JANE AUSTEN the PUNK ROCKER.

 

It’s strange how various things can come together to get you thinking along a new track.I had read something about Edmund Burke and his extreme conservative views that believed traditon and the status quo was a natural way of existence.  Burke believed in continuity. He thought that we are born into a class and that is where we should remain.He had a particular anti view of the enlightenment that was taking over the world. 

Recently too I have been listening again to some of my favourite punk music from the 1970s. I’ve been reading up about the philosophy of punk.  In a mad moment I Googled ,”Jane Austen and punk rock.” Why not? Wild thoughts come to all of us. 

Reading a definition of Punk Rock you can begin to see Jane Austen in that light. 

Punk Rock is a group of varied social and political beliefs associated with the punk subculture and punk rock. It is primarily concerned with concepts such as mutual aid against selling out hierarchy, white supremacy, authoritarianism, eugenics, class and classism, gender equality, anti-homophobia, racial equality, animal rights,  free-thought and non-conformity.

These ideas are similar to those Burke and Austen dealt with. Burke didn’t want change. Jane Austen in a subtle way by revealing the realities of people and relationships made the 18th century reader reflect and reflection is always the first step to change.

Autumn de Wilde

Surprisingly. there are T shirts with a punk rock version  of a Jane Austen portrait on the front.  I also came across an interview with Autumn deWilde who produced the recent film version of ,”Emma,” with   Anya Taylor Joy who starred as Emma, Mia Goth who played Harriet Smith and Jonny Flynn as Mr Knightly. You can’t get much more rock and roll than those. Autumn de Wilde is quoted as saying,

 

“Emma is such a lead singer, man! And you’re like, ‘Oh god, you’re such a jerk – but I am obsessed with you’.

She said: “I think Jane Austen has punk DNA. They weren’t even allowed to  be funny in that time period.

“Women weren’t allowed to be funny or witty in that time period and God, was she funny.

“She created the first female anti-hero… I could be wrong about that but it seems pretty legendary to have created a character like that.

“I think women are very punk rock - we have to hide a lot - we’re not allowed to say we have periods in public. Somehow we’re still not OK with that.

Speaking about her own background in bringing this story to life, there was a sense, for de Wilde, that doing something almost unexpected was the essence of “punk rock.”

(Daiy Express interview.)

A Punk Rocker

Were Elizabeth and Darcy the punk rockers of their era? Elizabeth stood up to Darcy’s pomposity, his pride and his prejudice. In many ways by writing about those two Jane Austent was putting her own life, livelihood and. future happiness on the line. Autumn de Wilde would agree that is a punk attitude without a doubt.

Some of those listed points about punk rock you can apply to Jane Austen.  I would say however,  Jane Austen does not blatantly express her political or social views. Her family and the society she lived in would have more than just disapproved. Jane would have  been roundly censured and maybe never published again if she had complained overtly. 

Recently I have been reading Helena Kelly’s, ”Jane Austen The Secret Radical.”

She refocuses our views of Jane Austen. She didn’t just live in a country village shut off from the wider world nationally and internationally. Kelly argues that Jane’s writing often is a response to the wider world politically, socially and philosophically.

“Jane was born five years after the poet William Wordsworth, the year before the American Revolution began. When the. French revolution started; she was thirteen. For almost all of her life, Britain was at war. Two of her brothers were in the navy; one joined the militia. For several years she lived in Southampton, a major naval base. It was a time of  clashing armies, warring ideas, a time of censorship and state surveillance. Enclosures were remaking the landscape; European empire building was changing the world; science and technology were opening up a whole universe of new possibilities.

We’re perfectly willing to accept that writers like Wordsworth were fully engaged with everything that was happening, and to find the references in their work,  even when they are veiled or allusive. But we haven’t been willing to do that with jane’s work.”

That is a great description of punk attitudes and Helena is saying why shoudn't Austen be the same?

Coincidently, before reading Helena Kelly’s book and unconnected to what Kelly wrote I wrote an article for my blog ,"London Calling," ( a punk title if ever there was) entitled ,”Understanding George Wickham.” I could see that the  ,”Enlightenment,” views that were the force behind the French Revolution and the American War of Independence and along with Mary Wollstonecraft’s ideas about the equality of men and women I made an argument explaining Wickham from the point of view of mans ,”equality,” and in his case his inequality.  I argued that Wickham’s personality and anti establishment actions was formed in a society that was unequal. He suffered  inequality with Darcy and the upper classes. This brought disastrous consequences  upon himself and others because he was formed in the class riddled society he was born into. He wanted to smash it all. The Sex Pistols lyrics  come to mind.

Austen describes the warts of society. The Bennet sisters struggles to find suitors, the ineffectiveness of the Bennet mother and father, Lady de Bourgh's aristocratic rigid views and Mr Collins smarmy. oily personality seeping around the social rules of the time in Pride and Prejudice. Emma's terrible put down of Miss Bates and Mr Knightly's rebuke  and the need for secrecy in the relationship between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill. You can feel Jane Austen itching to show the absurdity of the need for that secrecy.The way Anne Elliot has to negotiate life with her terrible father and sister in Persuasion. The awful treatment of the Dashwood sisters and mother by their half brother when he inherits their estate in Sense and Sensibility.The plight of Fanny Price a poor inconsequential young girl and the Bertram family in Mansfield Park and of course Catherine Moreland and Henry Tilney  and the Thorpes in Northanger Abbey. Jane Austen is saying, this is how they are, this is how they treat each other, this is how they behave.Often it’s not very nice. Austen’s strong female characters usually come through though and are often triumphant. This strength of character is definitely a punk rock trait. 

So does this all add up to jane Austen being a punk? She doesn’t change society. I would argue she is more for  organic change.What she describes in her novels is not sudden change,its not revolution she is arguing for. She would have been  guillotined (metaphorically of course, in Britain) if she had asked for revolution no doubt. Her revolt  is a more organic approach. She is a realist not a bomber or assassin. From her family loyalties and the socialisation she went through she doesn’t want a French Revolution or an American War of independence. The Austen family would most definitely not approved.

Did punk rock itself  change society drastically? What it did do was make us all think and look at our world with the blinkers taken off. That’s Jane Austen in a nutshell.  Punk Rock with its clothes, record deals , Tv appearances and so forth was drawn into the mainstream of society. It became another acceptable important art genre. Without a doubt that describes Jane Austen today, films, spin off novels, ball reenactments, dressing up.  She is definitely part of main stream society now. She is a commodity like punk has become a tourist attraction in Camden lock in north London. What punk rock did was make it more acceptable in a democratic society to complain about things which seemed sacred and needed complaining about, often with an angry snarl admittedly and with a studded forehead and a safety pin through the nose. If being aware makes us change then punk rock helped. Being aware is how Jane Austen helped develop society from her house in a country village in the 18th century. 

No matter how much the Sex Pistols wanted anarchy they weren’t really advocating it.   Jane shows a disgust for  Lady Catherine de Bourgh , Mr Collins and the John Thorpes of her world but she didn’t ,”execute,” them. So Jane Austen is a punk rocker. She makes us aware of what life, family, community the class system was really like. When you turn attention to things and examine them you begin to ask questions, you are, Punk Rock. 

THE CLASH , a band at the forefront of the Punk Rock movement in Britain were

“formed in 1976 in the vanguard of british Punk. The Clash would soon become the most iconic band of their era, a symbol of the intelligent protest and stylish rebellion in the turbulent years of the late 70’s and early 60’s.”

A quotation from the Website dedicated to The Clash. https://www.theclash.com/biography/

We could almost say that Jane Austen’s novels are 

“ ……a symbol of the intelligent protest and stylish rebellion in the turbulent years of the late ,(1700s and early 1800s.)

Here are some of the lyrics from,  “Hate and War,” by The Clash.

Hate and war…

I have the will to survive

I cheat if I can’t win

If someone kicks me out

I kick my way back in

An’ if I get aggression

I give it to them two time back

Everyday it’s just the same

With hate an’ war on my back

Hate and war- I hate all the English

Hate and war- I hate all the politeness

Hate and war- I hate all the cops

Straight out of the mouth of George Wickham.

References:

PUNK ROCK:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock

THE CLASH  Lyrics; https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/clash/hateandwar.html

Kelly Helena :  Jane Austen The Secret Radical. (2016)  ICON BOOKS LIMITED 

The novels of Jane Austen.

Edmund Burk: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/

Mary Wolstonecroft: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/wollstonecraft_01.shtml

UNDERSTANDING GEORGE WICKHAM

 

George Wickham and Lydia Bennet

Is George Wickham, in Pride and Prejudice, more complex than we thought?

Wickham is one the most loathed characters in a Jane Austen novel. 

He first appears in Meryton High Street, an associate of Mr Denny.

“His appearance was greatly in his favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine countenance , a good figure, and a very pleasing address.The introduction was followed up  on his side by a happy readiness of conversation- a readiness at the same time perfectly correct and unassuming;…”

The Bennet sisters, with Mr Collins in tow and along with their aunt MrsPhilips had been encouraged by their father to walk to Meryton. Mr Bennet being eager to have a respite from the attentions of Mr Collins. In the high street they came across  an unknown young man in the company of Mr Denny who they do know. This was their first meeting with George Wickham.  They were to dine at their aunts, Mrs Philips’s house the next day. At the behest of the women Wickham was later invited to dine with them too by Mr Philips personally.

As soon as he arrived all the young females were immediately enamoured of him. He had a smooth relaxed way of talking. He came across as being a handsome, confident, assured young man with impeccable manners. Wickham had learned how to ingratiate himself, especially with young ladies. He had learned to come across as the perfect example of the male species. Is this acting , a learned habit, a way of getting others to like him? Probably all of these. What is surprising is how Elizabeth Bennet herself was enraptured and attracted by him. Lydia, of course, is completely taken by him too. The uniform was all to her.

 Somebody who has this sort of charisma and practiced charm is all surface. It cannot possibly be their whole personality, their whole character, but it takes experience to know that.

While talking in the high street Darcy and Bingley happen to ride past and acknowledge the ladies. Darcy and Wickham, their eyes meet, and a strange atmopsphere descends between the two of them. They obviously know each other. Darcy stiffly acknowledges Wickham who stiffly acknowledges him in return.Elizabeth notices the exchange. Obviously everything is not as first appearances make out.

At the Philips’s dinner the next day Elizabeth and Wickham talk. Elizabeth is keen to ask about his acquaintance with Darcy but she dare not. Wickham however begins a conversation about Darcy himself, wondering how long he has been in the area. Elizabeth relates the rumours that Darcy has a large estate in Derbyshire and that he has a large fortune.

“ Yes,” replied Wickham;-‘ his estate there is a noble one. A clear ten thousand per annum. You could not have met with a person more capable of giving you certain information on that head than myself- for I have been connected with the family in  a particular manner from my infancy.”

Then Wickham reveals his close connection to Old Mr Darcy and to Darcy himself. Wickham’s father had been the estate manager for Mr Darcy. He and Fitzwilliam Darcy had grown up together. Old Mr Darcy out of his attachment to Wickham’s father and a liking for the son had provided an education at Cambridge,  for Wickham, the same he provided for his own son and had left Wickham  not only £1000 in his will but also the promise  of a rich parish when one came up on his estates. Wickham explained to Elizabeth that he had been brought up to be a clergyman. He also added that how ,after the death of both his own father and also Old Mr Darcy the youmger Darcy, Fitzwilliam had provided the money but when a rich living did come up Darcy had refused him. Wickham describes Darcy  as proud and jealous. And Wickham himself opines,

“ I have been a disappointed man and my spirits will not bear solitude..” 

  Truth but untruth and Elizabeth because of her own initial aversion to Darcy believes it  and we as the readers, perhaps, believe it too.

But there is the alternative explanation of events later in the novel, Darcy’s take on the same events and facts. In an empassioned letter to Elzabeth he explains,

“ With respect to that other more weighty accusation, of having injured Mr Wickham, I can only refute it by laying before you the whole of his connection with my family.”

And so Fitzwilliam Darcy begins. He relates  how Wickham's father was a loved and respected estate manager, and Darcys father’s liking and fondness for George Wickham, the son. He describes how they had a close associationin in their youth and he saw him at unguarded moments.

Darcy goes on to explain.

“ George Wickham, who was his (Old Mr Darcy's) godson,his kindness was liberally bestowed. My father supported him at school, and afterwards at Cambridge;-most important assistance.......My father was not only fond of this young man’s society, whose manners were always engaging he had also the highest opinion of him ……..As for myself, it is many many years since I first began to think of him in a very different manner. The viscious propensities- the want of principle which he was careful to guard from the knowledge of his best friend, could not escape the observation of a young man of nearly the same age with himself and who had the opportunities of seeing him in unguarded moments…”

Wickham had turned down the offer of a parish living when it did come up but had asked for a further £3000 in its stead which Darcy gave him to follow a career in the law. Wickham instead lived a dissolute life. He spent very little time in following the law which he found himself unsuited for and instead spent the money on gambling and drinking.

Old Mr Darcy had in effect tried to raise George Wickham above his birth status. He provided all the means for him to move upwards in society and as such change his class. He was a man of Enlightenment views. So why would Wickham turn out like this when he had been offered so many advantages in life? 

 Britain has a class system which even today is still extant. Many governments over the decades and centuries have talked about making a more equal society but, we still have an aristocracy that owns a large part of the landmass of the United Kingdom, we have a two tier education system, state and private and we have a massive wealth divide. Those divisions in society were much more stark in Jane Austen’s time. She herself was writing  about the gentry and the aristocracy, privately educated men and wealthy landowners.  The serving class , the poor people ,are viritually erased from the world that Jane Austen creates. Where they appear they are generally nice people. We have Mr Martin the farmer in Emma and  some servants who appear briefly in the novels. The Springers,father and son, in the unfinished Sanditon come to mind and have some connection to the situation of Wickham and his father but of course that novel never develops beyond  introductions so we will never know their role in the entirety of the novel.

The difference between those others  compared to Wickham, is that they  are portrayed as honest, hard working and likeable characters and George Wickham is not. They all remain apparently happy  within their strata of society and in relation to the gentry. They have no ambitions to move upwards in society.

Wickham seems to be an experiment where Austen is saying, if you try and move upwards in class, get above yourself, there are terrible consequences. You will destroy yourself and damage others around you. She is making a case for the extant societal structure and the status quo. Maybe she sees it as a natural way of existence as Edmund Burke the philosopher and statesman, believed.  

We have heard from both Wickham himself and Fitzwilliam Darcy. His father was obviously a talented  estate manager and may well have earned a good salary from Old Mr Darcy but he was still of a lower class. The Old Mr Darcy seemed to have attempted, because of his fondnes for the father and the boy, to move him out of his class into a higher class through education, encouraging and allowing an association with his own son and by providing money and a future position in life. Nowadays we think of education as the answer to a fulfilling life and in many ways it is but in a cruel twist, the education of the masses, as we have today ,still leaves us with a world of poor and rich, the upper classes and the lower classes. 

The effect of this attempt to raise George Wickahm in society, in Jane Austen’s mind, was to create a  monster.

Darcy had noticed the bad side of Wickham as they grew up together. Can you imagine a boy from one class trying to be the equal of somebody in a higher class? Surely in the 18th century it was impossible. He must have felt torn between his own father and Old Mr Darcy,  what advantages and socialisation  Fitzwilliam Darcy received as a natural course  and was heir to and what he himself was being offered out of generosity in what must have seemed an unatural way. He must have felt an imposter. He must have felt bitter, mixed up and vengeful. All of which is apparent in Pride and Prejudice. His way of coping was to copy the actions and demeaner, of a member of the upper classes but he had become neither one nor the other. And so his response was to sink into dissipation.

Examples of his dissipation are his attempted seduction and elopement in Ramsgate,  of Darcys young sister Georgiana aided by, probably  just as bitter a person, Mrs Younge,who was put in charge by Darcy and his cousin, to run the establishment set up for her . Then of course there is his later elopement with Lydia and unhappy marriage. In the final chapter Darcy has accepted the situation and he keeps Wickham financially viable, financing his dissolute ways for the sake of his wife’s sister and perhaps his own conscience. It’s a mess and It’s all very sad and in many ways a grotesque life for Wickham.

 Austen portrays throughout her novels society changing and developing in an organic way.  Much of the plot of each of her novels is about human and societal development but as a gradual process. Wickham stands out from all this because he is an experiment outside of  the  process of gradual change.  Wickham’s effect on society is sudden and brutal.

“The Enlightenment,” which dominated Europe in the 18th century was centred around  the idea that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy. Modernisation, scepticism and liberty were its main traits and influenced much of the political and social thinking of the 18th century either  agreeing or  opposing those ideas.

Pride and Prejudice was published in January 1813.   The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783) ended thirty years before.  Jane had been working on the novel since the 1790s. There is the famous statement in the American Declaration of Independence, a version of enlightenment thought, that says,

“we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

The Declaration of Independence..

All of this statement is important but with relation to Wickham and his predicament the bit which says ,”all men are equal,” is the pertinent phrase. Equality with Fitzwilliam Darcy and the gentry was impossible  for him. So from a young age he became, bitterand twisted. 

A Vindication Of The Rights of Men.

Mary Wollstonecraft had written, by the time Pride and Prejudice was published, both her enlightenment statements including The Vindication of the Rights of Men 1790. A long letter counteracting the  views of Edmund Burke who  believed that sexual, social and other inequaliies were a natural order of things.The French Revolution begun in 1789 was reverberating around Europe and the World with its cry for,”Liberty , Equality and Fraternity.” Charles James Fox (1749-1806), the great Whig politician was sympathetic both to the American cause and the French Revolution. Wordsworth the poet was sympathetic to many of the ideas espoused by the French too. There were many others in high positions. 

Britain and the British monarchy were nervous to say the least. The Austens were traditionalists, they supported the monarchy, the church, were friends with members of the gentry, Edward Austen being part of the gentry and Mrs Austen descending from a gentry family,  they joined the navy and the military and so supported the traditonal social norms.

The new French Republic continues with the Girondists.

Wickham can be seen as a fictional metaphor  for Jane Austen’s view of ,The Enlightenment.  In many ways he is Austen's emotional reaction to the revolutions of France and America.

Perhaps if Wickham had been born and brought up across the Atlantic he would have had different opportunities in a different social climate and turned out differently? 

References:

The Declaration of Independence 1776,

 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/declaration

Wollstonecraft Mary, The Vindication of The Rights of Men, 

Online Library of Liberty, https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/wollstonecraft-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-men

The French Revolution, https://www.swansea.ac.uk/history/history-study-guides/the-long-and-short-reasons-for-why-revolution-broke-out-in-france-in-1789/

Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Penguin Classics 1996. (First published 1813)

THE CLUB

 Dr Johnson and the first members of The Club meeting in a second floor room of The Turks Head Tavern.

In 1764 , two friends, Sir. Joshua Reynolds and Dr Johnson gathered a group  who called themselves The Club. They were to meet once a week, at number 9 Gerrard Street, The Turks Head Tavern, just north of The Strand and Leicester Fields ( Leicester Square). The intention was to form a group,

“made up of convivial and interesting friends.”

 It is worth looking at how Dr Johnson defined the word, club, in his dictionary.  In his dictionary he always wrote the definition first followed by quotations from various sources, poets, playwrights, The Book of Common Prayer and so on ,that include the word. Johnson gives five definitions of ,club, including the name of a suit of cards, a stout stick, a dividend paid by a company and a contribution, as well as the use we are concerned about.

4. An assembly of good fellows, meeting under certain conditions.

What right has any man to meet in factious clubs to vilify the government?

Dryden’s Medal. Dedication. 

An 18th century print of The Turks Head Tavern.

There was a practical purpose for forming the club. It was more Reynolds idea than Johnsons who nevertheless took to the idea with alacrity. Reynolds as a good friend had noticed the terrible mental state that Johnson had fallen into. He had  become impoverished since completing his great dictionary and had to move from the reasonably grand Gough Square house where he had compiled the dictionary. He was living alone, in one sense, since his wife Hetty had died  a few years previously. Now he was living in a small house in Temple Court just south of the Strand, allowing all sorts of waifs and strays to stay with him there. Many of these characters did not get on and there were often arguments and fights. 

His living conditions and lack of money were among a number of reasons he had fallen into this mental state. Since childhood he suffered from ,”melancholy.” In the eighteenth century the term meant clinical depression. He once described to James Boswell what it was like for him at these times. 

“he felt himself overwhelmed with a horrible hypochondria, with perpetual irritation forgetfulness and  impatience and with a dejection, gloom and despair which made existence a misery.”

The word ,” hypochondria,” in the eighteenth century  meant suffering from a very real mental disorder.

Johnson had terrible pangs of guilt for not being able to complete a Shakespeare edition he had been working on for seven years by that time. He also  suffered what might be described as religious paranoia. He worried that he could not fulfil his God given talents so was destined for hell. He had sexual fantasies which also made him extremely neurotic. Henry Thrale , a good friend who, together with his wife Hester  had a big influence on his life, reported to his wife,  who kept a journal, some of the terrible things that Johnson had told him that troubled his mind. Probably a psychiatrist today would delve into his childhood experiences and find all sorts of damaging events. 

Forming a club in the way Reynolds envisaged was, in a way, a means of taking things off Johnsons mind . Johnson loved discussions. He saw them in an adversarial way. He competed to win.

Joshua Reynolds lived in a house on this site, now in Leicester Square (Leicester Fields in the 18th century).

The Turks head Tavern, where they were to hold the club appears in the ,”Survey of London: Volumes 33 and 34 which covers St Anne SOHO.  Gerrard Street is described as such.

“During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many artists lived in Gerrard Street, and there was also from an early period a number of metal workers and jewellers, the most notable being Paul de Lamerie.”

Gerrard Street has a complex history not least house number 9 where the Turks Head Tavern was located .

The London Survey states:

“The site of No. 9 was one of the two largest on the north side of Gerrard Street, having a frontage of thirty-eight feet. The present building was erected in 1758–9.

The earliest known occupant of the first house was a Lady Wiseman, who lived here from c. 1685 to 1697.  From 1701 it became the Romer Tavern which held musical evenings. By 1737 the tavern was called the Bear and 'Rumer'.

 

The house survived, presumably as a tavern, until 1758, when the freehold was bought by John Spencer of St. George's, Hanover Square, carpenter. Matthew Fairless of St. James's, carpenter, was a witness to the conveyance.   Spencer's first tenant in 1759 was Christopher Winch, a victualler who had previously kept the Turk's Head in Greek Street. He transferred the name to the new house in Gerrard Street which remained in use as a tavern under that name until 1783.”

To begin with ,The Club, comprised of nine people. The number nine being decided on because if anybody could not attend for any reason there was still enough for a broad and diverse conversation assured of a broad spectrum of viewpoints. They also thought that if any two members should meet they would still be able to have  an interesting and invigorating discussion. There were Johnson and Reynolds,who  both had public reputations. The rest , to begin with, were mostly starting their careers. The main criteria for membership were intellectual capabilities, to be able to think and be entertaining. Things such as wealth or poverty were not taken into consideration. There were wealthy members such as Reynolds and there were impoverished members such as Johnson himself. The other seven members were Edmund Burke, the great political thinker whose influence is still felt today, Dr Christopher Nugent, Anthony Chamier,a stockbroker, Oliver Goldsmith,the author and journalist, Topham Beauclerk,an old friend of Johnson’s from Oxford who was very wealthy and who was entertaining but could be acerbic, Bennet Langton another wealthy friend who was learned in the classics and Sir John Hawkins magistrate and musicologist. Hawkins was stuffy and humourless and didn’t last as a member. As the years progressed more members joined. James Boswell, Johnsons biographer, was not elected a member until1773 at the insistence of Johnson. Other members thought he was a lightweight. Later on Dr Burney, the composer and church musician and father of Francis Burney the author, joined too. Burney was an avid social climber, getting to know the right people and had a creepy tendency to ingratiate himself on those with influence, power and money.  

Burney wrote about The Club, that Johnson wanted a group 

"composed of the heads of every liberal and literary profession" and "have somebody to refer to in our doubts and discussions, by whose Science we might be enlightened."

It is Boswell, with his insatiable appetite for recording Johnson’s and others conversations and actions that we have to thank for an example of a conversation held in the second floor room at The Turks Head on April 3rd 1778.

“On Friday April 3, I dined with him in London in a company where were present several eminent men, whom I shall not name, but distinguish their parts in the conversation by different letters. 

 (many of the members did not want  Boswell to record their conversations at first but were happy that he record them anonymously.)

F:  I have been looking at this famous antique marble dog of Mr Jennings, valued at a thousand guineas, said to be Acibiades’s dog.

Johnson: His tail then must be docked. That was the mark of Alcibiades’s dog.

E: A thousand guineas! The representation of no animal whatever is worth so much. At this rate a dead dog would be better than a living lion.

Johnson: Sir, it is not the worth of the thing, but of the skill in forming it which is so highly estimated. Everything that enlarges the sphere of human powers, that shows man he can do what he thought he could not do is valuable.” 

This discussion about the value of things, the enlargement of human powers and an understanding of the classical world gives a sense of the depth of conversation and the  relaxed atmosphere and the friendly exchanges, even if the members were not always agreeing. 

There was conversation but there was also the eating. James Boswell does not record what they ate at these gatherings but at the same time as The Club met, two cooks, who worked at the nearby Crown and Anchor, in the Strand, a short walk from the Turks Head,published, 

“ The Universal Cook and City Housekeeping.”

Here is a list of possible dishes and choices the Turks Head Tavern would have served up. 

MEAT: beef, mutton, veal, pork, lamb and rabbit.

POULTRY: geese, ducks, widgeon, chicken, turkey, pigeons, woodcock, partridges and pheasants.

FISH: turbot, smalts, gudgeon, eels, sturgeon, sole,carp, cockles, mussels and oysters.

Vegetables were served in the summer but not in the winter.

Drinks might include bourdeaux wine and port. Beer and ale was not served because they were drinks for the lower classes.

The above is not an exhaustive list but it gives you a, “flavour,” of what was on offer.

The Westminster Reference Library in St Martin's Street.The site of the house where Dr Burney and Francis Burney lived with their family.

Everybody who was a member of The Club lived reasonably close to Gerrard Street. Dr Burney,who later joined The Club  , once he and his family had moved to London from Kings Lynn on the Norfolk coast,  from 1760 lived in a house in Poland Street,just off Gerrard Street,  in SOHO. By the time he joined The Club he and his family had moved to a house, once owned by Sir Isaac Newton, in St Martin’s Street just off Leicester Fields to the south, a short ten minute’s walk to Gerrard Street. In Leicester Fields,around the corner and a few yards from the Burneys lived Sir Joshua Reynolds. Dr Johnson, of course lived in Temple Court not far away . Edmund Burke was the closest. Burke lived in Gerrard Street on the opposite side to the Turks Head. Garrick the actor and theatre manager , the greatest actor of his century, became a member. He had been a school pupil of Johnson’s growing up in Litchfield. He lived just off Covent Garden close by. 

The house in Gerrard's Street ,on the opposite side to The Turks Head Tavern ,where Edmnd Burke lived.

Francis Burney the famed daughter of Dr Burney and author of the novels,  Evelina, Cecelia, and Camilla and a number of plays, became famous in her life time. She was friends with Hester Thrale, a close friend of Dr Johnson and a socialite who gathered the famous of the time around her at parties and dinners held at her Streatham home. Francis Burney is more important now for the journals she kept. She provides an insight to many famous people of the time including the King and Queen. She knew Dr Johnson very well.  Her description of Dr Johnson the first time she met him is somewhat alarming.

From a letter written at St Martins Street to Samuel Crisp ,  friend of the Burney family,  on the 28th March 1777, 

"...and in the midst of this performance ( a duet by Hetty and Suzette) Dr Johnson was announced.

He is indeed very ill favoured,- he is tall and stout, but stoops terribly, he is almost bent double. His mouth is almost constantly opening and shutting, as if he were chewing;-he has a strange method of frequently twirling his fingers and twisting his hands, his body is in continual agitation, see sawing up and down; his feet are never a moment quiet and in short his whole person is in perpetual motion."

London is very different today. Johnson and his friends would not recognise it. A few buildings such as The Turks Head Tavern and one or two streets such as Meards Street in SOHO still retain their 18th century character and atmosphere. 

 

I walked to Leicester Square( Leicester Fields) the other day and walked along Orange Street ,behind the National Gallery, past  Orange Street Congregational Church towards St Martins Street.  The church was founded in 1693 by Huguenot refugees. In 1776 it became part of the Church of England. It eventually passed to the Congregationalists in 1787. It is located right behind the site of the Burney’s house. Where the Burney’s house once stood is an elegant building now housing the Westminster Public Library. It often has small display’s telling the story of the sites illustrious past inhabitants. There is a plaque inside the Westminster Public Library  which reads.

 “Here stood the house  of Sir Isaac Newton in which he lived from 1710 to 1727 and was visited by his friends Addison, Burnet, Halley, Swift, Wren and other great men. Later it became the home of Dr Chares Burney and his daughter Francis and was the  resort of Johnson, Reynolds, Garrick and many others. The library covers the site of the Leicester Fields chapel built for the Huguenots in 1693.”

The Chinese supermarket located inside the building that was ,The Turks Head Tavern.

I found myself walking along past the library, through Leicester Square, noting the plaque showing where Joshua Reynolds lived and on to Gerrards Street and The Turks Head Tavern, now a Chinese supermarket. I was very much in the 21st century but thinking myself back to the18th century. It’s quite easy to do.

The Orange Street Congregational Church founded in 1693 by the Huguenots. The Burneys house which was nearby,  was built in 1710. 

The Club, begun in February 1764 lasted for ten years with new members being elected along the way. It eventually grew to thirty five in number. Johnson attended less and less towards the end. 

Note: Leicester Square , as it is known today, was called Leicester Fields in the 18th century.

References:

Leo Damrosch: THE CLUB Johnson, Boswell and the friends who shaped an age, YALE University Press 2019.

James Boswell: The Life of Samuel Johnson, Penguin Classics 2008 ( first published 1791)

Francis Burney: Journals and Letters, Penguin Classics 2001

Claire Harman: Fanny Burney A biography, Flamingo ( an imprint of Harper Collins) 2001

Dr Johnson's online dictionary: https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/

Survey of London: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vols33-4/pp384-411#h3-s4

Could I have a conversation with Jane Austen about life?

 

My dog eared copy of the Penguin Classics version of Pride and Prejudice.

On Sunday 7th April I was invited to take part in a ZOOM meeting with the JASNA Vermont group. Deb Barnum had sent me a notice about the meeting which intended to review the recent JASNA AGM at Colorado, whose theme was ,”Pride and Prejudice.” 

What follows doesn’t necessarily discuss things we talked about in the meeting, it is more a riff on thoughts about Pride and Prejudice the meeting got me thinking about. 

I have been reading Pride and Prejudice recently because  I needed something gentle, amusing and thought provoking to help me through these times of recovery after an operation. Jane Austen as recouperation treatment?

One topic we discussed at the ZOOM meeting was how,  Elizabeth Bennet, through her independent behaviour and attitudes to marriage  and also the love she has for her aunt and uncle the Gardeners, challenges the status quo of the world she lived in. 

Her mother, Mrs Bennet, the epitome of that status quo, has one aim in life, to marry her daughters off to whoever makes an offer. Love is low down on her list. A good house, a well off husband and servants to manage, those are the things that Mrs Bennet thinks are important. Their neighbours in Meryton, the Lucas’s, have the same ambitions for their daughter Charlotte.  18th century marriage seemed to be all about property and position. Lady Catherine de Bourgh vehemently tries to uphold these social priorities when she challenges Elizabeth Bennet , the Bennet’s second daughter, over her engagement to Darcy, her wealthy landowning nephew. Mr Collins fits right in to all that marriage process. He tries his luck with the Bennet sisters.. Mr and Mrs Bennet's own marriage is worth exploring in the  light of the social norms of that time.

Tony Tanner, who wrote the first introduction to the Penguin Classics version of Pride and Prejudice, says that ,

"the overall impression given by the book is of a small section of society locked in an almost timeless present in which very little will or can change. For the most part the people are as fixed and repetitive as the linked routines and established social rituals which dominate their lives. Money is a potential problem, and courtship has its own personal dramas but everything tends towards the achieving of a satisfactory marriage- which is exactly how such a society secures its own continuity and minimizes the possibility of anything approaching a violent change.” 

Elizabeth appears to go against these ,”social rituals,” She turns down Darcy’s first rather pompous first proposal and  dislikes him intensely. She doesn’t want the social standing marriage to Darcy would provide on his terms. 

 Elizabeth appears to be the revolutionary in this story. She goes against the expectations of the time. Even Darcy with all his pride, wealth and position in society doesn’t appear to be about to change his stuffy ways at first. Elizabeth jumps to conclusions with her ,”first impressions,” of Wickham and Darcy and much of the story is about the process she goes through, a sort of journey ,that delves deeper into the characters and actions of these two. Darcy of course has his conversion process and Wickham doesn’t. Real love for Elizabeth is at the core of Darcy’s feelings and actions ( he just has to excavate them first) and it is that love  that breaks the mould  and helps him grow. A man who changes ( is that realistic?) for the better, is the great attraction for readers of this novel of course. We are lead through both Elizabeth’s and Darcys inner processes at a gentle pace. He becomes a better nicer person but the two of them only make progress within what the society  allows them. Some might not be completely happy, about their coming together which of course is the tension in the novel. Bingley’s sisters and Lady Catherine de Bourgh are certainly against the marriages of Jane and Bingley and Elizabeth and Darcy. But they are permissible within the bounds of what their society will allow. In the18th century there was some movement possible between the levels of gentry high and low. The gentry needed new blood.

I have come to the conclusion that the real revolutionaries in this story are Lydia and Wickham. They not only challenge the society they live in  but they go much further and step over the line of acceptability. Their characters are not of course the most likeable and far from endearing to the reader but they break that societies mould. Shock and horror is of course the response. Who today would have given their actions a second thought? If we think of our actions and beliefs within the society we live in,  the 21st century , it is the society we live in that shapes our behaviours. 

There is the question of ,"trade." Sir Willam Lucas and Lady Lucas, are near neighbours of the Bennets. Sir Willam  had previously been ,

"in trade in Meryton, where he had made a tolerable fortune and risen to the honour of knighthood by an address to the King during his mayoralty."

However after rising to such  an exalted  level he had abandoned his ,"trade," we do not hear what his trade was, and made every effort to live as though he had always been part of the gentry. He mentions visiting the court of St James ,  and wants to associate with Lady Catherine de Bourg and her nephew Fitzwilliam Darcy.

On the other hand there are the Gardiners,Elizabeth's uncle and aunt, living in Gracechcurch Street in Cheepside, in the  City fo London,  who are also in ,trade. They live near their wharehouses. Presumably their trade is maritime being so close to The Thames. Oddly Austen never tells us what trade these characters participate in. The word ,"trade," is a catch all.The Gardiners are intelligent and kind people who are loved for themselves. They appear to have no grandiose pretentions. With this question of trade and Elizabeth challenging the attitudes of her mother about marriage, is Austen  starting a debate about who and what is valued in society? She seems to be breaking away from the stifling class structure rules. In Austen's novel Emma, there is a character called Robert Martin, a local farmer in Highbury who is looked down upon by Emma. Mr Knightly, a member of the gentry, on the other hand, values him. Jane Austen seems to be exploring changing attitudes in society with these characters. 

I have always thought, in a lazy sort of way, without really thinking about it that the attraction to 21st century readers of Pride and Prejudice was that it shows how a good relationship develops, that people can change for the better and that it is applicable to us today. Having read Pride and Prejudice again I think we are bluffing ourselves. I don’t think that is the case. The way we live now is totally different from the time of Jane Austen. 

What use then is reading Jane Austen novels  today? They are social histories and the novels read in conjunction with historical research can reveal much about life then. There is much in a Jane Austen novel which is useful to the historian. She explains clearly in her novels exactly how things are. She is laying things out saying this is the way it is, whether she is talking about the clergy, the gentry or village life. The gentle narrow world of the gentry and lesser gentry her novels portray, where nothing really terrible happens, where peoples’ lives are mostly in balance and harmony is always achieved at the end, make us feel good. 

In a way  Jane Austen was conning us. The world she lived in was going through one of its most turbulent changes. The Industrial revolution when cities grew, industries poured out smoke and villages such as Chawton and Meryton were emptied of manpower to feed the factories. The differences between those in poverty and those who had wealth became even greater. 

I came away from rereading Pride and Prejudice thinking yes, I enjoyed that, it was fun but its not about me.  A novel takes you into a world where you meet people you would never otherwise experience and a period in history, often, that you could never be in.

I have called this article , 

“Could I have a discussion with jane Austen about life?”

 I think Jane Austen and I are so different in our social experiences, 250 years different. I don’t think I could understand Jane Austen and she couldn’t understand me. A conversation of mutual understanding would be impossible. We might smile at each other over a cup of tea.

 

LEGION: life in the Roman Army. A review. (An exhibition at The British Museum)

 

Head of Emperor Augustus, the creator of the career soldier. 27-25BC.

The British Museum has a new exhibition about the Roman Army. It is the first time they have had an exhibition specifically about the Roman Army. They do have a series of permanent Roman rooms that explore different aspects of life in Roman Britain.  The exhibition runs from the 1st February to 23rd June 2024.

As soon as I saw it advertised on a link on my phone I knew I had to go and see it.  As a school boy of 8 years of age I became enthused by all things Roman. It was not just the history lessons we had ,they could sometimes be a bit dry, it was the books we were given to read. USBORNE is a children’s publisher that have been producing colourful and vivid history books for children for generations. I remember reading and becoming immersed not just in the text of their ,”Romans In Britain,” books  but the illustrations of Roman soldiers clad in armour, wearing plumes in their helmets, carrying shields and spears marching into battle were mesmerising. There were pictures of various battle formations involving the coordinated use of their tall oblong shields. The “Testudo,”using shields to create a tortoise shape so they were protected from above and the sides seemed the most clever  of them all. I could vividly imagine it all and even imagined being there and  taking part. There were the detailed pictures of road building, camp building and fort life to examine and absorb too. I also read ,”Eagle of The Ninth,”by Rosemary Sutcliffe about the same time. I loved reading but that book completely drew me in. I think I read it entirely over three days. I couldn’t put it down.

When I was 9 years old an aunt of mine lived in Dorchester and sometimes I would spend summer holidays with her. She would take me to visit the Roman Town House on the edge of Dorchester. Just the foundations appeared above the ground. We stood in the middle of Malmsbury Ring also in Dorchester. It was reputed to have been a Roman amphitheatre where I imagined gladiators fighting to the death. But the most exciting place was Maiden Castle. A hill fort with massive earth ramparts that surrounded a whole hill. The Romans had attacked the hill fort with ballista and other techniques they developed and defeated the Iron Age inhabitants protected within. I remember my aunt pointing out a very straight country road that stretched into the distance and she telling me it was a Roman road. I was completely seduced by the Romans. Something that inspires you at such a young age is bound to stay with you for life. Hearing about the British Museum exhibition did indeed send shivers down my spine. I am now old. Childhood experiences are profound and lasting it seems.

The remains of the Roman Temple situated on the Iron Age Hill Fort, Maiden Castle near Dorchester Dorset

Those USBORNE history books gave you some facts and also portrayed the Roman soldier picturesquely in all his regalia and explained the different levels of the Roman Army, legionnaire,  auxiliary, standard bearer, trumpet blower, cavalryman, centurion. They showed him building roads and going into battle heroically. What those books didn’t make clear and this exhibition does, through the first hand voices of real legionnaires and auxiliaries by way of their letters home, how cruel, and backbreaking their lives could be.  From their letters we learn about their hopes and ambitions, the mundane and ordinary and the underhand acts of stealing and cheating. The punishments meted out, for sometimes minor misdemeanours, were cruel. 

When we walked into the exhibition the first thing that we were presented with was a large life like bronze bust with eerily white eyeballs with dark pupils set within the bronze head. This is a young, first Emperor Augustus 27BC to 14AD who decided to form the army into a professional organisation. Soldiers became lifelong career soldiers under his reign. To the left of the entrance was an information board introducing us to Terentianus  a second century AD soldier. The letters of Apion and Terentianus  are one of the important themes in the exhibition that show us the lives of real legionaries. Apion’s letters cover the start of his career . Terantianus’s letters extend over the whole of his career. They both came from Egypt . Apion was not a citizen and so could only join the auxiliaries, a lower paid and less well-equipped part of the army. In fact he started as a marine the lowest of the low. Terentianus was a citizen but although he at first began his career as an auxiliary he moved to the legions because of his status as a citizen. Apion hoped to complete his career and as a reward would have been given citizenship and all its benefits  not just for himself but his family and their descendants. Terantianus’s father must have achieved citizenship so passing it on to his son. It was of course a risky endeavour. Only 50% survived to retirement. It was not just taking part in a  battle but also disease that could cause death. Many, however thought it was worth striving for and taking the chance. Terantanius  who already had citizenship, would get a very lucrative pension package if he survived to retirement and the pension package would increase if he was able to advance up the career ladder. The army provided social progress and in many ways was a machine for creating citizens as well as ther means to expand the emire. Hundreds of brass plaques exist with words etched into them giving citizenship to retiring soldiers. There were estimated to be over 300,000 soldiers, both legionaries and auxiliaries, at the height of the Empire which governed 60 million people.

A letter written on papyrus by Apion a marine in the Roman fleet staioned in the Bay of Naples to his father in Egypt. 2nd century AD.

There are a lot of details about life in the Roman army that was new to me. Somebody who could read and write, such as Apion and Terantianus, were more able to move up the career ladder. The aim was to achieve being a centurion. It was however not just ability that  could get you there. If you had money you could pay for advancement. If your father had been a centurion you would automatically get preferential treatment.

There was theft among soldiers. Many soldiers were put together who came from different parts of the Empire. Some were from tribes that had been enemies and often they didn’t speak the same language. Mistrust was built in in some cases. Punishments were severe. If you were dishonourably discharged it meant death. Punishments were severe even for minor infringements. One carved stone relief shows a centurion whipping a soldier who has got out of step while on a march. Crucifixion was the ultimate cruel and barbaric form of execution.

The career ladder was similar in both the legions and the auxiliaries although the levels of pay were different. A legionnaire would aim to become a centurion if he was able but along the way he could become a cavalryman if he had a horse which role paid more. A standard bearer especially the standard bearer who carried the legions Eagle would have more prestige and a better income. The bottom of the ladder was becoming a marine They did much of the heavy work such as building roads and fighting at sea and were the least well paid.

There are clear diagrams displayed depicting maps of the Roman Empire at its largest. One diagram shows how a legion, of usually about 5000 soldiers ,was structured. Each legion was virtually an army in itself.

The structure of a Roman Legion.

The most amazing treasures are of course the papyrus letters written by Terantianus and Apion and other legionnaires and the tablets fromVindolanda. Often the climate of Egypt for instance has ensured their survival.  The Vindolanda wooden tablets found in the peaty soil of the north of England also provide intimate details about life in a Roman frontier fort. Apion writes to his father after making a tortuous journey to the Roman fleet in the bay of Naples that he has arrived safely and is well and happy. The start of his career as a marine was a lowly rank but he does not hint at that. He obviously wants to put his father’s mind at rest. The wooden tablets from Vindolanda, their messages scratched into the wooden surface that originally would have had a layer of wax covering them, reveal, shopping lists, chat between friends, invitations to parties, life as it really was. We get into the minds of the Romans and its amazing to find that 2000 years ago they were in many ways just like us.

A letter written by Terantianus to his father . 2nd century AD.

A warning is displayed before you come into the exhibition that there are human remains on display. The British Museum and all museums in this country show great respect for human remains. Skeletons of Roman soldiers in the exhibition,add to our knowledge and reveal a lot more about being a soldier in the legions. One skeleton comes from Herculaneum and was found near the sea front. Perhaps he had been policing people evacuating from the city during the Eruption of Vesuvius in 79AD. He was discovered with all his equipment, sword, belt and other tools. 

Two Roman soldiers found hurriedly buried in Canterbury. Possibly they were murdered by locals. 

Another skeleton shows evidence for crucifixion. A nail protrudes from its right heel bone. He had suffered the ultimate punishment. This reveals another side to being a legionary. Legionnaires were those who meted out the punishments but theywere often also the receivers of punishment. It was the legionnaires  job to punish those who broke Roman law. Two more skeletons of legionaries found together in Canterbury,  shows evidence that they had been murdered. Their bodies had been hurriedly buried, thrown together without any obvious ceremony in a shallow grave. Often the local population hated the strict rule of the Romans and the tough brutal treatment by legionaries and sometimes they fought back. 

  There are a number of tomb stones of legionaries with inscriptions informing us of their name and other biographical details. A tombstone cost a lot of money to have made. Legionaries could supplement their pay by selling captives they had taken in battle and making  more than their salaries. Although a legionary could not marry they often had slave wives that they bought. There are some tombstones commemorating wives. The care and effort and cost of these stones show that perhaps many of these relationships were loving.

Leather tent sections.

 Vindolanda, the Roman outpost fort near Hadrian’s Wall has been extensively excavated. Excavations at Vindolanda, have revealed that often Roman outpost forts had settlements  grow up and develop near them providing all sorts of services. These settlements often became the beginnings of small towns. The exhibition shows us life not just on a frontier fort such as Vindolanda but about,” Tent,” life, life on the march. There are some examples of leather tent roof sections. The soldiers themselves had to pay for their tents. What surprised me was that to get any kit of quality the soldiers had to buy or obtain it themselves. Terantanius in one letter home asks his father to send him a large battle sword. I had always thought tents and weapons were provided. 

Body armour found in the Teutoborg Forest (Germany). There is evdience that the armour was not removed from the body.

There are many amazing items on display that all tell their own story. Helmets and swords, and a whole set of body armour from the Teutoborg Forest, in Germany,  a disaster where three legions were  destroyed by Germanic tribes. Other examples of body armour found at Corbridge, England are on display. There are examples of  pilum spear heads and an amazing example of a shield. It is the only complete Roman shield that remains. It is made of leather on a wooden frame. It has warped into a more curled shape but it shows the size and rough shape of a Roman Legionnaires battle shield. I could imagine it being used to create a shield wall and also a ,”Testudo.” A central metal boss, that would have been placed in its centre, is displayed to one side. This was for striking an enemy at close quarters. 

Roman helmet.

There are examples of Roman legionaries hob nailed sandals. They looked very flimsy to me. Terentianus wrote home to his father asking  for some socks to wear inside his sandals which he complained lasted only two weeks before he had to replace them. Footwear  was an extremely important item in a legionnaires equipment. His feet had to remain injury free for all the marching and heavy labour he had to do. 

Roman military sandals.

There was also a red sock on display similar to the one Terantanius requested in a letter to his father. It’s amazing how leather and woollen items can survive so long. The conditions for their survival obviously need to be right.

A sock to wear with the sandals. Terantianus asked for a pair of socks in one of his letters to his father.

Exhibitions like this have to appeal to all ages. The main target of the exhibition is partly aimed at the interested adult but children are given as much focus. I explained at the start of this post that as a child I had been enthused about the Romans by the brilliantly illustrated and clearly explained USBORNE history books. Nowadays there is a new approach to enthusing children and  I must say adults too are as enthralled by, The Horrible Histories. These were a series of books originally written by Terry Deary and published by Scholastic. The Horrible Histories have branched out into  TV series, films, board games, boxsets and magazines. The concept has covered all bases and now Museums have taken it on. This Exhibition has a subplot. Instead of Terantanius revealing to us the lives of Roman legionaries we also have , “Ratus,”the Horrible Histories Roman character.  A Horrible Histories themed trail has been designed with many colourful  illustrations that include interactive family stations along the way. They have a knack of using black humour to explain the facts. Nothing is out of bounds but it is done at the child’s level and children love the basic and gruesome  personal tuff. .It is a fun way to learn about the life of the Roman soldier. I must admit, because my wife and I did not have any of our granddaughters with us, we did not try any of the interactive displays. I would have loved to have tried on a Roman helmet or spun the wheel of chance to find out what would have happened to me in battle. 

This exhibition is trying its best to appeal to adults and children and does a very good job. But I think it misses a few targets.  The exhibition book by Richard Abdy , who is the curator of the exhibition, targets those who want more. But this exhibition could also come with talks and discussions by academics and experts, outside of the exhibition. QR codes that could be scanned using phones within the exhibit could add more depth of information too. I wonder if there are any teenagers who might be inspired to take up a history degree or archaeological degree at university because of this exhibition? How could they access links to further education? At the other end of the age range I wonder how younger children, younger than those targeted by Horrible Histories could be engaged? 

Ratus, the Horrible Histories character the exhibtion used to appeal to children.

At the end of my teaching career after I had retired from fulltime teaching I was asked to take some infants classes. I had never taught that age range before. I wasn’t sure about how to go about it. I took my lead from the experienced classroom assistant. We set out a theme for the children each day. One day it might be construction;  bricks, Lego, card , paper and scissors with glue were put on the tables. What could they make? The Romans were great architects and builders.   Also story telling and getting the children to interact with the story was so important . Stories about Roman soldiers? Dressing up as Romans,? This exhibition does some of that. Being given an artefact in their hands to  explore? What is it? Who would use it? What is it made of? Can you use it? Can you draw it? These are things the museum could get younger children involved in.

This is a fantastic exhibition. I certainly feel that I learned a lot and felt more connected with what it meant to be a Roman legionary. Parallels with the world today can always be made. Maybe that is what understanding the past does for us. It helps us understand today.

A REVIEW of Northanger Abbey a play by ZOE COOPER

Actors

HEN:  Sam Newton : Henry Tilney.  

CATH Rebecca Banatvala: Catherine Moreland 

IZ:      AK Golding : Isabella Thorpe

REVIEW 

Jane Austens Northanger Abbey is often seen as a bit of fun. A swipe at the popular Gothic novel genre of the 18th century. A swipe at the gold diggers such as the Thorpes looking to get themselves advantageous marriages to better themselves financially. The personal development of a young girl supposedly with no hope of a prestigious marriage,plain looking, coming from a very average country family, poorly educated, inexperienced in life and who lives in a dream world of fantasy her life enlivened by the vicarious thrills of the Gothic novel. Zoe Coopers play inspired by the novel has all that but each of those elements are seen in an entirely new way making us think about Austen’s novel differently and perhaps more reflectively. It certainly made me think of Austen’s own life in a different way because of this play. 

Walking through the entrance to the Orange Tree Theatre which is located opposite The Orange Tree public house in Richmond upon Thames we were greeted by a smiling lady welcoming us. Two other ladies , one scanned the bar codes on my phone tickets and the other handed me the copy of the play script I had ordered online. We were welcomed effusively, all smiles and kind words. The  process of arriving at and entering the theatre  was honestly heart warming. The Orange Tree Theater is located in an old Victorian School House. We found our way into the Lower Circle, a bank of four rows of continuous benches encircling the whole arena with the performance space in the middle. An upper balcony provided more rows of seating encircling the upper level. Intimate, cosy Shakespeares Wooden O. “All the World is a stage.” (As You Like It.)  Deep pink carpeted arena and a pink balcony . The  theatre is small and compact. Five sparkling chandeliers hung from the ceiling. In anticipation of ,”Balls,” no doubt.

We found our seats and on my seat there lay a white envelope  with my name on it. I wondered what it could be. I opened it and was very pleasantly surprised to see that I had received a handwritten message welcoming me personally to the Orange Tree Theatre.

Zoe Cooper has used a fresh  academic approach to literacy criticism. Her play is about what lies under the surface of Austen’s novel Northanger Abbey. Queer Theory represents a belief that inborn benign differences between people entitle everyone to equal rights. It is a  way to analyze art, literature, music and the world around us. She has picked out personality traits and also how relationships between the characters work together through the lens of this theory.

The seats filled up and the three actors who were to perform for us appeared from three different corner entrances.The prologue began. The  actors, made eye contact with some of the audience ,conversed between each other as to who will do what and who needs to don which costumes. This whole improvistaion style lent itself to a fluidity between the three  characters, who play all the parts between them, in their relationships and in their sexual orientation. 

The play  begins. Sam Newton dons a full length dress with bulging lump positioned pregnantly over his stomach. He lays on the chaise long  in the middle of the arena groaning with  agonising birth pains that he / she  is obviously beset with. At this part he plays ,Mam, (a northern term for Mum or mother) Mam is Mrs Moreland  about to give birth to , they don’t know at first the sex of the baby.After much histrionics, screaming, crouching, pushing and heaving the baby is born.

CATH and HEN/MAM ”A boy!”

IZ/MIDWIFE “It must be a boy…”

CATH No, it can’t be because we are doing my/birth.

As you can imagine There is a lot of slipping in and out of different rolls at this point. It’s hilarious.Although I do wonder at all the mothers in the audience, what they made of a male actor portraying child birth. 

It was at this point in the play,at the very beginnng, that the term ,Pantomime ,came to my mind. Those of you who are British you will already know exactly what I mean.

”Oh no we don’t!” 

“ Oh yes you do!”

“He’s behind you!”

“Izzy?”

( Groan as much as you like!!!!)

But for those of you not British, I won’t hold it against you, ( another well used pantomime innuendo)I will explain briefly.

A pantomime ,is usually based on a fairy tale such as Cinderella.It is an exaggerated form of play, that includes men dressed as women, and women dressed as men.  There is a lot of audience participation, like shouting at the actors. Pantomime actors do expect to be shouted at by the audience.There must  lots of corny jokes, loads of innuendos and ,"pots of gold," to be discovered. Oh yes and its performed specifically for children.

This play has many elements of Pantomime although it really is not a Pantomime at all.The serious points being made are too important.

The play, for all its fun and humour, takes this Austen novel and dissects it analytically into various  levels of meaning.

The beginning I referred to,  the birth of Catherine Moreland , CATH, suggests you question male and female rolls played by individual actors but also the inner feminine and masculine side of a person.

The character of Henry Tilney, HEN ( another one of those northern terms, for a well loved female friend) who loves lace and choosing female clothing for his sister,  is one example of gender exploration. Henry also gets as much of lifes experiences from novel reading as Catherine does. A supposedly female pursuit at the time of Jane Austen.

The role of John Thorpe, the absolute opposite of HEN, also played by Sam Newton, is the supreme pantomime act. A thigh slapping, horse goading testosterone fueled, egotistical  maniac.He remnded me of Rik Mayal in the early episodes of Black Adder. Iwonder that his whipping horses, goading them on to faster and faster speeds, is a sexual metaphor or maybe not so much a metaphor . bestiality is not unknown thing. Would he have beaten Catherine like his horses if ever they did marry.?

The important relationship though in this play is that of Cath and IZ. They love each other not just on a platonic level. The second act ends in the two of them kissing.They knew soon after they first met I think, although perhaps Cath didn’t have the words for what she was experiencing.  Izzy has her male  side. She ,”decks,” a soldier with a punch. Some  soldiers about town had begun to pester and threaten them. It is quite a threatening moment when the soldiers become aware of Caths accent and country origins. The ,”country,” is played on. “She must be used to cunt try matters” the lead soldier, played by IZ,  quickly slipping between different roles, is  sinister. At other times IZ tells us she  dresses in a man’s great coat and hat and wanders the streets unchaperoned and unknown.  In the play Catherine dreams of a marriage between herself and IZ taking place in the grounds of her fathers vicarage,her father marrying them and soft petals falling from  the cherry tree above. 

The use of ,”Mam,” a northern name for mother, is the name given to  Catherine Morelands mother. Catherine speaks with a northern dialect, probably a Bolton accent, north of Manchester  as do her mother and father.  Isabella Thorpe and John Thorpe speak with more received pronunciation. The English aristocracy, of which Jane Austen writes a lot in her novels,we always  imagine, from the films, speak with received pronunciation. But are we sure in the 18th century that they all spoke with  received pronunciation? Did some of the aristocracy speak with regional accents? Why shouldn’t Austen’s characters speak with a regional accent? 

In this version of Northanger Abbey the village ,CATH comes from is not  Fullerton a southern Wiltshire village near Salisbury as it is in the novel. It is a northern village hence her northern accent. I wondered why? This play is having its world premier here in the South at The Orange Tree Theater in Richmnd upon Thames, which is a wealthy upper class sort of place. However from Richmond the play will travel to the Stephen Joseph Theatre in North Yorkshire, The Theatre by The lake in Cumbria in The Lake District ( very beautiful too I must add) and the Octagon Theatre in Bolton. All, apart from The Orange Tree, are in the north of England. Zoe Cooper has written the script to make people feel at home, ‘up north.’ as much as ‘down south.’The emaphasise on the north in the play  creates an awareness of the north south divide in the Untied Kingdom. Often the so called divide  is seen as a joke but economically it is a real thing. That north south divide would have been there in Austens’ time. Industry happened ,”up north.”Spending the wealth derived from the industries happened,”down south.”

Is Catherine the writer of this novel? Is Catherine Moreland  Jane Austen? She actually says at one point. “I am the writer.” And the ending of the play suggests so too.We can discern this near the start of the play when the Allans bring Catherine  to Bath. The carriage ride is an adventure full of dangers and  highwaywomen ( already Cath’s inner life is emerging,excited by a dangerous woman). Of course none of this actually happens. The Allens are a little spooked by Catheirnes wild imagination. Remember Emma Woodhouse,  who thinks she can direct relationships between people. Has Catherine Moreland  achieved it in the fictional /reality of her mind?  

CATH makes her drab life in a drab country village with ordinary boring parents exciting through her reading and imagination.You wonder what Jane Austen’s life as a spinster would have been if she hadn’t written novels.A pretty drab colourless sort of life I think.I am reminded of Harriet Benn, the impoverished vicars daughter who lived in Chawton  near the Austens and Austen often mentions in her letters. And the question arises, what did women do about their sexuality if they didn’t marry in the 18th century? Is it possible for a human  to cut themselves off from being a sexual person, from being themselves? Of course not. Can we expect that of Jane Austen or Catherine Moreland?. If they didn’t find the right man because the right man was not out there for them what close relationships did they have? What type of relationship did they prefer? Do all of Jane Austens heroines need and want a happy ending? Is marriage really the happy ending? I often shudder at what happened to Charlotte Lucas in Pride and Prejudice.

Zoe cooper has chosen her words very  carefully and creates maximum impact, sometimes in a humorous way but always she makes us reflect.Towards the end of the play John Thorpe and Cath are at a ball.CATH has tried everything to deflect John Thorpes attentions . He on the other hand takes ,no, for a ,yes. He  thinks she is playing hard to get. 

HEN/JOHN THORPE: Still never mind,we are here now. Despite your games! Or perhaps because of them. Dancing together!

CATH:I am not dancing with anyone. I am dancing near many people. That is the custom for country dancing is it not?... Our dancing is polymorphous.

HEN/ JOHN THORPE: Polymorphous! Polyamorous! Poo Poo.I consider the country dance as an emblem of marriage. Fidelity to one man and complaisance to him are the principle duties of both…”

This is a little out of the blue.Polymorphous is understandable, but  where did  polyamorous come from?This throws a whole new light on to the play. Sexual fluidity, different sexual orientations, have all been explored but the idea of polyamorous makes us think again. Who? where? what? Quite something for John Thorpe to come up with at this juncture.

I have begun to think Northanger Abbey is a sort of shadow autobiography of Jane Austen written by Austen but through the mind of Catherine Moreland? We can map the events and characterisations in the play on to Austens life. The men Austen knew and had those truncated relationships with. Did she really want to marry a man? She had strong life long friendships with  females. Like CATH she had  brothers and lived mostly a country life apart from her sojourn in Bath of course. It is worth thinking about. This play certainly makes you wonder.  

There is a two part ending to the play.We have the bit where Cath has been returmed home in a sudden abrupt manner by General Tilney because he believes she is poor and certainly not the heiress he thought she was. Henry turns up at Caths village soon after. He is mortified by his fathers actions and asks her father for her hand in marriage. He wants to do his duty which of course should not be mistaken for love.  CATH has discovered herself. She knows her true love is IZ. Henry himself perhaps has to learn his true nature yet. 

“CATH: No.We.That is not…

Because I did betray you,Henry. And it is..

That would not have been enough for me anyway. And it must not be enough for you either.

IZ/HEN…And I don’t expect that you and I shall ever see each other again.

An epilogue occurs. 

HEN: And some years later…

CATH , when visiting a shop sees a female figure examining a new volume. It just happens to be this play script. When she turns it is IZ. IZ has discovered herself in this volume. CATH recalls being under the cherry tree at the start of this story in her garden at home ,”where I started to write.”

So, no traditional happy ending but a reflective ending.

The play is acted strongly by the three very good actors. Sam Newton and Rebecca Banatvala both trained at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama. AK Golding trained at Bristol Old Vic Theatre School.They are very believable in their fluidly changing roles. 

Zoe Cooper plays with words adding meaning and depth. After her first menstrual period enacted during Act One Scene 3 while playing rough games with her brother Nigel, specifically re-enacting Boewulf  Nigel goads his sister telling her ,

” Real life women cannot have any  sorts of adventures and must only be sensible …and subservient.” 

Nigel repeats the word, subservient, making much of it, he having recently read it in Dr Johnsons Dictionary. 

It is a  word that describes the plight of women in the 18th century. Something that Austen in her novels shows women struggling with and sometimes overcoming or at least finding ways to manage. When she first arrives in Bath with the Allens she is pronounced ready for ,”balls.” Even I had to stifle a giggle.There is of course the mysogenistic soldiers encounterd by IZ and CATH on Milsom Street who play with the word ,”cunt-ry.”

Austen herself did not like the name Richard. She had a aversion to the various King Richards in medieval history. She says as much in her own youth when she wrote,”The History of England.” CATH’s father is called Richard to CATH’s mortification. Play on words and word jokes pepper the play. Austen would have loved it. 

Online video of the play: 

https://orangetreetheatre.co.uk/whats-on/northanger-abbey/

The Orange Tree Theatre:

https://orangetreetheatre.co.uk/