Tags
books, Fanny Price, Fiction, Jane Austen, Laurel Ann Nattress, literature, Mansfield Park, Mansfield Park 200th anniversary, Mary Crawford
Twentieth in a series of posts celebrating 200 years of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park. For more details, open Your Invitation to Mansfield Park.
One of the things I like best about hosting this party for Mansfield Park is that I can bring together so many of Jane Austen’s readers. Among the contributors to the series are writers of Austen-inspired fiction, bloggers, booksellers, journalists, librarians, and academics. There’s even one priest, one doctor, and one lawyer – let’s see what happens if the three of them walk into a bar at the JASNA AGM in Montreal next month. I like that there’s diversity even among those of us trained as academics – several study Austen and her contemporaries, of course, but there are also scholars of Early Modern literature and of Modernist literature. All of us share an interest in this complex and endlessly fascinating novel, and all of us are grateful to you for reading and participating in the conversations. It wouldn’t be much of a party without you!
It’s a pleasure today to introduce a guest post on Mary Crawford by Laurel Ann Nattress, who hosts the well-known blog Austenprose.com. I’ve followed Laurel Ann’s blog for a long time, and have also enjoyed writing reviews for Austenprose. Laurel Ann calls herself “a life-long acolyte of Jane Austen,” and says her blog is “devoted to the oeuvre of my favorite author and the many books and movies that she has inspired.” A Life Member of the Jane Austen Society of North America and a regular contributor to the Jane Austen Centre Online Magazine, Laurel Ann is also the editor of the very entertaining short story collection Jane Austen Made Me Do It (2011), which includes stories by Stephanie Barron, Carrie Bebris, Laurie Viera Rigler, and many others, including three writers who are also contributors to “An Invitation to Mansfield Park” – Diana Birchall, Syrie James, and Margaret C. Sullivan.
Classically trained as a landscape designer at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, Laurel Ann has also worked in marketing for a Grand Opera company, and at present, she says, she “delights in introducing neophytes to the charms of Miss Austen’s prose as a bookseller at Barnes & Noble.” An expatriate of southern California, Laurel Ann lives in a country cottage near Snohomish, Washington where, she tells me, “it rains a lot.” (Sounds like Nova Scotia to me.) Visit Laurel Ann at her blog Austenprose – A Jane Austen Blog, on Twitter as @Austenprose, and on Facebook as Laurel Ann Nattress.
I was amazed and humbled when Sarah Emsley asked me to contribute a blog post for “An Invitation to Mansfield Park.” Not being a scholar of her caliber, or her readers, what could I possibly offer to this collection of essays? So, I take up this assignment, hat in hand, from the perspective of a Janeite, offering a reader’s opinion on my favorite line and chapter from Jane Austen’s most complex and thought-provoking novel.
I remember my first encounter with Mansfield Park. It was the third Austen novel I read after Pride and Prejudice and Emma. I had no idea what to expect, since this was 1986, long before I even knew there was a Jane Austen Society of North America and ten years before the creation of the Internet website The Republic of Pemberley to enlighten me on what was ahead. Looking back now, those were indeed the wilderness years when Jane Austen enthusiasts read and worshiped in silence.
My first impression of Mansfield Park was not what I expected. It was dark and brooding. The characters seemed to be at continual odds with each other. It was unsettling. Contemplative. Puzzling. It was not anything like the sparkling, witty and romantic Pride and Prejudice that she was so famous for. I was miserable, and totally engrossed at the same time — a Jane Austen bus accident that defied explanation. With no one to talk it over with, I read it again. Still puzzled, I put it aside. Ten years later, and then twenty, I read it again. It became my holy grail of literature. After years of Austen study, and with the benefit of discussing characters and plot points with other Janeites I had met on the Internet, Mansfield Park had evolved, for me, into the hardest-won literary battle of my life — the struggle had made the victory all the sweeter.
During this thirty-year sojourn with Austen’s dark horse I connected with a particular chapter that was my ah-ha moment — that epiphany of illumination when I finally got it — or at least I thought so. Chapter 22 was my magic key. It revealed so much and answered many of my questions. Our heroine Fanny Price has been sent on an errand to the village by Mrs. Norris and been caught in a downpour without an umbrella. Huddled under a sparse oak tree outside of Mansfield parsonage, one of its residents Mary Crawford spies her shivering in the rain and sees an opportunity for her own entertainment, sending Dr. Grant out with an umbrella to fetch her inside. At this point, the sophisticated Miss Crawford is bored without the female companionship of the Bertram sisters and has cast her net for Fanny as her new friend. Mary and Mrs. Grant mollify Fanny’s objections to staying with dry clothes and attention. Mary plays the harp, entreating Fanny to stay longer than she wants:
“Another quarter of an hour,” said Miss Crawford, “and we shall see how [the weather] will be. Do not run away the first moment of its holding up. Those clouds look alarming.”
“But they are passed over,” said Fanny. — “I have been watching them. — This weather is all from the south.”
“South or north, I know a black cloud when I see it; and you must not set forward while it is so threatening. And besides, I want to play something more to you — a very pretty piece — and your cousin Edmund’s prime favourite. You must stay and hear your cousin’s favourite.”
– From Mansfield Park, Chapter 22 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988)
“Dr Grant himself went out with an umbrella.” Illustration by H.M. Brock.
This short passage is so telling for me. Mary Crawford is bending Fanny’s will, as she does to so many in the novel. She speaks authoratively, decisively and officiously to Fanny, dismissing her observation of the rain having let up.
“South or north, I know a black cloud when I see it; and you must not set forward while it is so threatening.”
Like a spider to the fly, Mary has drawn poor Fanny into her web and made her stay longer than she wants to. When Fanny, the keen observer of nature, and the moral compass of the novel, expresses her opinion of the weather clearing as an exit cue to her hostess, she is dismissed by Miss Crawford, a character who reveals her controlling, selfish, and arrogant nature by stating that she knows a black cloud when she sees one, yet has not looked out the window. Screeching halt! Giant red flag! Austen has cleverly revealed that manipulative Mary and gentle Fanny are as opposite as black and white in their view of the world. Mary knows a black cloud when she sees one, because she is one. Her presence and opposing opinions will continue to dampen her encounters throughout the novel, and Fanny, who sees only the truth before her, will remain true to her own principles and our hearts.
To read more about all the posts in this series, visit An Invitation to Mansfield Park. Coming soon: guest posts by Maggie Arnold, Hugh Kindred, Natasha Duquette, and Margaret Horwitz.
Subscribe by email or follow the blog so you don’t miss these fabulous contributions to the Mansfield Park party! Or follow along by connecting with me on Facebook, Twitter (@Sarah_Emsley), or Pinterest.
Sarah Emsley 
http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2014/09/fanny-price-special-victim-of-jane.html
Laurel Ann, my above linked blog post responding to your interesting post, begins as follows:
Fanny Price the “Special Victim” of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, and Mary Crawford the “Detective” who solves Fanny’s “Case” and (almost) wins Fanny’s heart
Laurel Ann, your seeing Mary as controlling, manipulative, and selfish toward Fanny is indeed one valid and plausible way of interpreting the interaction between these two young women in Chapter 22 of MP. However, I suggest to you today that an equally plausible, and perhaps an even more emotionally compelling interpretation, of that scene, is one that was implicitly put forward by Rozema in her 1999 film MP–i.e., that Mary in this scene subtly, subversively but benignly COURTS Fanny’s blossoming romantic heart, seeking a “romantic friendship” with Fanny. Mary’s end game is not selfish, but is that of any honorable romantic wooer, which is the uniting of two true lovers in “marriage”.
And what makes this interpretation so powerful, I suggest, is that not only is Mary courting Fanny, but it can be clearly discerned if you read between the lines of Chapter 22 from that perspective (just try it and see!), that Fanny’s responsive desire for Mary wells up immediately and powerfully, however much Fanny’s internalized repression keeps her from conscious awareness of her intense attraction to Mary. There’s a struggle going on in Fanny’s unconscious, as she is both drawn to Mary and yet is also desperate to deny that longing, so Fanny’s mind keeps generating rationalization after rationalization.
I’ll be speaking at the upcoming JASNA AGM about the hidden Shakespeare in Mansfield Park—the plays which other Austen scholars have not detected in the allusive subtext of this most Shakespearean of Austen novels—-and one of those hidden allusions to Shakespeare I stumbled across 5 years ago is to the most problematic of the Bard’s “problem plays”, Troilus & Cressida. I’ll never forget how, as I stood at the foot of the stage at the Globe Theatre in London in July 2009 looking up at the performers, I suddenly became aware that the enigmatic Cressida was a key allusive source for both Fanny and Mary in MP!
I first noticed the allusion as the audience erupted in laughter at Cressida’s Freudian slip when she invites Troilus “the morning after” in Act IV……. [continued in my blog post]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this scene sets up the Mary Crawford-Fanny Price contrast very nicely, Laurel Ann. Mary’s blithe attitude towards anything that does not suit her fancy appears again and again in the novel; her “do not bother me with watches” mock debate with Edmund at Sotherton, that “sweets of country living” remark to Mrs. Grant which came not too soon after replying to Fanny about the scenic setting they were in where she compares her disinterest in the shrubbery to that of the Doge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love those lines — “Oh, do not attack me with your watch. … I cannot be dictated to by a watch.” Mary C. isn’t interested in facts.
LikeLike
This exchange reminds me of Mary and Edmund arguing at Sotherton over the distance they’ve walked. Mary is impervious to Edmund’s well-reasoned calculation of distance, and rejects all rational measurements: “Oh! I know nothing of your furlongs, but I am sure it is a very long wood, and that we have been winding in and out ever since we came into it; and therefore when I say that we have walked a mile in it, I must speak within compass.” “Oh! do not attack me with your watch! A watch is always too fast or too slow. I cannot be dictated to by a watch.”
And again, Mary puts her own vision on a pedestal: “It is an immense distance… I see that at a glance.”
Edmund is captivated by Mary’s playful rejection of objective standards and goes off with her, neglecting Fanny. Fanny is not so enthralled by Mary, but as Mary is not urging her to do anything immoral, she allows herself to be persuaded (especially since Mary invokes Edmund’s name). Later in the book, Fanny has strengthened her defenses and will not listen to Mary’s urging her to let the Crawfords take her back to Mansfield, even when Mary invokes duty and Edmund and conscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mrs. Darwin, I am responding to your curious ID moniker—are you aware that the real life Mrs. Darwin (widow of Erasmus Darwin) was one and the same “Mrs. Pole” who gave such a favorable opinion of Mansfield Park? See the following post at my blog for details: http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-opinions-jane-austen-collected-re.html
LikeLike
Arnie, I hadn’t known that, but I’m delighted to learn it! Thanks for the information — I’m looking forward to reading more about “Mrs. Pole”.
LikeLike
Great, I’ll look forward to hearing your reaction, as well, if you are so inclined to tell, how you arrived at the pen-name “Mrs. Darwin”? 😉
LikeLike
Mary’s insistence on her own vision reminds me of this line from Christina Rossetti’s poem “In an Artist’s Studio” — the artist sees the woman he paints “Not as she is, but as she fills his dream.”
LikeLike
I have always thought that Fanny – perfection, as she is – really is far less than perfect. She is human. Loving Edmund, whom she has been warned against loving – she pays throughout the novel for that hidden love. I enjoy the human Fanny – it makes the novel quite balanced and normal for me. She suffers – with reason now.
Just another view of ‘Mansfield Park”…….
LikeLike
I agree with you that Fanny is far from perfect, and that it’s her struggles that make her interesting. She tries really hard to do the right thing but isn’t always sure what it is.
LikeLike
Very nice contrast of Fanny and Mary. Your comment that “Her presence and opposing opinions will continue to dampen her encounters throughout the novel..” is right on.
Throughout this chapter Fanny displays her keen intelligence. Here we see that she is knowledgable about meteorology. Later in the chapter she will expound on psychology, biology and landscape architecture (see the post by Lorrie Clark “Forming Minds: Mind and Memory in Mansfield Park,” and my blog post “Psychology, Botany, Climate in the Shrubbery” at http://austenbits.blogspot.com/ ). Mary, of course, has no use for anything real, whether it is weather with clouds or time keeping with watches. She is only concerned with her own version of reality and she will construct that reality to meet her own needs. Maybe there is a blog post in that – “Fanny and Mary: Different Realities”.
LikeLike
Perhaps Mary is like the author of a novel, inventing her own reality.
LikeLike
Much as I love Laurel Ann’s blog, I’m afraid I’d beg to differ on this. It is not MC that threatens the peace and quiet of MP but Maria’s ill-advised marriage, Henry Crawford’s vanity, and Tom’s lifestyle.
I agree that MC is selfish, calculating and manipulative, and wants things her own way, including Emund’s career choice. This leads her to disregard “objective” standards in favour of subjective ways of measuring time and space, as Mrs Darwin points out. This is also why in chapter 22 she refuses to acknowledge that the shower is over. But she is, on the whole, honest: “I knew it was very late, and that I was behaving extremely ill; and therefore, if you please, you must forgive me. Selfishness must always be forgiven, you know, because there is no hope of a cure.” Her views on marriage (chapter 5) may be pessimistic, but who can say she’s not right in many cases? She even suspects that her brother would stop loving Fanny eventually (chapter 30), which doesn’t sound so unlikely. And her expectations once he has eloped with Maria seem quite realistic, although Edmund is shocked by her assessment of the situation and advice (chapter 47).
Fanny, on the other hand, seems prone to self-delusion. She opposes private theatricals on moral grounds when in fact she “cannot act,” and, in spite of her usual gentleness, she judges Mary with extreme harshness just because Edmund is attracted to her. “Experience might have hoped more for any young people so circumstanced, and impartiality would not have denied to Miss Crawford’s nature that participation of the general nature of women which would lead her to adopt the opinions of the man she loved and respected as her own. But as such were Fanny’s persuasions, she suffered very much from them, and could never speak of Miss Crawford without pain.”
While MC comes across as rather cynical, Fanny’s been considered a hypocrite. I’m not sure this is quite fair, but I see the point: MC is lively, confident, witty, accomplished, sophisticated, and wealthy – Fanny just can’t compete, so she uses “morality” as a weapon.
LikeLike
I respectfully beg to disagree about Mary Crawford. Mary Crawford is indeed “lively, confident, witty, accomplished, and wealthy”, but these are not core character traits. At the core of her character Mary is “selfish, calculating and manipulative…”. As such she is a black cloud at Mansfield Park although perhaps one with a silver lining. Mary spends her time at Mansfield Park trying not to fall for a younger son, or, failing that, seeing his future residence at Thornton Lacey as “the respectable, elegant, modernised, and occasional residence of a man of independent fortune…” (ch. 25). Once in London she reverts to her high spending love of wealth. Edmund describes the change in his letter to Fanny “She was in high spirits, and surrounded by those who were giving all the support of their own bad sense to her too lively mind….Her ideas are not higher than her own fortune may warrant, but they are beyond what our incomes united could authorise.” (ch. 44) Finally, when Tom becomes ill, Mary realizes the true value (in pounds) of Edmund and proclaims, “with a fearless face and bold voice would I say to any one, that wealth and consequence could fall into no hands more deserving of them.” (ch. 45) That would be four hands, his and hers.
Mary Crawford is pert and pretty and she can see the worth of Edmund’s character, but, in the end, it is all about the money as it often was in Jane Austen’s day. In the competition between Mary and Fanny morality may be Fanny’s weapon, but is there a better weapon then a moral character?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for replying to my comment. I tend to agree with your assessment of MC’s character. I really can’t get over her speculation about Tom’s death and Edmund’s future inheritance – although perhaps we are more shocked than people in JA’s times would have been. And I dislike her attempts to make Edmund change his mind about his future career, entirely disregarding his feelings.
It seems we disagree as to the black cloud metaphor. I imagine a dark cloud is something that threatens evil. Now, if we consider the way in which the plot evolves, the peace and tranquility of MP are disturbed first by Tom’s illness, and then by Maria’s elopement, with neither of which Mary has much to do. Of course she does press her brother to stay in town for Mrs Fraser’s party: there he sees MB again, and eventually they end up together. But, although MC wouldn’t have objected to a “standing flirtation,” I don’t think she plays a role in what follows.
Edmund had a crush on Mary, and she has “moral taste,” so, perhaps, in time, she might have been led to “to adopt the opinions of the man she loved and respected as her own” – and Edmund might have benefited from her liveliness and become more relaxed. JA chose to play it safe this time and marry him to Fanny, who shares his values as well as his readiness to condemn sexual sinners. They’ll remain basically as they’ve always been, which I don’t think will further their personal development. As Edmund puts it, “some opposition here is, I am thoroughly convinced, friendly to matrimonial happiness. I exclude extremes, of course; and a very close resemblance in all those points would be the likeliest way to produce an extreme. A counteraction, gentle and continual, is the best safeguard of manners and conduct.”
This is not to say that I like MC. I’m only suggesting that things might have been played out differently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is fascinating to see how differently we can interpret characters in this novel. I cannot quite agree that Fanny “can’t compete” with Mary Crawford. On the contrary, I think that, at least at some point, Mary herself sees Fanny as a potential rival. Mary, being so clever, sees from the start the qualities in Fanny that could make her worthy of not only brotherly feelings of her cousins. I think that in Chapter 5, when in conversation with Edmund and Tom she brings up a subject of Fanny being “out, or not out”, she does it to, in a way, discredit her in their eyes, to dismiss her as a girl and not a woman (and she does not succeed).
It is true that Fanny is not “accomplished” in a way Mary is, but I think she is much more sophisticated. In Chapter 22, when Mary and Fanny take a walk together in the parsonage garden, Fanny tries to engage Mary in a non-trivial conversation, sharing her deep and very interesting reflections. Mary’s only answer “I am something like the famous Doge at the court of Lewis XIV; and may declare that I see no wonder in this shrubbery equal to seeing myself in it.…” is witty and brilliant, true, but at the same time primitive.
LikeLike
Fascinating indeed! I think the two conversations you mention show that MC and FP are interested in different things. Mary is curious about people (including herself, of course) and social life, while Fanny focuses on nature and tends to grow lyrical and moralise. “When I look out on such a night as this, I feel as if there could be neither wickedness nor sorrow in the world; and there certainly would be less of both if the sublimity of Nature were more attended to, and people were carried more out of themselves by contemplating such a scene.” It’s not that MC is shallow, she just doesn’t share Fanny’s sensitivity in this respect. In fact she pays attention to Fanny when most around her don’t. I don’t think MC ever sees Fanny as a potential rival – in fact she’s only concerned about the Miss Owens (chapter 29).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting idea that in the “is she out, or is she not” conversation Mary’s trying to dismiss Fanny as just a girl. Mary C.M. Phillips sees that conversation as an example of Mary’s kindness: https://sarahemsley.com/2014/06/13/scattering-seeds-of-kindness-2/
LikeLike
For my even more favorable view of Mary Crawford’s watching out for Fanny than Mary CM Phillips’s wonderful take: bit.ly/1xh0jbV
LikeLike
I must say that all of the posts and remarks have been very helpful to me in writing my modern day take on the novel, thank you to every one. Keep up the good work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
[“I agree that MC is selfish, calculating and manipulative, and wants things her own way, including Emund’s career choice.”]
And yet . . . Edmund keeps getting his own way. I never understood why Mary continued to regard him as a potential mate, despite the fact that he ended up being ordained as a minister (or whatever they do in the Church of England). More importantly, his comments to Fanny about Mary leads me to believe that he would prefer if he solely had his own way in regard to Mary. He certainly had no problem in getting his way in regard to Fanny, other than her resistance to accepting Henry Crawford’s marriage offer. Someone once wrote an essay in which she predicted that Fanny spent the rest of her life under Edmnund’s patriarchal control. It’s odd that so many criticize Mary for trying to convince Edmund to give up his career plans. Yet, they fail to see that he – more or less – controls Fanny and obviously wanted to do the same with Mary.
[“It is true that Fanny is not “accomplished” in a way Mary is, but I think she is much more sophisticated.”]
I honestly do not see Fanny as more sophisticated. I realize that we’re supposed to admire Fanny’s love of nature. Granted, I like to observe nature every now and then. But I have never been able to regard Mary’s love for a more sophisticated life as something to dismiss or regard in a hostile manner. Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that we have two characters who are both flawed and have different interests in life?
[“Her presence and opposing opinions will continue to dampen her encounters throughout the novel, and Fanny, who sees only the truth before her, will remain true to her own principles and our hearts.”]
“Our hearts”? Don’t you mean “your heart”? And I cannot accept the view that Fanny is the only capable of seeing the truth before her. Why? Because by the end of the novel, she was still incapable of seeing ALL OF THE TRUTH about herself, let alone Edmund. They are the only two Austen protagonists who have failed to achieve some kind of self-realization about their flaws. And I do not know whether to regard this as a failure on Austen’s part or if she had meant for this to happen.
LikeLike
Not sure who is still reading this nearly a year after the last post but I completely agree with Ladylavinia. Mary Crawford is a fascinating character whose intentions are completely misinterpreted by Fanny and Edmund, one of the dullest and most conventional men Austen ever created.
I need to re-read this novel. It has been 20 years but I remember liking Mary’s point of view on matters so much more than Edmund’s and Fanny’s. I found them both to be self-righteous and hypocritical. Fanny judges Mary’s ambitions and need for diversion but she herself passes judgment on the poverty and poor education of her own family when she goes to visit them later in the novel. She wants more now, just like Mary. Mary is at least upfront about it.
Mary’s clear-eyed look at marriage, at what she wants out of a partnership make her much closer to the modern woman than Fanny. I read this on my own at 19 and was so frustrated by the fate of Mary, who is essentially cast out of Mansfield Park. I felt so vindicated two years later when my English professor described Mary Crawford as one of the great heroines of Austen’s world and Fanny Price as one of its most irritating and sniveling villains.
Agree or disagree, these very different interpretations of Mary and Fanny show how wonderful and complex this novel is. Pride and Prejudice is Austen’s best-read work, for good reason. It’s as close to flawless as English literature gets. But Mansfield Park is so much deeper, darker and puzzling. It leaves you no easy answers and it demands that you go back to it over and over again to unlock its mysteries. Thank you all for reminding me how critical it is that I read it again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maria, see my comments earlier in this thread- I agree with you in many ways and take your argument further – there are two Mary Crawford’s that Austen created – the one “everybody” sees and the one you I and your prof (what is his/her name?) see – both fully coherent characters – one a bad person one a good person – two parallel fictional universes
LikeLike
[“Maria, see my comments earlier in this thread- I agree with you in many ways and take your argument further – there are two Mary Crawford’s that Austen created – the one “everybody” sees and the one you I and your prof (what is his/her name?) see – both fully coherent characters – one a bad person one a good person – two parallel fictional universes”]
I find it easy to describe all or most of the characters in this manner . . . including Fanny and Edmund.
LikeLike
In a recent post in my blog, I explained how Edmund can be seen as a complete hypocrite, and procurer for his sinister father — is that one of the Edmunds you see?
LikeLike
Pingback: “Mansfield Park,” A Review, A Readers’ Choice Giveaway, and a Collection of Related Articles
Do you know the problem I have with “Mansfield Park”? My dislike of Fanny Price. It never bothered me that Fanny was this quiet young woman who had to occasionally emerge from her shell to defend her wants or beliefs. But my main problem with Fanny is that although she was observant enough to notice the flaws of others, she lacked the compassion to tolerate or accept that other people are flawed. The only person whose flaws she had tolerated was Edmund . . . and that was because she was in love with him. Fanny not only tolerated Edmund’s flaws, she turned a blind eye to them. And she had never learned to notice her own flaws. She is probably one of the most hypocritical characters I have ever stumbled across in an Austen novel. Edmund is her equal in that respect.
LikeLike