Our two excerpts---one from Austen's Emma (1815) and one from George Eliot's Mill on the Floss (1860)---both narrate an encounter with Gypsies who are on the margins of "safe" and "respectable" social space. I'd like for you to comment on a couple of related issues:
1) How do both of these texts define and navigate the boundaries (both spatial and metaphorical) between same and other, familiar and strange, white Englishmen and Gypsy?
2) What is the role of imagination and (especially) literature or fairy tales in how Austen's narrator (and Emma herself) describes the Gypsies, or in how Eliot's narrator (and Maggie) approaches the gypsies. What is the tone of these descriptions? Ironic? At whose expense?
3) What role does gender play in these encounters?
I'm looking forward to talking about it,
Dan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I find it very interesting that it is always the helpless woman or child that has an encounter with the “evil” Gypsies. In Austen’s novel Harriett swoons after her encounter with the Gypsies, who does not touch her but only ask her for money, or if you take Freud’s approach she swoons because of her sexual desire for Tom. In Eliot’s novel there is a nine year old little girl running away from home and stubbles upon a camp of Gypsies and only feels threaten by them when the adult male Gypsies make an appearance. Once again I see the theme of getting to the female of a race or society in order to infect the male population. It is the Adam and Eve downfall story once again. Women are portrayed as helpless and feeble, Harriett has an illness and Maggie is naive and ignorant about the world due to her sheltered existence. In addition, once again the man has to be the hero in the story and bring the damsel in distress back to safety. We see Maggie’s father meet her in the road and bring her from the clutches of the Gypsies to their home. Then there is the hero, Tom, who comes in the nick of time and saves Harriett from the savages. The white British male plays a dominate role in each of these stories.
Eliot and Austen use imagination in the novels in order to place a fairy tale over the reality of the situations. In Austen’s work, Emma uses her imagination to picture the events that has taken place between Harriett and the Gypsies and how Tom played the hero. She believes a connection or romance has transpired between Tom and Harriett because of this event. In Eliot, Maggie has pre-conceived notions about how wonderful it will be to live as a gypsy and places her reality as an English child into her fantasy. For instance, she was so sure that the Gypsies would have a tea-time and eat the same food as she does. She did not know that they live on scraps because they cannot be a part of the English society. She was even unaware that the young gypsy girl would despise her because of her place in society. Maggie wanted to teach the Gypsies and be their ruler. It was ironic that they in turn taught her a lesson that will cause her to never run away from home again.
In both novels there was an understanding between the Gypsies and the English that they were not the same, thus they should stay apart. I believe in Austen’s novel the Gypsies knew they could coax money out of women so they begged Harriett and her companion for it. Women seem to be an easier target. They also scattered when they saw Tom coming. Furthermore, in Eliot’s novel the Gypsies knew where Maggie lived but I got the impression they never went on to her families land. The Lady Gypsy made a point of telling Maggie to let her father know that they were nice to her and called her pretty lady. They were also aware that it was important for her to get home safely; maybe for fear that they would be blamed if something happened to her. So it appeared that the Gypsies and General English population understood the boundaries placed between the two.
I found not only the gender of both of Austen's and Eliot's main characters intriguing, but also their class. Both Harriet and Maggie are gentlewomen who aren't used to dealing with many strangers, especially those they consider to be of lower class. I think this distinction is important to consider when gauging both girls' reactions to the gypsies because they are both so sheltered. Maggie is compared to a girl when Eliot writes, "Maggie Tulliver, you perceive, was by no means that well-trained, well-informed young person that a small female of eight or nine necessarily is in these days" (101). I think that Andrea phrased it well when she called them "helpless" women, because neither of them knew what to do when faced with an unusual situation. Maggie, though was fascinating in the fact that "her thoughts generally were the oddest mixture of clear-eyed acumen and blind dreams"(101). This view of her depicts her as both intelligent and yet naive. She knows enough of the world to want to explore but not enough to know what she's getting herself into.
Again, Maggie's story is more interesting when you look at her imagination. Her view of the gypsies is partly just fantasy. She thinks of the Robin Hood and St. George in the same terms she does the gypsies, wishing that one of her heroes would rescue her if only they would "happen to pass that way...but these heroes were never seen in the neighborhood of St. Ogg's" (101). Her thoughts about them are just as real as those about the gypsies. So what does that say about the role of the gypsies themselves? Well, obviously Maggie doesn't really want to be a gypsy, but an easy escape instead. She doesn't think of them as people, but rather in terms of ideas. She understand the idea of the gypsies but can't really cope with the reality.
Both texts describe the Gypsies to be a distance away from 'civilized society'. In Emma, it is described in a "dark" way, which I assumed was supposed to be associated with the Gypsies themselves, "About half a mile beyond Highbury, making a sudden turn, and deeply shaded by elms on each side, it became for a considerable stretch very retired"(2). This is when the ladies came into contact with the Gypsies. The whole scene is described as a horror story, but if you really think about it, it was mostly children begging for money. Being a high class lady, Harriet was afraid because she did not know what to expect from 'dirty' 'thieves'. In The Mill on the Floss, Maggie travels a long way from home (according to her) to reach Dunlow Common where the Gypsies live. When she finally gets there, she realizes that they are much dirtier than she imagined and they have no manners. They were exceptionally nice to her, except for that one lady, and yet she still describes them as lesser than herself and cannot wait to get home. She often describes their speech as having a "coaxing tone", as if they are always trying to trick her, or make her "look like an idiot". Her imagination of the Gypsies was much more glamorous than what she came to find out about them.
One other thing I noticed was that Maggie was "often told that she was like a gipsy", and "half wild". Also, "She had once suggested that he [Tom] should stain his face brown, and they should run away together". I wondered if Maggie was already a darker color, and could more easily fit in with the Gypsies.
In the excerpt from Eliot's story, the spatial boundaries are very apparent. Maggie wants to run away, so she has to go over miles of fields, to find the "commons" down wide lane, until she gets to the gypsies. It shows that the gypsies were separated by a large amount of space because the rich, wealthy people did not want the gypsy tent area to be near their homes.In the Austen excerpt, they were hiding in the dark forest, maybe because the gypsies are "dark others" so they hide in the dark, away from the common route. Again, the gypsies are in a hidden place, away from the everyday life of the wealthy upper class.
To me, the tone of Maggie's descriptions are almost whimsical. Almost like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. She though she would come in and they would all just love her, and she could tidy up their lives and eventually become their queen. She had these illusions of grandeur about joining these poor uneducated people and they would be just be enraptured at her brilliance and they happily accept her as one of her own. The ridiculousness of her descriptions make her look worse than the gypsies are described to be. They pick pocketed her, yes, but they gave everything back (except her thimble). She had such unrealistic expectation of these people, before she got there and while she was there. She went from thinking they would make her queen to thinking they were going to kill her and chop her into little pieces. To me it shows what a horrible misunderstanding of the gypsies that the British had, and it is all played out in Maggie, making her look foolish.
Both Austen and Eliot set up definite boundaries between their female characters and the gypsies but they play with these in different ways.
With Austen, we immediately see Harriet described as "white and frightened," setting up the unspoken "dark" other. This is played upon later when Harriet is accosted by the gypsies. Austen plays upon traditional gender roles, by having a disabled Harriet (disabled by a cramp from dancing, which is a decidedly feminine injury) attacked by a group led by a woman, subverting the idea of femininity. The tone Austen takes is one of mild amusement towards the British, especially when she correlates the "terror and the purse" as tempting, indicating how wide the British fear of gypsies spanned.
In the Eliot, there is a stronger indication of parody towards the British- Eliot shows gypsies outwitting the English and, in turn, shows the British as being foolish and correlates them with silly Maggie, who Eliot shows as having less intelligence than a 9 year old child. It is also interesting that this correlation is made with a female, instead of a male. Maggie is described as being "half wild" like a gypsy, perhaps playing on the idea that Englishness could be infiltrated and blurring the lines of what is "other."
In both encounters you have several factors to consider. In Maggie's case there is a young female who has romanticized gypsy life. While in "Emma" two fully grown women encounter small gypsy children and they run away as if being persude by Freddy Kruger(nightmare on Elm Street). I find these differences interesting because of the role "fear" and perception plays in these scenes.
To stay on topic given the great expanse of land that Maggie has to travel over to get to the gypsy's shows just how seperate they are. Exiting the gate she enters onto the lane that will lead her to the gypsy "family". The gate plays the role of exactly what it is, a barrier between the two worlds.
Imagination and perception in these stories is directly linked to how the characters all interact. Maggie's imagination causes her to believe that the Gypsy's are really a wonderful, free spirited group who will lover her instantly. Do to her great intellect(at nine) they will hold her in great esteem. This is not the case and she soon realizes that the reality is that she is seen as a device for reward.
In "Emma" the situation is actually rather comical. Miss Smithe and Miss Bickerton walking from a ball encounter a shaded road inhabited by Gypsies. As a child approached to beg the women freak out and run climbing over walls and acting very unlady like,hahahah. In reaction to this obvious fear the Gypsies grab onto the opportunity in hopes of getting whatever they like.
Similarly here the Gypsies are viewed in both cases to be opportunist. This characterization is viewed as moraly wrong, because only the very wicked would find opportunity in the fear of a small girl or a young woman.
In the excerpt from Jane Austen’s Emma, we see blurred boundaries between the geography of the local society and vagrant gypsies. This is evident because Harriet and her companion encounter a group of gypsies “on the Richmond road, which, though apparently public enough for safety, had led them into alarm” (Austen 267). The women are familiar with the idea of gypsies; however, they find them alarming, strange, and overwhelming. I found it a bit comical (and excessive) that Miss Bickerton is so frightened she gives a “great scream” when a begging child walks toward her (Austen 267). He is, after all, only a child. It is like her response is to a rabid dog or something that imposes real danger. It is interesting that the gypsies Harriet and Miss Bickerton run into are “half a dozen children, led by a stout woman and a great boy” (Austen 267). There are no adult male gypsies to threaten the purity of the misses. Because it is a fear of women and children, it is easy to recognize the bias, stereotype, and separation between society and gypsy. Even the gentle, submissive ladies (according to traditional gender roles) cannot sum up any compassion for the hungry, homeless children. Instead they scream, go into shock, and faint as a result of this encounter.
Emma’s retelling of her friend’s experience is a bit ironic as she is only concerned with Harriet’s rescuer Frank Churchill. Emma sees the gypsies as an interesting twisted fate for Harriet and Frank’s being together. This gives her much joy and excitement; she seems less concerned about the great threat and survival of her dear friend Harriet. Emma’s perspective is shallow, and the presence of gypsies in her community does little to upset her. Perhaps this is because of her permanent position in the upper class of her community. Unlike Harriet’s unknown past, both Emma and her community know her place in society. Her social standing is not questioned as class lines are already decided. In contrast, Harriet is threatened by gypsies because she has more to lose in such an encounter. Her origin and social standing is unknown (much like the mysterious past of the gypsies). She has more reason to fear those that she could perhaps be a part of. (I haven’t read Emma in a while, but I believe Harriet’s unknown past is accurate.) If so, this brings up interesting questions about the gypsy’s ability to transform and blend amongst British society.
The Gypsies been spatial far removed from the upper class world of Maggie and Emma confirms the status of the Gypsies are the "other". Their persona is so far removed from what is maintained as a civilized society. Having two female characters is interesting because they can represent the captive and the fool in relation to the Gypsies. Emma is weak to the Gypsies, a response that a man couldn't have because of his typified masculine ideals. Maggie is like a child and with her imagined perception of the Gypsies and giving them an almost magical appeal. Once again, a man would not have this view of the Gypsies because it is not normative male behavior to create a fairy tale landscape in which to place characters. I feel that is men were to encounter gypsies, then their role would be very stagnant and they would be seen only in one way. Perhaps as purely dark and dangerous. With using women in the narratives, the Gypsies become more dynamic characters. There are allowances with female characters that aren't permitted with male characters. To stumble into the Gypsy world is associated with women because they are portrayed as foolish, emotional, and curious and to be rescued of the world is the place of the man. If a male character was to encounter the Gypsies, it would be in a conquering sense that would portray the Gypsies in only one way. Using female characters allow the authors to explore the topic of the "other".
My personal reaction to the Mill on the Floss text is an astonishment at the irony that occurs when Maggie leaves her home because she is "unhappy", but when she gets to the gipsy camp, she feels "lonely." (100) Another initial reaction that occurred when comparing the two texts was the use of money and the gipsy: Maggie is pick-pocketed while sitting by the fire and Harriet "immediately promised them money" (265).
In Austin's novel, the gypsies were far from the rest of the community and to maggie a way of life one "runs off to". When her life gets to be too much, Maggie imagines running off and living happily amongst them, being accepted immediately and living this exciting wonderous life. I didn't find it strange because pepople often reject ideas in public which they fantasize in private. I think she related to them because she was called a "wild girl" or gypsie like as a child. I couldn't believe she went to the extreme to tell her bf to paint his face brown, I thought that was strange. The fact Eliot used a woman is no surprise because women will eternally have the reputation of being rebellious and curious to things which can harm men.. hence adam and eve.
In Emma, it is interesting how Austen writes this scene and it keeps with the stereotypes that we've read thus far. The girls are accosted (half a mile outside of town) by 6 gypsy children for money and then demand more once they get a little. So not only are they beggars, they are ingrates since what Harriet does give them is not good enough. Harriet is a vulnerable 'damsel in distress' in this situation and as soon as Frank Churchill arrives and all the gypsies run off and abandon the entire area, which gives the impression that the gypsies prey on vulnerable women.
In one of the movie adaptations of Emma http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Wz-h5F6bs the scene is similar, with men accosting Harriet. In the scene it is almost as though they're going to rape her or something. It also displays the gypsies as a group of scraggled vagabonds/miscreants/hoodlums/ruffians.
There are distinct similarities between the two excerpts of gypsy encounters. Both seem to advance the depiction of the gypsies as separate entities that exist outside the realm of civilization,social norms, and even social customs.The gypsy encounter in Austen's Emma, exemplifies this juxtaposition of the gypsies and the English. Harriet is in awe of her encounter with the gypsies, they are depicted as children and adults who cannot resist from begging for money and from wanting more money after they get it, in a sense they are insatiable for monetary acquistion. I think it is interesting that even gypsy "children" are capable of frieghtening an adult English woman, I guess it is because the children are seen as ruthless, beggars, who are without moral guidance from adults. These children live in a world of theivery and without social constraints so in a sense they are in fact the most dangerous form because of the abscence of moral and social guidance. In Eliot's novel the "dark others" are at once registered as a ominous or threatening appearance. Woman again are represented as vulnerable and increasingly threatened by both children and male gypsies. They are outside of civilization and this serves as the initial source of terror for the situation. The English male must at once restore the female to safety by removing her from these social outcasts and guiding her back into the safe and security of English society. The male must be in direct opposition to the gypsy society depicting what is both right and superior in the English culture and way of life.
Post a Comment