All content on this blog is copyright by Marci Andrews Wahlquist as of its date of publication.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

It Was March 1662/3, Colonial Connecticut

Introduction:
I published this document back in 2015, but since then my son began to work on a paper for an advanced grammar class using this document, and I decided to go over my transcription and more carefully reproduce the spelling, word divisions, punctuation, and capitalization exactly as in the original, or to note exactly where anything differed. I found that I had made a lot of mistakes, and since now I am certain that every word and mark is correct, here is my update, with some notes at the end of this post on my work and what happened to these people.


Transcript of a marriage contract between Thomas Barnes and John Andrews of Farmington, Connecticut:

march 23 1662
                     3

it having plesed The Lord in the dispan sashon of his profidans Too me and myne soo to ordar it that thar is lykck to be an afynity xxx be-twixt Thomas Barns xxxxxxx of farming Toune and John John androos of the sam Toune By the maryge of the aforesaid Barns with the daughtar of the aforesaid John androus The covine and agremant betwixt the aforesaid John andros and Thomas Barns con sarning: the: pramisys: ar as: foullouth:

Furst that the aforesaid barns dos give Too his tandar wife his now dwalling hous and orchard and howse loot that is now inclosed with all the apurtynansis belong:ing too it to be at hur one dispose dewaring the tyme of hur natarall lyfe

2) the afore said barns dooth couinant Too and with the afore said John androos too lefe too his tandar wife in cas that he shall dye before: his: wif: I say too lefe too hur a met and comfartaball maynty nanse for hur sallf acording too the istate that the Lord hath or shul blas us with all and allso I doo bynnd my sallf too lefe with my loving xx wif so much istat as is met and cumfart abill for the bringing up of such chilldran as the Lord shall be plesed too give to us to bring thum up xx acording Too the Rulls of the gospull

3) The afore said:: Thomas: barns: doos: couinant: and: agre too and with: the afore: said: John andros: that he will lefe too his tandar wife in cass that he shall dye before his wife hallf the moufabills in the house or hous houlld goods for his wif too mack use of tham xx for hure hure one cumfurt dewaring the tim of hur natarall lif:: and at the end thur of xxxxx what Shall be remayning of tham too returne too gathur with the hous and hom loat and orchurd with the apur tynansis belonging too tham too be xxxx disposed of acording too the last will and testymant of the afore said Thomas barns

4) the afore said Thomas barns doos Couinant too and with the afore said John andros Too give too his tandar wif a Joyntar that shall be: at hur on dispos too give and be:queth to hom She ples aftur the deses of hur husbun:: it being hur one pacullur rit which Joyntar contayns a pasall of land by istymashon Six ackars mor or los lying in a pasull of land Calld the allebow a buting on the reuire xxxx north and on the reuar south and on the land of moysis uant ras est and west

5 the afore said Thomas barns: dos douth Couinant too and with the afore said John androus too pute out all his chilldran axsapt ing his sun banyyman barns ondly and if that the aforesaid barns too gethur with the desire of xxx his wife shall se it comfurtabull for him sallf and his wif and chilld he hath Liburty and poure too cep his dautar hany barns at hom with him xx to be surf uis abill too him untall that xxx she depart hur natarall lif or tull god shall dispos of hur in maridg / This aforesaid wif of Thomas barns hath poure now too give the Joyntar abof spasifid or whan She ples but the ayre or ayrs of it ar not too in Joy it tull aftur the deses xx of the afore said barns / in wit nus too the pramisis I hafe set too my hand and synd and deliuured this in the presans of
witnus Sam Stell The marck T of Thomas barns


Modern English spelling; caps and punctuation as in the original

march 23 1662/3

it having pleased The Lord in the dispensation of his providence To me and mine so to order it that there is like to be an affinity xxx betwixt Thomas Barnes xxxxxxx of farmingTon and John John andrews of the same Town By the marriage of the aforesaid Barnes with the daughter of the aforesaid John andrews The covenant and agreement betwixt the aforesaid John andrews and Thomas Barns concerning: the: promises: are as: followeth:

First that the aforesaid barnes does give To his tender wife his now dwelling house and orchard and house lot that is now enclosed with all the appurtenances belong:ing to it to be at her own dispose during the time of her natural life

2) the afore said barnes doth covenant To and with the afore said John andrews to leave to his tender wife in case that he shall die before: his: wife: I say to leave to her a meet and comfortable maintenance for her self according to the estate that the Lord hath or shall bless us with all and also I do bind my self to leave with my loving xx wife so much estate as is meet and comfortable for the bringing up of such children as the Lord shall be pleased to give to us to bring them up xx according To the Rules of the gospel

3) The afore said:: Thomas: barnes: does: covenant: and: agree to and with: the afore: said: John andrews: that he will leave to his tender wife in case that he shall die before his wife half the movables in the house or household goods for his wife to make use of them xx for her her own comfort during the time of her natural life:: and at the end there of xxxxx what Shall be remaining of them to return together with the house and home lot and orchard with the appurtenances belonging to them to be xxxx disposed of according to the last will and testement of the afore said Thomas barnes

4) the afore said Thomas barnes does Covenant to and with the afore said John andrews To give to his tender wife a Jointure that shall be: at her own dispose to give and be:queath to whom She please after the decease of her husband:: it being her own peculiar right which Jointure contains a parcel of land by estimation Six acres more or less lying in a parcel of land Called the elbow abutting on the river xxxx north and on the river south and on the land of moses vantras east and west

5 the afore said Thomas barns: dos doth Covenant to and with the afore said John andrews too put out all his children excepting his son benjamin barnes only and if that the aforesaid barnes together with the desire of xxx his wife shall see it comfortable for him self and his wife and child he hath Liberty and power to keep his daughter hanny barns at home with him xx to be servicable to him until that xxx she depart her natural life or till god shall dispose of her in marriage / This aforesaid wife of Thomas barnes hath power now to give the Jointure above specified or when She please but the heir or heirs of it are not to enJoy it till after the decease xx of the afore said barns / in witness to the promises I have set to my hand and signed and delivered this in the presence of
Witness: Sam Stell The mark T of Thomas barnes


Notes:

About the date:
The new year started on March 25 before the year 1750 when the British government adopted the Gregorian calendar. The Roman Catholic Church had adopted the Gregorian calendar about 1572 and changed the new year’s date to January 1. After about 1600, English and colonial American documents written between January 1 and March 24 began to use the Julian calendar with two years, the earlier year termed “Old Style” or (O.S.) and the later year termed “New Style” or (N.S.). Documents created during this time period are now legally left with their original dates.

About the punctuation:
The original has no full stops (periods) or commas or semicolons. You have to know your grammar pretty well to understand where the clauses of these complex sentences should begin and end. The capitalization is pretty random, though proper names are beginning to be capitalized in the 1600s, and there are instances where we see capital letters at the beginning of sentences.

The use of colons is really different from modern usage. I wondered if they were sometimes for emphasis, sort of like we would use underlining or italic typeface. That would make sense in such constructions as “concerning: the: promises: are as: followeth:” and “the afore said: Thomas: Barnes: does: covenant: and: agree: to and with: the afore: said: John andrews . . . .” Another use of the colon is a double colon where we might put an em-dash today, such as here: “. . . to leave to his tender wife in case that he shall die before: his: wife:: I say to leave to her a meet and comfortable maintenance . . . .” But then how can anything explain “belong:ing” and “be:queath”? This is a mystery that I would like to know the key to solving.

In the final paragraph are two curved lines like a closing parenthesis mark (I put a / slant line in the transcriptions) seemingly with the intention of dividing one part of text from another. I think the clerk ran out of space and used these marks to show where a new section or paragraph should start.

About my interpretation:
I used “xx”s to show where the clerk crossed out mistakes. Sometimes I could read the words behind the crossings-out and sometimes not.

Most of the words were obvious, but I did wonder about the use of the adjective “tandar” in the original and whether I should interpret it as “tender” with a meaning of beloved, or of delicacy, or youth, or whether it should be “intended” as one who offers or is offered for a contractual agreement. My OED gives all these meanings and more for this time period.

The use of the word “covine” in the first few lines I took to mean a “covenant” because there are none but rather sinister meanings in the OED for the word “covine”: a “private agreement often with unfavourable connotation”; a “privy agreement between two or more to the prejudice of another”; “fraudulent action to the injury of another”; or a “secret contrivance or device”—all of which throw this contract into a category that I doubt was the intent of its originators.

Different word forms:
The third-person singular verb forms had been changing during this period, so we see instances of both “doth” and “does” for the verb “to do” and “hath” for “has” as we now would write. The word “betwixt” has today become “between.” The word “dispose” would now be written as “disposal.” My son discovered that the phrase “at one’s own dispose” was a common one in this period of time. The first paragraph has the word “like” where we would write “likely.” Finally, a “jointure” is a very old term meaning an estate settled upon a wife for the period during which she survives her husband, in lieu of a dowry; it is so removed from modern American life that I had to look it up, having never seen it before.

About the legal and social situation:
Women had very few legal rights in 17th century colonial America. They had no automatic right to own property; they had no legal right to their own children; they could not enter into contracts; thus Mary Andrews could not be a party to this contract nor sign it. Thomas was over 40 years old; Mary Andrews turned 20 a fortnight after this marriage contract. Mary would not have automatically inherited anything from her husband after his death, so her father ensured that she should have something tangible upon the marriage that would ensure her future, since her husband was pretty certain to predecease her by many years, and his eldest son would inherit his property in the normal course of things.

Thomas Barnes was married first to another Mary, surname unknown, who was hanged after being convicted of witchcraft, one of the very last people in the Colony of Connecticut to be executed for witchcraft, in January 1661 or 1662 (probably a year earlier than this contract). In March 1662, Thomas Barnes’ children were: Sarah, an adolescent; Benjamin, age 9½; Joseph, age 7 or 8; and Hannah, about 5 years. It seems very harsh to us today that the children were to be sent away from home upon the marriage of their father and Mary Andrews, but this was a much less sentimental age when children were little better than commodities, and these children had the additional stigma of their mother having been executed as a criminal. They were probably put into service.

The future of these people:
Thomas and Mary Andrews Barnes had at least four children who lived. A son, Thomas, was born the year after their marriage, then nine years passed before their son Ebenezer was born. They had two daughters who were mentioned but not named in a deed of trust from their grandmother Andrews. They were probably born between the two brothers.

Thomas’s eldest child, Sarah from his first marriage, married three years after her father and stepmother. She had many children and died an old lady. Her brother Benjamin married a woman named Sarah and lived to be about 78. Their brother Joseph lived to be about 89; his wife was Abigail Gibb. I have no further information about Hannah Barnes.

John Andrews, Mary’s father, died in 1681, and Mary’s mother died ten years later. Thomas Barnes died in 1689 after 26 years of marriage to Mary Andrews. Mary’s mother died two years after Thomas, and at that time Mary was remarried to a man named Jacob Bronson. Mary and Jacob were married about 20 years and died within a year or two of each other.

About the provenance of the document:
I inherited this document from my father in 2008; he was given it by his uncle Roger Wilson Andrews in December 1968; Roger inherited it from his father, Ernest John Andrews, in April 1939, who (being a descendant of John Andrews through one of Mary’s younger brothers) had been given it upon his marriage to Vinnie Zelora Barnes in June 1886 by Vinnie’s mother, Julia Barnes. Julia got it from her late husband, Silas Truman Barnes (1827–1875). From there things get murky as to who owned the document and when. Silas Truman Barnes was the fourth son of Silas Barnes (1788–1869), who was the second son of another Silas Barnes (1760–1841), who was the first son of Timothy Barnes (1739–1831), who was the third son of Thomas Barnes (1703–1744), who was the second son of Ebenezer Barnes (1675–1756), who was the second son of Thomas Barnes and Mary Andrews. When I inherited the document, it was folded inside an old business-sized envelope with my great-grandfather's pencil writing on the outside. The envelope was stored in a family Bible that had belonged originally to Silas Barnes (1788-1869) that I also inherited. I took the book and document to a document preservationist who showed me how he would be using tiny fragments of rice plant fibers with some kind of period-correct solution to attach them to where the folds had weakened the document. Then the document was sealed into an acid-free mylar envelope. (He also did preservation work on the Bible covers.)
I taped the mylar cover to the window this afternoon to photograph this with the light coming through.

Friday, November 23, 2018

Revelations at Christmastime

“Revelation” in the title of Anne Perry’s latest Christmas-themed book, A Christmas Revelation, is a clue to what happens to three of the main characters in this short novel, it is not indicative of any revelation specifically about Christmas. This entry in the author’s Christmas series concerns minor characters from her William Monk mystery series, set in mid-Victorian London. Warning: spoilers ahead!

The first revelation concerns 9-year-old Worm’s reaction to learning for the first time what Christmas is supposed to be about. Former brothel owner, now somewhat reformed and serving as the meticulous bookkeeper to Hester Monk’s Portpool Lane Clinic, Squeaky Robinson tells an abridged version of the Christmas story to Worm to distract the boy from his worry about a woman he’s just seen apparently being abducted by two ruffians. Worm’s reaction to Squeaky’s story is sweetly realistic: he longs to believe, but he has trouble putting a miraculous story into the context of his life.

Worm’s life has been hard; he does not remember having a father and dimly remembers his mother but with little warmth. Even so, he longs to have a family and retains idealistic views of what that is supposed to mean. Perry very subtly brings Worm to the “revelation” that family can be the people who care the most about you, in his case, Squeaky and Mrs. Claudine Burroughs, a wealthy lady who volunteers at the clinic and helps out with its funding. This revelation might have been tied back to the Christmas story at the novel’s end for a more rounded ending and a stronger statement; it could have been done with a very subtle touch, at which Anne Perry usually excels.

Squeaky Robinson comes to the revelation that he must help Worm realize his hopes and dreams; that it is imperative that Worm not be let down. He knows that Worm may very well suffer disillusion when they find out the truth about the woman he has seen, but Squeaky makes himself get involved and thereby redeems a long-ago choice when he regrets not having acted for another. Squeaky realizes the importance of his role toward Worm as mentor and father-figure, although he doesn’t think in those specific terms.

An additional revelation comes at the climax of the mystery story concerning the apparently-abducted woman. She is the daughter of a pewter smith who fell in with thieves and who helped steal a fortune in gold. One of the others forced him to jump into the Thames, killing him, and his daughter wants revenge, which she thinks is justice. When Worm and Squeaky get involved, Worm brings her to realize that if she contrives the thieves’ and murderer’s deaths, she will have compounded the wrong instead of righting it. This is not spelled out heavily, and since it comes in the fiery climax, it might be missed, but it is plain that she draws back from her plan because of Worm. And then after all, Fate takes over and the criminals are killed by their own choices.

That Worm is the catalyst is a great choice on the part of the author: this Christmas story has an innocent child effecting character-building choices among the adults around him.

As always, Anne Perry’s writing is a cut above most other authors writing today. Her characterizations are always deep, interesting, and consistent. In the scene where Squeaky is telling Worm about Christmas, the interchange between Squeaky, reluctantly getting deeper than he wanted into religious matters, and Worm, asking question after question as children do, is brilliant.

She is the master of the setting, mid-Victorian London a little over ten years after the Crimean War. Her writing style is beautiful. Her descriptions of the Christmas celebration that Squeaky and Mrs. Burroughs create for Worm and the clinic are charming and evoke the Dickensian world of A Christmas Carol. This may constitute one more revelation, but it is a very obvious one and is not overtly stated: that in giving someone else happiness, they create happiness for themselves. Descriptions of London streets, fog, the rime on snow-slick cobblestones, the sounds, the cold, and the smells are all evocative of that same world.

The author’s moral views are always apparent, although here they seem to get just a bit redundant and lean toward becoming didactic. Squeaky worries repeatedly about what will happen to Worm if he becomes disillusioned by who and what the mystery woman is. His doubts about the wisdom of their undertaking continue right up to the climax. Worm worries about hurting the feelings of Squeaky or Mrs. Burroughs, and he worries repeatedly about the woman, although his latter worry must be repeated or we wouldn’t get the sense of its vital importance to Worm. I found myself skimming a line or two when they started in on the same thoughts, expressed differently each time. I think to clarify this issue, I may have to go over the book and pick things out and analyze more closely to see if I’m being fair. Until then, you simply get the warning that other readers (on Goodreads) have mentioned the same problem.

Despite my minor quibble, I highly recommend this book.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

That’s a Halloween Movie?!

We decided in the past few days to give my mom a break from endless rounds of Perry Mason and Murder, She Wrote episodes (her favorites) and have her watch some Halloween-themed movies. She has some dementia, but she has improved lately and appreciates a few changes to her routine now. Our choices began with a most conventional oldie: Arsenic and Old Lace. Who does not love watching Cary Grant and his over-the-top performance, well matched by Josephine Hull, Jean Adair, Raymond Massey & Peter Lorre, and the excellent supporting players in this macabre comedy? My mom really enjoyed this movie.

My son loves House on Haunted Hill, a lovely horror classic from 1959 starring the ever-elegant and creepy Vincent Price, and featuring an actress named Carolyn Craig, hired because she could scream long, loudly, and surely better than anybody else in Hollywood. My mom somehow slept through all the screaming.

Deciding we needed to switch to non-conventional films, we picked The Court Jester. What? You’re saying that’s not a Halloween movie? But it has a witch, an assassin, a murderous princess, threats of infanticide, poison, and all sorts of violence and mayhem. Okay, yes, it has Danny Kaye, whose manic comedy outweighs all those dark elements put together, but the existence of the dark elements heightens the comedy through the strategic use of suspense, a stock element of good Halloween movies.

Mildred Natwick as Griselda
And it’s delicious to contemplate all the dark elements of that fantasy medieval world. The witch Griselda (Mildred Natwick), keeps Danny Kaye’s life in danger through her spells, especially since she uses the snapping of fingers to break the spell, and of course everyone, included the hero, keeps snapping their fingers. Nothing matches Griselda’s bumbling with the poison—is it in the Chalice from the Palace, or the Vessel with a Pestle, or the Flagon with the Dragon? I always loved the fact that when the poisoned drinking cup is broken, they switch the poison into the other and then add in a third innocent vessel instead of keeping the “brew that is true” in the same vessel all along. But you cannot have too much confusion in this type of comedy, and it heightens the tension too.

Angela Lansbury as Princess Gwendolyn
The princess, Gwendolyn, played to perfection by Angela Lansbury, keeps threatening the witch, “If he dies, you die,” and you know she means business. Angela Lansbury is always a force to be reckoned with in everything in which she has ever appeared. Here, in 1955, she was at the height of her beauty and power, and being a tall woman, she is splendid and intimidating. She cows her father, who cannot quite pull off the role of lord and master over her, even though he is the king. She cannot be pushed around—except maybe by the manic Danny Kaye character, who prefers the Glynnis Johns character Maid Jean (aka Captain), clearly inferior to Gwendolyn. Why Gwendolyn fancies Danny Kaye is due to Griselda’s spell and her own initial aversion to Sir Griswold: “I’ve seen this monster and it’s not for nothing he’s called the grim, grisly, and gruesome Griswold.” Nobody could be as grim or gruesome as Gwendolyn herself, threatening death to those who cross her, and threatening suicide if her father carries out a threat to kill Griselda. When the climax comes and Gwendolyn’s father is forced to recognize the infant as the true king, Gwendolyn appears to accept Griswold as her prospective partner after all. Perhaps she has recognized that here is her true mate, someone nearly as ruthless as herself. He is tall enough; too bad he is so fat that he is not her physical equal in attractiveness. If she should put him on a diet, he might get there!

Actually, I think Gwendolyn’s true mate should have been Basil Rathbone’s evil and deadly character, Lord Ravenhurst. He plans to kill three rivals, hires an assassin, plans the murder of Hawkins (Danny Kaye) using Sir Griswold, and supports the infanticide plan to keep King Roderick on the throne. Even his name suggests Edgar Allan Poe’s nightmarish Raven, now a stock Halloween character. In his person, Basil Rathbone was an imposing figure, intimidating in the same way that Angela Lansbury could be. They would have made a gloriously scary couple.

Basil Rathbone as Lord Ravenhurst
Nothing could have been inadvertently scarier than Basil Rathbone having to fight Danny Kaye with a sword. Rathbone, consummately skilled in sword fighting, reportedly said he had to use every bit of his considerable skill against the maniac Kaye, whose style was to ignore the careful choreography and burst into a frenzy of slashing and stabbing. Apparently the 63-year-old Rathbone had enough and made the fight choreographer dress in his costume for every rear shot of Kaye slashing away. Still, there are enough shots of Rathbone facing the camera and using his skill so that you know the stories are true. This was his last on-screen swordfight, and finding himself having to defend his very life would have been a scary and fitting triumphant last battle for the master performer.

Now you know why The Court Jester is perfect for the “Fright for Fun” season. Mom loved it.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Emma: The Detective Novel

I got to thinking last time I read Jane Austen’s Emma that it made a pretty good mystery story, with clues everywhere embedded, and Emma possibly the world’s most bungling sleuth (not even barring Inspector Clouseau).

"I planned the match from that hour"
Watercolor by C.E. Brock, 1909
The novel opens with Emma claiming credit for the Taylor-Weston marriage. She falls onto the idea of matchmaking as a job for herself much as Lord Peter Wimsey decides to take up detecting things as his way to cope with post-war shell shock, though Emma has considerably less actual aptitude for her chosen hobby. Emma says to her father, “It is the greatest amusement in the world!” as if matchmaking were a party game. “And after such success you know!” she exclaims. As Mr George Knightly points out, Emma deserves no credit at all, beyond having the idea. “Success supposes endeavour,” he notes, and concludes, “you made a lucky guess; and that is all that can be said.”

Despite Mr Knightly’s warning at the end of the first chapter that Mr Elton can take care of finding his own wife, Emma decides Mr Elton needs her matchmaking services. If Mr Elton’s romance life were a mystery, Emma would be the last sleuth to figure it out. She makes a friend of Harriet Smith and decides Harriet is the one for Mr Elton, despite Mr Knightly warning her further that “Elton will not do” for Harriet.

Here it is obvious that Mr Knightly and Emma have already shown clearly who is the superior at detection. When faced with the very same set of facts about Harriet Smith, the two could not disagree more in their conclusions. Mr Knightly declares that Harriet “is the natural daughter of nobody knows whom, with probably no settled provision at all, and certainly no respectable relations. She is known only as parlour-boarder at a common school. . . .” He denigrates her intelligence and concludes, “She is pretty, and she is good tempered, and that is all.” Emma, incensed at his judgment, rebuts him with her idea that Harriet is the daughter of a gentleman of fortune, suggested by Harriet’s having a liberal allowance, and therefore she deserves to marry a gentleman, a significant social step above the “gentleman-farmer” Mr Robert Martin who has just proposed to Harriet and been turned down at Emma’s instigation. But as Mr Knightly points out, Harriet has been given an “indifferent education” at Mrs Goddard’s and has been left in her hands “to move, in short, in Mrs. Goddard’s line, to have Mrs. Goddard’s acquaintance” except that Emma decided to make a friend of her. Mr Knightly correctly states that Harriet was happy with her social sphere until Emma decided she should raise her expectations. He is in his turn incensed at Emma’s interference in the Robert Martin - Harriet Smith romance.

This is the first case where Emma reads every fact wrong, makes every wrong conclusion, interprets what she sees, hears, and experiences with a total lack of understanding. If there were a dead body, she would have fallen over it and thought it something else without a second look.

The next case where she falls on her face over all the clues is that of Mr Elton’s romance. As with the Martin-Smith case, here she needs the help of a Knightly, specifically her brother-in-law, John Knightly. She has rejected Mr George Knightly’s understanding that Mr Elton will look for a well-connected and wealthy woman, and Emma has gone on imagining that every encounter with Mr Elton shows him falling in love with Harriet Smith. The episode of Emma’s drawing of Harriet, which Mr Elton begs to be allowed to take to London to have the likeness framed; the episode of Mr Elton’s contribution to Harriet’s collection of riddles and charades; the solicitude Mr Elton exhibits over Harriet’s being confined at home due to illness; all appear to Emma to be evidence of his attachment to Harriet Smith.

Then comes the episode of the Westons’ dinner party, which Harriet cannot attend and which Emma tries to get Mr Elton to excuse himself from attending, in vain. The narrator notes that Emma has been “too eager and busy in her own previous conceptions and views to hear him impartially, or see him with clear vision” until she is alone with John Knightly, and because he has observed Mr Elton and her interaction, he says to Emma that he thinks Mr Elton is partial to her and that she appears to be encouraging him. She laughs it off outwardly but considers John Knightly’s words throughout the evening of the dinner-party, and she cannot be completely taken by surprise when Mr Elton proposes to her in the carriage on the way home, although she keeps her head and plays her part convincingly, hoping in spite of all the evidence that Mr Elton really prefers Harriet and maybe is just drunk enough to behave badly. But of course she knew the truth after John Knightly pointed it out; she is prevaricating when she says to Mr Elton, “I have been in a most complete error with respect to your views, til this moment.” She thinks to herself just a moment later, “to Mr John Knightly was she indebted for her first idea on the subject, for the first start of its possibility.”

And the upshot is that Mr Elton is so offended by Emma’s behavior and especially by her having assigned him the role of lover to Harriet Smith, “the natural daughter of nobody knows whom” with no fortune or respectable connections, that he and, as soon as he marries, his snobby, wealthy wife miss no occasion to snub Harriet and wound Emma thereafter. Their snub of Harriet at the ball, and Mr George Knightly’s coming to Harriet’s rescue, leads to Emma’s finally gaining some degree of true insight. But that must wait until the mystery of Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax is well underway.

Without even having met Frank Churchill, Emma has always meant herself to be his chief flirtation, and that is what happens when he appears. But before he makes his first appearance, she and Mr George Knightly have an argument about his character. Emma misjudges him and Mr Knightly comes very close to nailing his true character. He is weak, Mr Knightly insists, because he has not obeyed a strong social duty of the time, to pay a visit to his father and new stepmother to mark the occasion of their marriage. Indeed, three months passes before the news is shared that he is to make the visit.

The argument is the very interesting division between nature and nurture, with Mr Knightly arguing that the young man’s nature should have overcome any spoiling done by his upbringing, and Emma arguing that the upbringing could produce conditions of habit and thought that prevented his ability to perform the social duty. Nowadays we recognize a greater claim to Emma’s argument, but in those days, Mr Knightly’s views were prevalent. Frank Churchill is condemned for having neglected visiting the new bride, but everybody except Mr Knightly forgives him for it. Nevertheless, all contemporary readers would have known Jane Austen meant Frank’s weakness to be his own choice.

Nobody notices the clue that Jane Fairfax’s arrival in Highbury coincides with Frank’s letter announcing that he is coming.

Before Frank comes, before even Jane arrives, Emma introduces her prejudice against Jane Fairfax to Harriet Smith. A letter from Jane announcing her arrival is received by Miss Bates, who shares the news of it with Emma and Harriet. Emma congratulates herself upon escaping having the actual letter read to them, but the more shocking revelation is Emma’s suspicion, based upon circumstances reported in Jane’s letter and repeated second-hand by Miss Bates, that Mr Dixon, the new son-in-law of the people Jane lives with, prefers Jane to his new wife. Emma has very little evidence to produce such a suspicion, but she makes the best of it. That it reflects no credit on the people involved is perhaps what attracts Emma to the theory.

Emma’s theory is immediately followed by the history of Emma’s and Jane’s interactions, or lack thereof, which shows the roots of Emma’s jealousy of Jane. We should be on our guard against Emma’s thoughts regarding Jane Fairfax, for they are not likely to be trustworthy. But this is Emma’s story, so the clues are buried again in our sympathetic views of Emma, despite everybody clear-headed (i.e., the Knightlys) being ready to point out all Emma’s faults and especially her misinterpretation of evidence.

Upon meeting Frank Churchill, Emma immediately detects him in a falsehood when he says that he was never able to indulge his curiosity to visit Highbury before, but she passes it off as merely a pleasantry. At the end of this visit, she fails to note the significance of the fact that he might have stayed longer—his father suggested it—but that he is determined to visit the Bates home and see Jane Fairfax.

As Emma shows Frank around Highbury the next day, she begins to notice what she considers are his deficiencies. He has a lack of proper regard for rank, she thinks, and he criticizes Jane Fairfax’s looks, which Emma cannot allow to pass, as Jane Fairfax is really very good looking. She fails to note the significance of his abrupt change of subject when she begins to inquire about his acquaintance with Jane Fairfax at Weymouth the previous summer. Emma fails to note that when he returns to the subject, it is when he has good command of what he will and will not say. She leads the way into her suspicions about Jane’s character, without fully committing herself as to what she suspects. “I have no reason to think ill of her—not the least—except that such extreme and perpetual cautiousness of word and manner, such a dread of giving a distinct idea about any body, is apt to suggest suspicions of there being something to conceal.”

Without realizing what she has just said, Emma thus succinctly sums up exactly what is the case: Jane Fairfax has a mystery to conceal, and Emma is completely wrong as to what it is. This is Jane Austen laughing at us readers. Back when Emma was reflecting upon how wrong she was about Mr Elton and how right the Knightlys were, she thinks, “There was no denying that those brothers had penetration.” It is the Knightly brothers who eventually reveal important clues about Jane Fairfax’s hidden truth.

Next Frank goes to London to “get his hair cut”—but really to order a pianoforté anonymously for Jane Fairfax. The news of the instrument comes at the Coles’ dinner party, which Emma, with all her class-consciousness, has condescended to attend. Nobody connects Frank’s crazy day-long trip to London with the arrival of the pianoforté. Not even Mr Knightly. Emma and Frank discuss the matter during the dinner. Emma again speaks ironically: “One might guess twenty things without guessing exactly the right; but I am sure there must be a particular cause for her chusing to come to Highbury instead of going with the Campbells to Ireland.” Of course there is. Jane does not want to be so far away from her secret fiancé. That secret fiancé, in turn, speaks truly when he says about the pianoforté, “I can see it in no other light than as an offering of love.” Emma has injudiciously admitted her suspicion that Mr Dixon loves Jane Fairfax, and Frank uses that as his cover in stating the exact truth.

When Frank comes to say good-bye to Emma on the morning of his return home to Enscombe, Yorkshire, she fails to connect his very low spirits with his having come directly from saying good-bye at the Bates house. Instead, she interprets his manner and words as tending toward a declaration of love for herself, which she intends lightly to discourage and ultimately to turn down.

A comic interlude introduces the new Mrs Elton to the society of Highbury. After enduring Mrs Elton’s first visit to Hartfield, Emma is incensed at her behavior and attitudes. She wonders what Frank Churchill would have thought of her, thinking to herself, “Ah! there I am—thinking of him directly. Always the first person to be thought of! How I catch myself out! Frank Churchill comes as regularly into my mind!” But first she had been thinking of Mr George Knightly, then Mrs Weston, and then Harriet, before Frank Churchill came into her mind, so she is ironically incorrect. It is most interesting that Emma has no trouble in interpreting the evidence of Mrs Augusta Hawkins Elton’s manners and speeches, and of assessing her character correctly. When a character has no possibility of a match to make, Emma is apparently capable of clear discernment.

At Emma’s dinner party for the new bride (Mrs Elton), Mr John Knightly discovers that Jane Fairfax hurried through the rain that morning to the post office for the mail. The news goes around all of the guests present, and Jane is taken to task for risking catching a cold. She protests that there was very little rain yet, and she reveals her adamant intention to continue to pick up her own letters, over the nearly-equally strong-willed Mrs Elton who wants her servant to run the errand for Jane in future. Jane cannot allow this—for Jane must have access to the post office to send and receive letters from Frank Churchill, a deep secret. Letters between unmarried people meant there must be a positive engagement to be married, or a very serious scandal.

Soon after this, Frank returns to Highbury, spends a quarter hour visiting Emma, and leaves to rush to Highbury to see “acquaintances” he saw on the street. As there has been no mention of his having formed friendships with any other family but that of the Bateses, Emma should have wondered at his needing to go there so quickly. But she doesn’t.

Before the ball at the Crown Inn begins, Emma does not notice and interpret Frank Churchill’s extreme agitation about Miss Bates and Jane Fairfax and when they are to arrive. She doesn’t notice that he leaps to the door when their carriage is heard and is in time to make sure no rain fell on Jane Fairfax until she is safely inside. Miss Bates embeds that piece of information in one of her rambling and incessantly long commentaries on all that was happening, and she also embeds the clue later on when they go in to the supper that Frank takes Jane’s fur tippet and wraps it around her. Emma misses all these clues. The next day, when Harriet Smith and her friend Miss Bickerstaff are attacked by “gipsies” and saved by Frank, nobody notes that he had been at the Bates home to return a pair of scissors. It is a throw-away clue mentioned during Harriet’s great distress, so Emma misses it, as usual.

After this point the author allows us a look into Mr George Knightly’s consciousness. He is becoming very suspicious of Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. He observes looks between them. As all the principal characters meet in the road and walk together to Hartfield, Frank drops his bombshell blunder, asking Mrs Weston about something that Jane had written to him privately, and clumsily retreating into the fiction of its having been a dream. But Miss Bates is right there to reveal that she knew about it and had told Jane and the Coles, and nobody else. At Hartfield a number of them play the Alphabets game, and Mr Knightly sees Frank spell b-l-u-n-d-e-r for Jane to see, and “Dixon” for Emma to laugh at and Jane to be offended by.

Mr Knightly attempts to warn Emma that he thinks there is a stronger relationship between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax than anybody else has a clear idea of, but Emma rejects his view completely.

Then comes the Box Hill party, followed the next day by the strawberry party at Donwell Abbey. Frank’s moodiness is another strong clue, coming right on the heels of Mr Knightly’s warning, but Emma keeps rejecting evidence piling up all around her. Jane’s anger, too, is a clue. Frank’s flirtation with Emma, which she herself acknowledges has no heart, no real intent toward herself, she fails to look at with what should have been an obvious question: if he did not mean to secure her attachment, what then did he really mean?

Jane Fairfax adds to the pile of evidence by suddenly reversing her theretofore steady rejection of Mrs Elton’s attempts to find her a situation as governess in a good family. Emma does not find anything odd about the suddenness of her reversal. She does not connect it to her own and Frank’s behavior at Box Hill and Jane’s subsequent flight from the strawberry party. She does not connect Jane’s refusal of Emma’s offer of a carriage outing, or her refusal of Emma’s present of Hartfield arrowroot, with her recent conduct. She thinks her attempts at friendship have been rejected because of their shared history and her never having wanted to be friends with Jane. Emma fails to consider her own attempts at normal conversation had been met by nothing but polite reserve, if not downright prevarication that led her to complain to Frank Churchill that Jane lacked openness. No wonder she found Jane difficult to like! Jane Fairfax, all the clues proclaim, dislikes Emma as much as Emma dislikes Jane.

Emma admits to the truth of Mr Knightly’s early charge that she is jealous of Jane Fairfax, because in Jane she could see the excellence of accomplishment that Emma herself never practiced enough to attain. We can surmise that Jane in her turn is probably somewhat jealous of Emma for having so many advantages of wealth and position that she simply squanders in comparison to what Jane has. Then too, Jane’s future looks pretty bleak compared to Emma’s. Jane is looking toward a life of maintaining herself as a governess, something everybody in the novel apparently agrees is not a happy prospect. Emma herself expresses her pity for Jane’s future prospects. Even Mrs Elton, by her comment on the desirability of a situation in a family that allows wax candles in the school room, reveals the bleakness of the position of a woman born in a privileged class, but without money, being relegated to having the choice of wax over smelly tallow candles taken away from her. It is no wonder that Jane does not want the friendship of someone as shallow or capricious as Emma Woodhouse, with her big home with rooms where one could be alone if one wanted to, and her very own neglected pianoforté, and her unknowing tormenting flirtatiousness with Jane’s own fiancé, and her condescension and carriages and arrowroot.

Watercolor by C.E. Brock, 1909
Emma herself has far less animosity toward Jane than Jane probably has toward Emma. When the mystery of Jane Fairfax’s secret engagement to Frank Churchill is revealed, beyond a short bit of censure for Jane having made a wrong choice to enter into the engagement, Emma’s main condemnation is for Frank’s actions. “I must say, that I think him greatly to blame. What right had he to come among us with affection and faith engaged, and with manners so very disengaged?” Thus does Emma condemn first Frank’s attentions to herself. About Jane, she says that looking on all this behavior shows “a degree of placidity, which I can neither comprehend nor respect.” But she returns to Frank, saying, “It has sunk him, I cannot say how it has sunk him in my opinion.”

Mainly, Emma is indignant about something much more fundamental:
“What has it been but a system of hypocrisy and deceit,—espionage, and treachery?—To come among us with professions of openness and simplicity; and such a league in secret to judge us all!—Here have we been, the whole winter and spring, completely duped, fancying ourselves all on an equal footing of truth and honour, with two people in the midst of us who may have been carrying round, comparing and sitting in judgment on sentiments and words that were never meant for both to hear.”
Naturally part of Emma’s indignation is for her own conduct, for having voiced her groundless suspicions of the relations between Miss Fairfax and Mr Dixon to Frank’s too-receptive ear. “They must take the consequence, if they have heard each other spoken of in a way not perfectly agreeable!” But her open nature abhors a mystery after all. She wants no part of deceit and treachery, no espionage. Emma is not, by nature, a sleuth in any way whatsoever.

And yet this is another instance of the supreme irony of the entire story. For Emma herself has a secret that is unknown even to herself, and even more central to the novel than the mystery of Frank and Jane, is the revelation of Emma’s own true preferences to herself.

There are subtle clues throughout the first half of the novel, including Emma’s little speeches to her father and to Harriet that she never means to marry. As she explains to Harriet, she has everything she thinks she needs: consequence, wealth, and a home where she is essentially the supreme ruler. She admits that she has never been in love and that if she were, perhaps that would change the case. Mr Knightly, ever speaking the truth, says to Mrs Weston early on that he would like to see Emma in love and in doubt of its return. He thinks it would be good for her. Emma is destined to come to that state, but when Mr Knightly sees it, he does not recognize it for his wish. The greatest clues we have early on are the episodes when Emma and Mr Knightly clash in their opinions, and Emma comes away not liking to disagree with him and hoping to make up again.

It is a little over halfway through that the mystery of Emma’s feelings begins to clarify, and the problem of Emma’s inability to recognize proper evidence or to interpret clues is again used to comic effect. Mrs Weston suggests that Mr Knightly might be partial to Jane Fairfax, and Emma vehemently denies the possibility, though we know that this is only Emma’s wishful thinking, not based on solid evidence. And yet Emma is right: Mr Knightly does not love Jane Fairfax. Both Mrs Weston and Emma need to realize that Mr Knightly speaks exact truth, never meaning more than he says.

When Emma and Mrs Weston next discuss Mr Knightly and his behavior, Mrs Weston is more sure that he is partial to Jane Fairfax, and Emma is more determined that he cannot be. Emma has no idea that this is actually true. Neither she nor Mrs Weston interpret the clues correctly.

A few times in the novel, Emma compares someone to her ideal man, subconsciously each time describing Mr George Knightly. As she thinks of her possible future with Frank Churchill, which always consists of his declaration of love and her rejection of him, she unconsciously compares him with someone as yet unnamed in her consciousness, “I do not look upon him to be quite the sort of man—I do not altogether build upon his steadiness or constancy.”

The same sort of thing happens just before the ball when Emma thinks of Mr Weston, “to be the favourite and intimate of a man who had so many intimates and confidantes, was not the very first distinction in the scale of vanity. She liked his open manners, but a little less of open-heartedness would have made him a higher character.—General benevolence, but not general friendship, made a man what he ought to be.—She could fancy such a man.”

When Emma thinks that she thinks of Frank Churchill first in every thought, she actually has first thought of Mr George Knightly and has subconsciously defended him from Mrs Elton. “Insufferable woman! . . . Absolutely insufferable! Knightly!—I could not have believed it. Knightly!—never seen him in her life before, and call him Knightly!—and discover that he is a gentleman! A little upstart, vulgar being, with her Mr. E., and her caro sposo, and her resources, and all her airs of pert pretension and under-bred finery. Actually to discover that Mr. Knightly is a gentleman! I doubt whether he will return the compliment, and discover her to be a lady. I could not have believed it!” This is not a passing thought for Mr Knightly, but something at length, reflecting the strength of her indignation and sense of wrong that this woman should immediately pretend to be more intimately a friend of Mr George Knightly than Emma herself. (Note that the use of a surname alone seems to denote some degree of intimacy that Emma never herself uses; a critic I read recently pointed out that such use was falling out of favor by the time Emma was written, as compared to Pride and Prejudice, where it is used extensively. In the time period that P&P was written, ca. 1795 with revisions after 1805 until its 1813 publication, the usage mostly disappeared.)

When Emma and Mrs Weston are intent upon their misinterpretations of Mr Knightly’s opinions of Jane Fairfax, he says what should have been a clue to his real feelings: “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.” Lest Emma miss this clue, he repeats it at the end of their conversation: “ ‘Jane Fairfax has feeling,’ said Mr. Knightly—‘I do not accuse her of want of feeling. Her sensibilities, I suspect, are strong—and her temper excellent in its power of forbearance, patience, self-controul; it it wants openness. She is reserved, more reserved, I think, than she used to be—And I love an open temper. . . .’ ” Both Emma and Mrs Weston allow this clue to fly right over their heads. They concentrate on their opposite pet theories regarding Mr Knightly and Jane Fairfax.

Emma ignores her own dawning conscious admiration of Mr Knightly at the ball. She looks for him and sees him with those who would not be dancing—husbands, fathers, and whist-players—“so young as he looked!—He could not have appeared to greater advantage perhaps any where, than where he had placed himself. His tall, firm, upright figure, among the bulky forms and stooping shoulders of the elderly men, was such as Emma felt must draw every body’s eyes.” At this time Mr Knightly is around 38 years old, certainly not old, but not so young either, especially compared with the other young romantic interests in the novel: Mr Elton is about 25, and Frank Churchill is just 23. Emma herself is 21. For such a young woman to so admire a man 16 or 17 years her senior argues pretty strongly for an attraction, conscious or subconscious.

In their subsequent conversation, he offers her a bit of consolation for the Eltons’ rude behavior, and he admits to her that he was wrong about Harriet Smith’s intellectual capacity. “Harriet Smith has some first-rate qualities,” he says to her. “I found Harriet more conversable than I expected.” This conversation is capped by Emma asking him to ask her to dance, and their mutual observation that they are not brother and sister—“no, indeed” says Mr Knightly, and depending on the inflection the reader gives it, this may be another clue for Emma, but if so, she misses it.

After Mr Knightly has observed interactions between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax that convince him that they have a deeper relationship than anyone knows, he feels he must warn Emma, whom he thinks is becoming attached to Frank. Of course Emma rejects his warning, but it should have given her a clue as to his feelings about her, and had she been able to look more clearly into her own actions, she might have realized her discomfort stemmed from something more than shame at sharing a joke against Jane Fairfax with Frank Churchill. “She could not endure to give him the true explanation,” which concerned her silly fabrication about Jane Fairfax and Mr Dixon. She is more than ashamed of having told Frank; she holds Mr Knightly’s opinion of her so far above anybody else’s, that it becomes painful to contemplate having to confess a shameful act to him.

It makes her reaction to his scolding at the end of the Box Hill excursion all the more telling. He cannot bear to see her acting less than her true potential, and she knows she was very wrong in her treatment of Miss Bates. She cries all the way home, not even caring if Harriet, in the same carriage with her, notices. But Harriet does not notice, and Emma immediately seeks to repair the wrong by visiting Miss Bates the next morning.

The scene when she returns home from this visit is telling and full of clues, but again, Emma fails to interpret them correctly. Her father praises her for having visited Miss Bates, and Mr Knightly, on the point of leaving for a visit to his brother in London, pauses.
“Emma’s colour was heightened by this unjust praise; and with a smile, and shake of the head, which spoke much, she looked at Mr. Knightly.—It seemed as if there were an instantaneous impression in her favour, as if his eyes received the truth from her’s, and all that had passed of good in her feelings were at once caught and honoured.—He looked at her with a glow of regard. She was warmly gratified—and in another moment still more so, by a little movement of more than common friendliness on his part.—He took her hand;—whether she had not herself made the first motion, she could not say—she might, perhaps, have rather offered it—but he took her hand, pressed it, and certainly was on the point of carrying it to his lips—when, from some fancy or other, he suddenly let it go.—Why he should feel such a scruple, why he should change his mind when it was all but done, she could not perceive.—He would have judged better, she thought, if he had not stopped.—The intention, however, was indubitable; and whether it was that his manners had in general so little gallantry, or however else it happened, but she thought nothing became him more.—It was with him, of so simple, yet so dignified a nature.—She could not but recall the attempt with great satisfaction. It spoke of such perfect amity.”

Emma does not discern more than the “perfect amity” in this exchange. She thinks it means that she has “fully recovered his good opinion”—but then, because of Mrs Churchill’s death, comes the news of Frank and Jane’s secret engagement, and because of that, Emma seeks to console Harriet, whom she had been hoping had become attached to Frank Churchill with only one piece of nameless encouragement by Emma—but when Harriet reveals that she has become attached to Mr Knightly himself, Emma is shocked into full consciousness of her own bit of the truth.
“Harriet!” cried Emma, after a moment’s pause—“What do you mean?—Good Heaven!—what do you mean?—Mistake you!—Am I to suppose then?—”
She could not speak another word.—Her voice was lost; and she sat down, waiting in great terror till Harriet should answer.

The only reason for Emma to feel terror is that she has instantly discerned the truth: Harriet thinks she is in love with Mr Knightly and that she has some reason to believe he returns her feelings. Of course Harriet is completely mistaken, and being Harriet, as soon as she is removed from the vicinity and sees Robert Martin again, she is easily persuaded by the young man who is truly in love with her that she is still in love with him after all, so all ends well there. (By the way, Harriet turns out to be the daughter, not of a gentleman, but of a wealthy tradesman. More irony for Emma’s ideas.)

Emma has more clues to misinterpret: Mr Knightly’s behavior to Harriet has been to sound her out and see if possibly she could be in a state of mind and heart for him to encourage Robert Martin to try again. But Emma, unwilling to examine all the evidence thus far, considers only that Harriet has said that she feels encouraged by Mr Knightly’s interest, and Emma feels despair.

Watercolor by C.E. Brock, 1909
When Mr Knightly returns, he thinks to comfort Emma in the aftermath of Frank Churchill’s engagement coming to light, while Emma thinks he wants to consult her about possibly marrying Harriet, and both of them misinterpret each other’s words and looks.

However, this is a love story, and so they go on to discover their mutually strong feelings for each other and all is to end happily after all.

But can they be truly happy?

This spoiled young woman loves to argue her opinions and hates to be proven wrong. This rather set-in-his-ways middle-aged man always counters her arguments with the fact that he has lived so much longer than she has that he has all the knowledge and experience on his side and therefore must be right. She never examines evidence that pertains to her own self until forced to do so. How will she like being forced to do so every time they have a disagreement?

He is usually clear sighted and pretty good at seeing into people’s character, even to the point of being right about people he hasn’t even met yet. But about Emma he is curiously blind for a very long time. About Emma he is no better at examining the evidence properly than she is about him. (I should have compiled a list of this evidence about him, but you’ll just have to trust me until you read the book again yourself—it’s there.)

And yet, he is willing to go to the trouble to investigate Emma’s position and to tell her when he finds that she has been right. She is willing—more than willing—to make up every quarrel, for she can’t stand not being on good terms with him. With two such natures, they will probably argue a lot, but they will always come to an amicable resolution.

Further than that, the evidence shows that Mr Knightly will promote Emma’s best self. Emma brings positive growth to Mr Knightly’s character: nothing is more telling than that he comes up with the plan for him to move into Hartfield to accommodate Mr Woodhouse, despite the very real sacrifice it represents for him.

I predict a rocky start to their marriage, but ultimately, they will prevail and have great happiness because they will have come through those rocky times stronger together.

But Emma had best stay as far from other people’s romances as she can. She has no talent for the detective work that good matchmaking entails.

****************************

The text I used for quotes is The Novels of Jane Austen: The Text based on Collation of the Early Editions, by R.W. Chapman; Five Volumes; Volume IV [Emma], Third Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, n.d.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Fear Was and Was Not as Fearful as I Feared

This may sound odd, but having just finished Bob Woodward’s book Fear: Trump in the White House, I found myself with a better opinion of Trump than I had before reading the book. Now you know how low the bar had sunk for me! What I learned was that I had allowed my opinion of the president’s tweeting (I follow him on Twitter) to form most of my view of him, and unfortunately his tweets without other context create a cartoonish character, fairly one-dimensional.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that there were episodes when Trump actually thought about the good of the country. There were indications that he had some genuine fondness for his family. There were times that he cared to get something right, and the thing he wanted to get right was something I found myself approving. There were just enough of these sorts of episodes to raise my opinion of Trump somewhat.

That these were offset by his dangerous opinions that led to reckless decisions, particularly those concerning exiting trade deals that he couldn’t understand were tied to national security concerns, is still alarming. In fact, there is plenty in the book that is alarming about Trump’s ways of dealing with other people: his chaotic management style, his opinion that he does better without preparing to meet foreign leaders, his liking for pitting people against one another, his hubris in imagining that he knows more than he actually does, his inability to imagine that he has anything to learn (about economics, about world history and geopolitical reality, about basic human compassion, about compromise in order to get along with allies), and his lack of understanding that he knows very little about things that he should know, and above all, his inability to care about these things, or to want to change at all, still leaves me feeling that we have someone in the White House who utterly does not belong there.

A striking thing about the book is the tone. Woodward writes with such a tone of fairness and impartiality that it sometimes sounds compassionate and verges on creating sympathy for the protagonist; I had to keep reminding myself that this was Trump and to be aware that Woodward was providing plenty of evidence for disapprobation as well as approval—and such evidence for approval was extremely limited in comparison with the evidence on the other side.

The book ends about the first of June 2018, before some of the things that alarm me the most had even happened. I would love to have heard something about the separation of immigrant families on our southern border; something about Trump’s success and dismay at implementing his beloved tariffs and discovering other countries really would retaliate rather than negotiate; something about the fiasco of how he treated our European allies in Quebec at the G7 summit and afterward attacked Canada (Canada!) for daring to teach him about consequences painful to the United States; something about the way he treated dictators when he met with Kim Jong Un in Singapore and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. But having read the book, I can now imagine something of the way these things unfolded behind the scenes.

It is truly alarming that Trump admires and flatters and verbally approves brutal dictators who murder their own and other countries’ people, especially since he attacks and is rude to and distances himself and by extension the rest of our country from the leaders of nations that are democracies, that hold free elections and have free presses and that grant their people as much peace and freedom as we have tried throughout our history to do ourselves.

And so although I now have a more nuanced, rounded view of the complex and deeply flawed man who is currently the President of the United States, I still fear what he can and will do while holding that office.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

How My Family Came West

My husband asked me this morning why my family ended up in the Western United States. His ancestors’ motivation was easy to pinpoint: they all joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and wanted to get to Utah in those days of the “Mormon” gathering.

My ancestors were not religiously motivated, but they came for reasons tapping into the mainstream of American history: they wanted fresh land, or job opportunities, to escape social or political conditions, or to answer that indefinable call to move westward; thus they each participated in the idea of Manifest Destiny in its several facets.

The Andrews family were in Connecticut from 1630 until the turn of the 19th century. Then my ancestor Anson Seeley Andrews went to New York City and opened a mercantile, the name for a general store in those days. He felt the pull westward, so he packed up and moved himself to southern Indiana, the edge of the frontier in those days. He again established a mercantile, and he cleared a large farm, and he added a brick kiln that made the bricks for all the important buildings thereabouts for decades to come. He became pretty wealthy.

Anson Seeley Andrews, red brick barn at
Farmersville, Indiana, built about 1844
Photo: EJ Andrews, 1927
His two sons split up the estate after Anson died, and the younger, Seth, bought a farm in southern Wisconsin. Their mother lived mostly with Seth after that. The elder son, John, was in partnership with their brother-in-law, James Hinkley, Harriet’s husband. John and James bought a large fruit orchard in southern Illinois, to the west of the old Andrews homestead at the southern tip of Indiana. But when the U.S. Civil War broke out, they found themselves in uncomfortable situations time again with their Southern-sympathizing neighbors and business associates. Their wives, Mirinda and Harriet, were feeling the pressure of social disapproval of their Northern sympathies. The Andrews and Hinkley partnership sold out and bought new orchards near Rockford, Illinois, west and a little north of Chicago.

Meanwhile, the Pipers had come from Massachusetts to Kentucky in the late 18th century. Mirinda grew up there, and, her father being a Baptist preacher, they visited a lot at the homes of the wealthy plantation owners. Mirinda found that the white children were snooty and snobby toward the preacher’s poor and shabbily-dressed daughter, so she much preferred escaping to the back of the plantations where the slave cabins were, where she could play with the black children who were far nicer to her than their owners. She grew up hating slavery.

The Barnes family had started out in Connecticut, neighbors to the Andrewses. In the late 18th century they migrated across New York and down the southern shore of Lake Erie to Ohio. Some of them from there went up into Michigan, and then across Lake Michigan north of Chicago, into southern Wisconsin. They sought good farmland all along the way.

Professor Ernest J Andrews supervising physics pupil,
Robert A Waller High School, Chicago, Illinois, 1904.
John and Mirinda Andrews’s sons, Charles, Harry, and Ernest, all stayed in the region around Rockford. I don’t know what Charles did for a living; as a young man of 20, he was listed in the 1880 Census as a farmer. He lived only until he was 40. Harry became an attorney and stayed in the mid-West. Ernest became a high school physics teacher, but as he was always inventing things, he eventually became a patent attorney with a large practice and an office in one of the foremost and fashionable new skyscrapers in Chicago. Ernest met his wife, Vinnie Barnes, on a bicycling trip in Wisconsin.

On the other side of my father’s family were the German branch and the English branch. The Selgraths and Boedefelds had come from the German states in the 1830s and settled in or near Pottsville, Pennsylvania, looking for better opportunities. Ferdinand Boedefeld, a shoemaker, married Catharina Selgrath in the late 1830s and they had ten or more children. Ten grew up. One of the middle children, Ferdinand Joseph, became a cabinet maker and got work finishing the interiors of railroad passenger cars. He and his youngest brother, Frank, made their way across the continent as they worked on the railroad in the early 1880s, and then they took a steamer from San Francisco up the Pacific Coast to Astoria, Oregon. There Ferdinand met Laura Worsley.

Mount Hood from The Dalles, by John Stanley, 1871
Laura was the daughter of English immigrants. John Worsley and his wife, Barbara Oliphant Worsley, had met in the Manchester area of England where their families worked in the cloth-making trades. After they were married, they booked passage to America in 1848 in search of better opportunities and began working in various cloth mills around the east coast—Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. When the U.S. Civil War started, John was drafted into the Army. He had to serve six months, and then when he was discharged, he and Barbara packed up everything to move as far away as they could get. They ended up in Brownsville, Oregon, but Barbara had contracted malaria on the way and died almost as soon as she arrived. They had planned to start a woolen mill with some friends, and though John went through with the plans, he had lost heart with Barbara’s death and soon sold out. He took his children and moved north to The Dalles, a town on the Columbia River where the Cascade mountains divide the desert from the coastal region, and Mount Hood towers over the town. He became a photographer, but he lived only ten more years. His sons and elder daughter reared the youngest son and daughter. One son became a steamboat engineer on the Columbia River. One bought a fruit farm just outside of Astoria. Laura, the youngest, divided her time among her brothers’ and sister’s homes. She was living in Astoria when she met Ferdinand J Boedefeld, and they were married there.

Old Faithful Geyser, Yellowstone National Park, 2007
Ferdinand and Laura Boedefeld’s two daughters were born in Tacoma, Washington Territory (it was not yet a state). But Ferdinand’s work took them east clear back to Indiana, Elkhart to be exact, and there the two girls grew up. Beatrice, the elder, became a newspaper reporter. Ruth, the younger, became a nurse. Bee, needing a break after six years of steady work, asked her paper for a leave of absence one summer in return for an extended series of society columns on the adventures of a cabin-maid at Yellowstone National Park. She fell completely in love with the West, she and her girl-friends reading nothing but novels of western adventures like Harold Bell Wright’s The Winning of Barbara Worth and the works of Zane Grey. Bee pursued every opportunity to return to the west and was successful at winning a contract to work for the Tribune in Casper, Wyoming at the end of the First World War.

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, Ernest and Vinnie Andrews had four sons and a daughter. Their eldest son, Frederick, ran away from home when he was 17 and went to Texas where he punched cattle until the day he saw a man gored to death by a longhorn steer. Somewhat sobered, he took a job at a railway machine shop. Transferring to New Mexico, he landed in the machine shop whose foreman happened to be his own uncle, his mother’s brother. This uncle took him home with him and made him write to his parents, and took him in hand to teach him to be a good mechanic.

Fred came down sick with something that required an extended rest. He was sent to Los Angeles where he entered a convalescent hospital, and there he married a nurse. He and his new wife kicked around southern California and Nevada for a couple of years, as Fred’s new passion was mining ventures. He and his pals struck a rich vein of silver ore in Nevada and came out with enough money to start their own company back in Chicago, building dirigibles, or airships. Somewhere along in there his wife had left him, and he obtained a divorce for desertion. The U.S. Government came calling and bought the company as the U.S. was entering the First World War, and Fred got himself a position as a lieutenant in the infant Army Air Corps. He went to France in 1918 and mostly worked on airplane engines during the war.

Driving from Casper, Wyoming, to Yellowstone National Park
As part of his mustering-out pay at the end, Fred Andrews was given 320 acres of land in Wyoming. He went out there to look at it, sold it the next day, and bought an insurance franchise. Bee Boedefeld came calling from the Casper Tribune to interview the reputed airplane expert about his experiences during the war and about his vision of the future of air travel. He embellished his war career somewhat, but his predictions about airplanes proved remarkably prescient. He, however, never entered another aircraft for the rest of his life. He always said he had had enough and to spare during the war. He and Bee were married the next year and went up into the mountains to pursue Fred’s passion for mining. He was sure he would strike it rich again and kept trying these ventures the rest of his life. When the one upon the Continental Divide didn’t work, he and Bee moved to Portland, Oregon.

Bee’s father had died in Elkhart the year before, and her mother and sister had moved west to Portland. Portland had been Laura Worsley Boedefeld’s home when she had been a teenager, and she loved the city. Her brothers and sister lived near. Ruth, Bee’s sister, started a chapter of the Visiting Nurses’ Association in Portland. Every year they rented a cabin at Cannon Beach on the coast and stayed a week.

Bee’s son grew up in Portland. When World War II was over, he came home there and met the woman he would marry, a daughter of Lloyd and Lillie Read.

American families moving west, public domain photo.
Lloyd came from long-time Oregon residents. His great-grandfather had been born in New York and had steadily worked his way, with his family, westward, first to Ohio, then to Illinois, and in 1852, he decided to go to California. The family started with a wagon pulled by oxen, a cow and a couple of horses tied behind. Their sixteen-year-old son proudly rode one of the horses when he was appointed a scout by the leader of the wagon train. Somewhere along the trail, Mr. Read decided too many people were heading to California, and he decided they would go to Oregon instead. They landed in the Willamette Valley and staked a claim.

Nearby lived the Porter family, who had come from Missouri with a wagon train in 1847, having migrated from North Carolina. The Reads’ teenage son and the Porters’ teenage daughter fell in love, and in a few years they married. Their descendants are many, and many of them still live in Oregon.

Lloyd met his wife, Lillie, while working on a train on which she was a passenger. She was a daughter of a Michigan-born woodworker named Les Munro whose Scottish ancestor arrived in America around 1650 as a former prisoner of the British. The Munros settled in New York, and 200 years later Les’s father moved west to Michigan. Les went to Arkansas looking for work opportunities and there married the daughter of a formerly rich Southern family, Mary Jane Whittington. Mary Jane’s family had settled North Carolina and had moved west to renew their farmlands, first to Tennessee, then to Arkansas, Oklahoma, or Texas. Les was something of a ne’er-do-well, and when his wife died, the death certificate said the cause was “want of care.” Apparently disliked by his in-laws, Les decided within a few years to leave the South and get as far away as he could go. He saw an ad for workers needed for the Boise Reclamation Project, a BLM project begun in the early 1900s. He took the children on the train to Boise. After working in that area for a year, he decided to go further west. They had a wagon with a horse or two to pull it, and they crossed Oregon to the southern part of the coast, landing at Marshfield, which now is called Coos Bay. After a year there, he decided to go to Portland, where there would surely be better work opportunities.
Portland, Oregon, about 1910. Public domain photo.

And that is how Lloyd and Lillie ended up meeting on a train from Portland, Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington, just across the Columbia River. And from that circumstance, my parents were both in Portland and were fated to meet after the Second World War.

It is a typically American story of people starting somewhere in the east, whether they were the descendants of 17th-century English and Scottish immigrants, or the children of 19th-century German and English immigrants, they moved ever westward until all the branches of my family tree reached Oregon. They were looking mostly for better job and living opportunities. Some moved to escape the conditions of the U.S. Civil War, and some felt drawn to the West by something almost spiritual, their own “manifest destiny” taking hold and pulling them by the hand until they came within the reach of the Pacific shore.

Oregon coast, June 2014.

Friday, August 31, 2018

Madwomen in Gothic Mansions: Rebecca and Jane Eyre

I read a comment recently that Daphne du Maurier’s classic gothic horror story Rebecca is the same story as Jane Eyre. So I had to think about that and catalog the similarities that struck me.

Name

Jane Eyre is a plain, short name, like her character appears to be physically, and it is indicative of her nature as well. The narrator of Rebecca never reveals her name. She implies that it is one often misspelt, for she comments that Maxim de Winter spelled it correctly on his note to her in Monte Carlo. Her lack of a name is significant: it symbolizes her lack of her own identity, about which more later.

Point of View

In both novels, the narrator is a woman whose story is told, but Jane is the eponymous subject of the title, while the Rebecca of the other title is the dead first wife. As I said, the unnamed narrator reveals her story, but not so much as of Rebecca.

Personal Appearance

Jane Eyre is a very short woman, small and childlike. She is between 18 and 20 years old through most of the novel, though we meet her when she is about 10 at the very beginning. Her hair is plain, her face is plain, and her figure is not described as attractive, especially when compared to Blanche Ingram. Mr. Rochester says she is “almost pretty” the morning after their engagement. Her choice in clothes is very plain and severe.

ANonymous Narrator (hereinafter Ann for my convenience) is about 21 and has a thin figure. She considers her face plain, although Maxim de Winter seems to think her attractive, as do others around her. She has a childlike, innocent quality in her expression that is lost later on. She cares little about clothes and wears any old thing until the episode of the masked ball.

Background

Both are orphans and as young adults enter humiliating positions.

Jane Eyre was orphaned when she was a baby and was reared by her maternal uncle and his wife, the Reeds. Mrs. Reed resents her and treats her severely after Mr. Reed’s death. She is sent to a school where she is mistreated, and she becomes a teacher, and then a governess.

Ann lost her mother some years back and her father only a year or two back, and she subsequently advertised to become a paid companion to Mrs. de Hopper of New York, who treats her condescendingly to the point of humiliation.

Personality

Though shy, Jane Eyre is strong-willed and resilient. Mistreated to the point of abuse, she never becomes a victim, even though Rochester could be said to be abusive before he is humbled through circumstances and they marry. Jane is firm in her strong values and stands up for herself and her own best interests against both Rochester and St. John Rivers.

Ann is shy, dreamy to the point of escaping reality, romantic, sensitive, and unaware of either her effect on others or of their attitudes toward her. She shares little of herself, nor does she ask for information even when it’s in her best interest to do so. She is unassertive, submissive, and reacts to Maxim de Winter’s abusive tendencies by adopting a strategy of anticipating what will set him off and avoiding it at all costs, a typical abuse victim’s pattern of behavior. She seems to have no desires or thoughts of her own except in reaction to Maxim de Winter. She has no sense of right and wrong except as it relates to loving Maxim de Winter and gaining his love in return.

Red

In her childhood, Jane Eyre is punished by being locked into the Red Room, where her uncle Reed died. Red is symbolic of fear and terror. In Rebecca, Ann calls attention repeatedly to the red rhododendrons, overgrown and menacing, outside the morning room where she feels forced to sit after breakfast, day after day.

The Mansion

Thornfield is the ancestral home of Edward Fairfax Rochester. It is set among the rather bleak Yorkshire moors, and it has lush gardens surrounding the house. The third floor and the attics are forbidden to visit. Or at least strongly discouraged, as that’s where the madwoman is kept secretly.

Manderley is the ancestral home of Maximilian de Winter. It is set on the Cornish coast and has mysterious woods leading down to the boathouse and its cove, but it has an appealing valley called the Happy Valley leading to an adjacent cove. The drive from the lodge to the house is three miles long and overgrown in a menacing way. The house east wing is where the couple have their rooms. The west wing is supposedly shut up and if not forbidden, then certainly discouraged by Maxim de Winter, though Mrs Danvers encourages Ann to explore and discover more about Rebecca there. (Why Maxim de Winter did not order the servants to completely clear out the west wing at the same time as he sent the orders to renovate the east wing for himself and his new bride, remains a mystery. Guilty conscience?)

Art

Jane Eyre learned to draw and paint at her school, and she is proficient. A couple of her paintings are described in detail in the novel, both wild and romantic in nature, with dark colors and stormy themes that reflect aspects of her own nature and of her life experiences. She frequently takes her things out into the grounds at Thornfield when she becomes the governess there, for she finds much inspiration. In Rebecca, on the other hand, Ann is said to have an interest in art and is given plenty of supplies that she even takes out into the grounds at Manderley, but she does not produce anything outside of the house. Inside the house, she makes a few sketches that she tears up and tries to throw away, and she is mortified by Mrs Danvers bringing them back and questioning whether they were meant to have been discarded.

The Love Interest

Both young women fall in love with the first men they meet. Neither really knows the man.

Jane Eyre falls in love against all sense, since Edward Rochester mistreats her, later telling her he was only trying to make her jealous. There is much conversation between the two, and Jane requires to be convinced of his love for her. With the first wife on the prowl at night, Jane suffers from nightmares and a feeling of being haunted. Then when Jane finds out about the first wife and Rochester’s attempt to commit bigamy, she rejects him. She further rejects his proposal that they run away and live together as if they were married. She leaves him. When she meets a more honorable man, St. John Rivers, who proposes to her, she refuses to marry him because she is still in love with Rochester. She goes to find Rochester, discovers he is now widowed, and takes the initiative in courting and proposing to him. They live very happily together.

By contrast, while Ann similarly falls in love with Maxim de Winter despite his almost running off a cliff on purpose with her in the car, she knows little more about him than that his first wife died. Their courtship consists of two weeks of day trips around Monte Carlo and dinners together, but we get no descriptions of them growing close, no idea of their discovering each other’s character or personality. From Ann’s daydreams and thoughts about him, we know they do not communicate much. The proposal is a complete surprise to her, and it seems very impersonal rather than romantic. The few descriptions we learn about their honeymoon are only that the bride feels happy and that the bridegroom looks almost young (he is 42) and seems relaxed. Their marriage after arriving at Manderley is filled with the haunting presence of Rebecca everywhere, leading to considerable tension between them, with her becoming more and more obsessed with a need to become like Rebecca, since that is what she imagines Maxim wants. When she is surprised into knocking over a china figurine and breaking it, she feels somehow that she will be punished because it was Rebecca’s, and she hides the pieces, which leads to an awkward and uncomfortable scene wherein she is forced to confess to Maxim to keep others from being punished, and that leads to her husband treating her like an errant child. When Mrs Danvers leads her into ordering the exact same ball costume that Rebecca wore to the last masked ball, she reacts to everyone’s horror at seeing her by assuming she herself is to blame and that her husband certainly blames her. Her morbid thoughts are out of all proportion to the mistake, and Maxim’s silent reaction contributes to the feeling of a gulf between them. It never occurs to her to tell him Mrs Danvers suggested the costume, but by this time their pattern of not communicating is pretty well set. When she finds out that he murdered Rebecca, she thinks only that it proves he never loved Rebecca and must instead love her after all. No moral principles here! She turns her attention to the lies they must tell and the truths they must withhold to get away with it, which is simply more of the pattern of not communicating, but this time it is them against the rest of the world. She cares for neither truth, nor principle, nor morality, nor law. She uses language to change the crime description from “murder” with the blame on Maxim, to “suicide by husband” so that the blame is on Rebecca.

The First Wife

In Jane Eyre the mansion is haunted by Bertha Rochester, the madwoman in the attic, who frequently escapes and wreaks havoc on the narrator’s psyche until Jane finds out the woman is not a ghost or demon. Bertha Mason was a West Indies beauty from a family with a history of genetic insanity. The fact of the insanity is deliberately kept from Rochester until after the wedding. After Rochester marries her, he discovers she is vulgar, perhaps an alcoholic, profligate and promiscuous, and of diminished mental capacity. He takes her to England, locks her up in the Thornfield attic, and hires a woman to guard her. But the woman, Grace Poole, is an alcoholic and Bertha frequently takes advantage of her stupor to steal the keys and escape. She sets fire to the house several times, the last time causing the entire place to burn, and she flings herself to her death from the roof, escaping her husband’s attempt to save her.

Rebecca’s presence is felt by the second wife to be everywhere, starting with the morning room where Mrs Danvers informs her she is expected to spend the time after breakfast. The room leading to it seems to the young bride to be imbued with Rebecca’s personality, and in the morning room, where every piece of furniture and decor, even the very stationery and pen in the writing desk, all were chosen by Rebecca, this sense feels very strong. Rebecca’s presence is also felt on the path through the woods to the boat cove where the boathouse is standing. The young dog wants to lead the second Mrs. de Winter on that path, which is the usual one for him, but Maxim takes them along the other fork through the Happy Valley instead. The dog persists in going to the usual cove, and his new mistress follows, despite her husband’s objections. Rebecca had converted the boathouse into a little love nest for herself and her lovers, though the young second wife does not catch on to the evidence and only knows her husband does not want her there and that it has Rebecca’s presence. But Rebecca’s presence is strongest in the west wing where Rebecca’s rooms were. When the young bride inadvertently goes there, Mrs Danvers at first seems jealous of her presence, but later she encourages the girl to look at Rebecca’s things and draw unflattering comparisons to herself. She even tries to convince her to jump out Rebecca’s window the morning after the masked ball, hypnotically telling her death would be better than a fruitless attempt to take Rebecca’s rightful place. However, that spell is broken and the young wife escapes the evil influence.
     The next thing is that Rebecca’s dead body is discovered in her sunken boat, and Maxim confesses to his wife to having shot her in the boathouse and put her into the boat, sailing it out to where he sunk it. His reason is that after their marriage, Rebecca let him know that she did not love him and intended to continue her independent lifestyle, being promiscuous, gambling, drinking, doing drugs, etc. Because Maxim has a horror of negative publicity, they agreed that Rebecca was free to live this way in London under a different name and to pretend to be the perfect wife and hostess while at Manderley. She broke the bargain by bringing one lover, her cousin Jack, to Manderley, and by attempting to seduce Maxim’s estate manager, Frank, and Maxim’s brother-in-law, Giles. While Maxim was away, she brought her evil friends to Manderley. In a showdown at the boathouse, she told Maxim she was pregnant and that she intended to force him to rear her child as his heir, though it cannot be his. Actually she had just discovered that she had incurable cancer and would die within months. She taunted Maxim to get him to shoot her, and died smiling, having won. (How she was supposed to “know” that she could make him do this, or even that he would have a gun with him, I’m not sure!)

Fire

Thornfield and Manderley are both destroyed by fire. Thornfield is set afire by Bertha Rochester, the first wife. Manderley is set afire probably by Mrs. Danvers, the housekeeper/maid who was devoted to Rebecca de Winter.

Aftermath

In an epilogue, Jane Eyre Rochester reveals she has been married to Edward Rochester for ten years and they have a son. They are very happy together, and Edward is regaining the sight in one of his eyes. He is still partly a cripple, having lost part of one of his arms in the fire. He is a good husband to Jane, and everyone says that she has successfully tamed him. What she has actually done is exert her good influence on him to bring out the gentle side of his nature.

In the first three chapters of Rebecca, the narrator reveals that she and her husband have been married about ten years. They have no children. They live abroad on an island, in a very small hotel, and they try to stay anonymous. Her husband is an invalid whom she has to help to be physically comfortable, he having been injured in a fire. She says they are happy, but the evidence is against it. They still do not communicate much. She reads to him, but she has to stay away from reading him anything that reminds him of home. She likes reading about it but is content never to return. Yet, the novel opened with her nightmare of returning to Manderley.

Madness

Bertha Mason Rochester was insane. There is a lot of evidence that the second Mrs. de Winter is mentally ill as well. The amount and depth of her daydreams doesn’t seem to be normal, as they progress to the point that she has a hard time coming back to reality. She avoids interacting with people to the point that it interferes with her ability to carry out her responsibilities. She allows her imagination to carry her away into absurd terrors, such as that the rhododendrons are menacing. When she is tricked by Mrs Danvers into having the same costume created for herself as was made for Rebecca, the aftermath is that she sits on her bed in a catatonic state, and her sister-in-law and brother-in-law cannot bring her out of it; her only motivation to come out of it is to avoid allowing others to see plainly that she and her husband are not unified. When her husband goes away overnight, she feels a sense of freedom that appears to show that their relationship is unhealthy; and indeed it is, for she cannot be her own person with him around. When she finds out about the murder, instead of being shocked, she seems to drop all her childishness, reticence, diffidence, and uncertainty at once in favor of protecting Maxim from any consequences of his crime. But she cannot protect him from himself, and she reaps the dire consequences of her pattern of avoiding unpleasant reality.

Conclusion

Where Jane Eyre treats Mr Rochester’s revelation of a living first wife as a moral and legal impediment to their union, Mrs. de Winter treats the revelation of her husband’s having murdered his first wife as a catalyst to cementing their union, as a threat to that union if he is found out, and therefore it is something to be hidden. In this she acts as Mr Rochester proposed that Jane should act: run away with him and pretend to be married; the de Winters run away and pretend to be normal. Jane would not base her union on a lie; Mrs. de Winter will.

Where Edward Rochester tries his best to save his first wife’s life in the Thornfield fire, thus completing a character arc in refining himself to do a noble deed, Maxim de Winter meets his crisis by murdering his wife, trying to cover it up, and doing his best to erase the past. When her body is discovered, he confesses to his wife, and they repeat his earlier pattern of trying to cover it up and doing their best to erase the past. Thus the second Mrs. de Winter has had no effect whatever on the character of her husband. He is the very same person after marrying and living with her as he was before he met her. She remains a cypher in its earlier meaning: a zero, a naught.

Thus Rebecca is a nightmare version of Jane Eyre; it is as if the main character had lost herself, and the entire tale turns into one of madness and ultimately horror.