Modern readers who love Jane Austen are eager to find ways to acquit her of being a woman of the long 18th century. Clutching My Pearls is my ongoing blog series about my take on Jane Austen’s beliefs and ideas, as based on her novels. Click here for the first in the series.
Implicit Values in Austen: Upstairs, Downstairs
As discussed in previous posts, Austen does mention servants in her novels, but they are definitely in the background most of the time -- unlike other classic novels and plays in which servants play a larger role.
We also saw that her vulgar characters behave inappropriately, either by not staying properly aloof from their servants, like Lydia, or else fussing and scolding, like Mrs. Norris. But we also saw that servants are indispensable.
In Pride & Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet exults in Jane's engagement to Mr. Bingley, with thoughts of the "fine muslins, new carriages, and servants" her daughter will have. Having lots of servants signifies wealth, as owning a Bentley and a Rolex would today. Really, Mrs. Bennet correctly understands the world she lives in. Her only fault is saying the quiet part out loud.
We recall, too, how Mrs. Bennet was offended by Mr. Collin's supposition that her daughters had helped cook the dinner. In Austen's world, it's only natural that this work be done by a servant.
I will admit to feeling a flicker of impatience with Fanny Price when she visits her family in Portsmouth and sits there, wishing in vain for a cup of tea. Fanny can't get off her fanny to prepare a pot of tea and a light meal because it is beyond her abilities and beneath her dignity...
We also saw that her vulgar characters behave inappropriately, either by not staying properly aloof from their servants, like Lydia, or else fussing and scolding, like Mrs. Norris. But we also saw that servants are indispensable.
In Pride & Prejudice, Mrs. Bennet exults in Jane's engagement to Mr. Bingley, with thoughts of the "fine muslins, new carriages, and servants" her daughter will have. Having lots of servants signifies wealth, as owning a Bentley and a Rolex would today. Really, Mrs. Bennet correctly understands the world she lives in. Her only fault is saying the quiet part out loud.
We recall, too, how Mrs. Bennet was offended by Mr. Collin's supposition that her daughters had helped cook the dinner. In Austen's world, it's only natural that this work be done by a servant.
I will admit to feeling a flicker of impatience with Fanny Price when she visits her family in Portsmouth and sits there, wishing in vain for a cup of tea. Fanny can't get off her fanny to prepare a pot of tea and a light meal because it is beyond her abilities and beneath her dignity...
Her sister Susan finally helps with getting the tea, but is embarrassed to be seen doing it: "Susan looking, as she put the kettle on the fire and glanced at her sister, as if divided between the agreeable triumph of shewing her activity and usefulness, and the dread of being thought to demean herself by such an office."
Fanny Price’s parents struggle in cramped, grimy poverty in Portsmouth but they still cling to the veneer of gentility. being waited on by servants. These servants are, obviously, poorer still.
What if the servants working in the offices at Barton Cottage could overhear the conversations in the poky little parlour when Marianne and Elinor discuss how much money constitutes a "competence."
"What have wealth or grandeur to do with happiness?" [exclaims the romantic Marianne].
"Grandeur has but little," said Elinor, "but wealth has much to do with it."
"Elinor, for shame!" said Marianne, "money can only give happiness where there is nothing else to give it. Beyond a competence, it can afford no real satisfaction... two thousand a-year is a very moderate income. A family cannot well be maintained on a smaller. I am sure I am not extravagant in my demands. A proper establishment of servants, a carriage, perhaps two, and hunters, cannot be supported on less.”
Romantic, warm-hearted Marianne insists she doesn't need wealth for happiness, but she does need a Bingley-ish level of income and a "proper establishment of servants." Did Marianne ever wonder if the family servants were happy, after leaving the great house at Norland and going to a cottage in Devonshire, far away from their families? Even if we presume they came out of loyalty and affection for the widowed Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters, what is the minimum income the servants can expect to live on, to be happy? Or did Marianne, like other people of her era, believe that Providence had placed their two maids and a man in their station in life?
Fanny Price’s parents struggle in cramped, grimy poverty in Portsmouth but they still cling to the veneer of gentility. being waited on by servants. These servants are, obviously, poorer still.
What if the servants working in the offices at Barton Cottage could overhear the conversations in the poky little parlour when Marianne and Elinor discuss how much money constitutes a "competence."
"What have wealth or grandeur to do with happiness?" [exclaims the romantic Marianne].
"Grandeur has but little," said Elinor, "but wealth has much to do with it."
"Elinor, for shame!" said Marianne, "money can only give happiness where there is nothing else to give it. Beyond a competence, it can afford no real satisfaction... two thousand a-year is a very moderate income. A family cannot well be maintained on a smaller. I am sure I am not extravagant in my demands. A proper establishment of servants, a carriage, perhaps two, and hunters, cannot be supported on less.”
Romantic, warm-hearted Marianne insists she doesn't need wealth for happiness, but she does need a Bingley-ish level of income and a "proper establishment of servants." Did Marianne ever wonder if the family servants were happy, after leaving the great house at Norland and going to a cottage in Devonshire, far away from their families? Even if we presume they came out of loyalty and affection for the widowed Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters, what is the minimum income the servants can expect to live on, to be happy? Or did Marianne, like other people of her era, believe that Providence had placed their two maids and a man in their station in life?
The Female Instructor: or Young Woman's Friend & Companion
In Austen's time, books of advice, as well as sermons, preached the doctrine of accepting the station of life in which Providence has placed you. There is no use repining or being insolent, be resigned and humble and maybe you will rise higher.
In The Young Servant; or Aunt Sarah and her Nieces, Aunt Sarah prepares her niece Jane for domestic service. She explains that talented people like painters can't make beautiful paintings without the help of servants to prepare the paints. This thought reconciles Jane to her fate:
In The Young Servant; or Aunt Sarah and her Nieces, Aunt Sarah prepares her niece Jane for domestic service. She explains that talented people like painters can't make beautiful paintings without the help of servants to prepare the paints. This thought reconciles Jane to her fate:
By "mechanics," Jane means tradesmen like blacksmiths, carpenters and brewers.
Housewife boiling clothes, 1944, Arkansas, Wikimedia Commons Jane is right that the ordinary business of keeping house and keeping yourself and your family fed and clothed took much more work than it does today. Anna Laetitia Barbould (1743 – 1825) wrote a poem about a typical washing day -- hired laundrywomen come to the house at the break of dawn, the harassed housewife watches the skies, hoping the rain will hold off, and god help the visitor who calls and wants to stay for dinner! The weekly laundry day represented a long day of back-breaking work for the women of the household.
Did Austen agree with the idea that Providence places you in a certain station in life? Was she just using a common phrase of the day when she described Sir Walter Elliot as "a foolish, spendthrift baronet, who had not had principle or sense enough to maintain himself in the situation in which Providence had placed him"? I discussed the question of rank, and Austen's attitudes toward the class divide, in an earlier blog post in this series, but I am not certain if she believed in the idea of being placed by Providence. I think she might be speaking ironically here.
And if a modern reader scoffs at the idea of being placed in a certain station in life by Providence, consider how many people today actually believe that the position of distant stars determines your personality at your birth.
In the end, there is ample evidence in her letters that Austen cared about the servants in the family but there is nothing in her novels to suggest that she held radical views about social levelling. I get the impression that Austen thought servants needed guidance and some supervision but also deserved respect and consideration. There's no indication that she wanted to do without servants, or thought there was anything amiss in having a gentry class who were waited upon by servants.
Did Austen agree with the idea that Providence places you in a certain station in life? Was she just using a common phrase of the day when she described Sir Walter Elliot as "a foolish, spendthrift baronet, who had not had principle or sense enough to maintain himself in the situation in which Providence had placed him"? I discussed the question of rank, and Austen's attitudes toward the class divide, in an earlier blog post in this series, but I am not certain if she believed in the idea of being placed by Providence. I think she might be speaking ironically here.
And if a modern reader scoffs at the idea of being placed in a certain station in life by Providence, consider how many people today actually believe that the position of distant stars determines your personality at your birth.
In the end, there is ample evidence in her letters that Austen cared about the servants in the family but there is nothing in her novels to suggest that she held radical views about social levelling. I get the impression that Austen thought servants needed guidance and some supervision but also deserved respect and consideration. There's no indication that she wanted to do without servants, or thought there was anything amiss in having a gentry class who were waited upon by servants.
Finally, why don't we have servants any more? The dramatic drop in servants came about because of social change, but mostly because of economic forces. Once, people were born with very few options in life; with rising prosperity, they had choices. And they chose to leave the farm and domestic service in favour of working in shops and factories.
In Austen's world, there were no tractors, no threshing machines, no milking machines. In the house, there was no running water, no water heater, no washing machine or refrigerator.
What made the biggest difference in the lives of women? What liberated servants from monotonous toil and drudgery? I nominate electricity. We should look to the changes in daily life brought about by human progress.
In Austen's world, there were no tractors, no threshing machines, no milking machines. In the house, there was no running water, no water heater, no washing machine or refrigerator.
What made the biggest difference in the lives of women? What liberated servants from monotonous toil and drudgery? I nominate electricity. We should look to the changes in daily life brought about by human progress.
"To my grandmother, the washing machine was a miracle." -- Hans Rosling
| |
Next post: Primogeniture in Austen's time
| In A Contrary Wind, the first book in my Mansfield Trilogy, we meet Miss Lee, the governess who taught Fanny and the Bertram girls, and learn about the man she loved and lost. Click here for more about my novels. |
RSS Feed