I think it is an implicit critique of slavery, among other things, but it’s very subtle. The Antigua slave estate is clearly present in the setup of the story - heavily emphasized in the opening chapters - but Austen leaves it hanging there, having made sure we are aware of it.
She’s always implicit like this. We know that her family encountered world events in the Napoleonic naval campaigns and in the shock & upheaval of the French Rev. The fact that she only alludes extremely indirectly & subtly to these in the virtue of admirals and naval officers as opposed to the vanity & vapidity of some members of the gentry doesn’t mean they are absent in the novels.
There is a counterpoint, between the emptiness of social status alone, without responsible & orderly conduct, & where we can presume her sympathies lie. She’s with stability & order, methinks. She’s a social conservative, but may disapprove quite strongly of the slavery connection. But I think that’s just one strand of the novel’s moral force.
I imagine that she learnt of world events from a distance, through news, but never " saw" these events, just like her characters in this story.
"There is a counterpoint, between the emptiness of social status alone, without responsible & orderly conduct, & where we can presume her sympathies lie. She’s with stability & order, methinks. She’s a social conservative, but may disapprove quite strongly of the slavery connection. But I think that’s just one strand of the novel’s moral force."
--> I appreciate this paragraph: well put sentences!
But her connections were extraordinary. Her aunt Philadelpha was a very close friend to Warren Hastings (the governor-general of Bengal/India at the time), & her daughter Eliza’s husband was guillotined in 1794. Eliza, widely thought to be WH’s daughter, then married Jane’s brother Henry, still supported by WH, & was a glittering London socialite. And two of her brothers became admirals in the Napoleonic naval wars.
My daughter’s favourite Austen novel, and Fanny her favourite Austen character, so I finally read it recently. That bloody play is hard to engage with as a pivotal issue, even with lots of external googling…
I used to dislike Fanny, seemingly a weak character in my mind at that time. I think I was influenced in this by a movie version, which as SamBuel states, is not a successful medium for this novel.
With this reading, I saw more of her strength (which I had seen in the past) but also her spunkiness and the humor in her strong internal outbursts about her dislike of Henry Crawford. They showed a certain “naughtiness/reality” in her character. - Fanny is not all sugar and spice.
I see the book exploring nature vs nurture in the outcome of one’s true moral character vs manners. I love the laughs as this is explored early on with Fanny’s female cousins. I also love Fanny finding a kindred spirit in her sister Susan and taking on her “education” vs her violent rejection of the idea of reforming Henry.
Does this mean that Jane Austen feels that there is a certain native capacity for goodness that varies amongst people? Or is she more focused on the influence of good people early in life? How does this fit with Austen’s Christian outlook?
"Does this mean that Jane Austen feels that there is a certain native capacity for goodness that varies amongst people? Or is she more focused on the influence of good people early in life? How does this fit with Austen’s Christian outlook?"
I felt sympathy for Fanny, given her limitations imposed upon her due to her origin despite her moral sensibility/ superiority. But if I were with the Crawfords, would I appreciate this? Not sure.
She is the type of character that cannot be properly understood in another medium, given her interior life. I don´t know what to make of that. Did Austen ever meet a Fanny? How?
Two questions for the group discussion I hope can be touched upon.
Why is staging a play improper?
And where does Fanny´s moral sensibility / superiority come from?
I have a complicated parasocial relationship with Fanny Price. I used to relate to her very much as a lonely undergrad in the life sciences who was into 19th century literature. Nowadays my feelings are more conflicted. Her manner of thinking can come across as rather insular and priggish at times. Which hits differently in an era of nationalist populism.
Isn’t Fanny just independent-minded? I think she works it out for herself. She interrogates herself about whether she is right to see the play as wrong. ‘She had begun to feel undecided as to what she ought to do .. Was she right in refusing … Was it not ill nature - selfishness- and a fear of exposing herself?’
I think it is an implicit critique of slavery, among other things, but it’s very subtle. The Antigua slave estate is clearly present in the setup of the story - heavily emphasized in the opening chapters - but Austen leaves it hanging there, having made sure we are aware of it.
She’s always implicit like this. We know that her family encountered world events in the Napoleonic naval campaigns and in the shock & upheaval of the French Rev. The fact that she only alludes extremely indirectly & subtly to these in the virtue of admirals and naval officers as opposed to the vanity & vapidity of some members of the gentry doesn’t mean they are absent in the novels.
There is a counterpoint, between the emptiness of social status alone, without responsible & orderly conduct, & where we can presume her sympathies lie. She’s with stability & order, methinks. She’s a social conservative, but may disapprove quite strongly of the slavery connection. But I think that’s just one strand of the novel’s moral force.
I imagine that she learnt of world events from a distance, through news, but never " saw" these events, just like her characters in this story.
"There is a counterpoint, between the emptiness of social status alone, without responsible & orderly conduct, & where we can presume her sympathies lie. She’s with stability & order, methinks. She’s a social conservative, but may disapprove quite strongly of the slavery connection. But I think that’s just one strand of the novel’s moral force."
--> I appreciate this paragraph: well put sentences!
But her connections were extraordinary. Her aunt Philadelpha was a very close friend to Warren Hastings (the governor-general of Bengal/India at the time), & her daughter Eliza’s husband was guillotined in 1794. Eliza, widely thought to be WH’s daughter, then married Jane’s brother Henry, still supported by WH, & was a glittering London socialite. And two of her brothers became admirals in the Napoleonic naval wars.
I did not know that. Point taken, she may have had priviliged access to knowledge of current affairs through those connections.
My daughter’s favourite Austen novel, and Fanny her favourite Austen character, so I finally read it recently. That bloody play is hard to engage with as a pivotal issue, even with lots of external googling…
I used to dislike Fanny, seemingly a weak character in my mind at that time. I think I was influenced in this by a movie version, which as SamBuel states, is not a successful medium for this novel.
With this reading, I saw more of her strength (which I had seen in the past) but also her spunkiness and the humor in her strong internal outbursts about her dislike of Henry Crawford. They showed a certain “naughtiness/reality” in her character. - Fanny is not all sugar and spice.
I see the book exploring nature vs nurture in the outcome of one’s true moral character vs manners. I love the laughs as this is explored early on with Fanny’s female cousins. I also love Fanny finding a kindred spirit in her sister Susan and taking on her “education” vs her violent rejection of the idea of reforming Henry.
Does this mean that Jane Austen feels that there is a certain native capacity for goodness that varies amongst people? Or is she more focused on the influence of good people early in life? How does this fit with Austen’s Christian outlook?
Really looking forward to our discussion today!
"Does this mean that Jane Austen feels that there is a certain native capacity for goodness that varies amongst people? Or is she more focused on the influence of good people early in life? How does this fit with Austen’s Christian outlook?"
Good questions!
I felt sympathy for Fanny, given her limitations imposed upon her due to her origin despite her moral sensibility/ superiority. But if I were with the Crawfords, would I appreciate this? Not sure.
She is the type of character that cannot be properly understood in another medium, given her interior life. I don´t know what to make of that. Did Austen ever meet a Fanny? How?
Two questions for the group discussion I hope can be touched upon.
Why is staging a play improper?
And where does Fanny´s moral sensibility / superiority come from?
I have a complicated parasocial relationship with Fanny Price. I used to relate to her very much as a lonely undergrad in the life sciences who was into 19th century literature. Nowadays my feelings are more conflicted. Her manner of thinking can come across as rather insular and priggish at times. Which hits differently in an era of nationalist populism.
Isn’t Fanny just independent-minded? I think she works it out for herself. She interrogates herself about whether she is right to see the play as wrong. ‘She had begun to feel undecided as to what she ought to do .. Was she right in refusing … Was it not ill nature - selfishness- and a fear of exposing herself?’
Maybe virtuous self-consciousness at play giver her ambiguous social standing within the group?
Why is everyone anti-Navy? Also first cousins marrying each other seems ratherv worrying. Frances
The first cousin thing is actually not a big deal