I'm not so sure. I suspect she would do everything in her power to remove the undeserved good fortune from the niece she had always detested, and (failing this) mutter rude things about Serpents in Bosoms. I don't think she'd have enough command of herself to make the change you suggest.
Mrs Norris is one of the most believable 'villains' in literature, just pipped I think by Cynthia Kirkpatrick in Gaskell's Wives and Daughters. Mrs Norris reminds me of someone I worked with who would go out of her way to make everyone else's jobs difficult with for no discernible advantage to herself. Maybe that woman and Norris wish to be the centre of attention, feel that they know best. The scene where she ruins the fire that Badeley has already set up well illustrates that
I've put 'villains' in scare quotes as neither woman is your traditional evil doer. Mrs Norris's seems to be driven by her love of economy and her pride in her two elder nieces. I think she treats Fanny as she does as she sees her as no more than a servant, and therefore of no account. She would be horrified if anyone suggested her behaviour was not admirable.
I do like the way she lives on as a cat in the Harry Potter series. Rowling has captured her character well I think.
Mrs Norris is one of the most believable 'villains' in literature, just pipped I think by Cynthia Kirkpatrick in Gaskell's Wives and Daughters. .
I think you mean Hyacinth Kirkpatrick, Cynthia's mother. I have the impression that the portrayal of Hyacinth was influenced by JA's Mrs Norris. Gaskell was very familiar with Austen's work.
I think you mean Hyacinth Kirkpatrick, Cynthia's mother. I have the impression that the portrayal of Hyacinth was influenced by JA's Mrs Norris. Gaskell was very familiar with Austen's work.
Yep, I realised in the middle of the night I meant Hyacinth! I guess Cynthia is more like a fleshed out version of Maria or Julia. When I re-read Mansfield Park this time I tried to get more of a handle on those two and failed rather. They remind me of modern young women taken up with following the latest advice of an on-line influencer, far more keen on being noticed, looking good and being on-trend than on whether they are actually really enjoying what they are doing. Tom is also a pretty flat character, more pushed around for the needs of the plot than having his own agency.
I got to the end again, and it struck me how structured MP is. There are a series of crises, the theatrics, Crawford's proposal to Fanny, Edmunds interest in Mary Crawford, the Portsmouth visit, the adultery by Maria with Crawford, and we see Fanny increasing in moral stature with each crisis. So this timid mouse becomes the fulcrum of the novel, and the moral gravitas, whereas most other characters flail and succumb to various traps and temptations.
Sorry to be so obvious, but I'm clarifying it for myself. And of course, this is not the definitive sense of the novel, which contains many different themes, for example sexuality, the nature of performance, parenthood, etc.
I never made the Harry Potter connection! Feline Mrs. Norris is a bit of a busy body.
I think Mrs. Norris expected Fanny to stay unmarried and continue her role as a companion to her Aunts. She was extremely resentful when she began to be treated as almost equal to her cousins and when she snagged the rich man that Mrs. Norris saw as a match for Julia. Even in twentieth century British fiction, such as Agatha Christie's novels there seem to be a lot of poor female relatives that become unmarried lady's companions to their wealthier female relatives. Was this a common thing in wealthier families of the past?
During the play, Fanny keeps saying, "I cannot act", which no doubt uses Austen's fondness for ambiguity. Fanny often doesn't act, watches the others, resists them, keeps silent, muses to herself. This seems quite modern in a way, although Fanny's heroism has often been deprecated. Astonishing really to construct such an unattractive heroine, I'm not sure who else could have done it.
She's a little bit Cordelia perhaps? Sent into exile by a parent for that I lack that glib and oily art to speak and purpose not.
Yes, they seem close. I sometimes think Austen nerves herself to push the boundaries. She famously described Emma as dislikeable, but she is a barrel of laughs next to Fanny. But then Becky Sharp is pretty unromantic, picaresque, maybe.
My own mother's parents expected her to remain unmarried and look after them. But of course in the mid-20th century there was a shortage of young men, after the Great War.
That was usually the fate of one sibling in a large family; the nephews and nieces would then be expected to look after that individual, if only for a possible inheritance.
Interestingly, Queen Victoria expected her youngest daughter to remain unmarried and didn't speak to her for a month when she finally got the nerve to tell her she was engaged.
That was usually the fate of one sibling in a large family; the nephews and nieces would then be expected to look after that individual, if only for a possible inheritance.
Interestingly, Queen Victoria expected her youngest daughter to remain unmarried and didn't speak to her for a month when she finally got the nerve to tell her she was engaged.
Given British law regarding descendants of George III (or maybe II), the daughters would have needed Victoria's permission to marry no matter what their age.
My own family had a fair share of unmarried women in the 1800s. Some had independent means and were independent (a few became active in the abolition and suffrage movements); some ended up looking after relatives. Then there was the little family scandal in the 1830s when a woman had an affair with her husband's first cousin. It is known from the family letters but carefully kept from the papers.
I never made the Harry Potter connection! Feline Mrs. Norris is a bit of a busy body.
I think Mrs. Norris expected Fanny to stay unmarried and continue her role as a companion to her Aunts. She was extremely resentful when she began to be treated as almost equal to her cousins and when she snagged the rich man that Mrs. Norris saw as a match for Julia. Even in twentieth century British fiction, such as Agatha Christie's novels there seem to be a lot of poor female relatives that become unmarried lady's companions to their wealthier female relatives. Was this a common thing in wealthier families of the past?
Not so long ago, a well-known classic car market site had a mid-sized Daimler for sale, one intended for a chauffeur to drive. It was purchased originally in the 1920s by one of the UK dukes as a car for his wife's companion. Remember that at that time, Daimlers were in the upper price range.
An interesting phrase is used about Henry Crawford, "[who] indulged in the freaks of a cold blooded vanity a little too long". And Austen suggests that he might have won Fanny, if he had "persevered and uprightly,". Basically, his vanity leads him to seduce Fanny, but then he falls in love with her.
But Fanny had noticed that he was the best actor, during the play, but distrusts precisely that. It's striking that at first Henry appears like a stock character - good looking villain - but he is much more complex than that. This is part of Austen's genius, she takes the expected boy meets girl, get married type plot, and drills into it. I think it makes MP hard to read, as it is knotted with complex psychology and plotting. Leavis called it the first modern novel in England.
I thought it would be fun to construct a timeline:
1784: Sir Thomas Bertram marries Maria Ward
1785: Tom Bertram born
1786: Edmund Bertram born
1789: Maria Bertram born
1790: Elizabeth Ward* marries Mr. Norris; Julia Bertram born; Frances Ward elopes with Lieutenant William Price
1791: William Price Jr. born
1792: Fanny Price born
1793-95: John Price and Richard Price born
1796: Susan Price born
1797: Mary Price born
1799: Samuel Price born
1801: Thomas Price born
1802: Fanny goes to Mansfield; Charles Price born
1805: Betsey Price born
1807: Mr. Norris dies; the Grants come to Mansfield
1809: Sir Thomas goes to Antigua
1810: The Crawfords come to Mansfield; Sir Thomas returns to Mansfield; Maria marries James Rushworth
1811: The Crawfords leave Mansfield; Fanny visits Portsmouth; Maria leaves Mr. Rushworth; Julia elopes with The Honourable John Yates; the Grants leave Mansfield
1812-14: Edmund marries Fanny; Dr. Grant dies
* Godmother to Betsey Price
I also figured out that, assuming Mr. Norris had no private fortune, Mrs. Norris accumulated 8,000 pounds in the course of her marriage in order to have a widow's income of 600 pounds a year.
Would you say Mrs Norris neglects her? More like sadism.
Mrs Norris' main motives in her treatment of Fanny are to avoid paying for Fanny's upkeep and to flatter Mr Bertram and his children. I don't think she ever takes pleasure in cruelty for it's own sake.
I think that Mrs Norris is aware of her place as the poor relation, and to her younger sister as well. Fanny is an even poorer relation so Mrs Norris never lets anyone forget it.
Mrs Norris is a brilliant creation, quite as nasty as Goneril or Regan but behaving sycophantically so that nobody realises it.
I can sympathise and even identify with Fanny, Edmund I find a total prig. His only redeeming feature, and it is a big one, is that he is the only member of the Bertram family to help Fanny when she first comes to Mansfield Park.
Mrs Norris is a brilliant creation, quite as nasty as Goneril or Regan but behaving sycophantically so that nobody realises it.
I can't remember which exactly, but some earlier critics thought Mrs. Norris was inspired by either Austen's mother or sister-in-law Mary; Opinions of Mansfield Park, however, mentions that Mrs. Norris as the favorite character for both of them, so either idea is unlikely.
ETA: Interestingly, opinions of Fanny and the other characters were as divided back then (although almost all the individuals listed liked the Portsmouth scenes). For example, Austen's niece Anna Lefroy "could not bear Fanny" but her husband was "Highly pleased with Fanny...Angry with Edmund for not being in love with her, & hating Mrs Norris for teazing her". Meanwhile, Austen's nephew George Knight was "interested by nobody but Mary Crawford".
I hope Edmund outgrows it. He's a prig, yes, but he can't really help being a prig, being so young and surrounded by the kind of people and situations that almost force priggishness on you as you recoil from them.
There's a feature about Edmund that is not pressed which is that he takes after his mother is being exceptionally good looking which must be why Mary is attracted to him.
I like the way Edmund was the only one kind to Fanny when she moved to Mansfield Park, and I like the way he encourages her love of reading . However I do find the way he always seems to be rather disappointed in Fanny not doing things he thinks she should, such as questions Sir Thomas about slavery, when he doesn't do them himself rather annoying. I hope when they married she stood up for herself more. Fanny seems totally convinced that Edmund's opinions are the correct ones, i ways she doesn't with Henry, which is why I think she might have been happier if she married him.
I find all the bits about Edmund becoming a clergyman a little odd. I thought being ordained would have been quite a public affair, with all his family there to see. Instead he sneaks off during the Christmas holidays and comes back having already been 'done'. Was that the way the Church of England worked in the Regency period?
I foundthis which gives a bit of insight into ordination in the early 19th century. What I found interesting was that you had to be at least twenty-four, which is why Edmund is talked of for a lot of Mansfield Park as about to take orders. He was obviously not old enough before. You also didn't need to go to theological college, or it appears be particularly devout.
Very true @Firenze. I guess I'm more familiar with the clergy in Victorian/Edwardian novels where they seem to try and out do each other in devoutness. I'm thinking books like Sinister Street.. When did things change?
Evangelical Revival, gathering pace in Anglicism in the wake of Methodism. Responsible for agitation for the repeal of the slave trade interestingly enough. Do we think Edmund would have been prominent in this movement, given the family fortunes were founded on it?
Thanks Sarasa for that link. It's the clearest account of the differences between a rector and vicar that I've read. Of course, what it does not do is explain why the clergyman in charge of an Anglican parish in NSW is called a rector, while those in other States are vicars; I'm pretty sure that the distinctions outlined did not exist here when these appellations came into use.
I just checked the records on an ancestor of mine who was a rector from 1789 until 1834 (and had a second living about 30 miles away for about 12 of those years) in Staffordshire so contemporary with Mansfield Park and not too far away. He was a younger son of a new baronet (though old family, had inherited the property from a distant cousin in about 1780) who controlled the living; the son was ordained just after his 24th birthday and given the living the next day. I do not think he was the reforming sort within the CoE.
May I recommend 'A Field Guide to the English Clergy', by Fergus Butler-Gallie for a slightly tongue-in-cheek glimpse of just how bad things could get (along with a few saints). And there's always Trollope.
I've just downloaded the Butler-Gallie to re-read after I've finished Emma, which is my book on the go at the moment. I must admit to preferring Fanny to Emma.
May I recommend 'A Field Guide to the English Clergy', by Fergus Butler-Gallie for a slightly tongue-in-cheek glimpse of just how bad things could get (along with a few saints). And there's always Trollope.
Oh, I had that for Christmas last year, great fun! I must dig it out again.
May I recommend 'A Field Guide to the English Clergy', by Fergus Butler-Gallie for a slightly tongue-in-cheek glimpse of just how bad things could get (along with a few saints). And there's always Trollope.
In a strange coincidence, I'm reading this at the moment
Yesterday I went to Painshill Park, which is an eighteenth century landscaped garden. It got me wondering whether Mr Rushworth would have approved or whether he felt it needed improving. It has a load of follies in the grounds including a hermitage. The owner, a Mr Hamilton, actually employed a hermit who lasted three weeks before he was found 'less than sober' in a local pub.
The whole walk round reminded me of how the day out at Southerton reveals so much about the characters. Maria ignoring the boundaries of the locked gate in the wood, Edmund abandoning Fanny for a stroll with Mary, Julia aware that she should be kinder to the very dull Mrs Rushworth. Mr Rushworth not having a clue what's going on.
A lot has been written about the walk to the ha-ha, including sexual symbolism, locked gates, people scrambling round it, somebody getting the key, Fanny sitting watching. I don't know if Austen intended the Freudian stuff, but it's one of her famous set-pieces, with the famous warning, "you will certainly hurt yourself against those spikes, you will tear your gown; you will be in danger of slipping into the ha-ha".
I forgot to say that it's also quoted as an example of Austen-type farce, lots of comings and goings, strange conversations, flirtations, but nobody loses their trousers.
I finished Emma a coupe of days ago and am now onto A Field Guide to English Clergy, which is an ideal bedtime read.
I do stand in awe of Austen's ability to write fully-developed characters. Emma feels very real as does Fanny, but they are almost polar opposites of each other.
I think Austen knew exactly what she was doing the 'walk to the ha-ha' scene. She is very good at writing scenes where whatever is happening illustrates the characters inner thoughts. Mary Crawford playing cards for instance.
Yes--The power of Austen's work is not as an imitation of life (despite the famous contemporary comment of Emma as "too natural to be interesting"), but as.a distillation.
It's worth remembering that Clergyman was one of very few careers available to the upper class. Younger sons had a "choice" between the law (barrister status), the army (you had to buy a commission back then, so money was needed), the navy (entering very young) or the clergy. Anything else was "degrading", certainly anything so dirty as "trade" - God forbid!
It's pretty obvious that not all joining the clergy were notably devout. It was, literally, a living, and it could be a very good one. Often these families had appointments at their disposal. All you needed was a friendly bishop to ordain you - and apparently this did not always involve a rigorous interview, let alone any training.
Had I been born into such a choice I think I'd have picked being a clergyman all day long. It didn't even have the medieval disadvantage of nominal celibacy.
Having read A Field Guide to English Clergy I'm amazed the Church of England survived. I guess there must have been a whole class of impoverished but devout curates to make up for the shortcomings of their wealthier brethren. It's very obvious from Emma's attitude to trade in Emma that a post as a clergyman was preferable to becoming a carriage maker or shopkeeper even if you'd have been better suited to such a career.
Can I just sat how much I've enjoyed this thread. It's given me a much deeper appreciation of Austen, and I liked her quite a bit to start off with.
Thanks Sarasa and everyone else who took part in the discussion- this will probably never be my favourite Jane Austen book, but I both like and understand it better now
Comments
If Mrs Norris could find a way of claiming to be the cause of Fanny's good fortune then she would have.
I've put 'villains' in scare quotes as neither woman is your traditional evil doer. Mrs Norris's seems to be driven by her love of economy and her pride in her two elder nieces. I think she treats Fanny as she does as she sees her as no more than a servant, and therefore of no account. She would be horrified if anyone suggested her behaviour was not admirable.
I do like the way she lives on as a cat in the Harry Potter series. Rowling has captured her character well I think.
I think you mean Hyacinth Kirkpatrick, Cynthia's mother. I have the impression that the portrayal of Hyacinth was influenced by JA's Mrs Norris. Gaskell was very familiar with Austen's work.
Yep, I realised in the middle of the night I meant Hyacinth! I guess Cynthia is more like a fleshed out version of Maria or Julia. When I re-read Mansfield Park this time I tried to get more of a handle on those two and failed rather. They remind me of modern young women taken up with following the latest advice of an on-line influencer, far more keen on being noticed, looking good and being on-trend than on whether they are actually really enjoying what they are doing. Tom is also a pretty flat character, more pushed around for the needs of the plot than having his own agency.
Sorry to be so obvious, but I'm clarifying it for myself. And of course, this is not the definitive sense of the novel, which contains many different themes, for example sexuality, the nature of performance, parenthood, etc.
I think Mrs. Norris expected Fanny to stay unmarried and continue her role as a companion to her Aunts. She was extremely resentful when she began to be treated as almost equal to her cousins and when she snagged the rich man that Mrs. Norris saw as a match for Julia. Even in twentieth century British fiction, such as Agatha Christie's novels there seem to be a lot of poor female relatives that become unmarried lady's companions to their wealthier female relatives. Was this a common thing in wealthier families of the past?
Yes, they seem close. I sometimes think Austen nerves herself to push the boundaries. She famously described Emma as dislikeable, but she is a barrel of laughs next to Fanny. But then Becky Sharp is pretty unromantic, picaresque, maybe.
Interestingly, Queen Victoria expected her youngest daughter to remain unmarried and didn't speak to her for a month when she finally got the nerve to tell her she was engaged.
Given British law regarding descendants of George III (or maybe II), the daughters would have needed Victoria's permission to marry no matter what their age.
My own family had a fair share of unmarried women in the 1800s. Some had independent means and were independent (a few became active in the abolition and suffrage movements); some ended up looking after relatives. Then there was the little family scandal in the 1830s when a woman had an affair with her husband's first cousin. It is known from the family letters but carefully kept from the papers.
Not so long ago, a well-known classic car market site had a mid-sized Daimler for sale, one intended for a chauffeur to drive. It was purchased originally in the 1920s by one of the UK dukes as a car for his wife's companion. Remember that at that time, Daimlers were in the upper price range.
But Fanny had noticed that he was the best actor, during the play, but distrusts precisely that. It's striking that at first Henry appears like a stock character - good looking villain - but he is much more complex than that. This is part of Austen's genius, she takes the expected boy meets girl, get married type plot, and drills into it. I think it makes MP hard to read, as it is knotted with complex psychology and plotting. Leavis called it the first modern novel in England.
1784: Sir Thomas Bertram marries Maria Ward
1785: Tom Bertram born
1786: Edmund Bertram born
1789: Maria Bertram born
1790: Elizabeth Ward* marries Mr. Norris; Julia Bertram born; Frances Ward elopes with Lieutenant William Price
1791: William Price Jr. born
1792: Fanny Price born
1793-95: John Price and Richard Price born
1796: Susan Price born
1797: Mary Price born
1799: Samuel Price born
1801: Thomas Price born
1802: Fanny goes to Mansfield; Charles Price born
1805: Betsey Price born
1807: Mr. Norris dies; the Grants come to Mansfield
1809: Sir Thomas goes to Antigua
1810: The Crawfords come to Mansfield; Sir Thomas returns to Mansfield; Maria marries James Rushworth
1811: The Crawfords leave Mansfield; Fanny visits Portsmouth; Maria leaves Mr. Rushworth; Julia elopes with The Honourable John Yates; the Grants leave Mansfield
1812-14: Edmund marries Fanny; Dr. Grant dies
* Godmother to Betsey Price
I also figured out that, assuming Mr. Norris had no private fortune, Mrs. Norris accumulated 8,000 pounds in the course of her marriage in order to have a widow's income of 600 pounds a year.
I think that Mrs Norris is aware of her place as the poor relation, and to her younger sister as well. Fanny is an even poorer relation so Mrs Norris never lets anyone forget it.
Mrs Norris is a brilliant creation, quite as nasty as Goneril or Regan but behaving sycophantically so that nobody realises it.
ETA: Interestingly, opinions of Fanny and the other characters were as divided back then (although almost all the individuals listed liked the Portsmouth scenes). For example, Austen's niece Anna Lefroy "could not bear Fanny" but her husband was "Highly pleased with Fanny...Angry with Edmund for not being in love with her, & hating Mrs Norris for teazing her". Meanwhile, Austen's nephew George Knight was "interested by nobody but Mary Crawford".
I find all the bits about Edmund becoming a clergyman a little odd. I thought being ordained would have been quite a public affair, with all his family there to see. Instead he sneaks off during the Christmas holidays and comes back having already been 'done'. Was that the way the Church of England worked in the Regency period?
Or how would Mr Collins or Mr Elton made it?
Oh, I had that for Christmas last year, great fun! I must dig it out again.
The whole walk round reminded me of how the day out at Southerton reveals so much about the characters. Maria ignoring the boundaries of the locked gate in the wood, Edmund abandoning Fanny for a stroll with Mary, Julia aware that she should be kinder to the very dull Mrs Rushworth. Mr Rushworth not having a clue what's going on.
I do stand in awe of Austen's ability to write fully-developed characters. Emma feels very real as does Fanny, but they are almost polar opposites of each other.
I think Austen knew exactly what she was doing the 'walk to the ha-ha' scene. She is very good at writing scenes where whatever is happening illustrates the characters inner thoughts. Mary Crawford playing cards for instance.
It's pretty obvious that not all joining the clergy were notably devout. It was, literally, a living, and it could be a very good one. Often these families had appointments at their disposal. All you needed was a friendly bishop to ordain you - and apparently this did not always involve a rigorous interview, let alone any training.
Had I been born into such a choice I think I'd have picked being a clergyman all day long. It didn't even have the medieval disadvantage of nominal celibacy.
Can I just sat how much I've enjoyed this thread. It's given me a much deeper appreciation of Austen, and I liked her quite a bit to start off with.