Siblings

          In Austen’s Mansfield Park, the narrator notes, “Children of the same family, the same blood, with the same first associations and habits, have some means of enjoyment in their power, which no subsequent connections can supply” (247).  In all of the Austen novels we have read this semester, as well as in Charlotte Smith’s Desmond, sibling relationships play some role in the plot propulsion or character development.  In his article, “Lady Susan, Individualism, and the (Dys)functional Family,” William Galperin sets this inclusion of sibling relations within the historical context of Austen’s and Smith’s writing, attributing it to the identification of the family: “I am referring now to the evolution of the family into the nuclear form that most of us would deem typical or normative, particularly in Western cultures, but which turns out to have been a relatively new and striking development, both historically and culturally, at the time that Austen was writing” (49).  Galperin compares this familial evolution to a shift from monarchy to democracy; the siblings no longer simply coexist under one patriarch, they now each have some role in the propulsion of the family.  Galperin also interestingly links this development to the decrease in infant mortality rate, since family members did not fear premature death as greatly as they had previously; they felt more able to become attached to the family members.  Austen utilizes this shift to close family relations in describing sibling closeness as a means of character alliance as well as conversely showing strained sibling relations resulting from competition and selfishness.

            Austen’s own relationship with her sister Cassandra sets up a discussion of the sisterly relationships in her novels as well as in Charlotte Smith’s Desmond.  About Jane and Cassandra’s close relationship, Austen’s niece Fanny said, “no one was equal to Jane in Cassandra’s eyes.  And Jane looked up to Cassandra as one far wiser and better than herself” (May 335).  Leila May also notes the sisters’ close relationship: “the most enduring and indisputable significantly relationship in Jane’s life was with her sister Cassandra…Austen’s relationship to Cassandra was characterized as a ‘marriage,’ a bond so profound that it provided the kind of emotional force and fulfillment which a conventional marriage could only hope to approximate” (May 335).  This close relationship obviously translates into the prevalence of sisters in her novels: the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility, the Elliots in Persuasion, and the Wards in Mansfield Park.

         This Austen family tree shows all of the sibling relationships in the Austen family.  Being the only sisters in a family with six brothers brought Cassandra and Jane together as close confidants in a male-dominated household.  They would often write to one another, and the hundreds of letters between them have helped inform scholars about Austen’s life (May).  One such letter from 1798 from Jane to Cassandra is seen below.

Ironically, though, the relationship most similar to that of Jane and Cassandra is found in Charlotte Smith’s Desmond.  In this novel, Geraldine and Fanny show complete loyalty to one another. In my post, “Geraldine: Frustration to Understanding” I note that much of Geraldine’s inner dialogue, and sense of her deeper emotions and beliefs remains absent in her letters to Fanny.  Geraldine often skirts around expressing her true desires, like when she refuses to ask Fanny to come visit her: “It would have been a comfort to me, my Fanny, to have had your company at this time.  But I know that this incident will add to the reluctance with which my mother would have before borne your absence from her; and therefore, I will not again name it, not suffer myself to make those complaints” (Smith 160).  Geraldine expresses that she would want Fanny with her, but couches this expression by never actually asking her to come.  In contrast, Fanny expresses exactly what is on her mind, and Geraldine knows her well enough to foresee this: “I anticipate the remark you will make upon this – you, who are so little inclined to spare his follies, or, indeed those of any of your acquaintance” (Smith 160).  These seemingly opposing personalities blend together to create a cohesive sisterly bond.  One must consider the elements of separation and of marriage, however, when considering Geraldine’s relationship with Fanny.  Geraldine has already married, so they would not be competing over the attention of male suitors, and the physical distance between them allows them to form opinions solely for the benefit of the one another.  Bethel’s observations about Fanny transcend the epistolary form and show her fierce loyalty: “Mr. Bethel, could you imagine all my sister has endured in this frightful period, during which she has only once seen her husband – could you imagine what she has endured, and have witnessed the fortitude, the patience, the courage she has shewn, while suffering not only pain and weakness, but the horrors of dreading the approach of ruin for her children!” (Smith 176).  The reader gets the sense that Fanny would defend her sister in any situation at all simply because of her biological ties.  This closeness may be a result of a domineering mother personality.  Geraldine often asks Fanny to relay information to their mother rather than speak to her herself.  The two sisters unite to withstand their mother’s supremacy.

In his post, “Family and Nation,” Jess connects this strong relationship between Fanny and Geraldine to Smith’s larger political statement: “The idea that family is the foundation of understanding social cohesion and patriotism is present in Smith’s Desmond…If family establishes a set of common ideals that everyone can relate to then social cohesion will be enhanced.”  He cites a passage in which Geraldine comments on the importance of familial strength: “where families are divided among themselves – I mean, where the father or mother disagree with the children, or the brothers and sisters with each other, there is something very wrong among them all” (Smith 191).  In the face of her marital troubles, Geraldine hangs on to her relationship with her sister to create some semblance of these family ideals, thus working towards Smith’s contention that family values, when applied to society, can have a macro-level impact.

            Elinor and Marianne resemble Fanny and Geraldine in their two very distinct personalities, but they differ from Fanny and Geraldine in their habit of keeping information from one another.  Elinor keeps the news of Edward’s engagement to Lucy Steele to herself, and Marianne keeps Elinor in the dark about her relationship with Willoughby.  Elise’s post, “Sisterly Love Coupled with Secrecy” tackles this issue of concealment within Elinor and Marianne’s seemingly close relationship: “Though the intentions of Elinor seem just as she stated her desire to protect her sister’s wellbeing in keeping her own misery from adding to Marianne’s grief, it seemed odd to me that she did not share these feelings with her sister earlier.”  May contends that “Duty and fear of giving offense have taken precedence over sisterly openness” (341) and that Elinor’s secrecy acts as another example of her “sense” identification.  This informational distance contrasts starkly with the two sisters’ fates of living so close to one another in the end. 

The secrecy element serves to convey the complicated nature of sisterly relationships, thus making Marianne and Elinor a more realistic portrayal of sisters.  May espouses this in her belief that Austen “avoids the more emphatic, reductive contrast of good sister/bad sister by writing layers of moral complexity into their personalities” (340).  Having complete transparency between the sisters may lend too strongly toward this cleanly defined dichotomy between sense and sensibility or good and bad, which would not be an accurate portrayal of any sibling relationship.  In the end, as Catherine notes in “Sisterly Love,” Elinor and Marianne’s care for one another trumps all other forces: “the love that remains the truest throughout the novel is the love between Elinor and Marianne.”  Though they are often kept uninformed about one another’s problems, once they are let in, both Marianne and Elinor offer unconditional, sisterly love.

            Not all sisterly relationships can be as harmonious as those of Fanny and Geraldine and Elinor and Marianne.  In both Mansfield Park and Persuasion, sets of sisters allow societal issues to interfere with their relationships.  Fergus explains this path to strained relationships: “sisters, both while they continue in the paternal mansion, and afterwards when settled in marriage are frequently drawn into competitions by the shewy trifles and follies on which the female mind is apt to dote. And whenever they begin to enter into competitions, mutual affection instantly cools” (71-72).  One such competition is evident in the relationship between the Ward sisters in Mansfield Park.  In her post “Men as the Heroes,” Kathryn notes the importance each of their connections has had on their lives: “They all come from the same family yet one marries a baronet, one a parishioner and one a naval officer.  Their husband’s station in life determines their own social life, regardless of their starting point.  So, women must make these good connections with men so they can dictate the social status of other women.”  Though their marriage competition has long passed, these sisters have to deal with the residual jealousy issues and constant evaluations.  Mrs. Norris and Fanny’s mother both have to accept the fact that their very own sister, Lady Bertram, has social power over them.  The correlation between marriage and social status destines these women to a life of comparison, and ruins the possibility of close sisterly relations.

            The Elliot sisters in Persuasion encounter the same issue of competition with marriage, just at a different life stage.  The sisters are distinguished from one another in their responses to the societal standard of propriety in marriage.  Elizabeth’s sense of superiority in the marriage market, driven by pressure from Sir Walter, distances her from her sisters and even leads Anne to describe her as “unsisterly” (Austen 80).  Mary has (for lack of a better term) “settled” for her husband, and Anne has given into pressure from Lady Russell and passed over her true love in the name of propriety.  As we discussed in class, women had so few rights on their own that they had to rely on males for things as insignificant as banking and money management, thus Sir Walter’s pressure on marriage is somewhat defensible, but his selfishness negates any genuine parental guidance.  While Madeline points out justification for Sir Walter’s pressure in the fact that marriage acted as a sort of insurance policy in an age when women could not own their own property (“Class Conscious”), this pressure still leaves Mary with a sense of inferiority and Anne initially without the one subject of her true affection. Galperin argues that Austen gives Anne a “depth or interiority that is impenetrable to everyone else” (54) in an effort to distinguish her from her sisters and highlight the positives of learning to make decisions based on personal emotions and preferences rather than giving into societal constraints.

The relationships between brothers and sisters in Austen’s novels deviate significantly from those between sisters, most notably in the absence of competition and jealousy.  Jim Fergus, in his article, “’Rivalry, Treachery between sisters!’ Tensions between Brothers and Sisters in Austen’s Novels,” notes that brothers and sisters are on decidedly different paths: the brothers usually have their future decided for them by birth order whereas the sisters have to rely on marriage to be successful throughout life.  Because of these differing paths, Fergus argues that brothers can be irreplaceable allies for their sisters: “If your brothers should have the good fortune to have hearts susceptible of friendship, to possess truth, honour, sense, and delicacy of sentiment, they are the fittest and most unexceptionable confidants” (70).  This “unexceptionable confidant” relationship is most evident in the relationship between William and Fanny Price in Mansfield Park.  While away from her family, Fanny only expresses her desire to be reunited with her brother William.  One must consider the geographical separation between William and Fanny when understanding their ability to remain so close: living in two completely different societies for most of the time keeps competition at bay and prevents others from interfering.  The true testament to Fanny and William’s closeness is the fact that they can both participate in the society of Mansfield Park and remain loyal to one another. 

While describing Fanny and William’s relationship, Austen prefaces her statement of their loyalty and connectedness with the statement, “fraternal love, sometimes almost every thing, is at others worst than nothing” (Austen 247).  This statement comes as a surprise in its context, it seems to suggest that William and Fanny’s relationship is not the norm, but it is something for families to strive toward.  In her article, “Jane Austen’s ‘Schemes of Sisterly Happiness,’” Leila S. May postulates that this statement of caution represents Austen making a societal critique.  By exposing the possibility of a harmful brother-sister relationship, Austen is creating a “defense of the family in the name of social stability…a warning that unless family bonds are deeply honored, fraternal love could prove to be ‘worse than nothing’” (May 334).  May also notes that there exists an “equality between them, transparent openness on both parts” (333), which prevents the reader from misunderstanding Austen’s statement as one condoning fraternal power over female family members.  Fanny’s deference for her brother represents a time in which fraternal love is “almost every thing” in a life.

 The brother/sister relationships in Northanger Abbey do not contain this same sense of “equality between them.”  The character structure of this novel directly sets up a comparison between sets of siblings by having Catherine and James Morland, Frederick, Henry, and Eleanor Tilney, and John and Isabella Thorpe all interacting with one another. The relationships are complex, with the brothers often acting for their sisters.  In my blog post, “Little as Catherine was in the habit of judging for herself,” I noted, “male characters often make decisions and actions for Catherine and other female characters.  Catherine allows her brother and Mr. Thorpe (as well as Isabella) to persuade her to go with them instead of spending time with the Tilneys.”  James takes advantage of Catherine’s dependency on him when he wants to get closer to Isabella, but then expects Catherine’s sympathy in his letter explaining Isabella’s abandonment: “Let me soon hear from you, dear Catherine; you are my only friend; your love I do build upon” (Austen 199).  Catherine’s naiveté in not catching on to James and Isabella’s relationship (and the ways they both use her), followed by her unconditional love and protection of her brother at the dissolution of the relationship demonstrates the way she bases her life off of her brother’s.  When her brother tells her to act one way, she does it.  When he tells her to be sad for him, she adjusts accordingly.  This obedience exemplifies Catherine’s view of Austen’s larger message in her post, “Who’s Who?”: “the narrator is not defending gender roles but pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea that females’ beauty lies in their inability to have or express opinions contrary to those of men.”  Catherine cannot even trust her own brother completely, much less all other male characters, thus, she should learn to develop her own voice and make her own decisions and assessments.

  John and Isabella Thorpe represent a very different brother/sister relationship in their mutual exploitation of one another for personal gains.  Isabella attempts to manipulate Catherine into becoming linked to her brother, convincing Catherine that it is out of friendship, not familial relations: “I do not think any thing would justify me in wishing you to sacrifice all your happiness merely to oblige my brother, because he is my brother, and who perhaps after all, you know, might be just as happy without you, for people seldom know what they would be at, young men especially, they are so amazingly changeable and inconstant.  What I say is, why should a brother’s happiness be dearer to me than a friend’s? You know I carry my notions of friendship pretty high” (Austen 152).  Isabella convinces Catherine that she’s acting out of friendship and initially seems to be looking out for her brother’s best interest, but she is really acting out of self-preservation: “the manipulative, social-climbing Isabella stays “loyal” to her brother, seeing in his marriage to Catherine a definite advantage to herself” (May 331).  Isabella’s selfish motives mirror her brother’s concern for himself.  John’s arrogant, selfish attitude and romantic pursuits trump his familial loyalty.  His immaturity comes out in his exclamation, “I did not come to Bath to drive my sisters about, and look like a fool” (Austen 114).  John and Isabella both act according to their own personal motives, and Austen punishes this selfishness by leaving them both single in the end of the novel.

This string of sibling relationships runs through all of Austen’s and Smith’s novels, shedding light on character dependence, privacy, pride, and love.  Seeing the interactions with family members adds depth to every character, even one as flat as Catherine Morland.  Examining the relationships from Northanger Abbey, Persuasion, Mansfield Park, Sense and Sensibility, and Smith’s Desmond, one better understands the societal pressures straining sisterly relationships as well as the differing levels dependency within brother/sister bonds.  This examination really brings new meaning to the idea that to truly get to know someone, you have to get to know her family.

Works Cited

“A letter from Jane Austen to Cassandra – Dec 1798.” <http://www.pemberley.com/photos/other/index.html> Accessed 27 April 2012.

Fergus, Jan. “’Rivalry, Treachery between sisters!’ Tensions between Brothers and Sisters in Austen’s Novels.” Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal 31 (2009): 69-88. Print.

Galperin, William. “Lady Susan, Individualism, and the (Dys)functional Family.” Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal 31 (2009): 47-58. Print.

“Jane Austen’s Family Tree.” <http://www.syriejames.com/austen-familytree.php> Accessed 27 April 2012.

May, Leila S. “Jane Austen’s ‘Schemes of Sisterly Happiness.’” Philological Quarterly 81.3 (2002): 327-358. Print.