Books by Jane Austen (currently Mansfield Park)

Discussion of fine arts and literature.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I have the Oxford edition of Mansfield Park, which includes the entire play. (Turgid stuff.) The shocking scandal is that Frederick is Agatha's illegitimate son by Baron Wildenhaim, who reunites with her at the end of the play (so sin isn't punished, not properly).

I was startled to realize that the dangerously emotional scenes between Maria Bertram as Agatha and Henry Crawford as Frederick were long-lost-son scenes.

The climactic moment, with directions for the tableau:
Baron. Nor does mine—And yet there is another task to perform that will require more fortitude, more courage, than this has done! A trial that!—[bursts into tears]—I cannot prevent them—Let me—let me—A few minutes will bring me to myself—Where is Agatha?

Anhalt. I will go, and fetch her. [Exit Anhalt at an upper entrance.]

Baron. Stop! Let me first recover a little. [Walks up and down, sighing bitterly—looks at the door through which Anhalt left the room.] That door she will come from—That was once the dressing-room of my mother—From that door I have seen her come many times—have been delighted with her lovely smiles—How shall I now behold her altered looks! Frederick must be my mediator.—Where is he? Where is my son?—Now I am ready—my heart is prepared to receive her—Haste! haste! Bring her in.

[He looks stedfastly at the door—Anhalt leads on Agatha—The Baron runs and clasps her in his arms—Supported by him, she sinks on a chair which Amelia places in the middle of the stage—The Baron kneels by her side, holding her hand.]

Baron. Agatha, Agatha, do you know this voice?

Agatha. Wildenhaim.

Baron. Can you forgive me?

Agatha. I forgive you. [embracing him].

Frederick [as he enters]. I hear the voice of my mother!—Ha! mother! father!

[Frederick throws himself on his knees by the other side of his mother—She clasps him in her arms.—Amelia is placed on the side of her father attentively viewing Agatha—Anhalt stands on the side of Frederick with his hands gratefully raised to Heaven.]——The curtain slowly drops.

END.
Link to complete text.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

edited because Prim included everything I would have!

I've read about this somewhere else, though. Wish I could remember.

There were many reasons aside from the content of this play for "theatre" to be a tetchy issue here. Edmund was about to take orders, if he hadn't already. Anything about the theatre smacked of immorality, etc., and for his sisters to be "acting" was dangerous in and of itself. Who was to see the play? The notion of anyone outside the family was abhorrent. Girls were kept as close as in purdah in these days! In some hotsy-totsy families they couldn't even walk about in their own grounds without a maid or footman accompanying them.

These girls were untouched in the realest physical sense. The dances they danced at balls were never contact dances - when The Waltz came in, it was scandalously "fast" for decades. Why? Because the man embraced the lady. So even the false "intimate" contact in the context of the play was just WRONG. A girl could never be alone with a man except her father or brother. And here they are, rehearsing tender scenes all over the house!!!

Fanny's "nice" sense of decorum kept her from taking part, she was purer than all the rest. Shakespeare might have been exempt from the condemnation of theatre, I think that comes up in the book. Maybe not. Maybe it was another book.

I think Edmund and Fanny had a fundamentally different marriage than the elder Bertrams. Edmund is not the pompous overbearing dork that his father is and Fanny is not the fool that Lady Bertram is. Lady Bertram has to be the most useless human being ever written about, with the possible exception of Sir Walter Elliott in Persuasion.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Insolent Pup
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am

Post by TheEllipticalDisillusion »

Sorry for the delay in my activity here. Aside from the other thing that's occupied my time here... there was a drinking over the weekend for some Halloween celebration.

My class came up with the same reasons for the play.

Lady Bertram was useless. Do you think her uselessness came from her idleness in that house? I think Austen insinuates that Fanny may see the same fate. Mrs. Grant was sort of useless too except for making sure her fat husband kept it up.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I don't think Fanny would ever become useless like Lady Bertram. The lady of a wealthy house didn't have to work for a living, but she didn't have to doze on the couch all day, either. She could have an active social life, travel and visit, oversee her young children's education, pursue ladylike arts such as fancy sewing, read, correspond widely, and tend to the needs of the poor on her estate and in the parish. It wasn't a life I would enjoy much, but it wouldn't be necessary to be idle all day.

Fanny would read, and I'm sure as a clergyman's wife she'd be very much involved with the parish poor; and I think she'd take an interest in her children, not just shove them off on nurses and governesses and boarding schools. And of course they weren't going to be rich on the level of the Bertrams; they were set with a comfortable income, but not a two-carriages-and-squads-of-servants level of comfort; and I don't see Edmund being one of the clergymen of the day who hired someone else to do his churchly duties so he could go off to London and Bath.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Insolent Pup
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am

Post by TheEllipticalDisillusion »

Key words are "would." If Austen is hopeful about marriage, then that would be a potential for Fanny, but if she is pessimistic, then Fanny's marriage would risk all of the pitfalls of the ones we read about it, especially after Edmund acquires a second income. More time to dawdle. Few people married for love at this time, so I don't buy that Fanny and Edmund married for love-- they married for comfort. Comfort can lead to idleness.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Well, you are determinedly unromantic. :P

Austen wasn't "romantic" in any swoony sense, but in many of her books she clearly deplores (and makes cautionary examples of) people who marry for comfort and ignore, or deprecate, the importance of love. Charlotte Lucas in Pride and Prejudice is probably the prime example; she marries a pompous idiot because she's 26, getting too old for the market, and he's in a respectable position and will give her a comfortable life.

She ends up pretty happy, but Elizabeth (the protagonist) pities her all the same.

At an earlier point Elizabeth teases her beautiful sister Jane, telling her she will have to marry a rich man to provide for her penniless sisters. Jane's response is to say she will do her best, but that she still wishes to marry "for love." Elizabeth's response is basically that she should find a rich man she can love, then (which she does).

Practicality and worldly considerations are a strong element in the relationships in Austen, but they are not the most important element, not in the relationships that are central to the story.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

I can't imagine Fanny becoming much like Lady Bertram. Fanny isn't lazy, for one thing. Lady Bertram embodies indolence, she's lazy in about every way a woman could be lazy. Which is why Mrs. Norris has so much power in that house - Lady B would rather loll about. If she was around today, she'd be spending her time watching soap operas. If rich ladies do watch soap operas. :D

I wish TED had read the other novels!

Fanny married for love. AND she had a strong sense of duty, which would be of great use to her as her life went along. Edmund was fond of Fanny and that kind of gentle fondness isn't as likely to go poof as Le Grande Passione. I agree with Prim that Fanny wouldn't be the kind of mother that lets nurses and maids bring up her children. Even Sir Thomas Bertram was a pretty involved Dad and Edmund would be the same. Almost all children of this sort of family would be educated at home for a long time, and Edmund and Fanny could give their kids a good education.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Insolent Pup
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am

Post by TheEllipticalDisillusion »

One day I shall read the other novels. I'll have to re-read S&S, too. I have enjoyed this little discussion, but my overall interest in discussing Mansfield Park has waned. I have a lot of other books I have to focus my attention towards and even our class discussion on this novel is over, so I'm free of Austen for now.

Thank you both for your input in the discussion.
Post Reply