Tags
books, Cheryl Kinney, death as a literary device, Dr. Grant, heart disease, literature, Mansfield Park, medicine and literature, Sir Richard Quain, sudden death, Tom Bertram
Fourth in a series of posts celebrating 200 years of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park. For more details, open Your Invitation to Mansfield Park.
Tom Bertram predicts the death of Dr. Grant in the third chapter of Mansfield Park. His death would be convenient in that it would allow Edmund Bertram to become the clergyman at Mansfield, but how does Tom know that this “hearty man of forty-five” won’t live long – and how does Jane Austen know? Dr. Cheryl Kinney, who is one of the “Best Doctors in America” (she’s made the list annually since 2001) and a Board Member of the Jane Austen Society of North America, answers this question in today’s guest post.
Dr. Kinney is a gynecologist in Dallas, Texas, and she was one of the coordinators of the 2011 JASNA AGM in Fort Worth, “200 Years of Sense and Sensibility.” In addition to her private practice, she has volunteered with Project Access, providing care to uninsured and financially marginalized women throughout the Dallas area. She’s been named by the Consumers’ Research Council as one of “America’s Top Obstetricians and Gynecologists” yearly since 2002, and has been named a “Texas Super Doctor” by her peers for the last ten years. Cheryl has lectured extensively to various groups in the Dallas/Fort Worth area on issues relating to gynaecology, including menopause, sexual dysfunction, endometriosis, and pelvic surgery, and she has also lectured all over the United States, Canada, and England on women’s health in the novels of Jane Austen and other 18th and 19th century British authors. It’s my pleasure to introduce her post on Dr. Grant and the risk factors for sudden death.
Tom listened with some shame and some sorrow; but escaping as quickly as possible, could soon with cheerful selfishness reflect, firstly, that he had not been half so much in debt as some of his friends; secondly, that his father had made a most tiresome piece of work of it; and, thirdly, that the future incumbent, whoever he might be, would, in all probability, die very soon.
On Mr. Norris’s death the presentation became the right of a Dr. Grant, who came consequently to reside at Mansfield; and on proving to be a hearty man of forty-five, seemed likely to disappoint Mr. Bertram’s calculations. But “no, he was a short-necked, apoplectic sort of fellow, and, plied well with good things, would soon pop off.”
– From Mansfield Park, Chapter 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005)
In Jane Austen’s time sickness and suffering were part of everyday life and because Austen wrote about everyday life, illness and injury permeate her novels. Perhaps better than anyone, she made use of these bodily events to develop her characters and drive her plots. In Chapter 3 of Mansfield Park, Austen uses Mr. Norris’ death to not only move Mrs. Norris to Mansfield proper, but to move the Grants into Mansfield Parsonage, to position the Crawfords to their advantage, and to disclose Tom’s culpability (and lack of remorse) in robbing Edmund of a portion of his living.
But to regard Jane Austen’s use of illness, injury, and death as mere plot mechanics is to deny the extraordinary precision with which she constructed her stories. She brilliantly used fictive ills metaphorically to expose strengths and weaknesses of human nature, as well as thematically to reinforce the maxim that permeates all of her novels: if we do not behave ourselves properly, something bad is bound to happen. Allowing her to accomplish these artistic goals was a remarkable understanding of the human body.
When Tom Bertram is confronted with his responsibility in the loss of the parsonage living for Edmund, he responds that Dr. Grant “plied well with good things, would soon pop off.” Despite being “a hearty man of forty-five,” Dr. Grant does indeed die a sudden death from gluttony.
Today, we are all aware of the association between a high fat diet and heart attack and stroke. In Regency England, however, most doctors had no idea what caused sudden death. Review of the medical literature from 1708 until 1919 reveals suspected etiologies that included cold weather, a thick neck, tight clothing, constipation, long stooping, warm baths, debauchery and “the venereal act.” A high fat diet was rarely included on the list of possible causes.
Although Hippocrates stated that very fat persons were apt to die earlier than those who were slender, it wasn’t until 1850, when Sir Richard Quain described the possible association between deposition of fat around the heart and sudden death, that high fat diets were seriously implicated. Quain’s fatty heart became a commonplace diagnosis in Victorian England – in George Eliot’s Middlemarch, young Dr. Lydgate diagnoses fatty degeneration of the heart in a patient who becomes short of breath – and firmly established Dr. Quain’s reputation as the leading authority on heart disease.
Dr. Quain’s paper is still consider a major milestone in the study of heart and blood vessel pathology, but is recognized as having a serious error in that it failed to identify the essential causes of the condition. In the entire paper (seventy-five pages) there is only one paragraph that remarks on the part a high fat diet might play on the formation of the disorder. The paragraph ends with the disclaimer “Beyond these general principles I fear we cannot go, and even to these there are exceptions.”
It would not be until the next century that the association between diet and sudden death was firmly and scientifically established. Jane Austen, without formal medical training, required no such length of time to come to the correct medical conclusion – that people who must have their “palate consulted in everything” (Chapter 11) and who indulge in “three great institutionary dinners in one week” (Chapter 48) would be at risk to suffer apoplexy and death.
In the ending paragraphs of the novel, Jane Austen uses Dr. Grant’s death to expose Sir Thomas’ and Edmund’s hypocritical defense of the clergy with their stance on multiple incumbencies. The death also reveals that both Fanny and Edmund could fall prey to the very mercenary motives that they found so reprehensible in Mary Crawford: a larger income and a bigger house – “. . . the acquisition of Mansfield living, by the death of Dr. Grant, occurred just after they had been married long enough to begin to want an increase of income, and feel their distance from the paternal abode an inconvenience.” There is the genius of Jane Austen.
It is a testament to her greatness that Jane Austen was able to accomplish so many artistic and thematic goals while remaining faithful to the properties of an actual disease process that would not be clearly understood until the next century.
References:
Barie, E (1912) Traie Pratique des Maladies du Coeur et de l’Aorte, 3rd edition, p. 1125, Paris, Vigot frères.
Bedford, E (1972) The story of fatty heart: A disease of Victorian times, British Heart Journal, 34: 23-28.
Buchan, W (1772) Domestic Medicine: or, a Treatise on the Prevention and Cure of Disease by Regimen and Simple Medicines, London.
Cheyne, J (1812) Causes of Apoplexy and Lethargy: with observations upon the comatose disease, London, Thomas Underwood.
Corvisart, J (1806) Essai sur les Maladies et les Lesions Organiques du Coeur et des Gros Vaisseaux, Paris, Migneret.
Fothergill, J (1879) The Heart and its Diseases, 2nd edition, London, Lewis.
Hayden, T (1875) The Diseases of the Heart and Aorta, Dublin, Fannin & Company.
Herrick, J (1919) Thrombosis of the coronary arteries, Journal of the American Medical Association, 72: 387.
Ljunggren B, Fodstad H (1991) History of stroke, Neurosurgery, 28: 482.
Morgan, A. (1968) Some forms of undiagnosed coronary disease in nineteenth-century England, Medical History, 12: 344-356.
Paget, J (1847) Lectures on nutrition, hypertrophy, and atrophy, London Medical Gazette, 5: 227.
Porter, R and D (1988) In Sickness and in Health: The British Experience 1650-1850, London, Fourth Estate.
Pound P, Bury M, Ebrahim S (1997) From apoplexy to stroke, Age and Aging, 26: 331-337.
Quain, R (1850) Fatty diseases of the heart, Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, 33: 121-196.
Robinson, N (1732), A Discourse upon the Nature and Cause of Sudden Death, London, T. Warner.
Sprengell, C (1708) The Aphorisms of Hippocrates and the Sentences of Celsus, London, R. Botwick.
To read more about all the posts in this series, visit An Invitation to Mansfield Park.
Dr. Grant’s health and character are so keenly delineated with a few sharp strokes that it certainly seems as if Austen was describing someone she’d known.
“The death also reveals that both Fanny and Edmund could fall prey to the very mercenary motives that they found so reprehensible in Mary Crawford: a larger income and a bigger house – “. . . the acquisition of Mansfield living, by the death of Dr. Grant, occurred just after they had been married long enough to begin to want an increase of income, and feel their distance from the paternal abode an inconvenience.”
Austen does make Dr. Grant’s death fall at an advantageous time for Fanny and Edmund, but I’d always taken this desire to increase income and live closer to the family homestead as meaning that Fanny and Edmund were expecting a child (or more children; as with Fanny and Edmund’s courtship, Austen leaves the timing here to the reader’s imagination). Family growth has traditionally been a motivation for many young people to better their financial circumstances, so I’d never read this as approaching Mary Crawford’s mercenary status-seeking.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments. I wish you were here in Dallas to discuss this issue with me and my good friend, Dr. Joyce Tarpley (Constancy & the Ethics of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park). She is in complete agreement with your position on the ending paragraphs.
Jane Austen often takes the ending of the story to place tiny details that can be interpreted in various ways. At the end of Emma, we learn that Mr. Knightley and Emma are heading to the seashore for their honeymoon. Throughout the novel Mr. Knightley has raised multiple objections to various spas and sea-side resorts so, on the surface, this choice of honeymoon destination may seem surprising. Jane Austen cleverly uses this honeymoon location. however, to illuminate the fact the Emma, even after marriage, will continue to live life as she always has…..getting exactly what she wants.
With the ending of Mansfield Park, Jane Austen shows us a folly of human nature – that while we may speak principally, we often act in our own self-interest. Sir Thomas and Edmund have both defended the clergy in response to Mary Crawford’s comments about current issues facing the profession (multiple incumbencies). Despite their stance on the matter, once the additional living at Mansfield Park becomes available (with Dr. Grant’s predicted demise coming to fruition), Sir Thomas snaps it up and Edmund accepts it with no obvious regard for the souls of those parishioners at Thornton Lacey that so concerned him earlier.
Fanny found Mary Crawford’s desire for a big house and a large income (as well as her desire of Edmund) reprehensible, but in the end and despite their motivations, Edmund and Fanny desire a similar improvement in their circumstances.
How this should be interpreted is the fun of reading and discussing Jane Austen’s works.
So enjoyed your comments!
Best regards,
Dr. Kinney
LikeLike
I’m honored to share Dr. Tarpley’s opinions! I’ve read quotes from her book, and am looking forward to reading the whole.
I agree that Austen uses the ending to poke gentle fun at the remaining denizens of Mansfield, but the living at Mansfield had been held for Edmund, so it’s not too hypocritical of him to step into it when it becomes free. And Mary’s judgment of the clergy is not always to be trusted. She doesn’t want Edmund to take orders at all, and her general condemnation of the clergy as gross, fat, and lazy, while having some truth as far as Dr. Grant is concerned, carries about the same weight as those who would tar all Catholic priests as child molesters without ever encountering a priest in person.
I also agree that Fanny and Edmund act in their own interests in moving to the Mansfield parsonage, but that’s not necessarily the same thing as acting _from_ self interest. Two can certainly starve as cheaply as one, but many a young couple (well I remember the experience) find that three ought not to starve as cheaply as two, and look to better their circumstances when their family expands. Money and house are status symbols to Mary Crawford (and she didn’t consider the parsonage any better than “moderate-sized”); to Fanny and Edmund, they’re means to “the home of affection and comfort”.
Of course, that’s all assuming that my interpretation of the ending is correct. You’re right that a good deal of the fun of reading and discussing Austen is the interpretation! Thank you for giving us plenty of meaty material to chew on here.
LikeLike
Cheryl, do you think it’s entirely clear that Edmund is going to retain the Thornton Lacey living while simultaneously moving into the Mansfield living? I think it could be read either way. Early on, when Sir Thomas upbraids Tom for his extravagance, he tells him that he’s deprived Edmund of “more than half the income that ought to be his.” This could mean a) that Sir Thomas had envisioned Edmund holding both livings at once and is angry that, by having to settle for only the smaller Thornton Lacey job, Edmund loses the larger Mansfield income each year; or b) that Sir Thomas had envisioned Edmund holding either one living or the other and is angry that he will miss out on a significant share of lifetime income by holding the smaller living for a larger portion of his career. I agree that (a) is a more plausible reading, but since it doesn’t square at all with Sir Thomas’s stated views on absentee clergy, it seems surprising that he would have that plan in mind from the first (rather than gradually easing into it over time, as his fondness for Edmund and Fanny bent his principles). Or perhaps his views on absentee clergy would be satisfied by the hiring of a resident curate?
LikeLike
A fascinating angle–thank you for that. Jane Austen knew more about the Affairs Of The Heart than we had realized! I had always surmised that JA had personally known a Dr. Grant type, (with the subsequent ‘career changes’and house moves involved) but figured he had not been anyone too close to feel sentimental over losing, as she was able to introduce him to the story with none other than the irreverent Tom Bertram being the cheerful prophet of Grant’s demise. On a wordsmith note…I wonder if that is where the term ‘pop off’ came from? (from apoplexy)
LikeLike
Dear Genurosa,
Thank you for your comments – “Jane Austen knew more about the Affairs Of The Heart than we realized” is so very clever. Wish I would have thought of it.
The word “apoplexy” comes from the Greek “apoplexia” meaning a seizure, in the sense of being struck down. In Greek “plexe” is “a stroke.” The ancients believed that someone suffering a stroke (or any sudden incapacity) had been struck down by the gods.
The word “pop” was used from the 1400s and was of imitative origin (like the explosive sound). The first known use of “pop-off” to mean sudden death was 1764. The Works of William Carlton demonstrates the common usage of the two words in the late 1800s.
I will keep searching this issue.
Best regards.
LikeLike
Have to agree wholeheartedly with Mrs. Darwin! Loved this post and the comments!
LikeLike
So glad you enjoyed the post. The 2014 AGM in Montreal will be filled with people debating all aspects of the novel. Hope you can make it.
LikeLike
Dear Deborah,
Thank you for your valid comments and questions. You are correct – it is not clear if Edmund retains the living at Thornton Lacey after moving to Mansfield Parsonage. There is, however, no textual statement to the contrary and it is difficult to believe that the clever, satiric Jane Austen would have passed on the opportunity to poke fun at an issue so public in Regency society. The issue of multiple incumbency was a cause celebre of English national life. The failing of the church to insure the performance of pastoral functions in these absentee parishes (this is my description) was a burning issue for the Evangelical movement.
These “pluralities”, as multiple incumbancies were called, were the target of vigorous censure by Sir Thomas (Chapter XXV, pp. 247-248 from The Novels of Jane Austen, Oxford, 1948 Vol. III…..sorry, the only edition they have at the hospital library this morning), yet he later effects the acquisition by his son of another living.
Mary and Edmund engage in a debate on the clergy that has less to do with what Lionel Trilling refers to as “the concept of duty” and more to do with the then lively issue of the relative poverty of clergymen who lacked multiple livings.
Mary and Edmund’s conversations are some of my favorite in the novel and, set against the social issues of the day, can be interpreted in various ways.
But always enjoyable!
LikeLike
Perhaps there is a clue as to how Edmund and Sir Thomas would feel about multiple incumbencies in the discussion they have about Edmund living at Thornton Lacey before he is ordained, vs. Edmund’s activities in the months after he is ordained. Sir Thomas and Edmund agree, while dining with the Grants, that Edmund should be a resident of Thornton Lacey in order to properly perform his duties as the parish priest, yet Edmund spends the months following his ordination keeping his mother company in Fanny’s absence, visiting London with the hope of asking Mary Crawford to marry him (and planning to return), nursing his brother, searching London for his adulterous sister, and fetching Fanny back to Mansfield. His family certainly took precedent over his parishioners in year one of his career as a priest.
LikeLike
Pingback: Dr. Grant’s Green Goose | Sarah Emsley
Pingback: The First Three Months of the Mansfield Park Party! | Sarah Emsley
Pingback: Discerning a Vocation in Mansfield Park – But Whose? | Sarah Emsley
Pingback: Why Tom Bertram Cannot Die | Sarah Emsley
I so appreciate Deborah Jaffe voicing my thoughts that grow surer with each reading of “Mansfield Park.” There’s no indication that Edmund kept the Thornton Lacey parish when he moved to Mansfield, yet I’ve heard lecturers stridently accuse him of hypocrisy. I know many pastors who move to be closer to family. Each one is still ministering, just in a different location. That said, my next reading will be informed by Sarah Ozcandarli’s just comments. Thank you, Deborah and Sarah.
LikeLike
Pingback: Mr. Woodhouse and What Matters in the End | Sarah Emsley