Frank Churchill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiki

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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...'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

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.

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.

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:

Sir Pitt wasn't exactly typical .