages of their lives – OR the novels would have been very thick indeed, and thus very expensive to print and buy at that time
And
This could apply to any novel.
So where should a novel end?????
>In the end Austen can not break the mold of a romantic ending.
Did she want to?!!
So does this also mean that you accept there was a romantic ending to Emma?
>Perhaps Austen in Emma, as “immune to romantic attraction and sexual desire”, was anticipating the future of the Freemale, as described in Jun 2, 2008 in
This is similar to views like ‘JA was a feminist’ – and I don’t belong to that school of thought.
In conclusion;
Emma’s emotions and feelings are there as clues, and the reader is misled till towards the end the author springs all these truths upon us, while explaining how Emma begins to apply that other side of her (underplayed)character, and begins to see things, and herself;
-the piano
-the engagement
-Harriet’s transfer of affection (which like Emma we all think is for FC)
- Emma’s own feelings for Mr. K
-Harriet’s parentage (which like Emma one hopes is nothing less than a Baron
Some mysteries are solved along the way;
-Elton’s attraction for Emma
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hi Reeba,
I try to make my thoughts clear, so that they can be easily understood but simple does not mean dogmatic. I do not claim an insight into Austen’s mind. I like the novel Emma and it used to be my favorite as she masterfully expressed the character of a multi layered individual. And I have changed my mind when exposed to a good argument. Therefore I can’t answer whether the idea has a grain of truth, whole or partial and which part. I view perception of Truth as in Rashomon. It depends on where one stands.
The idea of the Austen’s woman seeking ‘a place of her own’ came from Elizabeth answering Jane, when she first fell in love - “My dearest sister, now be serious. I want to talk very seriously. Let me know every thing that I am to know, without delay. Will you tell me how long you have loved him?”
“It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley.” Where Elizabeth mused in seeing Pemberley, ”And of this place,” thought she, “I might have been mistress! “
Love in Austen has the component of a place, not just of financial security. Or are they inseparately intermingled?
Also that by the time of Virginia Woolf,’ a place of her own’ had been reduced to A Room of Her Own.
You do bring up questions that would be interesting to discuss but IMHO this is not the forum for such. My references were from the novel, what Austen wrote, and they were on purpose thematic, thereby limiting interpretations that are subjective.
Hi Maria L.
This is quite amusing, we seem at cross-references. Your “Halperin? You mean the guy with the laundry list of 12–count ‘em–12 guys (including Mags’ Mysterious Suitor -by-the-Sea”, I’m ignorant of nor could find any references to Mags’ Mysterious Suitor -by-the-Sea. Not in http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austfbib.html which lists studies about Austen, under Halperin. And when you say “I don’t need an Austen scholar (certainly not Halperin, whose Austen bio seems intent on painting her as a woman singularly driven by malice) to tell me what Austen herself does.”, we shall humbly disagree. I find opinions, especially of persons that have pursued the subject in greater depth than me, stimulating.
Thank you all for your responses and patience and now I think I’ll go to my corner and sulk. Sulk that I’m not Lefroy, for I would have liked to dance with Jane.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hi Aeneas,
You should probably know that the Halperin biography is not considered one of the better ones in general–there are some inaccuracies and a great deal of ill-informed speculation contained within it. Knowing what I know now, I would not use it as a reference, though I have in the past before I knew better. Unfortunately I own it–even more unfortunately it was the first Austen bio I ever purchased, as it was the only one I found in the bookstore. Fortunately it was not the first I read; that was Elizabeth Jenkins’ excellent biography, unfortunately now out of print but available used, which I found in my university library. But I labored longer than I should have under the impression that Austen was a bitter spinster. Maria L.’s summary of Halperin’s work is spot-on.
As to the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea, that is my own little snarky nickname for the episode and most Janeites seem to understand what it means as they’ve read one of the more recent biographies that talks about the episode. Halperin covers it on page 132 of the paperback edition. Basically the story is that late in her life, Cassandra Austen told a couple of her nieces that a young man of their acquaintance who died young reminded her of a young man they met around 1801 in a seaside town. The niece telling the story (I think Caroline Austen but more than one was aware of it) said it was not in Lyme but couldn’t remember exactly where it took place. Anyway, the young man was interested in Jane and she interested in him, and he asked where the Austens would be traveling to so he could meet up with them. The next thing they heard was of his sudden death. Cassandra told the nieces that she expected him to court and perhaps propose to Jane and that he would have been accepted, and that he was a very fine young man and she would have heartily approved of the match. Unfortunately the nieces’ recall of the event is not perfect, the gentleman’s name is lost to time as is the place that the romance supposedly occurred. There is no proof of it except for the remembrances of two nieces–as I said Caroline Austen and I’m pretty sure there is another niece who wrote about it.
I don’t mean to discount the Tom Lefroy episode to nothingness but I do think that some Janeites tend to place too much importance upon it. And I certainly understand your wish to be Tom Lefroy so that you could dance with Jane.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 am
Mags remembers what aunt Cassandra told Caroline Austen better than Caroline herself did! All Caroline said about a possible relationship with the man-by-the-sea was that aunt C had told her (in about 1829) that the man ’seemed greatly attracted by my Aunt Jane.’ Caroline doesn’t quote Cassandra or even report what she recalls Cassandra telling her. She only says she herself thought ‘the impression left on Aunt Cassandra was that he had fallen in love with her sister’. And, ‘I am sure [aunt Cassandra] thought he was worthy of her sister, from the way she recalled his memory, and also that she did not doubt, either, that he would have been a successful suitor.’
Compare this to Mags’ highly embroidered account.
I’d recommend Deirdre Le Faye’s ‘JA: A Family Record’ for those who want a handy reference to see where most of these ‘traditions’ came from. Then you can judge for yourself.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 am
I’m perfectly willing to admit that my memory might have failed me in some details, but how did I “embroider” the story? Agree totally that the Le Faye Family Record is a valuable reference–it’s my favorite. From that book:
Jane Austen: A Family Record, by William Austen-Leigh and Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh, revised and enlarged by Deirdre Le Faye, 1989, p. 126-127
I’m still not sure how my summary above could be considered “embroidered,” and certainly not “highly embroidered.”
I should perhaps add that it’s not just this episode that I consider significant but combined, timing-wise, with Jane’s acceptance and then refusal of Harris Bigg-Wither’s proposal and the sale of Susan, it could raise some very interesting speculation. In fact, it has done so.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Hi Mags,
Thank you for the information. It put into perspective some points of the arguments on Emma that were bothering me. Your caution about Halperin’s biography is welcome as I have not read it. However I do not consider this germane to the argument about Emma since a work of literature stands on it’s own merits, not that of details in the life of the author. At best it may indirectly inform concerning motivation but the evidence is hearsay while the text is concrete.
I have read Halperin’s essay ‘The Worlds of Emma’ and found it convincing, but it is primarily on Cowper’s influence on Jane Austen and the references to Emma are but a minor point. And again connected to Cowper’s poem The Task, the specific part is, “It is not an accident that Mr. Knightley’s distress about Emma’s solipsistic state of mind finds expression in a quotation from BookIV of the Task.”. In my judgment such references were too academic and of little interest to the readers of Austen Blog. Perhaps that was my mistake.
Nor do I take Halperin to be infallible, however he is a contributor to JASNA, http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number11/halperin.htm, has a rather impressive list of Austen studies, http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ausartc2.html, and prima facea, more credible than a Maria L’s “You mean the guy with the laundry list of 12–count ‘em–12 guys (including Mags’ Mysterious Suitor -by-the-Sea) who he contends either rejected or were rejected by Austen?! I love Deborah Kaplan’s comment that “[Halperin’s] Jane Austen could be a frequenter of singles bars.” Sure puts Lefroygate into perspective.”, followed by “I don’t need an Austen scholar (certainly not Halperin, whose Austen bio seems intent on painting her as a woman singularly driven by malice) to tell me what Austen herself does.”. Such an outburst would seem too biased, indicative of anti-intellectualism, to be included in a debate on the structure of Emma.
For me the whole LeFroygate is distasteful as it contributes nothing to understanding of Austen’s work.
However, disagreements and debate on interpretation is very welcome as it clarifies my own thinking and sometimes brings forth ideas that I have not considered.
Again, thank you for your note.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
more credible than a Maria L’s “You mean the guy with the laundry list of 12–count ‘em–12 guys (including Mags’ Mysterious Suitor -by-the-Sea) who he contends either rejected or were rejected by Austen?! I love Deborah Kaplan’s comment that “[Halperin’s] Jane Austen could be a frequenter of singles bars.”
Kiddo, the laundry list of lovers is Halperin’s, not mine! In addition to the bio see:
Halperin Jane Austen’s Lovers and Other Studies in Fiction and History,1988 St. Martin’s Press.
And for Kaplan’s comments on Halperin: Jane Austen Among Women Published 1992 Johns Hopkins University Press
I thought it was amusing to see Halperin, a champion of Jane’s love life, referred to in an argument for Emma as immune to romance!
As for:Such an outburst would seem too biased, indicative of anti-intellectualism, to be included in a debate on the structure of Emma.
Egoism and Self-discovery in the Victorian Novel: Studies in the Ordeal of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century, Halperin,1974, Ayer Publishing
But you are right, I didn’t need Halperin’s analysis to tell me what Jane Austen’s own words do quite clearly (for me) in the novel. But of course not everyone will agree on interpretation.
And no, I am not a fan of Halperin’s bio, though I would not use that as a basis for discrediting anything else he might say.
Oh–and I will try to bone up on my “intellectualism,” since it seems that I was sadly lacking….;-)
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
We have a pretty diverse audience here at AustenBlog, from academics to very casual Jane Austen fans, so it’s probably not a good idea to assume too much either way. But even those of us who read academic work on Jane Austen don’t accept it out of hand when it doesn’t make sense to us. Know what I mean? It’s not anti-intellectualism by a long shot, it’s just questioning work we don’t agree with. I think that’s what commenters are getting at when they say they are listening to Jane Austen and not academics. There are so many conflicting opinions, that sometimes you have to cut out all the environmental noise and just read the book!
Halperin’s bio doesn’t really have a good reputation, and unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly, for him I think it has affected his reputation as an Austen scholar in general. (I know some things about that bio that I was told in confidence that make me regard it and its perpetrator not only with dislike and skepticism but outright contempt.)
I think Jon Spence and his Austen bio have a better reputation but a lot of people who respect him as a scholar don’t agree with his conclusions in Becoming Jane Austen. And some of us (including myself) respect his scholarship but think he inadvertently started a lot of nonsense that we’re still getting hit with–including Lefroygate. I’m sure he didn’t mean to create such a monster, but the romantics have run with it and are guarding their territory with bulldog tenacity, to wit, the Wikipedia entry on Tom Lefroy, filled with speculative nonsense about his relationship with Jane Austen. I enjoyed reading BJA but don’t think it should be read in a vacuum, as it often seems to be, but taken in conjunction with other, less speculative works.
I like the debate, too.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I think all this debate bolsters a pet theory of mine: that a Janeite is a person who believes; no, knows in their soul, that they are the only person who truly understands Jane Austen.
I know I believe that!
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Tina, you say that like it’s a bad thing.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Mags, I think you are a paragon of tact and diplomacy…they should send you over to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflicts–that’s got to be easier than Janeite debates
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
>I think all this debate bolsters a pet theory of mine: that a Janeite is a person who believes; no, knows in their soul, that they are the only person who truly understands Jane Austen.
I t applies to me - regarding Emma and to some extent Northanger Abbey.
And you are right about the soul part. It’s not just the head that’s involved
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Reeba, I’ll give you Emma, but must insist on being *the* expert on NA.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Mags, that’s why I said *to some extent* LOL
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Oh, no, Mags, not a bad thing. I’m very proud to be the only person who understands Jane Austen. It is what makes me special.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:23 am
>I’m very proud to be the only person who understands Jane Austen.
What a blessing!
]
I think you should still join in the discussions - like me [who is also the only person who understands Jane Austen. LOL!!
Jokes aside.
Like a devoted cook I search for the right ingredients, the right spices, and with some effort try to maintain just the right temperature to cook it.
The result may not be to everyones taste, but still ***there is this passion, the time devoted, and especially the effort made.***
I thank Aeneas, Mary L, Mags and all those who have *made the same effort* to cook according to their own recipes (all those long posts)
I also thank Tina B for her fast food comment.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thank you Reeba, it was enjoyable and educational.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Cheers Reeba, it’s always fun to talk about Emma, especially when it comes from the heart!