Frank Churchill

[kev67]

I was listening to an on-line radio show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0076tq5) about Jane Austen again. A TV adapter of P&P said that Frank Churchill was a borderline psychopath, who probably seduced Jane Fairfax at Weymouth, and who made cruel jokes about her. Is that fair? Jane and Frank had their arguments behind scenes, but Frank seems to care about her. He bought her that piano, which was a nice present. At the ball when Mrs Elton refers to Miss Fairfax as "Jane", he reacts as if offended on her part through the over-familiarity. When they are playing that word game and Frank spells out "Dixon", Jane was upset, but I thought it was more a joke on Emma.

[Scheherazade]

I cannot say that I like Frank Churchill as a character because, in his effort to protect himself and, I guess, in a way Jane Fairfax, he is selfish and at times cruel. It is difficult to tell how much of his seeming cruelty of attitude towards others is a front... However, I am not sure I agree with the diagnosis that he is a psychopath.

[prendrelemick]

Where are you Kiki?

I can't decide about Frank. It all seems a game to him. He is given alot of leeway in his behavior and yet remains respected at the end. Probably because he becomes rich and is the son of a respected gentleman.

[Jackson Richardson]

Frank can clearly charm the birdies from the trees, and like a lot of charmers he is not consistently considerate, particularly when he won't get admired for his care. Psychopath is far too strong. Yes he is selfish, but compared to Mr Elton he is human and affectionate, at least some of the time.

Interesting comparison with another selfish charmer in the book, Mr Woodhouse.

[prendrelemick]

I can imagine Frank being - not exactly abusive - but occasionally cruel towards Jane in their marriage for his own amusement. He is (like Mrs Elton) another exaggeration of one of Emma's faults in that he is self centred.



"Interesting comparison with another selfish charmer in the book, Mr Woodhouse."


Each character is there to be compared to Emma, or to be a cautionary tale for Emma. Eventually she realises she herself has exhibited the same traits she dislikes in others.

[Ecurb]

Who could possibly resist a little (just a little, let's not overdo it) cruelty toward Jane Fairfax? Jane's the one who's self-absorbed, what with her complaints that she might (horrors!) have to get a job: " "I did not mean, I was not thinking of the slave-trade," replied Jane; "governess-trade, I assure you, was all that I had in view; widely different certainly, as to the guilt of those who carry it on; but as to the greater misery of the victims, I do not know where it lies..."

Frank is definitely careless in his morals and self-absorbed in his behavior, but at least he has a sense of humor about it. If we think of all of Austen's "foils", he might be the best man among them, less wicked than Willoughby, Crawford, Eliot, or Wickham, and more attractive than John Thorpe (or Mr. Collins). Personally, I like Crawford best -- his talents are pitched higher than those of Frank Churchill -- but I suspect Austen thought Frank the best man among them (she does give him a talented, pretty wife by the end of the book). Besides, Frank did rescue Harriet Smith from the Gypsies, which has to rate higher than carrying Marianne home when she twists her ankle.

If Frank is designed to be compared with Emma, pren -- I wonder if that means that Jane Fairfax is meant to be compared to Knightley? He does admire her, and sometimes I think Emma might have more fun with Frank than with Knightley, just as Frank would have more fun with Emma than with Jane. Thinking more soberly, however, perhaps they're both better off with their Austen-approved partners. If they had married each other, they might run amok.

p.s. Despite his daughters' objections, I think Sir Walter Eliot should marry Mrs. Clay and have a son, just to screw Mr. Eliot out of the baronetecy.

[Clopin]

I do think that being a governess would be significantly worse than getting a regular job by today's standards. Anne Bronte describes it as being pretty unbearable, and it doesn't seem like you got much respect or had any prospects for a decent life.

[Ecurb]

The Brontes hated governessing (and tutoring, in Branwell's case) but Jane Eyre didn't seem to have been too badly off. Her ward liked her, Rochester was rarely home, and when he was home, he fell in love with her (too bad he was married).

We don't have to look that far afield to find a governess, though. I'm sure Mrs. Weston (poor Miss Taylor, formerly) had to deal with Emma's moods, and had to cater to Mr. Woodhouse's ailments. She did (acc. Mr. Woodhouse) choose to leave Hartfield for a house that is half the size (and who can blame her?). Still, it seems she was introduced into Highbury society as a social equal who could marry Mr. Weston, and she remains Emma's good friend.

I'm sure many jobs, back then, were worse than today's cushy jobs, but Miss Taylor seems to have lived a better life than most slaves in Antigua. Besides, (if I remember correctly) Mrs. Weston was in the party when Jane Fairfax whines about her prospects and compares them to slavery. Isn't that rude and condescending? I wonder if Mr. Knightley noticed, like he noticed Emma's transgression against Miss Bates?

[Jackson Richardson]

If Frank was a total cad, he would not have offered the Decent Thing by Jane.

If he was heroically saintly, he would have defied Mrs Churchill and married her.

Maybe he is hoping Jane will drift away, but I don't think that is his conscious intention.

I also don't think he hides the engagement from Mrs Churchill for purely mercenary motives.

As I say, he is a charmer and just doesn't like confrontation.

Good girls like Jane Fairfax can be a turnon to men of the world, as Fanny Price attracts Henry Crawford.

[kiki1982]

Where are you Kiki?

Here. :D I've had lots and lots of work...


I can't decide about Frank. It all seems a game to him. He is given alot of leeway in his behavior and yet remains respected at the end. Probably because he becomes rich and is the son of a respected gentleman.

I personally think Austen is very clever.
Even before he arrives, Frank is a celebrity and everyone is charmed by him. No doubt, he knows this and uses it to his advantage when he needs it. Everyone seems to assume that from the moment he arrives he's 'naturally' going to court Emma. Just because she is the most prominent lady in town. So he does. Why? Because he needs a diversion. If I remember rightly, he already rubbishes Jane's looks to Emma (?) at the first assembly to divert her attention away from the item Jane & Frank. He sees that Emma likes to be flattered, but also that she isn't serious about anything. So he uses her as a safe diversion. After all, his plan is not to be a Willoughby who courts Marianne and then drops her because of his aunt (although this wasn't necessary). By leading Emma up the garden path, he just does what she likes and no-one will be hurt in the process. He could have opted for Harriet Smith too, for example, or another woman in Highbury, but she would have become attached like Marianne and that's the whole issue which Knightley also addresses at the end: false courting is an absolute no-no, but no-one said anything about a bit of innocent flirtation where no-one really thinks it's serious (apart from the community which bis outraged, because... they were wrong all along and have hurt their own self a little bit). So Frank chooses Emma, firstly because that's the logical thing to do and because she's really only interested in being flattered. Not in him personally. And this makes that he can actually go as far as make her think he is about to propose, although he isn't and he's talking about himself all along.
In my mind, things went like this: back in Weymouth, Churchill asks Jane to be his, but informs her that they'll need to hold out until his aunt has snuffed it. It won't take long, but it's important that she doesn't know about the engagement, because she'll cut him off. After all what would Frank do without his inheritance? He could take orders, but the Church doesn't really pay very well. Recall Edward Ferrars. Then he could take a commission in the army, but he needs money to do that first. And with war going on, that's not ideal. In both cases, it would be very unwise to marry without money. And Jane hasn't got any.
Though his father has made a fortune, and maybe he could help with a commission in the army or other studies (though I'm not sure whether he's cut out to be say a lawyer or something), there is really no way Frank can get the income he is used to, unless he keeps his aunt sweet. Once she has passed away, his uncle is not that strict about matters of marriage, so it'll be plain wailing. However, Jane and Frank are faced with the fact that Jane's school friend to whom she is now a companion will marry soon, and so she must leave. She can't live with her aunt Miss Bates forever, because that family of two are strapped for cash themselves.
Then when Frank successfully leads everyone in Highbury to think he is courting Emma, Jane becomes insecure. They do have a snog over that pianoforte while Frank is so kind as to fix the glasses of Jane's grandmother, but for the rest he can't come too often without raising suspicion, can't look at her too intently, can't speak to her too much and about things that matter as someone could hear. They are not supposed to know each other, which is the safest bet in this situation. But it's difficult for her, because she is naturally insecure and thinks his shenanigans are/could become serious. And what if this situation continues for years? In all probability she couldn't even sue for breach of promise because she needs proof on paper. She stands to lose the most if he decides to walk away anyway. She could end up a spinster like her aunt and that's the problem. He won't walk away obviously, but she can't be really certain of that and he can only give her his word and appeal for her to trust him. Which is maybe the subject of the argument on the way to Donwell Abbey on the afternoon that they go strawberry picking. He's too late, she goes home in a mood and he is disappointed (Emma puts his anger down to the temperature :lol:).


The Brontes hated governessing (and tutoring, in Branwell's case) but Jane Eyre didn't seem to have been too badly off. Her ward liked her, Rochester was rarely home, and when he was home, he fell in love with her (too bad he was married).

We don't have to look that far afield to find a governess, though. I'm sure Mrs. Weston (poor Miss Taylor, formerly) had to deal with Emma's moods, and had to cater to Mr. Woodhouse's ailments. She did (acc. Mr. Woodhouse) choose to leave Hartfield for a house that is half the size (and who can blame her?). Still, it seems she was introduced into Highbury society as a social equal who could marry Mr. Weston, and she remains Emma's good friend.

I'm sure many jobs, back then, were worse than today's cushy jobs, but Miss Taylor seems to have lived a better life than most slaves in Antigua. Besides, (if I remember correctly) Mrs. Weston was in the party when Jane Fairfax whines about her prospects and compares them to slavery. Isn't that rude and condescending? I wonder if Mr. Knightley noticed, like he noticed Emma's transgression against Miss Bates?

Well, compared to many other jobs , governessing was indeed relatively OK, but I wouldn't say it was all that wonderful. Essentially you were a servant and were entirely dependent mostly on your mistress, who could then be jealous because of your looks. That's the least of it though. There were no holidays (not like later on where servants had a fixed day off every week), so if you needed to go home you had to ask and hope they'd give you your weeks off, probably you wouldn't even get paid. If the children ran amok, like the Middletons' children in Sense and Sensibility, there were two possibilities: either the master and mistress supported your discipline or they didn't (as was the case with the Ingrams). If you were unlucky it was the latter.
Add to this that it was a lonely job: you were not really part of the family although at a later stage you may have eaten with them (like Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair), but you were too good for the servants. There wasn't necessarily anyone to talk to among them (some of these people had only gone to school for a short while or maybe not at all). Once your pupil was 'out' in society (been presented at court and officially eligible for marriage), I don't think you went with her to parties, unless the mother/aunts etc. had died and no-one else was available to do the chaperoning. So if you were not discarded because there was no longer any need for you (the girl was past teaching and was now fit to be seen), you were left at home. At this point, the governess was either in need of a new situation, or she would be kept on as a companion/lady in waiting like Miss Taylor, but it was only a matter of time before that wasn't necessary anymore either (i.e. the girl gets married). Besides which the post as companion was a bit of a boot-licking job. Of course this depended on your mistress, but after all one doesn't pay a companion to disagree with or be preached to.
Also governessing, I think, was rather a recipe to become a spinster: if you didn't go out into society much, then where would you find a husband? Younger children didn't go anywhere at all and chaperones were supposed to sit and look that their girls or the gentlemen they were with didn't do anything untoward, they weren't supposed to be part of the party themselves. On top of this, you were clearly marked as 'inferior' in some circles at least (a Mrs Dashwood would not have associated herself with companions or governesses I'm guessing), so the gentlemen who visited wouldn't have been interested. Actually I'd venture to say that both Jane Eyre and Miss Taylor were very lucky that the one man in the situation who was available was actually interested in them as women. After all, Rochester could potentially not have been all that kean on Jane, pissed off again to Paris and Jane could have been stuck forever at Thornfield (or at least for the next 10 years until she was on the shelf). Mr Weston might not have liked Miss Taylor and society in Highbury can't be called all that vast, after all.

[Jackson Richardson]

Isn't it interesting that Jane Austen gives her own Christian name to the two goodie goodie girls in her novels who are far less interesting than the main heroines - Jane Bennet (sweet, but I'd far rather spend the eveing with Lizzie) and Jane Fairfax (who is a bore I'm sorry to say, although it is to Emma's credit that she reproaches herself for not being nice to her).

The goodie goodie girl in Mansfield Park though I find far more sympathetic than her spoiled cousins.

[Ecurb]

Governessing might not be the perfect job -- but neither was slavery. Jane is a goody-two shoes whiner, in my opinion. Knightley thinks her love for Frank is "disinterested" (because of her character), but I'm not so sure. Who could blame any woman for marrying a man she didn't really love to save herself from a life of slavery (a condition to which Jane evidently thinks being a governess comparable)?

Miss Taylor might have been lucky to find Mr. Weston -- but so was Emma lucky to find Knightley in Highbury. I'm guessing Miss Taylor lived a good life at Hartfield -- better than Jane's life with Miss Bates, probably.

Many readers dislike Emma, because she is snooty and interfering. I like Emma, because she is smart and fun loving. Therefore, I support Emma in her dislike of Jane Fairfax. Without looking it up, I remember one conversation between Emma and Knightley in which Emma claims that Jane does not have an open character. She keeps things hidden and is not easy to get to know. Of course Emma is wrong about many things, but she's right here, and it's possible that Jane has not been forthcoming with Frank about her true feelings. Frank, on the other hand, is happy to deceive people, but he's not very good at it. He's a little too high spirited, like a puppy dog who can't avoid begging for treats. Jane, on the other hand, is passive/aggressive, suffering headaches and indispositions when she doesn't get her way.

Frank appears to be the manipulative partner, fooling everyone by flirting with Emma. But Jane (I'll bet) is going to rule the home. Franks manipulations are light hearted and light weight, Jane is firing the heavy artillery.

[Ecurb]

I had actually been thinking of a scene in which Mr. Knightley (not Emma) descries Jane's lack of an open temper. Emma begins:


"No indeed I have not. You have scolded me too much for match-making, for me to presume to take such a liberty with you. What I said just now, meant nothing. One says those sort of things, of course, without any idea of a serious meaning. Oh! no, upon my word I have not the smallest wish for your marrying Jane Fairfax or Jane any body. You would not come in and sit with us in this comfortable way, if you were married."

Mr. Knightley was thoughtful again. The result of his reverie was, "No, Emma, I do not think the extent of my admiration for her will ever take me by surprize. I never had a thought of her in that way, I assure you."

And soon afterwards, "Jane Fairfax is a very charming young woman -- but not even Jane Fairfax is perfect. She has a fault. She has not the open temper which a man would wish for in a wife."

Emma calls Jane "reserved" earlier.

I'm sure governesses had a variety of experiences. Jane Eyre hobnobbed with the housekeeper, who was a notch above the servants. Miss Taylor hobnobbed with Emma and Isabella.

Jane Fairfax isn't a villain of a foil (she's a minor foil, competing with Emma for Frank Churchill, rather than Knightley, as the scene above shows.). She's no devil, like Lucy Steele (who becomes (Lucy Fer)rars). But I'm not at all sure that Jane Austen sympathizes with her more than with Frank. I just hope that Jane's "headaches" don't interfere TOO much with Frank's social (or sex) life, once they are married. Of one thing I am fairly certain: Mrs. Jane Churchill won't miss whining about becoming a governess; she will just find something to complain about.

[Ecurb]

Isn't it interesting that Jane Austen gives her own Christian name to the two goodie goodie girls in her novels who are far less interesting than the main heroines - Jane Bennet (sweet, but I'd far rather spend the eveing with Lizzie) and Jane Fairfax (who is a bore I'm sorry to say, although it is to Emma's credit that she reproaches herself for not being nice to her).

The goodie goodie girl in [I]Mansfield ParkI] though I fiind far more sympathetic than her spoiled cousins.

I like Jane Bennet a lot better than Jane Fairfax: Miss Bennet actually IS a kind, goodhearted woman; I suspect Miss Fairfax of being a bit more phony.

I'm not a big Fanny Price fan, but I do like her. The fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud in that book is Edmund, not Fanny. Also I can't forgive Edmund for his last interview with Mary Crawford, in which he tells her (as he reports to Fanny later): "Gladly would I submit to all the increased pain of losing her, rather than have to think of her as I do. I told her so.”

The dude has no class. Besides, he should intercede on Maria's behalf to stop her banishment up north with (horrors!) Mrs. Norris. The Bertram family cross is not that they lack morals, but that they are an unloving, self-centered family, and Sir Thomas only learns to appreciate Fanny because she conduces to his welfare.

Just as you'd rather spend and evening with Elizabeth than with Jane (who wouldn't), I'd rather hang out with Mary and Henry Crawford than with Fanny and Edmund Bertram.

[kiki1982]

Interesting point, Jonathan. I wonder whether that's a coincidence...


Governessing might not be the perfect job -- but neither was slavery. Jane is a goody-two shoes whiner, in my opinion. Knightley thinks her love for Frank is "disinterested" (because of her character), but I'm not so sure. Who could blame any woman for marrying a man she didn't really love to save herself from a life of slavery (a condition to which Jane evidently thinks being a governess comparable)?

OK, OK, slavery might be a bit exaggerated, but we should bear in mind that if she does become a governess, she will fall very deep indeed. Think about it: she's been raised in a finishing school, amongst privileged children (like Becky Sharp, practically the same situation), catered to her every (reasonable) whim and from the one day to the next she will have to go to a place unknown, potentially very far away from anything and anyone she knows and can trust. I mean, the school she came from wasn't Jane Eyre's Lowood, where pupils almost starved or froze to death and you'd be happy to just get away from it (anything is better than there, surely). Jane Fairfax's school is a genteel finishing school, for ladies. Yet Jane is not really a lady, she's only raised like one. So she's had privileges instilled in her, but is now confronted with having to give them up. A Becky Sharp set out confidently to make her own way, but Jane Fairfax hasn't got the determination of Becky. She shrinks at the prospect.
Finding a good position was also not an easy task: she will either have to go by word of mouth (her school mistress can help, the Knightleys and others like them can help) or have to advertise randomly. In that case, she essentially has to hope someone replies. Hopefully with a good offer and then pray that she lands in a respectable family where the children are not too much of a nuisance and the adults not too snooty. That takes guts (as in a Jane Eyre who sets out boldly into a world she hardly knows). On top of this, who can say whether she's cut out to teach? These girls were not taught how to teach, they were taught their subjects and teaching came with talent basically. Having stood in front of a class of only 4 to 5 children I couldn't control, I can tell you, I barely lasted a week. And that was one afternoon every day. Life becomes a task pretty fast that way.

Good point about the mercenary motives to her acceptance of Frank's proposal... Though we should note that Jane Austen herself rejected a man of good means, as I recall, despite the fact that she must have known she wouldn't be that well off once her father would pass away. At least that's what she continuously stresses in her novels, so she must have had some inkling about how the world worked in that respect...


Miss Taylor might have been lucky to find Mr. Weston -- but so was Emma lucky to find Knightley in Highbury. I'm guessing Miss Taylor lived a good life at Hartfield -- better than Jane's life with Miss Bates, probably.

Indeed Miss Taylor was lucky, both with her life at Hartfield and finding a husband so easily. I'd even venture to say that, if Emma had absolutely wanted to find a husband (which she didn't at that point in her life) and had got married, Mr Woodhouse would probably have asked her to stay on to care for him. He dislikes change so much that really Miss Taylor would have had a position for life, if she had wanted one. However, Emma has decidedly more strings to her bow to find herself a match than her companion and ex-governess. She could have gone to her sister in London for the season to find a husband, for example. As there doesn't seem to be a male heir (or entailment concerns), she would have been a fair catch, so she wouldn't have been short of suitors. Miss Taylor, on the other hand, can't apply to any such help. Unless she's got connections/family in good places, of which there don't seem to be many hints.


Without looking it up, I remember one conversation between Emma and Knightley in which Emma claims that Jane does not have an open character. She keeps things hidden and is not easy to get to know. Of course Emma is wrong about many things, but she's right here, and it's possible that Jane has not been forthcoming with Frank about her true feelings. Frank, on the other hand, is happy to deceive people, but he's not very good at it. He's a little too high spirited, like a puppy dog who can't avoid begging for treats. Jane, on the other hand, is passive/aggressive, suffering headaches and indispositions when she doesn't get her way.

Frank appears to be the manipulative partner, fooling everyone by flirting with Emma. But Jane (I'll bet) is going to rule the home. Franks manipulations are light hearted and light weight, Jane is firing the heavy artillery.

I love Emma too, but I believe it's important to see through the opinions in the novel. The entire plot is constructed around opinions that turn out to be wrong in the end, so any bad points shouldn't be taken all that literally. Indeed, Jane Fairfax hasn't got an open temper and that's a decided fault in Regency society. The Jane Bennets and Charles Bingleys fared batter, because they had 'easy manners': they were approachable, could talk about nothings all night long and smiled a lot. The Jane Fairfaxes were wall flowers who hardly responded or whose answers were monosyllables...

However, it's not because the Jane Fairfaxes and Fitzwilliam Darcys do not fit the mould that they are also nasty people. In my mind, Emma judges based on the impressions she has of people (including personal likes/dislikes).
Jane Fairfax might not be out there with her feelings, but who's to say she isn't in private? Though it's true she seems to be one who will tell what she thinks in private to those she knows, but will shut up in public and then complain no end on the way home in the carriage. You're right that she manipulates, but don't we all try and make our loved ones do what we want? Persuasion I think it's called.
That said it just shot through my mind that Jane's indispositions and the effect they have on Frank and his eagerness to please her (with the pianoforte) may be a reflection of how he is controlled by the whims of his aunt. a mere tantrum from her side (Oh, I might die if you don't come to Richmond) has him shoot off to London though he has other things to do, primarily because she has the money (maybe she uses that :D). Indeed a bit like an enthusiastic puppy can be moulded into a loyal dog eager to please his master who will jump when told so.
Come to think of it, that returns when Emma barges into Knightley's library (?) at the end saying she can't marry because she can't leave her father. What is Knightley's response? He'll leave his home to go and live at Hartfield. Maybe he's also going to be more controlled by his wife than he'd like to.



I'm sure governesses had a variety of experiences. Jane Eyre hobnobbed with the housekeeper, who was a notch above the servants. Miss Taylor hobnobbed with Emma and Isabella.

Indeed, the housekeeper was up from everyone else, but then she was the only one there. And I seem to recall there was a slight tinge of boredom in Jane as to the available conversation before Rochester arrives. Think about it: nothing ever happens and Mrs Fairfax has been there for years. How interesting can life at Thornfield possibly be that it would produce conversation if there are no parties at all and the master turns up about two weeks a year?


Jane Fairfax isn't a villain of a foil (she's a minor foil, competing with Emma for Frank Churchill, rather than Knightley, as the scene above shows.). She's no devil, like Lucy Steele (who becomes (Lucy Fer)rars). But I'm not at all sure that Jane Austen sympathizes with her more than with Frank. I just hope that Jane's "headaches" don't interfere TOO much with Frank's social (or sex) life, once they are married. Of one thing I am fairly certain: Mrs. Jane Churchill won't miss whining about becoming a governess; she will just find something to complain about.

Good point that. Indeed Jane could become a whiner which happy-go-lucky Frank might regret taking for a wife later. Or he may end up like Mr Dashwood who seems to have given up and just does what he's told by his wife, even if it means depriving his stepsisters of everything. It's just easier...

[Ecurb]

Come to think of it, that returns when Emma barges into Knightley's library (?) at the end saying she can't marry because she can't leave her father. What is Knightley's response? He'll leave his home to go and live at Hartfield. Maybe he's also going to be more controlled by his wife than he'd like to.

Knightley doesn't play games. Personally, I like a little game-playing, whether it be chess, or scrabble, or flirtation. So does Frank Churchill. So it will be (mildly) humiliating for Frank to lose all the emotional game-playing to Jane; whereas Knightley will just decide whether to let Emma have her way (usually, "yes"), and let it go. But Jane will rule through (basically) "cheating" -- playing the games in ways which would be considered unfair by most games players -- headaches, silent treatments, etc.

Also, Jonathan, when it comes to goodie-goodie heroines (like Jane Bennet, Jane Fairfax or Fanny Price), let's not forget about Catherine Morland and Anne Eliot -- two of the most charming heroines in fiction, and good as gold. While Miss Fairfax is showing off her piano skills, and Fanny is tut-tutting about improprieties, Anne is playing for hours so that her beloved Wentworth can enjoy dancing with her rivals. Everywhere Anne goes, people appeal for her opinion, involve her in their conversations, or dance to her music. She's quieter and less flashy than Elizabeth, but equally the life of the party.

[Clopin]

No way will Emma walk all over Knightley. Isn't part of his appeal for her that he doesn't just accept all of the crap she pulls and actually tells her she's being a total moron several times throughout the book. Not that he's going to totally control her either, but I don't see Emma having some huge upper hand.

[Ecurb]

I agree, Clopin, that Knightley's no wimp, and he knows his own mind (or so he thinks). He's an easy going guy, so he'll let Emma have her way about things that aren't important to him.

However, their first married hurdle will be living at Hartfield. Knightley is used to Donwell -- he's been lord of the manor for years; he's in his mid-thirties; he's set in his ways. How much gruel, boiled eggs, and half-glasses of wine is he going to allow Mr. Woodhouse to feed him, before he takes to swigging brandy right out of the bottle? Worse, what happens when they have children, and Mr. Woodhouse frets every time they go outside without a coat on or engage in some rough play? Is that really going to be the environment in which Knightley wants to rear his boys? Of course Emma might agree that it's no way to raise children, but what will they choose as an alternative.?

Perhaps they'll find a solution; Knightley moving to Hartfield is (I think) a mere stop-gap (unless Mr. Woodhouse dies soon, which seems unlikely given Mr. Perry's genius).

[kiki1982]

Oh, no, of course Emma won't be able to walk all over Knightley, because he will tell her what he thinks, if it matters to him at least. But he says he has probably loved her ever since she was 13 and clearly worships the ground she walks on. How much credit does that give her? It's not unthinkable that she'll somehow know where to push the button to get her way, in spîte of himself.

As you say, Ecurb, how many basins of gruel etc. will he be able to stand before he gets tired of them? He can't say he'll go back to live at Donwell after even a few years if Mr Woodhouse is still alive (and indeed it doesn't look likely that he'll pass on very soon).

OK, so Jane's manipulation will be more overt,akin to emotional blackmail, if you want to believe that (maybe her complaints are psychosomatic), but then manipulation remains manipulation.

[kev67]

I get the impression Jane Fairfax was getting increasingly stressed and suffering a sense of humour failure with Frank's teasing. Frank can afford to be patient and relaxed. For Jane time is running out. She has to decide upon her future by the end of the summer. Frank probably did seduce her at Weymouth, otherwise why all her guilt feelings about the secret engagement. For a woman of Jane's background, that would be another reason why she would be reluctant to just call it off. I wonder whether she believed Frank might be seriously considering proposing to Emma. Jane cannot stand being in the presence of Emma several chapters before the end.

[kiki1982]

Yes, you see, that's how I think things are. I'm not the one to think bad at all about characters or people for that matter...

If anything there could be an issue of trust because people in those days didn't know each other that well when they decided to get married. And definitely not if it was a secret. So if both genuinely love each other, how can she be sure that Frank is just diverting the attention when he flirts with Emma? For all Jane knows, tomorrow Frank might do like Willoughby and pretend nothing ever happened. At this point, Frank can only reassure her on the rare occasions he is able to, but she doesn't believe him. That would really be only the same situation as we could see nowadays.

That said, it's great there are so many possibilities, though.

[Ecurb]

Yes, Kev and Kiki, the standard interpretation is that Jane is stressed by the improper secret she shares with Frank, by Frank's flirtation with Emma, and by the possibility that she might have to take a job instead of marrying Frank. In that sense, it's reasonable that she sees governessing as a horrible, heart-breaking fate, not necessarily because she thinks it worse than being a slave, but because her heart is pining for her beloved Frank Churchill, and she wishes he'd stand up to his aunt like a man instead of creeping around like a mouse. Supporting this interpretation: Jane breaks her engagement to Frank.

I'll grant that I'm prejudiced against Jane because I take Emma's side in the rivalry. Still, my interpretation is plausible (if less charitable than yours). Even breaking her engagement seems (to me) a bit manipulative; she really wants Frank to say, "I'm sorry, sweetheart, I'll never behave that way again." In fact, it works, and that is what Frank says. Frank, on the other hand, enjoys secrets, hints, game-playing, and double meanings. His game-playing is fun-loving, while Jane's is serious and (even) melancholy. Jane's games involve illness, depression, and the breaking of engagements. I prefer Frank's style.

Of course games are a theme of the novel. Frank and Jane communicate secrets through word games; Emma misinterprets Mr. Elton's word games; and the Box Hill scene for which Knightley takes Emma to task involves yet another game. Surely, in light of this, Austen is suggesting that the reader SHOULD consider the game-playing tactics and methods of the characters.

[prendrelemick]

I don't know ecurb , I can't see Jane as anything but a very nice girl. The slave/governess thing, is something Jane Austin has her characters do quite often, ie; use exaggeration in conversation in order to illustrate a point forcefully. Mr Bennett does it all the time - and just about gets away with it because of his ironic delivery (he knows he's being ridiculous). Lydia Bennett and Isabella Thorpe do it because they are ridiculous . For Jane to use such an outragous exaggeration gives us the briefest glimpse of her desperate state of mind.

With Jane Austin, quoting a character's words just isn't enough, there is always a sub-text.

[Ecurb]

Perhaps. However, if Emma can be taken to task (by Knightley) for limiting Miss Bates to "only three (very dull things) at once", Jane can be criticized for comparing the misery of a governess to that of a slave in front of Mrs. Weston, who, after all, WAS a governess for years. I agree that there's always a sub-text, and Austen sometimes plays games with her readers, inviting them, for example, to find Miss Bates a bore, or Knightley infallibly correct (is Knightley's high opinion of Jane one reason so many readers agree?), or Jane Fairfax "good", when alternate interpretations are equally credible.

I wonder if Jane Austen herself sometimes endured hearing some girl feted as "accomplished" who played the piano well, or painted well, while Austen herself (whose artistic accomplishments outshone theirs as the sun outshines a firefly) was ignored. Perhaps, after all, her sympathies were not WHOLLY with Jane Fairfax.

[mona amon]

Since both my favourite 19th century authors Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte have compared governess-ing to slavery, I feel there must be some truth in it, if not the whole truth. No one contradicts Jane Fairfax when she expresses her views, or feels she's exaggerating, and everyone, including former governess Mrs. Weston feels it a great pity that she has to go out as a governess at some point. Anyway she's only whining about the profession, while Emma is directly mean and hurtful to Miss Bates. Not the same thing.

As for Frank Churchill, I think we all agree that calling him a Psychopath is a complete overreaction. He's an insensitive brute who gets a little carried away with the part he is playing, and has rather too much fun at Emma's expense, while Jane, a sensitive girl, soon finds it almost intolerable. But it is easy to forgive him because he's so much in love with Jane. I feel both these characters open up and blossom once they come clean, and I'm sure they'll be happy together. Frank may be more fun than Mr. Knightley, and Emma may be more fun than Jane Fairfax, but we saw what happens at the Box Hill picnic when the two fun characters gang up and pull out all the stops. I think they're better off with their more strait laced partners they choose.

Great thread, by the way, with interesting posts by everyone.

[Ecurb]

Comparing governessing to slavery is perfectly reasonable; so great a 19th century thinker as Karl Marx compared ALL capitalist employment to slavery. Jane Fairfax went a little further, though, suggesting that the misery of governesses and slaves is equal (I'll grant its a minor point, and if it weren't for my mild dislike of Miss Fairfax, and Knightley's rebuke of Emma for a similar faux pas, I wouldn't mention it). I agree with you that Frank is never so charming as when talking to Emma once his engagement to Jane is known, although, of course, he remains self-centered.

Jane Austen's opinion of feminine "accomplishment" is worth exploring. Catherine de Bourgh and Caroline Bingley are obsessed with it -- we remember Caroline outlining what constitutes an "accomplished" woman (Darcy puts her in her place by adding "a mind improved by extensive reading" to her list, while Elizabeth buries her nose in a book) and Lady Catherine is constantly yammering about how her daughter WOULD be accomplished, if her health had permitted. On the other hand, Georgiana Darcy is reputed to be highly accomplished on the piano.

Of the heroines, Catherine and Fanny don't play or draw; Emma is a jack of all trades, and master of none; Elizabeth's playing is barely serviceable. Marianne, as befits her romantic sensibilities, plays constantly. We aren't sure how good she is, although her beauty and romantic sensibilities assure that many young (and not so young) men admire her performances. Anne is, like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way, playing the piano and translating difficult Italian lyrics.

Even in Persuasion, though, we modern readers wonder if Austen supports Anne's opinion that Sir Walter should be dissuaded from marrying Mrs. Clay. Who else will marry silly Sir Walter? Why should he be condemned to loneliness? Surely a modern daughter would say, "Whatever makes you happy, Dad." Since the book in general condemns the obsession with rank and status displayed by Sir Walter and Elizabeth, I'm surprised Austen seems to countenance Anne's prejudice against Mrs. Clay.

[kiki1982]

In that sense, it's reasonable that she sees governessing as a horrible, heart-breaking fate, not necessarily because she thinks it worse than being a slave, but because her heart is pining for her beloved Frank Churchill, and she wishes he'd stand up to his aunt like a man instead of creeping around like a mouse. Supporting this interpretation: Jane breaks her engagement to Frank.

And especially the fact that she won't only have to miss him personally, but there won't be any letters either, as writing was a tell-tale sign of a man and woman being engaged. I can't imagine receiving letters from a gentleman who was not one's brother stood well for a governess.
From the other side you could draw a parallel with Willoughby from S&S who is secretly engaged to Marianne (or if if he wasn't really, well-nigh or as good as). Once she learns of his illegitimate bastard who is then cared for by the gallant Colonel Brandon, his aunt has had enough of his shenanigans and tells him to bl**dy well settle down with a wife or otherwise she'll cut him off without a penny. Oh, horror! So he carries out his orders and courts Miss Smith who comes with pots of money. Though after three weeks in the country for their honeymoon he regrets his marriage bitterly and to top it all off his aunt tells him that she would have given her blessing, had Willoughby only told her honestly that he loved Marianne. Poor man.
However, as Austen mocks the valiant knight rescuing the maiden in distress with her sprained ankle in S&S, you could wonder whether she's not mocking these 'men' being less than men? I mean, all mouth and trousers but when it's about their aunt they shrink away in a corner. Question is, are they worthy of a courageous woman?


I'll grant that I'm prejudiced against Jane because I take Emma's side in the rivalry. Still, my interpretation is plausible (if less charitable than yours). Even breaking her engagement seems (to me) a bit manipulative; she really wants Frank to say, "I'm sorry, sweetheart, I'll never behave that way again." In fact, it works, and that is what Frank says. Frank, on the other hand, enjoys secrets, hints, game-playing, and double meanings. His game-playing is fun-loving, while Jane's is serious and (even) melancholy. Jane's games involve illness, depression, and the breaking of engagements. I prefer Frank's style.

Ah, yes, that's a good point, the woman who goes 'If you really love me, you will...'


Of course games are a theme of the novel. Frank and Jane communicate secrets through word games; Emma misinterprets Mr. Elton's word games; and the Box Hill scene for which Knightley takes Emma to task involves yet another game. Surely, in light of this, Austen is suggesting that the reader SHOULD consider the game-playing tactics and methods of the characters.

Yes, but as you say, some of these games at least are completely misinterpreted? And isn't that always the problem with this kind of games? To the person thinking them up like Mr Elton they are totally plain and unmistakeable, whereas Emma sees another plain truth. Along the idea of a Shakespearean comedy where Emma makes all the characters (and even the reader?) see only what they want to see, maybe Jane sees wrongly.


I don't know ecurb , I can't see Jane as anything but a very nice girl. The slave/governess thing, is something Jane Austin has her characters do quite often, ie; use exaggeration in conversation in order to illustrate a point forcefully. Mr Bennett does it all the time - and just about gets away with it because of his ironic delivery (he knows he's being ridiculous). Lydia Bennett and Isabella Thorpe do it because they are ridiculous . For Jane to use such an outragous exaggeration gives us the briefest glimpse of her desperate state of mind.

With Jane Austin, quoting a character's words just isn't enough, there is always a sub-text.

I agree, there is always an extensive subtext.

But as all these characters are ridiculous (Isabella Thorpe with her everything best in the world), and Mr Bennet is setting out to be rediculous, the question is whether Jane is not supposed to be ridiculous either, although indeed Mrs Weston doesn't really react to it and Charlotte Brontë clearly expressed the same views as Mona Amon points out.


Perhaps. However, if Emma can be taken to task (by Knightley) for limiting Miss Bates to "only three (very dull things) at once", Jane can be criticized for comparing the misery of a governess to that of a slave in front of Mrs. Weston, who, after all, WAS a governess for years. I agree that there's always a sub-text, and Austen sometimes plays games with her readers, inviting them, for example, to find Miss Bates a bore, or Knightley infallibly correct (is Knightley's high opinion of Jane one reason so many readers agree?), or Jane Fairfax "good", when alternate interpretations are equally credible.

Good point.
Drawing the slavery simile out, you could say Mr Weston was the white man who married an inferior slave. Back in Austen's day, and certainly in the Caribbean, slavery and sexual relationships were a bit double. On the one hand you had a clear divide between slave and master, but things got watered down when the white male population saw themselves deprived of white women to shag and resorted to slaves (not necessarily their own even). Not at all always non-consensual. Gradually a mixed-race community developed with some of them bought free and given (sometimes vast amounts of) money, others became middle class families (like Bertha Mason's family in Jane Eyre). They married white men who were not very much concerned with anything apart from the monetary aspect. Racial segregation became more rigid later on in the century.
This recalls the alleged inferiority of Mr Weston's fortune which stemmed from trade rather than inheritance. The toffy-nosed Churchills are really taken aback by that, though the Woodhouses and Knightleys don't seem be bothered too much as he's nice to be around. Although maybe they wouldn't have married their daughters to him. Now, as Frank Weston has been redeemed into Frank Churchill who is to inherit his fortune rather than work for it, can he reasonable marry one who has really been a governess? hmmm...


I wonder if Jane Austen herself sometimes endured hearing some girl feted as "accomplished" who played the piano well, or painted well, while Austen herself (whose artistic accomplishments outshone theirs as the sun outshines a firefly) was ignored. Perhaps, after all, her sympathies were not WHOLLY with Jane Fairfax.

I suppose she expressed some of her thoughts on that in Darcy's observation that an accomplished lady must be able to do all those things commonly considered as accomplishments and "yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading." I guess it depends on how much Jane reads :p.


But it is easy to forgive him because he's so much in love with Jane. I feel both these characters open up and blossom once they come clean, and I'm sure they'll be happy together. Frank may be more fun than Mr. Knightley, and Emma may be more fun than Jane Fairfax, but we saw what happens at the Box Hill picnic when the two fun characters gang up and pull out all the stops. I think they're better off with their more strait laced partners they choose.

Yes, maybe both Emma and Frank will benefit from someone to calm them down.

Truly interesting thread, I agree.

[prendrelemick]

The English class system is/was a very subtle thing and more dependent on birth than wealth. Remember Lizzie Bennett claiming her father was equal to Darcy's because they were both Gentlemen? A governess to a good family would need to be of the right class (though impoverished enough to need a job) and could easily be an equal or a better of a Mr Weston or even a "made up" Mr Churchill.

[kiki1982]

You mean it?

So in Vanity Fair, when Becky Sharp (of dubious birth) is found a place as a governess with the Crawleys, that's actually a dig at the Crawleys? :lol:

[prendrelemick]

Sir Pitt wasn't exactly typical .

[kiki1982]

No, but as a satirical jibe it works very well. :)

[prendrelemick]

It does. Thackery was pointing out that although by "class" sir Pitt was out of the "top drawer", by habit he was a pig, unyet people still venerated him . Also I think I remember Becky implying she was decended from the very highest of pre-revolution French society.