LOL, s'fine, I'll be the odd man out on Knightley. I think one of the things that doesn't translate as clearly to our generation is just how precarious a dependent relative's situation was in the early 19th century, which is where my problems with Knightley's assessment of Frank here lie. 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). The fact that Emma takes up Mrs. Weston's line of argument to Knightley isn't really important except for the fact that Mrs. Weston, who knows firsthand what dependence means and entails, is the one bringing these things up. Emma may have taken the argument up to be devil's advocate, and she may have thought the same as Knightley, but this goes to show two things to my mind: 1) neither of them have ever been dependent, so they don't know what that life experience is like at all, and, thus, aren't really in a position to judge, and 2) she probably got her original ideas from listening to him. Consider Knightley's attitude
( ... )
I get that and I'm not disagreeing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Emma and Knightley seemed a little too ready to discount Mrs. Weston's opinion and interpretation of Frank's situation, which was obviously colored by her own experience in a similar situation. And for Knightley, at least, who is supposed to be a worldly gentleman, known for his sensitivity to the dependence of women, it's a bit problematic that he wouldn't be more broad-minded in his assessment of a dependent male. Obviously, there's a gender double-standard. But, that the threat of the Churchill's displeasure and disinheritance was real becomes clear to Emma in volume 3, which I think proves Mrs. Weston's position in this volume. But, I'll keep my thoughts on volume 3 out of this thread. :D
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
( ... )
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.
*nods* Emma gets him to admit this (sort of) in volume 2, ch. 12/ch. 30 right before he returns to Enscombe.
" 'As you do us such ample justice now,' said Emma, laughing, 'I will venture to ask, whether you did not come a little doubtingly at first? Do not we rather surpass your expectations? I am sure we do. I am sure you did not much expect to like us. You would not have been so long in coming, if you had had a pleasant idea of Highbury.'
He laughed rather consciously; and though denying the sentiment, Emma was convinced it had been so." Re throwing off poorer relations, there are several times in JA's letter where she mentions to her sister how much her brother Edward (the rich one) gave his mother in occasional presents. They tended to be around £5-10 at a time, and this happened about every year or so. Now, granted £5-10 was a goodly
( ... )
Hmmmm, I read that quote as to mean that Emma thought that Frank thought that society in Highbury would be beneath him, or what he was used to; as if he thought he might be bored. I'll have to read the passage again.
Were men really swine back then or was all this repression of women really due to finances?
I took it to include his father since Mr. Weston is part of Highbury as well. This, despite the fact that he and his father met almost every year in London, no? And I'm sure there was some correspondence.
I think it's the money thing--laws were not written to include women, so men were patriarchs by default unless they shirked it. Not everyone likes being forced to do something, like you said.
Comments 16
Reply
Reply
Reply
*nods* Emma gets him to admit this (sort of) in volume 2, ch. 12/ch. 30 right before he returns to Enscombe.
" 'As you do us such ample justice now,' said Emma, laughing, 'I will venture to ask, whether you did not come a little doubtingly at first? Do not we rather surpass your expectations? I am sure we do. I am sure you did not much expect to like us. You would not have been so long in coming, if you had had a pleasant idea of Highbury.'
He laughed rather consciously; and though denying the sentiment, Emma was convinced it had been so."
Re throwing off poorer relations, there are several times in JA's letter where she mentions to her sister how much her brother Edward (the rich one) gave his mother in occasional presents. They tended to be around £5-10 at a time, and this happened about every year or so. Now, granted £5-10 was a goodly ( ... )
Reply
Were men really swine back then or was all this repression of women really due to finances?
Reply
I think it's the money thing--laws were not written to include women, so men were patriarchs by default unless they shirked it. Not everyone likes being forced to do something, like you said.
Reply
Leave a comment