Dragons, Unicorns, and the 1540 Psalter in the merry month of May

“Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners: and hath not sat in the seat of the scornful.  But his delight is in the law of the Lord… And he shall be like a tree planted by the water-side: that will bring forth his fruit in due season. …As for the ungodly it is not so with them: but they are like the chaff which the wind scattereth away from the face of the earth.”  ~Psalm 1:1-3, 5 (1540)

It has been almost 3 weeks since I started reading through the book of Psalms, and I’m now 2/3 of the way through.  The goal was, of course, to have daily morning and evening devotions that followed the 1662 Book of Common Prayer’s Psalter readings to get a feel for what 18th century British people would have been singing through every day.  The Psalms are the timeless collection of ancient Israel’s prayers, praises, worship songs, laments, etc.–the whole range of human emotions and life experiences in poetic form.  The first two weeks of study actually went quite well and I kept up the schedule valiantly.  Naturally things did rather fall apart half way through.  For one thing, I was out of town for a conference for a couple of days; for another, my daughter started dating for the first time; also, in spite of good circumstances, I’ve been experiencing what Jane would call “low spirits” this week.  But I did get caught up with the reading and note-taking and life goes on.

The note-taking is something I have to keep in check or it takes over.  Since I am a detail-oriented person (possibly a little OCD), when I use underlining in my Bible reading I have a tendency to want to underline everything, because all of it is important or interesting in some way after all.  Some time ago I switched to taking notes instead so the Bible would remain legible, but in unguarded moments it can become an endless re-writing of everything I read.  For the Psalter readings, I’ve tried to keep the days’ notes all to one page of my little notebook, so that gives me about 2-6 lines per psalm; depending on the length of each, there are about 4-8 psalms per day.  I try to summarize it briefly, list a few key verses, and/or write out anything that has strange wording compared to our modern texts.  For example, I was at a loss to figure out why the Psalms would be addressing the problem of “leasing” (Psalm 4:2 and 5:6), until I compared it with the much more modern English Standard Version (ESV) where they translated the word as “lying” instead.  So apparently they were not focused on used car salesmen (…or maybe they were?).  Some English words have changed meanings over the years!

Some recurring topics include God’s justice, prayers for protection, and prayers for the downfall of one’s enemies; the high number of psalms about this last seems rather paranoid until one remembers that King David wrote many of them, and he was often at war.  Of course the Psalms opens with the description of the wise, righteous God-follower as being “planted” securely like a tree next to water, while the scoffers and the wicked will blow away like chaff.  This theme of the wisdom of the righteous versus the foolishness of the wicked carries into many (most?) of the rest of the Psalms, and as I will discuss in later posts, also forms a foundation for Jane Austen’s understanding of people’s characters.

I’ve also been noting random, non-Austen-related things that catch my attention, such as how the psalmists often use the phrase “the round world” (e.g. Ps. 96:10b, God “hath made the round world so fast that it cannot be moved”).  Did they mean circular, or are they actually referring to the spherical nature of the earth?  Although the Church of England used the 1611 King James Bible as the Bible translation of choice, this Psalter remained, after all, the (contemporarily) popular 1540 text–written well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.  Another fun thing I’ve discovered is the use of the words “unicorn” and “dragon.”  Modern translations do talk about the sea monster “Leviathan,” but they tend to use “wild bulls” or other animals with horns, such as goats, instead of unicorns and other ideas about wild beasts instead of dragons.  It makes me wonder whether what people used to mean by “dragons” is what we currently mean by “dinosaurs”…?  Here are just a couple of examples as I sign off:

“And though all this be come upon us, yet we do not forget thee… No, not when thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons: and covered us with the shadow of death.” ~Psalm 44:18a, 20 (1540)

“Save me from the lions mouth:  thou hast heard me also from among the horns of unicorns.” ~Psalm 22:21 (1540)

I’ve always thought dragons are rather feline-like reptiles.  Kittens:  Yoda and Mango

Beginning the Adventure with Jane’s Book of Common Prayer

 Just a brief note for the moment, as it’s getting late but I need to outline my current plan.  As I’ve been researching the Austen family and their use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which had been in common use in England for over a century by the time Jane was born, it’s been interesting and somewhat eye-opening to read through the BCP itself.  For example, I had not realized that the Acts of Uniformity were officially a part of this prayer book.  These Acts were the acts of Parliament which instituted the use of the BCP as the standard liturgy for all of England, and they detail how anyone found not to be in compliance could face fines, imprisonment, and in the case of a clergyman, the loss of his job.  As an American raised on the idea of the “right” of Freedom of Religion, these Acts brought home to me the depth of convictions that must have led to the British civil wars and also to some people’s decisions to undertake the exceptionally dangerous trek to the New World.  Now, instead of recognizing that this freedom was established to protect the church from the whims of the state, many Americans are fighting instead for a freedom from religion which is just as painful for the various people of faith.

But as to the plan.  The Book of Common Prayer outlines not only services for Sundays and for special occasions such as marriages and deaths, but also provides prayers and Bible readings for daily morning and evening services.  From what I’ve read so far, it appears that these services were originally held in churches, but over time the daily prayers moved to home use.  There is a Calendar for reading particular Psalms and other “Lessons” from the Bible each day.  The Psalms would be read through entirely every month, the Old Testament once a year, and the New Testament three times a year.  I’ve read and studied the entire Bible a number of times over my lifetime, but I’ve determined to read through this Calendar’s Bible readings as well as the prayers and other services in order to experience more closely what the Austens’ own family would have done.  Not to overwhelm myself, I’ve decided not to try to accomplish all of these at once, however; I’m starting by reading through the 150 Psalms in the month of May, and then I’ll go from there.   (Interestingly, the Psalms are printed in the BCP from the 1540 translation of the Bible, whereas the rest of the readings would have been done in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible.)  As I go I will post about the connections that come to mind between these readings and Austen’s own works.

I sincerely appreciate the information provided by editor Brian Cummings in his introduction and detailed notes throughout The Book of Common Prayer:  The Texts of 1549, 1559, and 1662 (Oxford University Press, 2011).  If readers have any information for me that you think would be useful in this Jane Austen/Bible/BCP project, please let me know!  Thanks!

 

First Findings from Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of 1755, ed. Lynch, & Johnson: The Major Works, ed. Donald Greene

“bookful adj. [from book and full].  Full of notions gleaned from books; crouded [sic] with undigested knowledge.

The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, / With loads of learned lumber in his head, / With his own tongue still edifies his ears, / And always list’ning to himself appears.  Pope’s Ess. on Crit.”

“bookworm n.s. [from book and worm] … 2. A student too closely given to books; a reader without judgment.

Among those venerable galleries and solitary scenes of the university, I wanted but a black gown, and a salary, to be as mere a bookworm as any there.  Pope’s Letters”

Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, published in 1755, was the first dictionary of the English language that attained standard, athoritative use.  Since Jane Austen’s parents were both intelligent and literate, and her father took in boarders for the purpose of preparing them for an Oxford education, the Austen family certainly would have had a copy.  As Jane was born at the end of 1775, it is possible that the Austens’ copy would have been the 3rd or 4th edition, but these reprints from the first edition are what my budget can currently handle.  I invested in a copy partly because I wanted to know how Austen was using her words compared to how we use them over 200 years later, partly because I had heard that the quotes which show the word in context are great literature, and partly because some of the entries are just fun reading in themselves.  “Bookful” and ” bookworm,” above, remind one forcefully of poor Mary Bennet of Pride and Prejudice, as evidenced here:

[Elizabeth comments on Mr. Darcy:] “…and I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.”

“Pride,” observed Mary, who piqued herself upon the solidity of her reflections, “is a very common failing I believe.  By all that I have ever read, I am convinced that it is very common indeed, that human nature is particularly prone to it, and that there are very few of us who do not cherish a feeling of self-complacency on the score of some quality or other, real or imaginary.  Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonimously [sic].  A person may be proud without being vain.  Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.”

~Pride and Prejudice, vol. 1, ch. 5

And a bonus definition for The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings fans:

“bilbo n.s. [corrupted from Bilboa, where the best weapons are made.] A rapier; a sword.

To be compassed like a good bilbo, in the circumference of a peck, hilt to point, heel to head.  Shakesp. M. W. of Windsor.”

Entries from Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary: Selections from the 1755 Work that Defined the English Language, ed. Jack Lynch, copyright 2002.  [Quotes are of course from Johnson’s contemporary Alexander Pope, the writer, and from Shakespeare.]

Allegorical Austen?

“During this period the State and Church were united in a way that will not be as apparent to us as it was to [Jane Austen’s] contemporaries.  She accepted that unity, which is why it is difficult to separate her literary vision into distinct secular and religious spheres.  …On a biblical level they present the story of the fall and the drama of salvation in contemporary terms.  On a contemporary level they interrogate neoclassicism and romanticism in biblical terms.” (p. 425)

“Everything depends on the heroine and hero maturing.  …Expressed in theological terms, a fallen and continually falling humanity is called to follow the human example of the earthly Jesus, in order to participate in the divine example of the risen Christ, and thereby share the physical preservation (soteria) and metaphysical salvation (soteria) the following and participating confer.  Notice how these two terms, preservation and salvation, are the same in biblical Greek.” (p. 426)

From The Blackwell Companion to the Bible in English Literature, ed. Rebecca Lemon et al. 2012. Chapter 30, “Jane Austen,” by Michael Giffin.

Recently I’ve been reading through the book of Proverbs again, and so have been noticing how each of Jane Austen’s characters seems to fit the categories of people presented there:  there are women who represent wisdom, or folly, or the gossip, or the virtuous wife, or even the adulteress.  There are men who are simple, who are fools, who are wise and righteous, or who are wicked. So I decided to research how other people perceive the Bible’s influence on Austen’s novels.  The Blackwell Companion to the Bible in English Literature (above) provided an interesting starting point, though he mentions nothing about Proverbs.

Giffin’s introduction points out that Christianity was much more integrated into English culture as a whole than it is in British or American culture today.  To me as a fellow Christian this seems obvious, but the point has to be stated.  Austen very rarely mentions anything specifically religious in her novels beyond the fact that the characters attend church and that some of the potential suitors are clergymen.  However, it seems to be a case where the issue is so huge it becomes invisible, like the old example of a fish taking water so much for granted that it doesn’t even really consider that other environments even exist.  The idea that faith should govern one’s life is as basic to Austen as our ideas of democracy and equal rights, or that 2 + 2 should equal 4, are to us.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that Austen would say she intentionally wrote about ideas of the fall and of salvation.  The ideas are certainly present in the novels, but it seems more the case that the ideas are there because the novels so realistically portray everyday life, and biblically speaking, every person’s everyday life deals with our own individual sinfulness (fall) and our decision either to follow Christ (to be saved and become mature) or to follow our own ways (to be foolish and not be saved).

Then, as the essay focuses on Mansfield Park a few pages later, there is an interesting exploration of the main characters of that work with which I tend to disagree.  Giffin asserts that one of the “allegorical dimensions of Austen’s work” is that Mr. Bertram, his son Edmund, and his niece Fanny “do not represent the Trinity but there is a Trinitarian logic about the way their relationship develops throughout the novel” (p. 433).  Certainly Mr. Bertram’s role as a father can remind us that God is portrayed as a Father in the Bible.  Edmund is responsible for guiding Fanny as the Holy Spirit guides believers, and Fanny is a “suffering servant” as Christ was.  However, Edmund is tempted and deceived in ways the Holy Spirit never is in the Bible; it was Christ who was tempted, and neither were deceived.  Fanny also endured temptations, but her sufferings seem to point to the ways that a follower of Christ will be persecuted and endure tribulation just as he did (John 15:20, 16:33); she suffers as a servant of Christ, not as Christ the suffering servant himself.  Her progress through the novel would more likely fall under Giffin’s own previous topic of following Jesus’ example to attain physical preservation and eventually spiritual salvation.  Again, there are aspects of every life that could remind us of the Trinity in some way if we choose to look at them that way, but unless there is support for the allegorical interpretation somewhere in Austen’s own letters, it does not seem to be an intentional focus of her work.

On a spiritual level, Jane Austen’s books do not come across as an allegory; instead she writes very directly on development of personal character and learning how to respond in a wise and godly way to the joys and sorrows and temptations inherent in everyday life, relationships, and decisions.  I hope to explore specific examples of this kind of personal growth as they relate to Proverbs and other biblical writings in future posts.

Not everyone has your passion (for dead leaves)

Class field trip at Fort Cascades, Washington

“Dear, dear Norland,” said Elinor, “probably looks much as it always does at this time of year.  The woods and the walks thickly covered with dead leaves.”

“Oh!” cried Marianne, “with what transporting sensations have I formerly seen them fall!  How have I delighted, as I walked, to see them driven in showers about me by the wind!  What feelings have they, the season, the air altogether inspired!  Now there is no one to regard them.  They are seen only as a nuisance, swept hastily off, and driven as much as possible from the sight.”

“It is not every one,” said Elinor, “who has your passion for dead leaves.”

~from Sense and Sensibility, chapter xvi

Austen enjoys laughing at the irrepressible Marianne, the stalwart disciple of the new Romantic literary movement who takes herself rather too seriously.  Usually I connect more with the common-sense, wry Elinor, but in this particular passion for dead leaves I have to sympathize with her sister.  (These are not the red ones with crisp “fall colors,” mind you, but the brown ones piling up like soggy cornflakes on the path.)  Back when my husband Frank and I were just dating, I spent a year as a National Exchange Student at the University of Oregon in Eugene while he  was still studying at Montana State.  I had never seen such a proliferation of interesting fall foliage, nor such huge leaves as the ones that fell from the bigleaf maples.  I mailed dried samples back to Frank so often that for Christmas he gave me a Black Hills gold necklace with a little pink-gold rose and two perfect gold leaves.  He still smiles and shakes his head about my choice of romantic correspondence.

Frank doesn’t get my dedication to Austen’s writings, either; he’s happy for me to pursue my interests, but if one of her movies happens to be on, he inevitably falls asleep.  He prefers to see some kind of action-driven plot with things happening, which he feels is a “guy thing.”  Maybe it is.  Personally, I feel that if the story is all plot with no depth of character, there is nothing really “happening.”  The internal plots hold my interest better, and of course, the internal action is where Jane Austen excels.  It’s a good thing we have other interests to pursue together besides our taste in movies.

The picture above is from a recent field trip where our son and his middle school classmates visited the Bonneville Dam, then the Fort Cascades trail on the Washington side of the Columbia, and finally the Bonneville Fish Hatchery on the Oregon side.  Most of them were not passionate about the ginormous electric turbines, even if they were mildly interested in the fish ascending the fish ladder.  They were happy to wander among the dead leaves and see the former site of Fort Cascades if only as a chance to escape being cooped up inside the bus.  The 11-foot, 500 pound, prehistoric-looking “Herman the Sturgeon” elicited some surprise but inspired no rapturous odes.  Not many students shared in their teacher’s passion for clean energy and environmental conservation, but at this age they weren’t expected to.  They were learning to respect the importance of these issues, which was the main point of the excursion.

A shark-sized sturgeon at the Bonneville Fish Hatchery

It is noteworthy that Marianne feels such pangs of interest for the fallen leaves when the human counterparts hold neither her interest nor her sympathy.  She thinks of Colonel Brandon, for one, as aging and infirm, certainly a leaf soon to fall (though he’s only thirty-five…); one would think she’d be particularly touched by the “Romantic” story of the loss of his former love interest.  Part of her internal growth in the novel is to learn some empathy and appreciation for other people in different circumstances.  And even though Elinor does not share all of her sister’s passions and did find her enthusiasm for decaying plant life rather excessive, she still makes sure to look out for Marianne’s best interests throughout their ups and downs together.

Colonel Brandon… Thank You

At Barton Cottage: Portland Actors Conservatory

Mrs. Dashwood “was supported into the drawing room between her daughter and her friend;–and there, shedding tears of joy, though unable to speak, embraced Elinor again and again, turning from her at intervals to press Colonel Brandon’s hand, with a look which spoke at once her gratitude, and her conviction of his sharing with herself in the bliss of the moment.  He shared it, however, in a silence even greater than her own.”

~from Sense and Sensibility, chapter XLV

In the year and a half since the last Jane Austen Connection blog, several issues kept us busy.  We had a Japanese exchange student, Makina, during the 2014-15 school year, and our daughter visited Japan herself for two weeks.  There were family health issues, including my mother-in-law’s cancer (now in remission, thank God!) and our son’s ongoing migraines.  We opened a branch of the Montana Bomber Brothers Fireworks in Choteau as well as an extra one in Helena.  Friends have moved, and writing projects have sparked and fizzled.  Yet somehow people, and life, are much the same.  Of course Austen herself had seasons of life which were rich with writing, and periods in between full of family concerns.

In both the Austen and Harry Potter worlds, one notable recent event was the passing of Alan Rickman last month.  (It is so difficult to write “Alan Rickman” without adding superlatives such as “the great,” “the world-famous,” “the incomparable,” and so on.)  In our family circle he has been known simply as Colonel Snape ever since my daughter watched the 1995 movie Sense and Sensibility with me years ago, in which Rickman (known to her then only as Professor Snape) played Colonel Brandon with Kate Winslet as Marianne Dashwood and Emma Thompson as Elinor Dashwood.  I watched it again a couple of weeks ago in his honor, by myself this time so that no one would notice the tears dripping off the end of my nose into the laundry basket during what I consider the ultimate Rickman moment in the film:  namely, when Brandon has brought Mrs. Dashwood to the bedside of the nearly-departed Marianne.  As Marianne voluntarily speaks to him for possibly the first time with her sincere “Colonel Brandon, thank you,” the man looks as if life and hope were being breathed back into him for the first time in years, and the audience melts….

The not-quite-in-focus picture above is of the set of the Portland Actors Conservatory’s production of Sense and Sensibility, which Jaime and I attended this weekend, taken as we were being ushered out the door.  Next time I will certainly try for photos in the intermission instead, as attendees are milling around with their wine and chocolate-chip cookies.  Regrettably, there was no Mr. Rickman about, but of course the play was dedicated to his memory.  Jaime did not remember the exact storyline, so it was fun to watch the story build suspense in her mind.  It occurred to me how very close this particular Austen story comes to ending in tragedy, were there not certain positive plot twists in the final pages.  (Though quite unfortunately, no one throttled the domestic tyrant Mrs. Ferrars.  That would make a great alternate ending.  But I digress.)

As a mini-review, I must say we enjoyed the creativity and humor employed in even the smallest details of the play, such as the use of minimal space and just a few props to portray at least six different houses as well as the outdoors with no change of backdrop.  In the photo you’ll notice the table-settings hung on the stage right wall; cast members simply took it down to use as a table top for dinner scenes.  And nine of the eleven cast members managed to portray three distinctive characters apiece with only slight changes in costume.  Robert Bell, for instance, played a most upright Colonel Brandon but shifted into an unflinchingly creepy Robert Ferrars.  The new script by Kate Hamill is a remarkably clever stage adaptation, staying true to the storyline, purpose, and voice of the original but emphasizing some cultural points and plot details through a chorus of cruel (but hilarious) “gossips.”  Now Jaime is determined to compare this theatrical to the film and original novel versions, but at the moment she is quite busy carrying out a similar project with Romeo and Juliet for her English class.  (I had no idea Orlando Bloom ever played Romeo.  Perhaps we should shift to a Shakespeare blog?)  In any case, we certainly need more theater in our lives!

Your Idea of an Accomplished Woman?

“Such a countenance, such manners! and so extremely accomplished for her age!  Her performance on the piano-forte is exquisite.”  [Miss Bingley exclaiming about Miss Darcy.]

“It is amazing to me,” said [Mr.] Bingley, “how  young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished, as they all are.  …They all paint tables, cover skreens and net purses.  I scarcely know any one who cannot do all this, and I am sure I never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being informed that she was very accomplished.”

“Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,” said [Mr.] Darcy, “has too much truth.  The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no otherwise than by netting a purse, or covering a skreen.  But I am very far from agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general.  I cannot boast of knowing more than half a dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished.”

… “Then,” observed Elizabeth, “you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman.”

… “Oh! certainly,” cried his faithful assistant [Miss Bingley], “no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with.  A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.”

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.”

“I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women.  I rather wonder now at your knowing any.”

~Pride and Prejudice, Volume I, Chapter VIII

Jessica and Jaime, witness to history presentation

It’s the end of the school year, and the seventh graders in the Japanese Immersion program presented their final projects for the parents the other night.  Each student took on a character who was a “witness” to their chosen historical event and gave speeches and handed out “news” stories in both Japanese and English.  My daughter Jaime was John Adams for the event, describing the events leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Other students showcased the advent of modern film-making, the 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina tragedies, Woodstock, or how the women’s rights movement was aided by the invention of bicycles.

Personally, I had never thought about the importance of bicycles for women, but Jessica showed us how bicycles brought freedom–freedom not only in the ability to travel alone safely, but also in ditching the accursed restricting corset.  (“And there was much rejoicing…!”)  But thinking about the progress of women’s rights over the years did make me feel proud of, and somewhat sentimental about, my daughter and her friends and the confident young women they are growing into.  Some are artists or musicians or writers; some are phenomenal athletes or excellent mathematicians; many of them are also amazingly kind and funny people.  And in this program, they are now all becoming bilingual in English and Japanese.  So many accomplishments!

There is an appeal in trying to produce the most “accomplished” children possible.  Surely Jaime would enjoy another music class.  Or drama.  More swimming lessons?  Maybe a few of these other things that so-and-so is doing… Then someday she’ll be the valedictorian!  Or a Rose Festival Princess!  Or first chair in band… and it will all look so good on her resume!  For myself, I did “accomplish” a number of things in high school, and it did succeed in getting me a good scholarship for college.  Beyond that, however, I sometimes wonder if there was a point to these “accomplishments.”  In fact, other than building a reputation, what was the point of Miss Bingley’s accomplishments?  Certainly I enjoyed drama club and school and music.  But as parents we really do want to have solid family time, and kids need time to do homework.  They need some down time for releasing stress and just processing through all the things going on in their lives.  Time to pray and get re-focused in the Word.  Time to be kids.

Though I’m quite convinced that my kids are just as smart and funny and cute and talented and interesting as at least 99% of the other kids out there, I’m actually not writing to brag (after all, every other mom will argue that her kids are better, and anyone without kids will see I’m biased).  It’s just that I’m realizing that I only have 5 years left before my daughter heads off to college and/or to her post-graduation job, and suddenly I feel like our time is too short.

What do we have left to do (or accomplish, if you will) in those five years?  I think about the memories we’d like to make as a family, the childhood we hope our kids will enjoy now and remember fondly for the rest of their lives.  It isn’t that I feel we need to “entertain” our kids all the time and buy them things and feed them ice cream.  Those things are good in moderation.  But how to build relationships that will last, and learn to build future relationships that will succeed?  What skills do we need to teach, and what values are we passing along?  Will they really be self-sufficient–able to cook for themselves, clean, pay the bills, hold a job?

Thankfully once you’re out of school no one cares about your GPA or your clubs.  The things that matter are more about who you are in your character, your service to God and integrity rather than just what you can do.  We do not need more snooty Miss Bingleys in the world who say you are not accomplished until you’ve accomplished everything.

Emma’s compassion, pt. 1: She understood their ways

They were now approaching the cottage, and all idle topics were superseded.  Emma was very compassionate; and the distresses of the poor were as sure of relief from her personal attention and kindness, her counsel and her patience, as from her purse.  She understood their ways, could allow for their ignorance and their temptations, had no romantic expectations of extraordinary virtue from those, for whom education had done so little; entered into their troubles with ready sympathy, and always gave her assistance with as much intelligence as good-will.

~from Emma, volume I, chapter X

I love how this little paragraph gives us insight into Emma’s deeper feelings and convictions.  She is a fun character, and the book Emma has an overall comic or lighthearted tone, but she is a more well-rounded character for her interest in the less fortunate.  In Jane Austen books it seems to be a given that a genteel woman of the day should be known for active charity in the community, and the men also–at least the ones the reader is meant to admire, such as Mr. Knightley–are shown giving money, food, and favors (such as a carriage ride to ladies who were otherwise without transportation) to those in need.

These expectations of help from the upper classes seem to be based in large part on the stronger Christian influence of the day.  They would have been familiar with verses such as these from James 2:14-16:  “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  Can that faith save him?  If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?”  So we see Emma bringing her friend and “Lady in Training” Harriet on a visit to those who are both poor and sick, as Emma herself must have been brought by her mother when she was a child.

What interests me is that Emma, who in many ways is very conscious of her role at the top of the Highbury society, seems to go beyond the expectations one might have had of delivering material assistance by also voluntarily establishing some emotional connections with these social outcasts.  “…[T]he distresses of the poor were as sure of relief from her personal attention and kindness, her counsel and her patience, as from her purse…”  Emma built a rapport with people.  This is the challenge for people of any era.  Yes, the poor are in need of “help,” but is it enough to give just physical relief in the form of money, food, clothes, etc.?  Of course one can’t ignore the physical needs of others, but those are only the beginning.  Once the basic needs are met, people are much more receptive to the attempts to reach the deeper emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs.

This topic is a rather difficult and awkward one for most of us.  For myself I find that it is much easier to send in a check to an organization, or to hand out food at a food bank, than it is to make any kind of emotional connection with people in need in the community, even though I personally feel the emotional needs are more important even than the physical.  Any kind of relational stress weighs much more heavily for me than circumstantial stress.  In my case it isn’t that I can’t relate; I grew up on free school lunches and hand-me-down clothes.  I don’t stress too much about our food budget because I know that food will always come from somewhere.  For me the difficulty is in two parts:  one, knowing that whatever pain that person is experiencing will create sympathy pains on my end; and two, there is difficulty in discerning who is in the most genuine need.  In other words, it hurts to get close, and it hurts to have someone take advantage of your good intentions.  As a conscientious person I like to see that help given will be used well.  It can be overwhelming to see needs and not be able to help everyone, or help them enough.  Emma wisely “had no romantic expectations of extraordinary virtue” from the people she was attending, but was able to sympathize with them anyway.

Then there is the seemingly endless argument of how to give–should it be done by individuals to the persons or charities of their choice, done through religious and community organizations, or done by way of the government taxing the wealthier and impersonally redistributing the money to the less wealthy?  So many heated arguments in all of those cases.  “If you don’t help the poor in THIS way you are not a good ___ (Christian, American, etc.; insert name of group here).”  Gives me a headache just thinking about it so I won’t linger on that topic.

So much more to talk about… actually this is about the third attempt at this post, since every time I started it went a completely different direction.  I’ll come back to Emma and her good intentions in another post, but for now I’m wondering how you feel about “compassion” in general, and whether you have stories of specific steps you or others have taken which have been particularly helpful.  Has someone met your needs in a particularly meaningful and understanding way?

“The Most Correct Opinions”: Endangered? Extinct? Entirely Mythological? Nope

Lady Russell… must learn to feel that she had been mistaken with regard to both; that she had been unfairly influenced by appearances in each; that because [Mr. A]’s manners had not suited her own ideas, she had been too quick in suspecting them to indicate a character of dangerous impetuosity; and that because [Mr. B]’s manners had precisely pleased her in their propriety and correctness, their general politeness and suavity, she had been too quick in receiving them as the certain result of the most correct opinions and well regulated mind.  There was nothing less for Lady Russell to do, than to admit that she had been pretty completely wrong, and to take up a new set of opinions and hopes.

~Persuasion, Volume II, Chapter XII

One Non-Conformist

I love this passage at the end of Persuasion where Lady Russell finally comes to realize her errors in judgment regarding Anne’s suitors, and has to come to grips with the reasons for Anne’s choice.  She was misled by their “manners” (outer behavior and appearances) into making erroneous judgments about their “mind” (inner qualities, including character; see David M. Shapard’s The Annotated Persuasion, 2010).  Herein lies a huge topic which I will leave for another day.  But I always laughed at the wording of “correct opinions,” since to a 21st-century American reading a 200-year-old British book, the idea seems to be an oxymoron.  Of course “facts” by definition are either true/correct or false, but opinions are simply a matter of personal taste.  Even the word “truth” has somehow become estranged from the idea of “fact” and has migrated over to the “opinions” camp.  In our current day one’s right to have–and express–an opinion is universally held in higher regard than almost any other right, including, for example, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms.  One’s opinions are not held to a standard of “correctness” because people feel that “what’s true for you may not be true for me.”  They are off limits, even sacred.  Perhaps “correct opinions” have become extinct, if they ever existed at all.

Or so we say.  But then again, consider the national fiasco begun a few days ago when Clippers CEO Donald Sterling’s private racist comments were aired publicly.  Immediately banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million, his case reminds us that even the free-speech-loving US has its limits–thank goodness.  Then recall the more controversial decision to suspend Phil Robertson from his A&E “Duck Dynasty” show last December.  His views about gay marriage were from a Bible verse in Romans, so A&E soon discovered what we already knew, namely that the American people were deeply divided in their idea of the “correct opinion” in this case; it was a no-win situation for them politically, and Phil was allowed back on the show.

Then there are the local “correct opinions.”  These are not even close to the “endangered” list.  As my husband and I moved from small-town Montana to urban Portland, Oregon years ago, a certain shift of perspective was expected.  The power of small-town opinions is a matter of legend, though the opinions themselves differ greatly from place to place.  Portland’s own little quirks form an interesting basis for observing “correctness” here–unlike in other large cities, you won’t often be judged by your fashion, unless you are overly fashionable (not an issue in my case!), but you should certainly do some research on recycling and environmental friendliness and work harder to live sustainably.  Portland likes to be artsy and intellectual and down-to-earth.  We like our international cuisine locally-sourced.  It should also be available in gluten-free, organic, and vegan options.   We like to have our own opinions, so don’t tell us how to live, thank you very much.  You might get bonus points if you raise chickens, free-range, in your backyard, but no roosters in the city limits!  (Of course my nephew and a few farmers have chickens in Montana, too).  Since we travel so much in the summer, I haven’t been able to convince Frank yet that we could use some chickens, even though they would put a serious dent in the armies of slugs in my flowerbeds.   Oh, and maybe you should bike to work….

Just a few observations, and starting to ramble… so what are the (possibly misleading) “correct opinions” among people in your social circles?  (“We’ll respect your freedom of speech as long as you don’t say ________.”)  With what local expectations would Jane Austen have a heyday in your town?

To be so happily settled: Which P&P character are you?

“Jane, I congratulate you .  You will be a very happy woman.”

Jane went to [her father] instantly, kissed him, and thanked him for his goodness.

“You are a good girl,” he replied, “and I have great pleasure in thinking you will be so happily settled.  I have not a doubt of your doing very well together.  Your tempers are by no means unlike.  You are each of you so complying, that nothing will ever be resolved on; so easy, that every servant will cheat you; and so generous, that you will always exceed your income.”

“I hope not so.  Imprudence or thoughtlessness in money matters, would be unpardonable in me.”

“Exceed their income!  My dear Mr. Bennet,” cried his wife, “what are you talking of?  Why, he has four or five thousand a-year, and very likely more.”  

~from Pride and Prejudice, Volume III, Chapter XIII

Just for fun:  since it is human nature for a reader to find (or insert) yourself in the pages of the book you are reading, let’s compare notes.  Pride and Prejudice seems to be most readers’ favorite Jane Austen book, so we’ll start there.  Which P&P character seems to resemble you most closely?  What about your spouse or significant other?  Here’s a sample list:

~Elizabeth:  Intelligent, perceptive of human nature, has “sparkling wit;” “vivacious,” principled

~her sister Jane:  Also intelligent and perceptive, but kinder and gentler, reserved, sees everyone in the best light possible

~sister Mary:  Bookish and socially awkward, moralistic; plays the piano

~sister Kitty:  Boy-crazy, with few other interests; a follower

~youngest sister Lydia:  Also boy-crazy, strong-willed, out for a laugh, unprincipled

~father Mr. Bennet:  Intelligent, a gentleman; eccentric with quirky sense of humor; sarcastic when provoked

~mother Mrs. Bennet:  Extroverted, also rather selfish and silly, blind to moral issues

~friend Charlotte:  Rather plain but intelligent and practical

~Mr. Bingley, the new neighbor:  Friendly, kind, “amiable” (new money)

~Caroline, Mr. Bingley’s sister:  fashionable, devious, a flatterer

~Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley’s friend:  tall and handsome; very wealthy (old money), aloof, privileged; considerate as a landlord and employer; highly principled

~Lady Catherine, Mr. Darcy’s aunt:  Proud authoritarian, self-focused, rich

~Mr. Collins:  Insecure, socially awkward, a yes-man; proud of his position Lady Catherine; moralistic

~Mr. Wickham:  Good-looking and charming; finds the best slant to any story or opportunity

In my own life story, I find myself a little more like the quieter, more peace-loving sister Jane than the sparkling Elizabeth.  And though most of the Janeite stickers, mugs, tote bags, and so on (and on and on!) focus on Mr. Darcy as everyone’s dream man–and of course he is almost as central to the story as Elizabeth–my husband Frank is perhaps closer to the easy-going, agreeable Mr. Bingley.  Like Jane and Bingley, we also persevered through a long-distance test to our relationship.  (But sadly, we are not independently wealthy.  Sigh.)  Frank does have a sarcastic streak, though, and I strongly suspect that if he had married a Mrs. Bennet he would have become more like Elizabeth’s intellectually frustrated father.  Among the other characters, I also claim some of Charlotte’s calm pragmatism as well as Elizabeth’s interest in the complexities of human nature.

But more to the point, where do you find yourself in the story?  Which characters do you find appealing, and which most closely depict the loved ones in your life?