Young Fanny (Katy Durham-Matthews) now in Mansfield Park, sitting down to write her first letter to William
at home in Portsmouth (1983 BBC MP, scripted Ken Taylor)
Fanny Price (Sylvestre Le Touzel) in her Portsmouth room, reading her letters from home, which Mansfield Park now is.
"The only full date given is that of the ball at Mansfield Park, which was a Thursday, 22 December. 22 Dec. was a Thursday in 1808. It is natural to assume she used the almanacs of 1808 and 1809; the dates are of course the same in 1814 ... but Mansfield Park was begun early in 1811 and published in May or June 1814." -- R. W. Chapman, Appendix to 1923 edition of Mansfield Park."1811-1813. Mansfield Park was rewritten as we know it for publication ... Since she spent so long on it, the alterations were probably considerable, and I suspect the 1808-09 version to have been epistolary ... Our author wrote unceasingly ... Mansfield Park as we know it arrived I believe through (at least) three stages ... " Q.D. Leavis, from "Jane Austen's Writings," Scrutiny, 1941
"Fanny Price sorrowfully notes that Easter is 'particularly late this year', and according to Dr Chapman the chronology of the novel demands that Easter fall on 16 April. Now in 1809 Easter was 2 April, and in 1804 it fell on 1 April; but in 1797 Easter was in 16 April. Thus if we seek for an actual calendar in Mansfield Park that of 1796-97 seems to have the best claim ... " -- A Walton Litz, "Chronology of Mansfield Park, Note and Queries, 1961
Janet Altman: "So oriented toward the future is the epistolary present that deadlines, dreaded days, and hoped-for days assume great importance. Letters, with their date lines, provide a built-in means of marking time between the writer's present and the moment he anticipates. In Clarissa Richardson indulges in many such countdowns toward dreaded days: the Tuesday that Clarissa has agreed to confront Solmes, the Wednesday in which she fears she will be I forced to marry Solmes, the Thursday that Lovelace projects as their wedding day. Saint-Preux looks forward to the secret rendezvous Julie has given him with impatience: "Quoi! trois jours d'attente! trois jours encore!" (1:38) ...
If the present of epistolary discourse is charged with anticipation and speculation about the future, it is no less oriented toward the past. Janus-like, epistolary language is grounded in a present that looks out toward past and future. "Now" defines itself relative to a retrospective or anticipated "then." The epistolary present is caught up in the impossibility of seizing itself, since the narrative present must necessarily postdate or anticipate the events narrated ... For the letter writer is "absent" -- removed, however slightly, from his addressee and from the events to which he refers. The present is as impossible to him as 'presence' ...
Yet paradoxically, epistolary discourse has many ways of creating this impossible present. In writing to the moment, the oscillations between im- mediate future (e.g., "I'll go now to see . . . ") and immediate past (e.g., "I have just come back ... ") are so frequent as to create the illusion of a narrative present simultaneous with the events narrated. Writing to the moment in Richardson, however, is significantly different from what we might call writing to the moment in a work like Lettres portugaises. In Richardson important events take place independently of the writing ... the Richardsonian writer creates a sense of immediacy, of tension about the events themselves ... " -- Janet Gurkin Altman, Epistolary Discourse and time, Epistolarity, 1961.
|
Austen's Mansfield Park has in the last quarter century been the target and subject for a series of vexed and even hotly debated readings. Those debates which reach the wide public are on the subject matters under debate (slavery, colonialism, family pathologies like incest, the book's feminism) and a heroine whom many readers of romance dislike being asked to identify with. Now unless you think it a priggish, stilted outdated, or religiously edifying romance, your view of debates depends on an assessment of what is presented in the book beyond the family and love story. These subjects are intertwined with their complicated settings. Thus the book when it's regarded as a serious statement about more than love or its characters cannot be understood without the time they are set in or the time of composition. Roger Sales in Jane Austen and Representations of Regency England says there has been no controversy about the years it is set in; he simply assumes it is set in the year it was written, and writes as follows: "The details concerning the composition and publication of MP are relatively uncontroversial. It was probably begun in February 1811, completed sometime during the summer of 1813, and then published in 1814."This is inaccurate. There are a number of articles on this novel which present differently calendared outlines for the novel. Further articles refer in a relaxed style to the years the novel is set in as one basis for an interpretation, and still others provide a long footnote at the back of a book for the author's calendar. Books devoted to just this novel often begin with a statement asserting this or that to be true about the date and then proceed from that (see bibliography which follows calendar), which is just what Sales does. Not only are the years not settled but the arguments are more than a little heated. This is a novel with a wide purview, one which contextualizes its domestic or private events against larger public settings however kept to the margins, only hinted at, or suggested. Like all her texts, it also is rooted in her feelings and memories about her family member, friends, people she loved and hated. Mansfield Park is at once ambitious as well as personal. It seems best to me to state my conclusions and then demonstrate them by the calendar, leaving the reader to compare the calendar here with the other published calendars and arguments. Like Q. D. Leavis and others I am convinced this book was not just written in stages (Henry Austen wrote that all his sister's books were "gradual performances"), but in bits and pieces or drafted parts at first (1796-97 and then again 1805-07), and then first put together in one consistent or coherent whole (1807-09), and finally rewritten in its present polished form between 1811 and 1813. Cassandra's jotted note was not meant to be a complete account of her sister's writing; she was copying out annotations Jane had written. That she was not necessarily even referring to the final stage of writing is made plain by her offering the years "98-99" for Northanger Abbey, when we know from Austen's letters, she rewrote it for publication as Susan in 1803, and had a copy by her in 1809, and then was revising again in 1816 when she put Miss Catherine, on the shelf for now as she remained unsatisfied with the text as we now have it in some fundamental way. I've studied the text and found that MacKinnon and Chapman's calendars setting the main action of the book between 1808 and 1810 is only one year off: it's 1807-09 that is consistent with the portions of time in the novel dovetailed into hours, days, weeks, and months of a couple of years. December 22nd, the night of the ball, fell on a Thursday in 1808. The first pages when the Bertrams and Mrs Norris determined to adopt a Price child makes most sense set in 1796-97. When Austen finally landed in what she hoped would be a permanent home for a while (Letter 49, 7-8 January, 1807, with Frank as her brother, and Martha, the beloved friend, and her sister with her), it was 1807, and that's the year Mansfield Park begins its central dramatic action in. Between 1807 and 1809 she took some brief drafts she had written during the time of the Steventon theatricals in the later 1790s, had developed further between 1805 and 1807, and extended these into a first complete version of the novel, but not a finished polished one. But then in the final portion of the novel (as Chapman said), nothing less than April 16th for Easter makes sense and since in both 1809 and 1797 key days (e.g., the meeting of Crawford and Maria at Mrs Fraser's) by chance occurred on Tuesdays) Austen slipped back to some previous draft she had made early on. What form did this 1807-09 novel take? It was only partly epistolary. The long section at Portsmouth in the later part of the book reveals the more complicated interactions of letters and events and character presentation typical of multi-view epistolary novels, but the earlier part of the novel does not read this way. Would Fanny write detailed letters to William about the goings on over Lovers Vows? A lonely girl might keep a journal. There is also the problem of the Sotherton episode which is written from an omniscient point of view and where the whole disposition of space at Sotherton and its grounds are worked out in a stage like manner. Nabokov has gone so far as to drew outlines of the Mansfield mansion as well as Sotherton and its grounds just as a realtor might who was intent on selling or renting the places to someone. The section on the play-acting feels like a play; sometimes it seems that Julia literally exits the stage, with other characters making "entrances." One scene shows Austen's fascination with plays as she has two of her protagonists act out a central scene from Lovers' Vows. The time sequence of the present book becomes vaguer, indeterminate or inconsistent at those points where we have old material interwoven in, e.g., the theatricals, and the visit to Portsmouth (which also reflects the desperate conditions the Austens lived in in Bath after Mr Austen died) and elopement of Maria and Henry whose liaison is rooted in the psychological events of the theatricals (so 1796-98 and 1805-07). There is a sudden break at the time of the aftermath of the play. Then sequences of determinate time resume with newer material, e.g., Henry's plot to seduce Fanny's heart, the courtship, the ball and promotion of William, culminating in Fanny's refusal of Henry. The whole Portsmouth sequence, especially the semi-epistolary part cannot be made consistent with what went before unless it is shifted to 1797. This structure represents a parallel re-weaving procedure to what she did for Northanger Abbey. At the opening of NA, we have a Bath sequence which is resumed after the later middle Gothic sequence; it has been suggested these parts were written at different times. So in Mansfield Park, after the opening of a much more complicated book, we have the theatrical sequence whose consequences (elopement and aftermath including Tome's illness) are picked up after the curve which includes Fanny as central daughter, the ball, the proposal, and her punishment for refusing the good marriage (in the middle and later parts of the book). I have had to revise my use of the terms determinate and indeterminate time. For S&S and P&P I called anything indeterminate which did not closely follow a hour, day, date sequence that could be consistently even if approximately reckoned because determinate time was the predominant rhythm of the books and with a couple of tiny exceptions (Mr Gardiner's express letter to Mr Bennet) consistent throughout. As in S&S and P&P, MP has periods of time which are not indeterminate, but are yet reckoned by year, and within that, a season, and then we come upon unmoored conversations tied to a tick-tock paying attention to days. But determinate time is not kept as consistently nor as obsessively; time floats, and passages reflect a feeling of time passing, sometimes longer than the actual time passed in the novel (as when Austen refers to the autumn play-acting time in December in terms that make us feel it was long ago probably because she wrote the play-acting parts long before the aftermath). So, following Austen's art, indeterminate time is time remembered in the past when the characters are in the present. These periods are made consistent with one another and the determinate periods. I call determinate time within indeterminacy when the intervals of time come close together (within the same year), when she is following time within a month or season and indicates the relationship of the days to one another (so we follow along as she moves along her almanac). Determinate time are those parts of the novels where (as in P&P and S&S), we can know what months we are in and approximate or nail down securely precise dates in a month and weekdays, and much is compressed within a small amount of time. Indeterminacy brings us back to periods where we cannot know the relationship of the days to one another. There are also sudden unmoored conversations and the novel's many letters in the Portsmouth section are undated. This book is Austen's sixth novel. By 1808 she had written 1) a First Impressions, and partly rewritten it in 1799 and 1802; 2) a rewritten Sense and Sensibility, possibly still epistolary; 3) a version of Northanger Abbey, she called Susan whose copyright she had (mistakenly) sold to an unscrupulous man; 4) a firm thoroughly worked out version of the opening part of The Watsons, and 5) an apparently untitled wholly epistolary satiric book she wrote for the first time or rewrote starting in 1805. (In 1804 Stael's Delphine, an epistolary novel with a vicious heroine named Madame de Vernon, a cruel mother who succeeds in coercing her daughter into a marriage wholly unsuited for her was published and Austen knew and admired Stael's work: "I recommended him to read Corinne" she says in a letter). This book is so openly iconoclastic that she knew her family would not be permit her (a maiden lady to publish it), so she had made a fair confidential copy and circulated it (in the way of Renaissance women) among family and friends. Whatever working title Austen had originally given it we do not know; her nephew James-Edward Austen Leigh has titled it Lady Susan. Two of these five were not epistolary: Northanger Abbey and The Watsons. The other three were. She could have gone back and forth between these forms as she did not think at the time she was anywhere near publication. Place, geography matter in this novel as well as commments on attitudes towards
letters, self-reflexivity over letters and juxtapositions; so I am including place,
geographical configurations, and comments about letters (individual and grouped) in the calendar. |
|
About 30 years ago
Indeterminate time which is consistent with later parts of the novel |
| 1796-97 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy |
---|
| Later Fall 1799 into 1801 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy |
---|
|
Indeterminate time: 1802-03: this past time is remembered later
|
| 1804 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy |
---|
|
Indeterminate time: 1804-06: this is past time remembered later
|
| 1806-07 |
Determinate seasons within indeterminacy |
---|
| 1807 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy |
---|
| 1808 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy gradually becomes determinate time |
---|
|
Sudden vagueness: just "one evening" and again "one day" in lieu of the usual situating of narrative through numbered days (e.g, two days later, or "a few days") so we cannot know we were are precisely in September and October until very end of sequence; but now and again time kept in the day-to-day fashion |
| 1808 |
Determine periods within indeterminacy |
---|
|
A Sense of time passing, floating which makes the period seems longer than it is |
| 1808 |
Sudden resumption of determinate time consistent with all that has gone on previously |
---|
|
Indeterminate time |
| 1808 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy quickly becomes determinate time; precise indications of small intervals of time tightly kept; we can also approximate dates quickly by reckoning back from dinner party, William's arrival, and December 22nd. |
---|
| 1809 |
|
---|
|
Movement into indeterminate time, not precisely dovetailed into or with what follows |
| 1809 |
Resumption of determinate time consistent with all that has gone on previously |
---|
|
Movement into indeterminate time, not precisely dovetailed into or with what follows |
| 1809 turns into 1797 |
Resumption of determinate time consistent with all that has gone on previously and fitting into both 1809 and 1797 |
---|
| 1797 |
Determinate periods within indeterminacy |
---|
|
Movement into indeterminate time becomes swift and explicit |
|
A list of studies which include calendars (to be added to)
A brief summary and response to some of the above articles. The book we know as MP was put together and rewritten apparently with the theme of "ordination" in mind during the two and one half years Jane and after her Cassandra jotted down: "begun somewhere about Feby 1811--Finished soon after June 1813"). The composition of MP had more separated stages, but like all of Austen's novels, was, as Henry says, a "gradual peformance." A. Walton Litz thinks "the actual calendar in MP is the years of 1796-7." He says it was during this year Austen's memories of Eliza de Feuillide's flirtation with Henry and James Austen and the theatricals at Steventon would still have been vivid in Austen's mind, and he cites an article by the grandson of Francis Austen to suggest Austen had in mind theatricals at Steventon in 1797 (Notes and Queries, 208 [1961], 221-2. In The Collected Reports of the Jane Austen Society 1949-65 (London 1967), 197-203, Bernard Ledwidge studies the periodicals to figure out what "the strange business in America" was, and comes to the conclusion that the calendar for MP is 1809-10 and those were the years in which Austen began the novel. He also mentions that the one year in which Easter fell late (which so upsets Fanny because it is said to keep her at Portsmouth) was 1810. I agree with him that the novel was first written completely in this period, but when he tries to ascertain what was the "strange business" in those years, this is not enough to go on. Warren Roberts has opted for the year 1805-7 without studying the novel itself: he argues it must be set during this time because this was the year when the French blockade had disastrous implications for British sugar trade. Sutherland's rejoinder in his "Where does Sir Thomas's wealth come from?" demonstrates there is not even enough textual evidence to prove Sir Thomas was in sugar or owned many slaves, much less that his trip to Antigua was caused by a specific event (see Roberts's Jane Austen and the French Revolution and John Sutherland, Can Jane Eyre be Happy? [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 2-9). I am also not persuaded by Brian Southam's brief argument on behalf of 1810-1813. It hinges on a single reference in Chapter 16 to a group of books on Fanny's table in her attic: these include "Crabbe's Tales in full, Tales in Verse) published in September 1811". From this Southam deduces the time scheme of the novel without working all its parts out; his demonstration is that the date for Crabbe's tales coheres with Tom's reference to "strange business" as that (Southam assumes) refers to the outbreak of the War of 1812. It need not refer to that war at all (see Ledwidge). The rest of Southam's argument depends on his sense of the mood of the book and assumptions about what other vague references in the text refer to. As indicated above, Sutherland's reply to Roberts demonstrates that all argument that we can know what specifically Austen was referring to from the vague general nouns she scatters in this book is fictional supposition. As for the citation of Crabbe, as in the case of Sense and Sensibility, Austen could easily have placed into her texts references to other texts that had come out after she had written a long version of the novel. Sense and Sensibility refers in ecstatic terms to Cowper and Thomson which would date the novel in the 1790s; but then it also refers to Scott as a poet which brings it forward to 1809. The solution: Austen came back later to put in the more modern reference as she did to her Juvenilia. More importantly, there is no way to map the novel onto a full calendar post-1812 (see below), so even if Tom's comment is a reference to the War of 1812, it is a later addition to a calendar which was worked out on an earlier almanac. As to Southam's refutation of Leavis's articles (whose debunking mode seems to have offended Southam), on the idea that literally one makes a novel out of another, of course this is preposterous. But if this is what she means, what she says fully is capable of another reading. Leavis may be seen (justifiably and she does say this) to be showing that Austen reworked a similar linked set of limited configurations over and over again. The same small narrow set of characters, situations, details reworked with infinite care and nuance. We can study Austen's process; there is enough from the unfinished novels and manuscripts. Leavis also makes some interesting observations: there is no scene between Maria Rushworth and Henry Crawford yet their fatal encounter at her ball is told in two places (two letters that would have been). Leavis suggests the present discordant final chapter fo MP, where Austen says other endings were possibly is a section left-over trom the perhaps harder and blunter book of 1808-9 and revised with the sophisticated sceptical attitude of a woman in her thirties. Much of Leavis's essay is excellent if you don't read it so literally as Southam apparently did; it suffers because of her reductive way of saying that Jane Austen used a limited set of parallel configurations for character types and situations say between The Watsons and Emma, or Lady Susan and MP. She sounds as if she's saying Austen quite literally transformed one book into another. She means more that there is a limited repertoire but that does not mean she does not work these types and situations repeatedly and more subtly at each revision. Q.D. Leaves also writes that Austen wrote "under pressure of deep disturbance in her emotional life at a given time." She says rightly of the books their stress eventually falls these deepest corners of Austen's being. I agree with her that the stuff of the letters may be regarded as the raw material for the novels; alas that we have so little of it. It should also be said once at least somewhere that if Cassandra meant any reader in the future to come away with a positive view of her sister, her choice of what to keep was most injudicious. |
Mrs Maria Rushworth (Samantha Bond) reads a note to her from Henry Crawford, setting up an assignation; in the novel we are given no scenes of Henry and Maria's fatal meeting in London, only letters by other people recording the results (1999 Miramax MP, scripted by Patricia Rozema)
Fanny Price (Billie Piper) left behind while the family goes to Bath, writes to Henry or William (2007 BBC MP, scripted by Maggie Wadey)