| This blog explores social attitudes in Jane Austen's time, discusses her novels, reviews forgotten 18th century novels, and throws some occasional shade at the modern academy. The introductory post is here. My "six simple questions for academics" post is here. Spoilers abound in my discussion of these forgotten novels, and I discuss 18th-century attitudes which I do not necessarily endorse. Woman of Colour-centric coverage continues with a comparison of another anonymous novel with The Woman of Colour. Click on the "Woman of Colour Mystery" menu item to the right for the other posts about this novel. |
CMP#267 Isabella has to make a decision--The Decision (1811), Part 2
Last week, I started reviewing the 1811 novel The Decision, comparing and contrasting it with The Woman of Colour (1808). Both feature a father who leaves a will dictating who his daughter should marry, with financial consequences if she doesn't. But, just as in The Woman of Colour, the intended bridegroom is already married! Augustus in The WoC doesn't know his first wife is alive. The slimy Horatio in The Decision had parked his wife in a cottage in Wales, as one does, but she showed up in time to stop the ceremony, thanks to the hero, Valcourt Beverly.
Isabella is freed from her vow to her father! But, Valcourt thinks she loves her childhood friend Captain Granville, so the resolution of their love story takes a little longer. That seems like a flimsy misunderstanding to keep people apart but it's the same one used by Jane Austen in Persuasion. Due to constraints on female behaviour, the heroine cannot show her preference for the hero. And anyway, she thinks he just likes her as a friend.
Enter, stage right, a very wealthy, eccentric, and childless old man named Mr. Franklin who has returned from the East Indies with a handsome fortune and no-one to give it to. He's fairly embittered with life. His own love life went wrong and he is a bit of a misanthrope. The young people listen politely “to his severe remarks… for he could lash with severity the follies of the age, and predict the general ruin which would ensue from the indecorous conduct of the highest circles.” Another chance to mention that novels which "lash the follies of the age" were not necessarily radical in their tone. In fact, it was more often a conservative outlook at play there. Mr. Franklin is saying that the upper ranks of society don't live up to their responsibilities in life. The nobility and the royal princes all having affairs, that sort of thing...
Isabella is freed from her vow to her father! But, Valcourt thinks she loves her childhood friend Captain Granville, so the resolution of their love story takes a little longer. That seems like a flimsy misunderstanding to keep people apart but it's the same one used by Jane Austen in Persuasion. Due to constraints on female behaviour, the heroine cannot show her preference for the hero. And anyway, she thinks he just likes her as a friend.
Enter, stage right, a very wealthy, eccentric, and childless old man named Mr. Franklin who has returned from the East Indies with a handsome fortune and no-one to give it to. He's fairly embittered with life. His own love life went wrong and he is a bit of a misanthrope. The young people listen politely “to his severe remarks… for he could lash with severity the follies of the age, and predict the general ruin which would ensue from the indecorous conduct of the highest circles.” Another chance to mention that novels which "lash the follies of the age" were not necessarily radical in their tone. In fact, it was more often a conservative outlook at play there. Mr. Franklin is saying that the upper ranks of society don't live up to their responsibilities in life. The nobility and the royal princes all having affairs, that sort of thing...
A father's good deed pays off
There is a connection between Mr. Franklin and Isabella. Flashback: when he was a young man, addicted to gambling, he played cards with Isabella’s father and lost heavily—ruined himself. Isabella’s father impulsively tears up the I.O.U.s and releases him from his “debts of honour.” Rescued from the brink of disaster, Mr. Franklin reforms himself. He feels he has Isabella’s father to thank for changing his life. Isabella sees the hand of the Divine Dispenser of all Good at work here, just as Olivia Fairfield would have seen it.
Mr. Franklin can see that Isabella and Valcourt love each other, so he gets that sorted out by inviting everyone to dinner and saying that he is going to introduce Isabella to the man she will marry. Which, when you think about it, is a tad insensitive thing to say to Isabella, who has already almost been forced to marry someone she doesn’t love.
It turns out Mr. Franklin was teasing everyone, he invited Valcourt to dinner and at the end of the evening, he informs Isabella and Valcourt that they love each other, which is true. This same amusing-not-all-amusing ploy is used in the book The Banks of the Wye, by the author of The Woman of Colour. Another strange connection between the two authors.
Mr. Franklin has promised that Isabella would be his heir---but then he throws in a curveball. He says he will give Isabella his fortune only if Valcourt will change his last name to Franklin. Just like Augustus Merton had to agree to change his last name to Fairfield in The Woman of Colour to inherit his uncle's plantation fortune. But the Beverly family says that owing to “some particular clause specified in the will of their ancestors” Valcourt can’t do it. Besides, he’s the only surviving son of his family.
Isabella politely informs Mr. Franklin thanks but no thanks, she’ll choose Valcourt over being Mr. Franklin’s heir. This, I think, is the decision of the title, unless "the decision" refers to her father's decision to murder his uncle on his deathbed and his decision to forgive Mr. Franklin's debts, all momentous decisions with consequences.
Mr. Franklin says he was just testing her integrity, which she passed, so they get his fortune after all. The bells ring out, and the storylines for the other characters are wrapped up. Captain Granville marries the youngest Beverly daughter. The sensible and not gorgeous Beverly sister marries the local curate.
There is a connection between Mr. Franklin and Isabella. Flashback: when he was a young man, addicted to gambling, he played cards with Isabella’s father and lost heavily—ruined himself. Isabella’s father impulsively tears up the I.O.U.s and releases him from his “debts of honour.” Rescued from the brink of disaster, Mr. Franklin reforms himself. He feels he has Isabella’s father to thank for changing his life. Isabella sees the hand of the Divine Dispenser of all Good at work here, just as Olivia Fairfield would have seen it.
Mr. Franklin can see that Isabella and Valcourt love each other, so he gets that sorted out by inviting everyone to dinner and saying that he is going to introduce Isabella to the man she will marry. Which, when you think about it, is a tad insensitive thing to say to Isabella, who has already almost been forced to marry someone she doesn’t love.
It turns out Mr. Franklin was teasing everyone, he invited Valcourt to dinner and at the end of the evening, he informs Isabella and Valcourt that they love each other, which is true. This same amusing-not-all-amusing ploy is used in the book The Banks of the Wye, by the author of The Woman of Colour. Another strange connection between the two authors.
Mr. Franklin has promised that Isabella would be his heir---but then he throws in a curveball. He says he will give Isabella his fortune only if Valcourt will change his last name to Franklin. Just like Augustus Merton had to agree to change his last name to Fairfield in The Woman of Colour to inherit his uncle's plantation fortune. But the Beverly family says that owing to “some particular clause specified in the will of their ancestors” Valcourt can’t do it. Besides, he’s the only surviving son of his family.
Isabella politely informs Mr. Franklin thanks but no thanks, she’ll choose Valcourt over being Mr. Franklin’s heir. This, I think, is the decision of the title, unless "the decision" refers to her father's decision to murder his uncle on his deathbed and his decision to forgive Mr. Franklin's debts, all momentous decisions with consequences.
Mr. Franklin says he was just testing her integrity, which she passed, so they get his fortune after all. The bells ring out, and the storylines for the other characters are wrapped up. Captain Granville marries the youngest Beverly daughter. The sensible and not gorgeous Beverly sister marries the local curate.
William Godwin (1756– 1836) Other features
New age philosophy
The author phrases things in a subtle way, but he is critical of progressive thinkers like William Godwin. He uses modern philosophy to show how the guilty father Mr. Arundel tried to rationalize his crimes to himself: “If,” I reasoned, ‘we are only placed here the ephemera of a day, and liable by chance to an even shorter date of existence than that promised by the age of man; if the restrains of religion are only imposed to awe the weak and ignorant, and politically to cement the grand chain which links together all mankind, why should…(etc)."
Mr. Beverly’s wife is also an adherent of modern philosophy but uses it to justify her self-indulgent behaviour, rather like a movie star who lectures people about saving the planet but vacations on mega yachts. She racks up enormous debts through gambling and out-of-control spending. Finally, "tired of herself, unable to enjoy domestic society, or to find resources from the dreadful ennui which oppressed her, she adopted the extraordinary resolution to leave her husband’s house” and go visit a widowed friend in Dublin. Mr. Beverly discovers that she has ruined several tradesmen’s families. He is left to mop up the mess.
“And this, Valcourt,” he expostulates to his son, “is the being who accuses me of illiberality of spirit and moroseness of manners; who talks of virtue, and embraces error; who harangues on general utility, but has ever proved a vain and frivolous character, and most contradictory in theory and practice. Deluded, infatuated woman! Temporizing with her own conscience, and wishing to hide a multitude of follies under the veil of chastity of conduct."
The term “general utility” is a hint that the author is criticizing Godwin. I don't want to summarize him unfairly, but in a nutshell, Godwin had no understanding of human nature; for example, he didn't see why we would be more inclined to help our friends and family than help a total stranger. He thought such a position was morally indefensible.
The author of The Woman of Colour is also opposed to Godwin who, let's remember, was the husband of Mary Wollstonecraft and also against other new-fangled notions. Olivia jokes in passing that Augustus is not a modern philosopher; this means that although he loves nature and the simple life in the country, he is not a agnostic or a follower of the cult of sensibility.
New age philosophy
The author phrases things in a subtle way, but he is critical of progressive thinkers like William Godwin. He uses modern philosophy to show how the guilty father Mr. Arundel tried to rationalize his crimes to himself: “If,” I reasoned, ‘we are only placed here the ephemera of a day, and liable by chance to an even shorter date of existence than that promised by the age of man; if the restrains of religion are only imposed to awe the weak and ignorant, and politically to cement the grand chain which links together all mankind, why should…(etc)."
Mr. Beverly’s wife is also an adherent of modern philosophy but uses it to justify her self-indulgent behaviour, rather like a movie star who lectures people about saving the planet but vacations on mega yachts. She racks up enormous debts through gambling and out-of-control spending. Finally, "tired of herself, unable to enjoy domestic society, or to find resources from the dreadful ennui which oppressed her, she adopted the extraordinary resolution to leave her husband’s house” and go visit a widowed friend in Dublin. Mr. Beverly discovers that she has ruined several tradesmen’s families. He is left to mop up the mess.
“And this, Valcourt,” he expostulates to his son, “is the being who accuses me of illiberality of spirit and moroseness of manners; who talks of virtue, and embraces error; who harangues on general utility, but has ever proved a vain and frivolous character, and most contradictory in theory and practice. Deluded, infatuated woman! Temporizing with her own conscience, and wishing to hide a multitude of follies under the veil of chastity of conduct."
The term “general utility” is a hint that the author is criticizing Godwin. I don't want to summarize him unfairly, but in a nutshell, Godwin had no understanding of human nature; for example, he didn't see why we would be more inclined to help our friends and family than help a total stranger. He thought such a position was morally indefensible.
The author of The Woman of Colour is also opposed to Godwin who, let's remember, was the husband of Mary Wollstonecraft and also against other new-fangled notions. Olivia jokes in passing that Augustus is not a modern philosopher; this means that although he loves nature and the simple life in the country, he is not a agnostic or a follower of the cult of sensibility.
The ‘various evils which would necessarily ensue”
The novel gives us a sampling of conservative thought around marriage and divorce. Mr. Beverly, the father of Valcourt, is a kind and decent man who married in haste and repented at leisure. His wife is a neglectful and partial mother, and as mentioned, she is a compulsive spender and a gambler. Their marriage ends in separation. We hear a lot about "couverture," the oppressive patriarchal structure in which married women had no independent legal identity from their husbands. Old novels provide us with scenarios in which couverture is problematic for the husband as well when the wife is spending the family into bankruptcy, which Mrs. Beverly was doing. In another novel I recently reviewed, The Miser Married, the miser married a woman who hid her considerable debts from him, and upon marrying him, he became liable for her debts. At any rate, in The Decision, Mrs. Beverly ends her life unhappy and alone in Dublin, very much regretting her behaviour.
The beautiful but shallow daughter Margaret argues that women should be able to divorce their husbands. Her brother Valcourt pushes back: “My dear girl,” Valcourt said, “if you mean that every woman who is unhappy in the married state from the misconduct of her husband could be divorced, you certainly have no calculated on the various evils which would necessarily ensue.”
Margaret: “But yet I cannot imagine why a woman should be so unjustly oppressed, when your sex enjoy such privileges.”
“Perhaps,” he interrupted [!], “you are not aware that the law has provided the resource of a limited separation in cases of extremity” (such as intolerable cruelty, and the bar for intolerable was set pretty high. As in severe mental and physical abuse).
The novel gives us a sampling of conservative thought around marriage and divorce. Mr. Beverly, the father of Valcourt, is a kind and decent man who married in haste and repented at leisure. His wife is a neglectful and partial mother, and as mentioned, she is a compulsive spender and a gambler. Their marriage ends in separation. We hear a lot about "couverture," the oppressive patriarchal structure in which married women had no independent legal identity from their husbands. Old novels provide us with scenarios in which couverture is problematic for the husband as well when the wife is spending the family into bankruptcy, which Mrs. Beverly was doing. In another novel I recently reviewed, The Miser Married, the miser married a woman who hid her considerable debts from him, and upon marrying him, he became liable for her debts. At any rate, in The Decision, Mrs. Beverly ends her life unhappy and alone in Dublin, very much regretting her behaviour.
The beautiful but shallow daughter Margaret argues that women should be able to divorce their husbands. Her brother Valcourt pushes back: “My dear girl,” Valcourt said, “if you mean that every woman who is unhappy in the married state from the misconduct of her husband could be divorced, you certainly have no calculated on the various evils which would necessarily ensue.”
Margaret: “But yet I cannot imagine why a woman should be so unjustly oppressed, when your sex enjoy such privileges.”
“Perhaps,” he interrupted [!], “you are not aware that the law has provided the resource of a limited separation in cases of extremity” (such as intolerable cruelty, and the bar for intolerable was set pretty high. As in severe mental and physical abuse).
Review
This The Decision is not to be confused with novels of the same name by Anne Raikes Harding (1819), Grace Kennedy (1821), and Barbara Hofland (1824). A contemporary reviewer was taken with the way Isabella's father Mr. Arundel wrestled with his guilt. The novel gives us a portrait of “the horror of a mind that cannot reconcile itself to its guilt in spite of all the sophistry which Arundel could muster up for his support.” As with many reviews back then, the reviewer gives all the spoilers! Why did they do that! Maybe because it was the parents reading the reviews, to do if they would allow their daughters to read the book, and they wanted to know everything.
We don't know who wrote The Decision, but he also jumped on the Hannah More Coelebs in Search of a Wife bandwagon; that is, he wrote a copy-cat novel to cash in on the incredible popularity of More's book. His venture, Caroline Ormsby, or the Real Lucilla, was not well-reviewed. I had a glance into it, and yes it's very preachy, even more so than The Decision. The title page of a surviving copy of Caroline Ormsby has a reader's verdict that it is "the stupidest book--not well written". At least I think that's what this says, what do you think?
The Woman of Colour is very preachy too, but modern critics resolutely ignore its strong Christian message in favour of focussing on the race of the protagonist and her experiences in British society. For example, check out this online study guide published by Oxford University--you would never guess from reading this how saturated the book is with references to Christianity.
This The Decision is not to be confused with novels of the same name by Anne Raikes Harding (1819), Grace Kennedy (1821), and Barbara Hofland (1824). A contemporary reviewer was taken with the way Isabella's father Mr. Arundel wrestled with his guilt. The novel gives us a portrait of “the horror of a mind that cannot reconcile itself to its guilt in spite of all the sophistry which Arundel could muster up for his support.” As with many reviews back then, the reviewer gives all the spoilers! Why did they do that! Maybe because it was the parents reading the reviews, to do if they would allow their daughters to read the book, and they wanted to know everything.
We don't know who wrote The Decision, but he also jumped on the Hannah More Coelebs in Search of a Wife bandwagon; that is, he wrote a copy-cat novel to cash in on the incredible popularity of More's book. His venture, Caroline Ormsby, or the Real Lucilla, was not well-reviewed. I had a glance into it, and yes it's very preachy, even more so than The Decision. The title page of a surviving copy of Caroline Ormsby has a reader's verdict that it is "the stupidest book--not well written". At least I think that's what this says, what do you think?
The Woman of Colour is very preachy too, but modern critics resolutely ignore its strong Christian message in favour of focussing on the race of the protagonist and her experiences in British society. For example, check out this online study guide published by Oxford University--you would never guess from reading this how saturated the book is with references to Christianity.
So many similarities? Is this significant?
In fact, there were so many plot similarities between this 1811 novel and The Woman of Colour that I started to wonder, wow, is this written by the same person, just for another publisher? They have the same views. They are against “shewy accomplishments” for girls’ education, and in favour of cultivating the “solid and rational qualities of the mind… feminine and literary attainments, which add interest and permanency to beauty”. They both use ‘wave’ instead of ‘waived,’ as in "I could have waved the ceremony of introduction". They both refer to God as the “Disposer of all Events” or something similar.
But I decided that the prose style is just too different between the two novels. ChatGPT has actually done a very detailed comparison for me, which really gets into the grammatical weeds. But here is a simple marker: The Woman of Colour is very heavy on exclamation marks to express emotion. The Decision has an average of 25 exclamation marks per 10,000 words, higher for the epistolary portions in volume 1. The Woman of Colour has 124 exclamation marks per 10,000 words!!! That's a distinctive authorial fingerprint.
I just have the intuitive feeling that The Decision was written by a man. Less personal, more abstract, and yet this author gets much more mileage out of his angst. As ChatGPT puts it: “Arundel can describe guilt, death, repentance and religious anguish at considerable length without turning every sentence into an exclamation.”
I've skimmed another novel with the same forced-marriage scenario: Follies of Fashion (1801). It's quite mediocre, but maybe I'll knock off a quick post about it.
In fact, there were so many plot similarities between this 1811 novel and The Woman of Colour that I started to wonder, wow, is this written by the same person, just for another publisher? They have the same views. They are against “shewy accomplishments” for girls’ education, and in favour of cultivating the “solid and rational qualities of the mind… feminine and literary attainments, which add interest and permanency to beauty”. They both use ‘wave’ instead of ‘waived,’ as in "I could have waved the ceremony of introduction". They both refer to God as the “Disposer of all Events” or something similar.
But I decided that the prose style is just too different between the two novels. ChatGPT has actually done a very detailed comparison for me, which really gets into the grammatical weeds. But here is a simple marker: The Woman of Colour is very heavy on exclamation marks to express emotion. The Decision has an average of 25 exclamation marks per 10,000 words, higher for the epistolary portions in volume 1. The Woman of Colour has 124 exclamation marks per 10,000 words!!! That's a distinctive authorial fingerprint.
I just have the intuitive feeling that The Decision was written by a man. Less personal, more abstract, and yet this author gets much more mileage out of his angst. As ChatGPT puts it: “Arundel can describe guilt, death, repentance and religious anguish at considerable length without turning every sentence into an exclamation.”
I've skimmed another novel with the same forced-marriage scenario: Follies of Fashion (1801). It's quite mediocre, but maybe I'll knock off a quick post about it.
Previous post: The Decision, part one Next post: Follies of Fashion, an editorial pretending to be a novel
RSS Feed