Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
published 1814
What have you got on?"
"The new dress that my uncle was so good as to give me
on my cousin's marriage. I hope it is not too fine; but I thought I ought to
wear it as soon as I could, and that I might not have such another opportunity
all the winter. I hope you do not think me too fine."
"A woman can never be too fine while she is all in
white. No, I see no finery about you; nothing but what is perfectly proper.
Your gown seems very pretty. I like these glossy spots. Has not Miss Crawford a
gown something the same?"
comments: When I wrote about Jane Austen for the i newspaper earlier
this year (here
and
here) I said this
‘Austen famously said that in
Emma, she had created a heroine whom no-one but herself could like. Completely
wrong – we all love Emma, and the heroine we don’t like is the dull and
priggish Fanny Price.’
I was being deliberately provocative: because among Jane
Austen fans, Fanny Price is one of the most divisive of characters. Some people
love her, others (including me) don’t.
But, whether you say snog, marry, avoid in relation to
Fanny, Mansfield Park is a fascinating
book. Jane Austen was a game-changer in many ways: in advance of the modern
debate on this topic, perhaps she felt her characters didn’t need to be
likeable.
I don’t always expect to agree with the views of the writer
Kingsley Amis (though he has fine things to say on the subject of
James Bond), but he writes very perceptively about Mansfield Park,
including this:
to invite Mr and Mrs Edmund
Bertram round for the evening would not be lightly undertaken. More
basically than this, Edmund and Fanny are both morally detestable and the
endorsement of their feelings and behaviour by the author [makes MP] an immoral
book.
Well! Sweeping. He goes on to discuss what he sees as the lack
of logic and hypocrisy in the views and actions of Edmund and Fanny – very convincingly.
Other critics have pointed out that Jane Austen herself, in
her letters, far more resembles Mary Crawford from the book than Fanny.
And it is hard to get too worked up about the horror of a few
respectable friends doing some amateur dramatics in a private home…
But on the plus side, the structure, the characters, and
the dominating presence of the estate all work well. All this is thrown into
relief when Fanny briefly goes back to her squalid childhood home in Portsmouth
to see what she is missing. I was intrigued by this word for the maid as she
arrives:
Fanny was all agitation and flutter; all hope and apprehension. The moment they stopped, a trollopy-looking maidservant, seemingly in waiting for them at the door, stepped forward…
WH Auden also has his comments on Jane Austen:
You could not shock her more
than she shocks me;
Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me most uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle-class
Describe the amorous effects of ‘brass’,
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society
There have been wonderful discussions in the comments on
various blogposts (Austen, Trollope) about ‘the economic basis of society’ in
particular regard to the lives of 19th century women. I’m hoping
Mansfield Park will bring out more.
Come on, defenders and lovers of Fanny – tell me why I am wrong.
------------------------------
For my piece
on Jane Austen adaptations, I looked at the three film/TV Mansfield Parks, from 1999, 2007 and 1983. These are, I think, the only ones –
it’s not an easy sell for commissioners, compared with the idea of another Emma.
My favourite was the 1999 version, directed by Patricia Rozema.
This terrific film tackles the Fanny problem head-on, by making her more like
Jane Austen herself. We have Harold
Pinter (of all people) playing Thomas Bertram, and Frances O’Connor is a
gorgeous Fanny. The film takes on the secret issue of Mansfield Park: that the
family’s money is based on the slave trade. It is not treated as it would be
today, but Rozema was certainly trying. The writer uses some of Jane Austen’s non-canon
writings (letters and juvenilia), nicely slotted in, along with a proposal
event from JA’s life. There is a hint of lesbianism, and a not-too-graphic sex
scene.
The film is absolutely beautiful to look at - plenty of
white dresses, and although not much in the way of balls, the disastrous
private theatricals add excitement. There’s a very clever casting trick: Lindsay
Gordon Duncan (corrected, see below) plays both rich, lazy, Lady Bertram, and her poor broken-down sister, to
hammer home how important marital choice is, and how random and long-lasting
the effects will be.
The 1983 TV mini-series is
very faithful to the book, and Sylvestre le Touzel does a good job, she
is a satisfactory Fanny, and makes the
duller bits watchable.
Billie Piper player her for TV in 2007,
with a debatable attempt to make
something more of Fanny. Piper is about as unlike most people’s idea of the book heroine as could be, but if you look at it as a variation or udate it’s all right. Nicely
presented, high production values. And great cast, including Hayley Atwell is Mary Bertram.
Is it a problem that these are enjoyable films, but not really Austen’s Fanny? I’d argue no. If you want authenticity, read the books. Adaptations reflect the era they were made, rather than publication dates.
The second picture is
the ‘Rice Portrait’ which some people believe to be a likeness of the young
Jane Austen herself.
Fashion illo of the 1810s from the NYPL
I'll try my best in defence of Fanny. Firstly about the theatricals: I think the point is that everyone knows, without actually saying so, that Sir Thomas would not allow them - which is obvious, if not before, at their panic when he arrives home unexpectedly - so they are going behind his back while he is away, which is a bit.. I don't know - dishonest? shabby? in bad taste?
ReplyDeleteSecondly: I once read a blog post by somebody who said that she had first read Mansfield Park 30 years earlier, when she was 18, and that she had re-read it once a year since then - because it had shown her the only valuable model for how to keep your integrity even though you are not strong, smart and self-assured. I don't personally identify with Fanny, but I found this rather moving. (And it s one of my favourite examples when asked about the value of novel-reading or the importance of Jane Austen as a writer.)
Turing to a slightly more frivolous topic, I think your introductory quotation about Fanny's white dress is interesting in several ways. Edmund of course gives himself away (and hurts Fanny) when immediately turning the conversation to Mary Crawford. But I think Austen also mocks him when she makes him say that "a woman can never be too fine while she is all in white". He. Is. So. Wrong. At a time when washing was cumbersome and expensive, white was definitely a high-status colour. So much so, in fact, that in the very same book we learn that at Mr Rushworth's grand estate Sotherton two housemaids have been dismissed "for wearing white gowns"; the implication being that they have dressed above their station. Women, unless very rich, seem to have been very much aware of the fact that "a simple white dress" was a luxury which might be ruined after one ball. Edmund is obviously as naively unaware of this as he is about the real nature of Mary Crawford.
In fact, I find Edmund Bertram a much more exasperating character than Fanny Price. There are moments (this being one of them) when I just want to bang him on the head, hard, for his stupidity and his unintentional cruelty to Fanny.
A comment I read once about Edmund has stayed with me: "Edmund needs a smack upside the head!"
DeleteYep.
DeleteA spirited defence, thank you Birgitta, I would expect nothing less.
DeleteAnd yes, Edmund is remarkably solid-headed, unable to see anything.
Ah, the great Mansfield Park Face-Off--in one corner dull respectable Fanny and in the other corner charming amoral Mary. It's hard to see why Austen made her heroine so hard to like. One explanation I've seen is that the book is Austen's version of a morality play. The Crawfords represent the dark side of humanity, selfish and callous, but are very bright and attractive; Fanny and Edward are much less interesting but they stand for goodness and truth. Goodness wins out despite the charm of the baddies. MP was "of its time" and society has changed so much that we don't see what the fuss is about with the theatricals (as with Lydia Bennet's escapade), but in Austen's day it would have made more sense. As for Fanny v Mary, if I wanted a friend for a "good time" I'd pick Mary, but if I wanted a friend who would stick by me in not-so-good times, I'd choose Fanny.
ReplyDeleteAnother spirited defence, excellent!
DeleteAt least the young Crawfords leave their uncle's house when they realise he is going to move in his mistress and NOT marry her! (Lucy)
DeleteThey have to protect their reputations - it's an interesting plot point.
DeleteTo be perfectly honest, I'm not going to get into the Fanny/Mary debate. I'll only say this: if a generates a lot of discussion and debate, and has us going on about the characters, it's a memorable book. That, to me, says a lot.
ReplyDeleteYou keep your own counsel Margot! And you are right - there is always something to say about the great books isn't there?
DeleteWithout doubting the genius and perspicacity of Kingsley Amis, I was turned off by his calling Fanny "a monster of complacency and pride" and have no urge to read any further comments by him. Austen portrayed Fanny clearly as shy and unsure of herself (which makes for a shock when she does develop a backbone). Was she a monster for refusing to do something she believed to be wrong? Or for not marrying a man she neither loved nor trusted, who wanted to "make a hole in her heart"? Or was it because she had some moral principles and trying to live by them? And from what little I know about Amis, I'm not sure he should have thrown stones at people for being morally detestable. Obviously his moral compass didn't point in the same direction as Austen's.
ReplyDeleteWell - but one of the strange things is that Jane Austen's moral compass appears completely different in her letters. Fanny would be horrified by her heartless and gossipy comments....
DeleteYes, trying to do the right thing regardless of what other people tell her or how they will react (the people around her totally lacking moral compasses for one thing and putting her down and criticizing her whatever she does for another) has been Fanny's only way of navigating life. Yes, she is a bit priggish at times, but she is just a teenager and what teenager isn't rather obnoxious at times? Come to think of it, Fanny Price must be almost exactly the same age as Marianne Dashwood, and I think Austen treats her with some of the same amused tolerance as she does Marianne, though with some more tenderness because of how lonely and bullied Fanny is. And I think Austen is 100% convincing in showing how these girls' personalities have been formed by nature and nurture in equal measure. (Oh, and talking about obnoxious teenage girls, may I just mention Lydia Bennet?)
DeleteActually, "Mrs Collins' pretty friend" is really mean to Mr Darcy for ages, and claims it's good for him,. Plans to teach him him to like it. Not sure I like her any more. (Lucy)
DeleteI'm sure that Austen was unlike Fanny in many ways--could Fanny have written any of the novels?But I think Austen probably didn't try to be as "good" as she made Fanny, giving her such a background (so unlike Austen's own) that it would have been a wonder if Fanny had turned out lively and confident. She deliberately made Fanny a very moral person, probably realizing that this would annoy some readers. She certainly knew how to create charming heroines, but chose not to here, whatever her reasons. And she didn't make fun of Fanny. If she had meant Fanny to be pompous or hypocritical, would she have treated her so sympathetically? It's a portrait of a very shy girl who still has the courage of her convictions (however priggish those convictions seem to people today). I saw Rozema's film and agree that O'Connor was charming, but she seemed too spirited and independent to me. Her "rebellion" had less of an impact, no turning-of-the-worm feeling. More like Jane Eyre than Fanny Price!
Deletethis is such a great debate!
DeleteBirgitta - the other difficult teens were not the heroines...
Lucy - recent reread made me think much the same. I love the line that for colonel Fitzwilliam anything was a welcome relief to him at Rosings.
Marty - Rozema explicitly said that she was making a film, it would be different, and the character would be different.
If the film was going to be so "different" why bother to use Austen's work at all--why not make a film "suggested by" by MP. Fanny's shrinking-violet personality is an important part of the book and changing it is like turning Elisabeth Bennet into a wallflower.
DeleteA few comments. First on the subject of wearing white dresses. This became possible when washable cotton became fashionable. The washing was made easier by the invention of bleach in the late 18th century. From wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteChlorine-based bleaches, which shortened that process [bleaching] from months to hours, were invented in Europe in the late 18th century. German-Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele discovered chlorine in 1774, and in 1785 Savoyard scientist Claude Berthollet recognized that it could be used to bleach fabrics. Berthollet also discovered sodium hypochlorite, which became the first commercial bleach, named Eau de Javel ("Javel water") after the borough of Javel, near Paris, where it was produced.
Second, my understanding is that the Austen family happily indulged in amateur theatricals, so Sir Thomas Bertram's opinion does not accord the reverend George Austen's opinion.
Third, marrying Edmund Bertram always seemed a fate worse than death to me.
And finally a small nitpick: it's Lindsay Duncan, not Lindsay Gordon.
Clare
Thank you Clare - your input is always fascinating and informative!
DeleteYes to points 2 and 3.
And I have corrected. Lindsay Gordon is the detective in an early series by Val McDermid! Featured on the blog here https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2019/04/report-for-murder-by-val-mcdermid.html
Only this week I wrote this in a comment here: "exactly the kind of mistake I make as my brain jumps around. Sometimes I wake up in the night and think 'Did I misname XX in that post?' or whatever similar error, and then I happily go back to sleep thinking 'I'll check in the morning.'"
I think I was ignoring a faint whisper about the name!
I'm definitely for Fanny. Uprooted from her natural home at what we would consider a very young age, taken away from her siblings to whom she was of use and value and then treated disparagingly and often cruelly by the family at Mansfield Park - of course she never develops the wit, confidence or liveliness of an Elizabeth Bennet who has an indulgent father and a close, loving sister. Fanny is against the play acting because she alone has been observant enough to see that both sisters have feelings for Henry Crawford, and this particular play is going to allow them to indulge and act out those feelings, which is clearly not going to end well. She is also aware that Mr Bertram would disapprove and she knows she and her brother owe everything they have to Mr Bertram, and therefore she cannot approve of doing something he wouldn't like. She is not titillated by the idea of doing something just for the sake of being rebellious or a bit naughty - whereas the two Bertram girls are like modern, spoilt and indulged teenagers, bored and ready to do something precisely because their parent would disapprove. Fanny also takes a keen interest in the world - at one point Edmund comments about her spending her time in the nursery room with her books and her maps - she is obviously not just reading novels, but studying maps and atlases, following her Naval brother's travels and learning about geography. In the modern world she might have chosen an academic career. She is the only one of the family who would like to ask Mr Bertram about what he has been doing while he was away, but isn't confident enough to over-ride the rest of the family's lack of interest. As for Mary Crawford, she is like a female version of Wickham in S and S - charming, entertaining, but really not very nice, and self-aware enough to know that they could never be contented in marriage without a lot of money. Patrick O Brian in his Aubrey and Maturin books, makes his two female characters rather like Fanny and Mary - the more hesitant Sophie and the dashing but amoral Diana, and the contrast between the characters is sign-posted, as it is in Mansfield Park, by the quieter character being timid around horses, while the lively character is a dashing rider. (Interestingly, that trope is reversed in P and P, where Jane is the rider, and Elizabeth doesn't like to ride. But that's a whole other topic.)
ReplyDeleteThank you Ann, very well-argued.
DeleteThomas Bertram is a character with some varied aspects, but I always like him for quickly getting the point about Fanny not having a fire in the East Room, and then his elaborate speech defending Norris, but making sure Fanny will have a fire from now on.
I would also add that Fanny gets the worst of both worlds in her upbringing. The Bertrams are such a grand family that they are quite isolated in their big house - they don't get the everyday social interaction that a lower-middle-class family would get living in a small town, for example, so Fanny and the Bertram sisters have a dull and lonely time of it. And then being the poor relation means that Fanny doesn't get any of the benefit of their position, she is despised and pushed aside when there is any company. Without the common sense guidance of any practical, friendly women near-by, Fanny has had to work out how to be 'good' by herself, and it's not surprising that she comes across as rather 'priggish' at times - a bit like Dorothea in Middlemarch, who at least had an affectionate sister, and who still comes across as utterly humourless.
DeleteYes, very good points. It doesn't sound much fun does it? - especially compared with being one of a pack of jolly Bennet girls piling down the road into Meryton for a morning of shopping and visiting.
DeleteTime to nail my colours to the mast! I do not like, let alone love, Emma. She is spoilt and entitled, nearly ruins Harriet's prospects in life and is rude to Miss Bates. She doesn't deserve Mr Knightley. As for Fanny, are we asked to love her? Good people are not necessarily attractive. Her shyness and timidity make her moral courage in refusing to marry Henry Crawford all the greater. I am with Birgitta on this. Fanny was after all only 10 when she was transplanted to the Bertram household. As for the theatricals, I think we should bear in mind that the stage had a reputation for immorality and professional actresses often became the mistresses of well-off or titled men. And the play that they choose is morally suspect too, according to the notes in my Penguin edition. Edmund is clear that his father would object specifically to his grown-up daughters acting. Chrissie
ReplyDeleteI'm not 100% sure, but I think the Austen theatricals were within the family (extended perhaps)? IIRC, MP had possible romantic partners acting romantic parts, which might make a concerned parent nervous.
DeleteI knew you'd be coming Chrissie! Let's get to Emma later, I will do a post on the book at some point in the future.
DeleteRe: Lover's Vows - who on earth wrote your notes? It is not morally suspect. It deals with subject that you might not present to just anyone, but it is a harmless tale of redemption.
I can see someone in 1814 claiming it was suspect - I'm not arguing with that - and the subject matter deals with situations that people might have been reluctant to deal with. But i would take strong issue with anyone in our era claiming it was morally suspect! Is East Lynne morally suspect? This is a genuine question for you as being the person who would know.
I recently read a book called Jane Austen's Bookshelf, about the authors Austen read, and one of them was Elizabeth Inchbald who wrote Lovers' Vows - and a lot of other works, she was one of those very productive women. The play was based on a German work: Inchbald spoke no German, was given a literal translation, and worked it up - changing it quite a lot in the process.
Marty: I think the distinction would be between public performance and private, and both these were private. Like the acting in Little Women 50 years later.
DeleteI also think the whole scene of Sir Thomas's return is quite knockabout and hilarious - whatever the ins and outs and morals, it is young people down the ages not expecting the patriarch back quite so soon, and not sure how to handle it.
Lover's Vows was based on Das Kind der Liebe (1791) by August von Kotzebue. He was a very prolific and popular playwright. I've seen lists of the plays performed on the Amsterdam stage in the early 1790's, and Kotzebue's plays figure heavily.
DeleteClare
Elizabeth Inchbald writes an introdution to Lovers' Vows in which she explains what happened. It is very entertaining as she makes it clear she doesnt think much either of the original, or the first translation which she worked from. She says she had to change it to make it fit for the English stage.
Delete