So my post today will have something in common with my post on Sense and Sensibility: there I was wondering about the "interchangeable" nature of characters the novel otherwise seems to oppose. Here I'm intrigued by how much of Mansfield Park is dominated by surrogate characters: characters who stand in for--play the role of--an absent character. We get the idea of surrogation most obviously at the beginning, with Fanny's adoption: thus the Bertrams stand in as parental figures for the Prices. But then, as flawed or disengaged guardians, the Bertrams are quickly displaced by Edmund, who comes to represent a brother and father figure for Fanny all in one. As a brother figure, he replaces the absent William (who will make a re-appearance later). Edmund also stands in for the oldest son: he is responsible in all the ways Tom is not, and when Tom goes to Antigua Edmund literally takes his place--in family duties and in Mary's affections. As a father figure, Edmund replaces Sir Thomas, who is absent in several senses: both as a plantation owner (at the beginning of the novel he manages his West Indies property from afar) and then, once he travels to Antigua, as a father (though one could make the argument that this geographic absence only reinforces an emotional disengagement from his family that already existed). Finally, as a clergyman in the making, Edmund invokes ideas of surrogation in the sense that the the vicar "stands in"--morally, etc--for his parishioners, and also "stands in" the pulpit as a representative of Christ: see Edmund's discussion with Mary on the clergy (Chap 9). Not surprisingly, vicar and vicarious share an etymological root.
I'm interested in this pattern in the novel more broadly; as you keep reading, I think you'll see the ways in which Fanny is a surrogate character too. For me, this pattern raises questions such as: what happens to surrogate characters when the originals come back? And what does the process of surrogation do to questions of responsibility--who has responsibility, the original or his / her replacement? As the main surrogate figure in the novel, the character who can stand in for a whole range of other characters, I also find it interesting that Edmund is the most resistant to the theatricals. Theater is, after all, the realm in which surrogation is made most overt.
My paper ideas, then, seem to be coalescing around ideas of substitution in Jane Austen's novels...why it happens, what are its effects...
Compared to S&S, "surrogacy" seems here less about interchangeability as it is about Edmund's exercise of power. As "humble" as he is, he takes all the reins in his own hands, when others fail to do so adequately. Yes, it is out of necessity but we do get a sense of how much he enjoys his power over others as when he is "glad" that Fanny agrees with whatever he says. He seems to be a control-freak, wanting to play all the roles, but playing them very seriously, so as to feel like he actually embodies them all fully. That's the thing, he takes himself very seriously and has little humour. His objection to the play is a moral one (protector of his sisters' modesty and of the family decorum) but also a prideful one: he does not want to play the role of a mocked clergyman. He is actually playing the role of the crusader hero by opposing the play and then, when forced to join (although he likely wants to join since Mary Crawford is in the company), he enacts only a caricature of himself, a truer and more pathetic version of who he is and probably, of who he is afraid to be. He is then maybe scared of the theatre because it could reveal that all these power positions are only temporary roles for him to play. The play reminds him that the impotent clergyman on stage is who he really could end up being, as Mary Crawford has so teased him on.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to see the words ‘vicar’ and ‘vicariously’ share etymological roots. I think it illustrates Edmund’s character as a responsible person much more when I see him as a surrogate for his father (his father can live “vicariously through him) and as a soon-to-be vicar (his parishioners can achieve spirituality through him), though I see it as contradictory that he allows others to use him as a surrogate but he won’t choose to adopt surrogacy in the theater.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is questionability about the presence of surrogates, though. As you said: “what happens to surrogate characters when the originals come back?” This brings me to the topic of my latest blog post: relationships (or the web of relationships, rather). I talked about the issue of characters falling in love/flirting with other characters they aren’t meant to be with. The Mary and Edmund relationship, for example, isn’t “meant to be” for two reasons: we see Edmund as meant to be with Fanny, and Mary even once concludes that Tom is meant to be her partner. I think we can almost see Mary as somewhat of a stand-in for Fanny in the realm of relationships. Going back to your question, what happens when the original—Fanny— comes back? I think we already discussed that Fanny and Edmund finally get together in the end, but I’m curious to know the process by which Fanny gets Edmund back. I mentioned in my blog that it annoyed me how other characters fall in love with people they’re not meant to be with, and so I also wonder if those characters in the not-meant-to-be relationships could be considered surrogates for the characters with whom their love interest is supposed to be in love? I don’t know if that sentence quite made sense, but to clarify, here’s an example of what I mean:
a. Julia likes Henry. This relationship is almost by default because…
b. Older sis Maria is already (soon to be) engaged with Mr. Rushworth. But problem is …
c. Maria starts to like Henry.
So… does this mean we can see Henry as a surrogate for Mr. Rushworth? I’m not quite sure if this is even valid logic here, but it would be interesting if there was some sort of connection.