Jane Austen discussion

Hello fellow Janeites, I've added a blog post on Edmund Bertram, continuing my series on the characters of Mansfield Park. You can read it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

I think what frustrates people about Mansfield Park and its characters is not that they are dull or bad (of course, some ARE dull and do bad things), but that there are few straight up good or straight up bad characters. Even characters that Jane Austen intended to be antagonists, like the Crawfords, are ambiguous, and Edmund Bertram is not the exception.

Another thing that makes Edmund seem dull is that Jane Austen appears to use him and Mary Crawford as mouthpieces for her musings on the Anglican Church and evangelicalism (not the American, but the early 19th century British kind) -- whatever you want to say about the clergy in the XVIIIth century, it can never be very entertaining. I think it's telling that Henry Tilney, Edward Ferrars and Edmund Bertram are her three clergymen heroes and that after Mansfield Park, none of her heroes are clergymen.

Mansfield Park is told for the most part from Fanny's point of view: either as a spectator that goes unnoticed (like in the chapter when they choose Lovers Vows Fanny is there listening to everything but nobody seems to be aware of it) or when the narration switches to free indirect speech and we experience Fanny's private thoughts. So, inevitably we experience Edmund from her perspective as well. We are bound to love him when he's kind to Fanny and hate him when he neglects her being too busy with Mary Crawford.

Edmund and his family:

Something that could be said in Edmund's defense is that he's not the eldest son and that his position in the family is at best as an adviser -- which kind of suits his wanting to be a clergyman to be an adviser not only to his family but to his congregation. When Sir Thomas is away and he's left in charge of Mansfield Park, he has to compete, to a certain point, with Mrs. Norris. Or take the play. When Sir Thomas returns he blames Edmund specifically, even though with Tom in the house, as the eldest son, he's in charge, as he pointedly reminds Edmund when he's trying to stop him from putting on the play. It's like having all the responsibility and none of the power.

Another thing that suprises me about Edmund's relationships with his family, is that with the exception of Fanny and probably his father, he's not close or warm to any one of them: not his brother, at least before he gets sick, or Julia, and Maria even less. If I were Edmund I would be angry that Tom's debts cost him (Edmund) a family living. But neither Edmund nor the narrator give any hints of resentment: instead, with Tom sick and in risk of dying, Edmund diligently attends to him. Even if it was in his self-interest for Tom to die.

Edmund and Fanny relationship:

Needless to say, Edmund Bertram isn't the brightest bulb. He sees what he wants to see and attributes needs, motives and feelings to other people as he sees them. Combine that with Fanny's shyness, and the fact that, to her, loving Edmund romantically is not allowed, even if it's only alluded to by Sir Thomas Bertram, which leads her to make extra efforts NOT to appear in love with him, and I think one could understand why he's so oblivious to Fanny's love for him, even if we as readers know it full well, having access to Fanny's inner world.

In 1999's film adaptation of Mansfield Park we have Edmund clearly in love with Fanny but frustrated that his father will not allow him to marry her (again, this is treated obliquely). So he goes for Mary Crawford to whom he attributes traits that we see that belong to Fanny, not her. And also, in the book you can see that when Edmund's feelings for Mary Crawford are cooling, Mary does something kind for Fanny and, unintentionally it seems, increases HIS feelings for Mary again. To add to the dance, we see that Fanny's mood improves and declines as Edmund cools on Mary Crawford and get worse when he's in love with her again.

I don't blame Edmund for not loving Fanny romantically, but I blame him for neglecting her. He just doesn't get how much Fanny's material and physical and emotional comfort depends on him. He doesn't do enough for her unless the damage to Fanny is right in front of him: when he comes into the East Room, he notices that there's no fire, but it doesn't occur to him to ask, like his father does, if that is just for that day or if she has no fire every day. And the distraction of Mary Crawford makes things worse -- for Fanny. "He had never knowingly given her any pain, but he now felt that she required more positive kindness." He doesn't knowingly hurt Fanny, but he does hurt her unknowingly; he is kind to her but not enough.

On some level, I think Edmund IS also in love with Fanny. He has some warm words for her and even some indirect flirtations, as when he compliments her appearance and her dress. It is in those moments when the narrator lets us know about another issue with the Fanny/Edmund relationship: it's almost incestuous. Edmund begins as an explicit substitue for Fanny's brother William: but I think that the incest subtext is not as strong as it's sometimes made out to be. It was at the time both legally and socially acceptable to marry a first cousin: Eliza de Feuillide was Henry Austen's first cousin.

But as Fanny isn't Edmund's biological sister, neither is she treated as his sister, as an equal to Maria and Julia. It's precisely THAT that Sir Thomas Bertram says at the outset cannot be: "She is not a Miss Bertram".

But still, there IS something that makes Edmund and Fanny's relationship typical of relationships between relatives. From Edmund's side, his love for Fanny is what Robert Sternberg calls "companionate love":

Companionate love is an intimate, but non-passionate sort of love. It includes the intimacy or liking component and the commitment component of the triangle. It is stronger than friendship, because there is a long-term commitment, but there is minimal or no sexual desire. This type of love is often found in marriages where the passion has died, but the couple continues to have deep affection or a strong bond together. This may also be viewed as the love between very close friends and family members.

https://www.verywellmind.com/types-of...

I'm not saying that those are Fanny's feelings for Edmund, because it isn't, but for most of the book, I think this is how he sees Fanny: a very close best friend he is in some sense committed to. I'll stop here before writing a dissertation on something that isn't even my field.

Gosh, huge huge amounts here - and i haven't even read Amelia's yet!

Only going to pick up on a couple of things until I re-read carefully and mull properly etc etc.

I think on the Anglican/evangelicalism stuff, I guess we have to bear in mind two things - firstly that it was all a lot, lot more significant in Austens' day, it was a 'big thing', probably, in fact, like 'racism' is currently, ie, it hadn't yet been allowed to 'die down' into 'yup, we've dealt with all that so we don't need to have it as an issue any longer' sort of thing.

Also, of course, Austen's own father was a clergyman, so presumably it all meant a lot more to her personally and her family than it might have done to non-clerical families.

On the issue of clergymen romantic heroes, it might also be significant that because her own father was a clergyman, so, too, there are family resonances in her other very notable choice of hero's occupation, ie, the navy.

(The only other two heroes, Mr Knightley, and Darcy, are both landowners, as was her brother who got adopted by the rich family - but then, really, one might think that, at the time, being a landowner was the obvious 'best choice' for a hero, because it was the most socially prestigious thing to be that 'everyone' aspired to.)

You mention Edmund doesn't have a very affectionate relationship towards his actual sisters, Maria and Julia. But maybe that's why he transfers his sibling affections to Fanny? (And he's a brother substitute for her as you say.)

The 'companionate' relationship is interesting, because it probably represents the actuality of all long-lasting marital relationships. It marks the transition from being 'in lurve' to 'loving'. I would say most who are in long-lasting marital relationships alternate between the two states, living the bulk of their time in the companionate state (vegging on the sofa, etc, bickering in the kitchen, disagreeing about map reading en route on journeys, etc etc), and then switching back to the 'lurve' relationship for when passion is allowed a look in again ......

In many ways, to my mind, the really tricky relationship to pin down is actually the male-female sibling one.

Perhaps the most telling thing about MP and Fanny and Edmund is that of all the hero/heroine marriages, it's hardest to think of the two of them in bed together??!!!!

And it's also hard not to think that Edmund will carry some sort of torch for Mary C for the rest of his life - even to a 'fictitious' Mary, ie, the Moral Mary he'd longed for her to be, however disillusioned he became with her.

I think it's telling that Sir Thomas blames Edmund more than Tom for the theatricals. He's already resigned himself to accepting that Tom is morally incapable (eg, the gambling debts). Edmund, unlike his older brother, is the 'responsible adult' in Sir Thomas's absence.

I wonder, as an aside, whether one of the contributing factors to Tom being such a wastrel is because he picked up that his father always preferred Edmund, who is so much more like Sir Thomas himself???

I wonder if Edmund ever gets fed up with Fanny being so 'dependent' on him. It can become very wearing to always be 'responsible' for someone else. Might that be one of Mary's appeals to him? That she is the opposite of 'clinging little Fanny'?

It does rather beg the question of what Fanny might have been like had she been raised by, for example, Mr Woodhouse, and had a fortune of her own to enjoy? Would she still have been as quiet and shy and subdued as she is in MP?

Is it her circumstances as a 'poor relation' that have crushed her, or it is her nature to be so mouselike?

I wonder if Edmund ever gets fed up with Fanny being so 'dependent' on him. It can become very wearing to always be 'responsible' for someone else. Might that be one of Mary's appeals to him? That she is the opposite of 'clinging little Fanny'?

It does rather beg the question of what Fanny might have been like had she been raised by, for example, Mr Woodhouse, and had a fortune of her own to enjoy? Would she still have been as quiet and shy and subdued as she is in MP?

Is it her circumstances as a 'poor relation' that have crushed her, or it is her nature to be so mouselike?

You mention it's odd in a way that Edmund doesn't get angry with Tom for depriving him of a living. But then, how often in Austen are we shown 'men-to-men' relationships?

She is famous, isn't she, for never showing a scene where a female is not present, as she knew she had no idea of how men behaved when no women were around.

Or maybe there are lots of men-to-men relationships but I just don't recall them!

Man-to-man relationships: Darcy and Bingley, Knightley and Robert Martin, Wentworth and Harville and Benwick, Henry and Captain Tilney spring to mind. Granted none of these relationships is center stage, but surely that’s one of the important points about Austen’s work—that she puts the dramas and preoccupations of women’s lives at the center of her work.

As for Fanny being mouselike, I personally regard her as extraordinarily courageous but pent by her situation in the Bertram household. She seems much more proactive during the scenes in Portsmouth, where she feels she has the right to be.

Yes, then a good few m2m relationships! But do we see any 'alone', or only 'in company'? I think it must be the latter, on the grounds that she doesn't (does she?) ever show any 'men only' scenes? But of course, even if she doesn't, that doesn't mean she didn't think that men did have friendships etc (as you say, Darcy and Bingley, and probably Wentworth and Harville are the closest to each other, especiallky the latter, and Wentworth is quite open about how good a chum Harville is, quite an enconium!)(Brothers in arms??)

Yes, Fanny is courageous, and definitely long suffering, and truly moral and virtuous etc, but, but, but ....she is probably a bit dull, for all that......

I can understand why Edmund fell for Mary, and life with her would have been more fun (if inappropriate for a clergyman, even if Mary's morals did improve).

It's such a tough question - good vs fun.....resonates all the way through our own lives, surely, and still difficult to resolve.

But it is definitely revealing that, as you point out, Fanny becomes far more proactive in Portsmouth - so maybe she is only 'crushed' at MP, and will, indeed, blossom far more once she is safely married to Edmund (and her lively sister Susan turns up to nursemaid dear Lady Bertram) (probably the most boring woman Austen ever created? As in just boring, rather than tiresome, as she is quite a sweetnatured person, and seems genuinely fond of Fanny)

I wonder if anyone can answer this: Edmund is said to have three horses, two hunters and a road horse. He barters the road horse for a mare for Fanny to ride. My question is, why wouldn't he barter one of his hunters? That way he would have the road horse and one hunter left. Were road horses more valuable than hunters? That is, would a mare cost more than one or two hunters?

Juan Manuel:

Wow! Thanks for your insightful initial post. I totally agree with you about Austen's characters being complex, like real people and not like the one-dimensional characters in the novels she would have been reading. I find it refreshing rather than frustrating though. I also never thought of either Edmund or Fanny as dull, even though that seems to be the main complaint of most people.

Your comments on the church are interesting and timely, we just had a guest speaker this weekend at our JASNA meeting that discussed clergymen in Austen's novels. I never thought about the fact that Edmund was the last clergyman hero she wrote. But she does present a broad spectrum of clergymen, reflective, I suppose of the general population. Our speaker mentioned that none of them had a particular calling for the church. It was kind of just seen as a job, a way to cling to gentility if you weren't the eldest son.

Your insights on Edmund's relationships with the other members of his family are also interesting. It's true he is most like his father of all four Bertram children. As for him being resentful of Tom that the MP living had to be sold, maybe he didn't know? would SIr Thomas have told him it was because of Tom? He was having other financial difficulties that required him to travel to Antigua.

I just recently watched the 1999 MP. Horrid abomination! Agreed about Edmund's neglect of Fanny; that's what I find frustrating as a reader. As for his feelings for Fanny, the narrator tells us flat out that even while in love with Mary he acknowledged Fanny's "mental superiority."

As for Edmund's horses, I don't know anything about it so this is pure speculation but I think the hunters are the most valuable and the road horse probably more closely equals the value of a quiet mare that would "carry a woman." Austen refers to the horse Henry lets William borrow as a "high fed hunter" and Fanny is worried that even though William has plenty of riding experience that he would not be able to manage such a horse. Other than that I don't know why Edmund would keep two hunters and no road horse instead of one of each.

Beth:

Interestingly, when Austen was writing MP she said it was "about ordination" so I think the conversations regarding the views of the clergy were an important part of what she was conveying. (clearly the romantic ending wasn't nearly as interesting to her!)

There is fanfiction out there about Edmund and Fanny in bed together, but I wouldn't recommend it and kind of wish I could unread it! The idea that he might continue to carry a torch for Mary kind of makes me sad and I choose to believe that he does not. He seems pretty disillusioned by the end and Fanny caps it off by telling him about Mary's speculations on Tom's impending death which seems to open Edmund's eyes even further to the idea that Mary maybe hadn't been so much in love with him as he had wanted her to be. I don't think Edmund gets fed up with Fanny's dependence. It's not her fault and mayb he likes feeling important in that way. As for Fanny, I think it's pretty clear she is a combination of nature and nurture, which is common in Austen. It goes back to what Juan was saying about Austen's characters being more complex and nuanced -- more real.

Interesting point about Sir Thomas blaming Edmund but not Tom (as far as we know) for the play. I never thought about that. It seems a little unfair, but Sir Thomas does kind of seem to see Edmund as the moral touchstone of the family.

You are correct Austen does not portray any men only conversations "on the page" the only exception is Sir Thomas' conversation with Tom at the beginning of MP when he is forced to sell the living, and that is very brief.

I totally agree that Fanny would have blossomed if she'd been given a chance to escape from the repressive/oppressive situation at MP. I don't necessarily view her marriage to Edmund as an escape. Her situation is changed but she's still stuck there.

Abigail:

Yes, there are lots of great male relationships in Austen! But we are shown the world through a woman's eyes in all her novels -- maybe something the world at the time needed a little more of!

I never thought of Fanny as "mouselike." I agree with you that she's extraordinarily courageous and in an oppressive situation. And it's great to see her exercise a little bit of independence and judgment in Portsmouth.

Dear readers why do some JA fans think Fanny and Edmund would be dull? They are readers and as Anne says that makes for good company. weare just not into these kind of conversations wiyh them and many of the witty Characters are not "readers of books" but are considered good conversationilsts I think they would run out of interesting dinner or drawing room talk for me quickly (think the Binglys Louisa Crawfords Julia and Maria maybe even Emma what would they have to dicuss? gossip? clothes? food? I ssee them as different from Mrs Palmer and Lady Middleton because of their wit and /or in come casses their nice nature like Bingly and the musgroves but would they be interesting in conversation? Catherin at least would ask questions and be interested in what you have to say... To sum up Enmund and Fanny would be with the more interesting people to meeet for me some of the others Jane Farfax and Mr Knightly Anne Elenore and Marianne (not sure she would talk to me) and of course Colno; Brandon who had traveled around to India

I just thouht about Mrs Goddard and Mrs Weston being teachers like myself we would takl about education

Mr Bennet and Elizabeth have both wit and conversation!!

as does Tilneny

Darcy would scare me off with his Noble air and Edward too shy for me to try

On the issue of horses, I believe hunters were, indeed, very expensive. Being 'high fed' implies they cost more to own, needing special food other than grass/hay etc. I assume this is all because hunting was a very energy-draining activity, so the horses needed to be very strong, have huge stamina to 'keep going', and large enough to be able to jump farm hedges and farm gates.

It was not uncommon, I believe, for a hunt with the likes of the most prestigious 'Hunts', such as the Quorn, to go on all day - the riders would get through several horses. In one of the Georgette Heyer novels someone says they used to get through a dozen horses! They would just exhaust the beasts, and need to mount a new one.

It was one of hte problems with cavalry charges. The famous charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo ended in disaster because they charged too far down the hill, and then the horses were too blown (exhausted) to have any energy left to return to the safety of the British line, and so the brigade was hacked to pieces by the French.

Hunters really are 'big beasts'. I've been on foot, looking up at one, and they tower over you! (Being 'ridden down' by cavalry, with the riders slashing at you with sabres, must have been terrifying!)

So, in respect of Edmund, not only were his hunters likely to be more valuable than a road horse (which remember, would never have been galloped at full speed non-stop, as a hunter would, only trotted, or, perhaps, just cantered), but he probably also needed two of them to last the day when he went out hunting. (I assume grooms took the fresh horses to the riders at some prearranged time and place??)

This is all just off the top of my head, so if anyone here is a horsewoman, please correct and inform!!

I just thouht about Mrs Goddard and Mrs Weston being teachers like myself we would takl about education

**

I'm not sure either of those ladies were actually very good teachers, were they?!!!!!

I think Jane Fairfax, had she been fortunate enough to get a position in a household with 'attentive children' would have probably made an excellent teacher!

Amelia,

You might have mentioned Fanny's brother when talking about the men in her life.

Hi Martin. I was talking about Fanny's lack of romantic prospects, which her brother would not be and he was not around her either anyway. Once she moved to Mansfield she did not see him for several years until he came to stay for a brief visit. But yes, he is an important male figure in her life and we are told after his visit that her heart was divided between William and Edmund. She was taken away from a brother who cared about her and Edmund sort of filled that void for her, except she cared for him in a more romantic way but he only saw her as a sister until the very end.

Hi, Amelia!

I think one of the most important scenes in MP is the one where Edmund meets Fanny on the stairs. She in tears. He feeling a new, entirely fraternal love. He finds out how dear her brother is and helps her write to him.
It establishes what will grow into romantic love between E and Fanny, first Fanny's pony, then her lack of pony as MC takes it away, ...

Martin: Yes! Agreed.

Does Austen show many characters in 'wrong' love, or even flirtation, in her books? There's Edmund and Mary Crawford of course, but would one include Lizzie Bennet's 'bit of a thing' for Wickham?

What about Edward Ferrars and Lucy Steele (though that happened 'pre-novel')

And Captain Wentworth for Louisa Musgrave?

Marianne Dashwood and Willoughby of course.

Emma for Frank Churchill?

(And dear Harriet for Robert Martin, Mr Elton and Mr Knightley) (and luckily back to RM!)

Any others?

In respect of Mansfield Park, I've always found it odd that Tom Bertram is such a shadowy figure. He doesn't really seem to have much of a story.

Beth: Austen shows misguided love in all her books. I love all of your examples. And to add a couple from NA, you have Catherine's brother in love with Isabella Thorpe and Isabella kind of crushing on Capt. Tilney.

Yes, Tom Bertram is a background character. I think he mainly exists because Edmund needs to not be the heir in order to have the tension about him taking orders. Austen said the novel was "about ordination." I'll admit he's never much interested me as a character.

@Amelia: If you think about it, everything that happened in Mansfield Park is kind of Tom Bertram's fault.

I got the distinct impression that the author had not decided the outcome of Tom's illness, when his fate was unknown. Should he die (and make Edmund the heir) or survive (and make Edmund poor)?

Usually Austen plots like a chess master, many moves ahead, but I think she left this one open.

Juan Manuel wrote: "@Amelia: If you think about it, everything that happened in Mansfield Park is kind of Tom Bertram's fault."

Yes!

Martin wrote: "I got the distinct impression that the author had not decided the outcome of Tom's illness, when his fate was unknown. Should he die (and make Edmund the heir) or survive (and make Edmund poor)?

Hmm, I wonder what would have happened if Tom had died? .....

I'm not sure Edmund would have succumbed to Mary, even if Tom had died - in fact, BECAUSE Tom had died.

For a start, Edmund would have been plunged into intense mourning, the whole family reeling with bereavement. Imagine Lady Bertram, not the strongest of characters as we know, coping with the death of her son. She would have gone to pieces. Edmund would have had to have held everyone together, including his sisters. The very last thing on his mind would have been Mary, or, indeed, any romantic interest at all.

It would have taken a good year to emerge from official mourning, and far longer for his parents to cope, if at all, with Tom's death. Sir Thomas would have berated himself for having been too harsh on Tom, and Edmund would have felt guilty for not being closer to Tom.

There would be huge practical fall out too - Edmund would have had to step into Tom's shoes, learn estate management (including the Antigua estates) from his father, become recognised and accepted by the tenantry as the new squire etc. Then what would have happened to his clerical career? There were certainly 'squarsons', those who combined being ordained with also owning an estate, so it could be done, but it would be extra work all round. Plus, his own clerical career would probably have had to take second place to his role as eventual estate owner.

Yes, as the new heir, Edmund would have had to marry at some point, to ensure the next heir, but would he want to marry Mary Crawford? She is quite frivolous for a squire's wife (just as she was for a cleric's). Plus, more importantly I think, Edmund would associate her with happier times when his brother was alive. I can't see him wanting Mary any longer?

In fact, it would be more likely to make him turn to Fanny - steady, cosntant, always there, a huge support to his stricken mother, familiar with Mansfield, a 'safe' person to entrust his life to, etc etc.

So, all in all, I think Mary's callous hopes that 'Sir Edmund' sounded quite as good as 'Sir Thomas' would have been in vain.

What an interesting perspective. I always thought it would be easier for Edmund to marry Mary if Tom died because they wouldn't have the money issue between them any more or really even the career issue, both of which she discusses in her letter about Tom's impending death. I think Edmund was in love with Mary and would still have wanted to marry her if Tom died. I don't think he would have thought her as inappropriate as a squire's wife; certainly if he thought she could be his wife as a parson, he would think her more suited to being the wife of a landowner and member of parliament, particularly as he'd have to spend time in London every year, which is a role she'd be comfortable in.

I never thought Edmund was that close to Tom, or really that Tom was close with any member of his family.

Amelia wrote: "I never thought Edmund was that close to Tom, or really that Tom was close with any member of his family."

There's a coldness in all the members of the extended Bertram family, I think. Neither Maria or Julia bother to go to Mansfield Park because of Tom Bertram's illness. Even Fanny Price thinks to herself: "Without any particular affection for her eldest cousin, her tenderness of heart made her feel that she could not spare him, and the purity of her principles added yet a keener solicitude, when she considered how little useful, how little self-denying his life had (apparently) been." Why could she not spare him, if she kind of didn't care? The rest of the Prices also couldn't care less about their nephew.

But it's not only that. Lady Bertram, when her sister and then again when her daughter elopes, simply says "Well...". She is completely indifferent to Maria's marriage to Mr. Rushworth: Mrs. Norris had to practically drag her all the way to Sotherton to pay a visit to Mrs. Rushworth. Early in the book we're told that when Fanny goes away, excepting William, nobody seemed to mind that she was not with them and that no one expected that she would ever come back. And that is for nearly ten years: "Fanny, though almost totally separated from her family, was sensible of the truest satisfaction in hearing of any kindness towards them, or of anything at all promising in their situation or conduct. Once, and once only, in the course of many years, had she the happiness of being with William. Of the rest she saw nothing: nobody seemed to think of her ever going amongst them again, even for a visit, nobody at home seemed to want her."

This is a strange kind of family dynamic, that I can relate to to a certain extent.

Wow! If I'd had any doubt (actually, I didn't) that Austen's genius was in creating living, breathing people you guys would have erased it.

That's pretty condemning about the Bertrams and the Prices - in that light yes, they are all pretty horrible people, with almost no 'feelings' at all.

I think the Price's are probably more 'excusable' than the Bertrams. They are poor, feckless and a complete mess. I think it can be hard for us in our day and age to understand how in a way superfluous children could be - at a time when families were larger than ours, because you couldn't stop babies being born, they just 'came' (!), so in a way, one more or less made little actual difference - especially if the one 'less' were a quiet little mouse like poor Fanny.

Also, of course, infant mortality was scarily high. I think that might have had a profound psychological effect on parents. If you gave birth with the 'expectation' that they might well not make it past infancy, or childhood, you would invest less in them emotionally, out of self-protection. These days we'd probably condemn such 'coldness' as causing trauma to the child - think of all that we read now about the necessity of good bonding with a baby etc etc.

The Bertrams lack of familial closeness is less 'excusable' as they are a well-ordered family. Yes, the argument about high infant mortality rates would hold true, but four children was pretty modest and manageable by the standards of the day.

Perhaps they are cold because Sir Thomas is not openly affectionate - and I think there's quite a lot about him being stern and a bit scary, so the children never naturally turned to him. Lady B is almost an idiot, though she does seem to be more emotional and demonstrative, and seems to miss Fanny. Maybe her daughters were raised to despise her - they must have twigged that Sir Thomas, however polite to his wife, had no real communication with her or emotional connnection. Then we have malignant Aunt Norris, sucking up to them and puffing them off - the worst person to have anything to do with children.

Edmund and Tom were presumably packed off to Eton, and to this day it takes a huge amount of 'emotional armour' to survive public school.....

So maybe the Bertrams are the kind of emotionally repressed upper class family that we still see evidence of today, completely dysfunctional and, in a way, highly emotionally abused in that sense, unable to form healthy relationships with each other or anyone else?

I guess it all throws into contrast the feelings between the two non-Bertram sets of intimate siblings, ie, Fanny and William, and then Mary and Henry.

Amelia, I agree, that if Sir Edmund had been a landowner keen to make his mark in society, or in Parliament, etc, Mary would have shone as his wife. But if he wanted to be a good 'hands on squire' looking after the welfare of his tenants, investing in his estate, improving the agronomy, etc etc, then she would probably not have been well suited. She'd have sought larger horizons, much as she does for 'Rev' Edmund, wanting him to become the vicar of a fashionable London parish and move in metropolitan circles etc.

We know she's very ignorant (indifferent?) to rural life, wanting to hire horses during harvest time (I think that's it, can't quite remember now!). It's not surprising she's ignorant, having been raised in London, but would she have adapted to the slow pace of 'county' life??

"If I'd had any doubt (actually, I didn't) that Austen's genius was in creating living, breathing people you guys would have erased it"

Defo! Two hundred years on, and we still can't stop talking about her!!!! :)

Juan Manuel: Yes, there is very little warmth in the Bertram family -- actually "coldness" is a better word for it. I think the narrative about Fanny's feelings towards Tom is to show the depth of her feelings: that even though she didn't have any particular affection for Tom and she was not under any illusion about the kind of person he was she still would feel his loss, maybe because she's used to him being part of the family. The part about no one every talking about Fanny going home, even for a visit, is kind of sad. It is told from her perspective, though; the adults in the transaction probably all understood it was to be a permanent removal but no one ever bothered telling her.

Martin wrote: "Wow! If I'd had any doubt (actually, I didn't) that Austen's genius was in creating living, breathing people you guys would have erased it."

But you didn't have any doubt -- because they are real "living, breathing" people! :)

Beth: Very interesting comments about perspectives on children from the time period. There is a great line in MP where the narrator shares Mrs. Price's reflections on sending Fanny away: "Poor woman! she probably thought change of air might agree with many of her children." Obviously views were a lot different back then. And I have seen countless examples of modern sensibilities about children and family planning in regency era fanfiction. One of the times I visited Jane Austen country in England, someone -- maybe at Chawton Cottage (?) told us Austen had been sent to live with another family in the village until she was about two years old (basically an outsourced wet-nurse). I don't actually know if it's true though. The contrast between the Prices and the Bertrams is interesting though, one is order the other is chaos but neither is a particularly warm or close family.

I don't think Edmund was much keen on "making his mark" in any sense so I agree he would have preferred the "hands on" approach whether as a cleric or a squire. I just think of the two Mary would actually be more suited to the wife of a baronet than the wife of a parson and if Edmund wanted to marry her with the intent of being a parson, I don't think he'd abandon that hope if suddenly thrust into the role of heir. I think for Mary, being in London during the season and in the country for the summer would be her ideal. But, of course, as mistress of a grand estate with every comfort; I totally agree she doesn't seem interested in the actual day to day minutiae of rural life. But with an example like Lady Bertram as his mother, I don't know that Edmund would expect much more of the next mistress of Mansfield -- at least Mary is more likely to actually visit the neighbors!

Yes, good point that Mary could hardly have been a worse mistress of Mansfield Park than Edmund's mother!!!! And I take your reasoning that Mary would definitely prefer to be Lady Bertram than 'Mrs Rev'.

As for sending children away, I didn't know that about Jane herself. Do we know what age her brother was the one that got adopted and then inherited a grand estate himself?

Apart from Fanny Price and Frank Churchill, do any other characters in Austen get 'farmed out' or 'adopted' by other families? Off hand I can't think of any. Harriet Smith is more of less 'dumped' at school all her life, but then she is illegitimate, so I suppose both her parents just wanted shot of her. (Which is why it's so nice she will be 'safe' in the warm and affection Martin family.)

I think Jane Fairfax went off to live with the Campbells. I can't think of any other ones. Unless you count Emma Watson who has just come home from being raised by her aunt in the novel fragment The Watsons

Austen's brother, I think, was about 12ish when he was "adopted" by the Knight family.

Yes, Jane Fairfax going to live with the Campbells always struck me as a bit odd - the Campbell daughter was just a schoolfriend, wasn't she? It's a big thing for them to take up JF as an extended long-term 'guest'. I know she was about to head off into the slavery of governessing, so maybe the Campbells knew they wouldn't be 'landed' with her.

As for Austen's brother, I wonder what he thought of being adopted? Was he keen, or did he feel the loss of his parents. I wonder if Jane talked to him before she wrote about Fanny Price, to see what it was like to be 'handed over' to another family.

The whole 'farming out' of children seems so odd to us these days, but I guess when large families were the norm, it was a rational thing to do. These days it usually only happens when the immediate parents are judged by the courts as incapable of parenting, and the child is handed to an aunt/uncle/grandparent to raise in a less chaotic or abusive situation, rather than being handed over for financial reasons..

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I'm not sure Edmund would have succumbed to Mary, even if Tom had died - in fact, BECAUSE Tom had died.

For a start, Edmund would have been plunged into intense mourning, the whole family reeling..."

These are all very interesting views. While Jane Austen certainly has more than enough skill to write an alternative ending with Tom dying and Edmund marrying Mary, I think she would have had to rework some of Mary's character arc as well. For me, the rightness of someone so humble, so selfless, so giving as Fanny at last being rewarded her heart's desire is the point of the book. And for Edmund to continue with his attentions to Mary and NOT learn to regret her changes who he is and alters the book for me in a material way. No doubt it could be skillfully done by our beloved Austen, but to have Mary attach herself to Edmund and benefit from Tom's death while Fanny has required no such improvement as she pined for him for ten years' time just feels wrong.

Beth: Colonel Campbell was a friend of Jane's father who undertook Jane's education with the intent of raising her to educate others. As for Austen's brother, his situation wasn't the same as Fanny's. It wasn't an act of pity. He was taken as an heir to a childless couple and it appears he continued to maintain a relationship with his own family.

Shana: I completely agree Fanny deserves to have her heart's desire. Whether Edmund deserves her, though, is another matter. I have my doubts. And I agree that if Tom had died and made it easy for him to marry Mary, which he very much wanted to do around the time Tom fell ill, he would not have been able to grow as a person the way he did when he was disillusioned after his last conversation with Mary so he definitely wouldn't have deserved Fanny at that point.

Thank you for plotting me in about why Jane Fairfax was with the Campbells.

I agree Fanny really deserves her own happy ending - Austen rather fudges it as to when and why Edmund 'fell in love' with her, or, at least, 'realises' he is in love with her.

It would be nice to think that her absence in Portsmouth would have led him to miss her, but I think he was still keen on Mary - it's really only when Mary reveals her 'true nature' in the remark about Tom dying that I feel his eyes are opened.

Edmund gave Fanny Price a somewhat unorthodox education. Mostly an education in literature and theology (?).

Fanny could never have become a governess with only that. She doesn't play any muscial instruments, unlike Jane Fairfax, who is from very early on trained to play very well explicitly so she could one day earn a living that way.

It makes me wonder what was Fanny's endgame if she never had married Edmund. Or what was Sir Thomas' endgame for Fanny if that happened. It seems that Lady Bertram expected Fanny to saty as her unpaid companion forever, but it's not clear how that would have worked out.