I’ll agree with you about not fully appreciating the dependent’s situation, because we don’t (yet another thing the Governess book was good for - sorry if I go on about that one a bit, but it was a good book and you can’t help but think of it when thinking of 19th century lit.) and that non-understanding might be the reason I get the feeling that Frank didn’t really do his bit. I just get the impression that he didn’t try very hard. It almost seemed to me like he didn’t really want to see his father, which could also be since he didn’t really grow up with him and they probably didn’t have that close of a relationship. Actually, I hadn’t really considered that before, but he may not really have felt tied to his father, at least not as we feel he should be. I suppose Frank could have looked on Mr. Weston as we would an aunt or uncle who doesn’t live close and we don’t see often. Yes, they are important, but possibly not important enough to drop everything and go running to them, if you see what I mean. The relative we would love to visit, yet can’t quite motivate ourselves to take time out of our busy lives to do so. Even so, I still think Frank’s a prat.
I can see that Emma wouldn’t really understand the whole concept of being dependent, but I would have thought Knightley, as intelligent as he seems, might have. I think he was probably always jealous of Frank. His father and then Mrs. Weston did seem to dote on him and make all kinds of excuses for him, which I imagine would have irritated him as the constant fawning over Jane Fairfax irritated Emma. I also think he must have instinctively known that Frank was intended for Emma and didn’t like it even if he wasn’t in love with her at first. I think he enjoyed having her and her father for company and loathed change as much as Mr. Woodhouse and had Emma been married off, he would have lost that company. I can’t imagine that sitting with Mr. Woodhouse alone in the evenings would be very pleasurable. However, we see from his rather odd offer to move in with the Woodhouses rather than remove Emma to his own estate after marrying shows how partial he was to having them as a family. Had Frank, i.e. a “rival” never come on the scene, I’m not sure he would have actually ever fallen in love with Emma. I think he would have been just about as happy to have things remain as they were.
This is probably completely off topic, but I have to comment on your comment Pen: “The wealthier folk could've thrown off the poorer ones in their care as easy as kiss my hand (see John Dashwood in S&S).” No Kidding! Some of the things mentioned in the Governess book are hair raising. Brothers, fathers, uncles, or any other male relative who could, cheated their female relatives out of anything they could, seemingly without compunction, au John Dashwood if you will. Unfortunately, women had no rights in those times or no one to stand up for them (like Mrs. Smith in Persuasion) and were basically stuck if their male relatives decided to screw them over. It seems women were compelled to give their husbands everything they owned, or rather in marrying their property/wealth automatically fell into their husbands hands, but the law was either uninterested in or powerless to ensure that the husbands took care of their wives. Women basically lost all their rights when they married, so even a “good marriage” could turn out horrible for them. I swear, between this book and Thomas Hardy you really could completely lose your faith in Menkind.
I can see that Emma wouldn’t really understand the whole concept of being dependent, but I would have thought Knightley, as intelligent as he seems, might have. I think he was probably always jealous of Frank. His father and then Mrs. Weston did seem to dote on him and make all kinds of excuses for him, which I imagine would have irritated him as the constant fawning over Jane Fairfax irritated Emma. I also think he must have instinctively known that Frank was intended for Emma and didn’t like it even if he wasn’t in love with her at first. I think he enjoyed having her and her father for company and loathed change as much as Mr. Woodhouse and had Emma been married off, he would have lost that company. I can’t imagine that sitting with Mr. Woodhouse alone in the evenings would be very pleasurable. However, we see from his rather odd offer to move in with the Woodhouses rather than remove Emma to his own estate after marrying shows how partial he was to having them as a family. Had Frank, i.e. a “rival” never come on the scene, I’m not sure he would have actually ever fallen in love with Emma. I think he would have been just about as happy to have things remain as they were.
This is probably completely off topic, but I have to comment on your comment Pen: “The wealthier folk could've thrown off the poorer ones in their care as easy as kiss my hand (see John Dashwood in S&S).” No Kidding! Some of the things mentioned in the Governess book are hair raising. Brothers, fathers, uncles, or any other male relative who could, cheated their female relatives out of anything they could, seemingly without compunction, au John Dashwood if you will. Unfortunately, women had no rights in those times or no one to stand up for them (like Mrs. Smith in Persuasion) and were basically stuck if their male relatives decided to screw them over. It seems women were compelled to give their husbands everything they owned, or rather in marrying their property/wealth automatically fell into their husbands hands, but the law was either uninterested in or powerless to ensure that the husbands took care of their wives. Women basically lost all their rights when they married, so even a “good marriage” could turn out horrible for them. I swear, between this book and Thomas Hardy you really could completely lose your faith in Menkind.
Reply
Leave a comment