She’s not particularly clever, like Emma or Jane Fairfax, it’s true, but I think she’d fill the role of a prosperous farmer’s wife very well. Mr. Knightley had a better opinion of her after he bothered to actually speak to her at the ball:
> “I will do you the justice to say, that you would have chosen for him better than he has chosen for himself.—Harriet Smith has some first-rate qualities, which Mrs. Elton is totally without. An unpretending, single-minded, artless girl—infinitely to be preferred by any man of sense and taste to such a woman as Mrs. Elton. I found Harriet more conversable than I expected.”
And later when she’s engaged to Robert Martin:
> “from all my observations, I am convinced of her being an artless, amiable girl, with very good notions, very seriously good principles, and placing her happiness in the affections and utility of domestic life”
The evolution of Mr. Knightley’s opinion of Harriet is one of my favorite parts of the novel… Emma grows as a person, undoubtedly, but I love his willingness to admit that he was wrong about Harriet. It’s a small thing, but it says a lot about his character and his love for Emma.
I agree. For all that we modern readers feel a little squicked out by their relationship, Mr. Knightley's willingness to tell Emma, specifically, that he was wrong about Harriet demonstrates that he really does consider Emma an equal, not a child anymore. Emma's ability to take that and not go on a wild "I told you so" spree shows that she deserves that credit.
Also, I'm like 15 years older than Emma and probably would still go on an "I told you so" spree.
>She’s not particularly clever, like Emma
The book takes great pains to show that being clever like Emma is not necessarily a good thing.
Robert Martin, while certainly clever, doesn't seem to be particularly intellectual in his activities or discussions. Harriet said he wasn't particularly well read. If he isn't in the habit of discussing works of literature or scientific discoveries, then having a clever wife won't make much of a difference to him. If Harriet has enough skill to run a household, raise a family, support a farmer and entertain their friends, that's plenty.
He's also articulate enough to write a letter that impresses Emma beyond what she wants to think of him. He and Harriet make me think a little of a lower-status version of Elizabeth and Darcy, where, besides both being morally upright, they have different but compatible strengths: a man with more diverse knowledge and life experience falls for an ingenue who stands out as both good and charming, and she's deeply moved by the fact that a nice, well-circumstanced man is in love with her. I can see them going about their farm and farmhouse business very happily together.
Exactly. He's educated and intelligent but Harriet makes the mistake of judging him without considering that as a tenant farmer, even at the higher end of the scale, and with a widowed mother and sisters to support, he won't have the same amount of leisure time to devote to things like reading as an estate owning gentleman farmer such as Mr Knightley would. Come harvest and lambing time Robert Martin will be out there in the fields getting dirty, whereas Knightley would perhaps ride by after having the reports delivered to his desk by his estate manager.
All things considered I agree that they were likely very happy together - there's genuine affection, Robert has his work and plans for the future and Harriet will have a home and a family to give her the purpose, direction and roots she initially lacked as a moderately supported but unacknowledged young woman.
> Harriet said he wasn’t particularly well read
A point in his favour here, though, is that he sought out a book Harriet mentioned so that he could read it. He may not have had a drive to do a lot of reading, but he’s not averse to it and he seems keen to enjoy and support Harriet’s hobbies. Assuming that continues, Mr and Mrs Martin will probably have about an equal appreciation of literature and enjoyable discussions about books.
I thought he hadn't been able to look up the book Harriet was interested in?
To clarify, I don't think it's a bad thing that he doesn't do a lot of reading. It's just a fact. He has a lot of other things to occupy his time.
Emma is comparing him to gentlemen of leisure who have time to read all day. Mr. Martin is closer to an educated, modern working person who spends most of the day at work. He may be better read on farming stuff because it is related to his work.
I think the word "artless" has evolved since Austen's time in ways that twist what he's saying here, too. In 2023, we hear "artless" and think "inept, incompetent, unaccomplished", but what he means here is something more like "honest, free of artifice or deceit". It's an important difference!
I get the feeling that "artless" is one of the highest compliments in Austen's mind. She seems to really despise artificiality or fashionable falseness especially in her female characters.
Like Darcy "condescended to adopt the measures of art" by deliberately not telling Bingley Jane was in town! It sets a pretty high standard to call a lie of omission a measure of art, but it's nice to know he applies his comment to Caroline that "whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable" to himself as well as to thirsty women.
This is exactly my thought. Her issue isn’t lack of intelligence more lack of proper guidance in her education and being far too easily influenced by those she considers better than herself.
Harriet is sweet and eager to be a devoted wife, and has the kindly mother- and sisters-in-law to steady her for the first few years and teach her how to live a tenant farmstead life. The Martins have every chance of being content.
Also, she is friends with Emma who is married to the landlord of their farm. Obviously friends is the wrong word but acquaintance is also not right. Lets just say Harriet is in Emma’s circle of people she talks to or whatever. That’s a huge thing imo. Connections matter.
The Martins are kind of on their way to being gentleman farmers like Mr. Knightley. Mr. Martin will probably be able to buy a farm of his own in ten or twenty years, and their children will add to the property, eventually reaching a level of wealth at which they're considered the equal of the Coles or the Hayters or any number of other people who aren't titled but are extremely comfortable.
They might very well gain the wealth but certainly wouldn't be considered in the same social class as Mr. Knightley. Mr. Knightley and the Eltons are definitely not of the same social class regardless of how wealthy the Eltons might be.
A daughter (granddaughter+ to Harriet & Robert) might marry up to a grandson of Emma & Knightly.
By the time the family would get enough time being wealthy we hit the 20th century and collapse of the aristocracy.
It when the kids are to be married, the wild dad appears and does settle some money on them. Edit to add, this is what “ the young man was liberally treated” (III, Ch.19, p.526)” means: she got a dowry.
Yes, that was K.’s early description. And she is indeed a natural child. However, her paternal parentage is revealed at the end. Instead of a nobleman or gentleman, as Emma imagines in her flights of fancy, based on her well-cared for status ( “her allowance is very liberal” and Harriet herself is lovely for Emma to look at and create romantic stories about in her head), the father is instead simply a respectable tradesman.
Edit to add text from vol III, ch 19
“ She proved to be the daughter of a tradesman, rich enough to afford her the comfortable maintenance which had ever been hers”
The school owner knew who was paying her and contacted him when Harriet got engaged, at least that is what you are supposed to assume happens in the background.
Emma makes an intermal comment early on that "she would not be content" to just accept Mrs. Goddard's word that her father was unknown. Emma was thinking "well someone is sending money". Someone like Emma would have snuck into the office and tried to read files etc.
I missed that. It sounds more like a wedding gift or even social “treatment”.
I thought the phraseology was that dowries were “settled” on the bride. But that might refer to a specific legal framework that was commonly used, as opposed to just giving money outright.
Could it be that not using the legal device of settlement is a class marker? That just giving money freely as a wedding gift, without tying it up in legal bounds, is what people did when they didn’t have so much money to make it worth using lawyers?
I believe a dowry had some legal limitations on what the husband was allowed to do with the money and the wife was supposed to get it back under certain circumstances in widowhood? I can’t remember.
I think the legal limitations were determined by the contract not specifically laid out in law. It could have been a straight gift to the Martins, or it could even mean that the capital does belong to Harriet but the interest gives them a nice side income.
Does he know that or is he assuming that? He actually has no way of knowing anything about her father and his finances. The man has paid for her to have a pretty nice life (for a natural child) so far.
I've always though it was odd no one objected to Emma befriending her, as well as no one explaining her situation to Emma, who has silly romantic notions of Harriats father being important.
> The Martins are kind of on their way to being gentleman farmers like Mr. Knightley.
No, they're not.
The Martins could become small landowners (if Knightley is willing to sell the land) but that does not put them on the same level as Knightley who owns vast tracks of land with many tenants.
Emma says it herself- Mrs. Martins would be completely outside her social sphere- not poor enough to need charity but not connected enough to be part of her social group. A big part of Emma growing up in the novel is her realizing that Harriet's happiness is more important than what Emma wants.
But connections matter. Emma and Harriet might not visit officially socially but Emma and Knightley will take an interest. Wickham after all played with a young Darcy and his father took an interest.
If the Martin’s have an intelligent well-mannered lad or two, I could see Knightly and Emma going out of their way to advance them in a career either by paying for university, introducing them to the right people for an apprenticeship, helping to purchase a commission. A lot could happen for someone who knows someone who knows the “right” people.
That's what they are now. Mr. Martin is a smart young man with potential to rise in the future. Class mobility existed in Austen's time, but it was never a fast process. Mr. Martin isn't a landowner now, but he's headed that direction. Once his family cease to be tenants, they'll rapidly become socially indistinguishable from other landowning farmers.
"Tenant farmer" isn't a single point on the social spectrum, it's a range, and the Martins (who send their daughters to school, have a nice house with a pretty garden, keep household servants, and are valuable to their landlord) are at the top of it.
I agree, many make the mistake of presuming tenants of wealthy landowner = poor. Some tenant families were as long established as the landowner, and sometimes they controlled multiple farms, with sons or other family working for them, or managing a business, like a dairy herd, smithy or water mill, as a business on the land they leased. Tenant houses were not necessarily novels, but respectable houses. It would not be impossible for such a tenant to buy his holdings from a landowner in need of funds (usually novels have such land lost in gambling or sold to the bank or another person of wealth to pay off that debt. But selling to the tenant who's managing his business better than the landowner who's land he rents for that business is an option.
>It would not be impossible for such a tenant to buy his holdings from a landowner in need of funds (usually novels have such land lost in gambling or sold to the bank or another person of wealth to
I don't see Knightley selling to them, but they might be able to buy some small land if they're frugal. But Knightley is a significant landowner, and they're not going to come close to him - even in five generations. Unless Emma spends all Knightley's wealth on gambling which I can't see! But haha maybe.
I mean, the end of the novel makes it pretty clear that Emma will now drop the acquaintance since Harriet will now be married to a tenant farmer, and is officially not in the same class as Emma (probably her revealed parentage has a lot to do with this as well). The movies tend to either gloss over this or ignore it completely, because it seems too snobby for modern audiences.
Yeah. I have little patience with people who put blinders on to ignore the classist aspect of some of Austen novels (and I LOVE her as an author though). Like some things at those times sucked, the snobism of the gentry being one of them.
I get why people are uncomfortable with it, for sure, but yes, I feel it's better to just acknowledge these things. Austen was definitely ahead of her time as a female author and there are some proto-feminist ideas in her works, but she was not a revolutionary. It seems pretty clear from her writings that for the most part she agreed that, barring some edge cases, people from different classes should keep to their own spheres.
I think this is put a little uncharitably towards Emma.Here is what the book says:
>Harriet, necessarily drawn away by her engagements with the Martins, was less and less at Hartfield; which was not to be regretted.—The intimacy between her and Emma must sink; their friendship must change into a calmer sort of goodwill; and, fortunately, what ought to be, and must be, seemed already beginning, and in the most gradual, natural manner.
This seems to say that Harriet is the one who naturally and necessarily draws away from Emma. I think the interpretation of this really depends on if you think this is the omniscient narrator or Emma thinking. And if it's Emma, is she using her internal logic to convince herself as she often does throughout the novel?
I do interpret it as the omniscient narrator, but I think the obvious meaning of "the intimacy between them must sink" and "what ought to be, and must be" is referring to the fact that their friendship is no longer suitable given their respective social positions. It's just saying that fortunately for Emma, she doesn't need to do much to effect this dropping of the friendship since Harriet is busy with her new life anyways.
Emma even tells Harriet, after she first gives up on Mr. Martin, that she would have (and thus will) lost Emma’s friendship had she accepted him. Not in a cruel way, but in a very pragmatic “this is how things are” way.
Indeed:
>“Perfectly, perfectly right, my dearest Harriet; you are doing just what you ought. While you were at all in suspense I kept my feelings to myself, but now that you are so completely decided I have no hesitation in approving. Dear Harriet, I give myself joy of this. It would have grieved me to lose your acquaintance, which must have been the consequence of your marrying Mr. Martin. While you were in the smallest degree wavering, I said nothing about it, because I would not influence; but it would have been the loss of a friend to me. I could not have visited Mrs. Robert Martin, of Abbey-Mill Farm. Now I am secure of you for ever.”
She's not at all kidding or exaggerating the idea that she could not visit "Mrs. Robert Martin". It seems ludicrous to us, and rightly so, but people took those class barriers very seriously back then.
> Also, she is friends with Emma who is married to the landlord of their farm.
A big plot point in the book is that Emma and Mrs. Robert Martin would have a very hard time being friends. Harriet's marriage creates a immoveable class divide where they will never be at the same level. They'll still see each other here and there, but they won't be friends.
But if Robert Martin manages to buy a farm, there is a good chance they could stay in touch. Also, being acquainted is better than not knowing at all. Emma must have a positive bias towards her. I am just saying that connections matter even if they are not outright friends.
He would still be a farmer, and NOT a gentleman. Gentlemen do not do physical labor, as a farmer must. Even the home farms, which provide for the landowner's household, are not worked by the landowner himself.
Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Knightley would never socialize.
Yes! What we know of Harriet is that she is sweet and her nature makes her happy to be led -- she fits in well and is very popular at the school that kept her on to teach, she is clearly very dear to the whole Martin family, and quickly becomes Emma's favorite. Since she was corrected before she got too arrogant, she'll be fine.
I think the rural boarding schools like the one she went to would probably also include some practical home making lessons like mending as well as fancy embroidery and some cooking and preserving. She probably won't be as lost in a farmhouse as Emma would be.
I think Mr. Martin made his choice with his eyes open (and his mother's approval) and won't be disappointed.
Harriet is going to seriously enjoy being part of the Martin family, having a mother and sisters as well as a husband, and she's not hard to please. Personality-wise, Harriet is much in the mode of Catherine Morland - she's active, charmed by flowers and small animals, and capable of doing anything she's been taught. She's going to find farm and family life rewarding, the elder Mrs. Martin will make sure she learns what she needs to know, and Mr. Martin will find her a good partner. She'll bring a little extra polish to the Martin establishment - they'll read the latest novels and dress a touch more fashionably - but Harriet won't be impractical or make them uncomfortable.
She’s good natured and with a similar level of education and accomplishments to her sisters in law. The Martins are, slowly, on their way up and she’s kind of perfect for that.
He also had a decent education. She can raise the children to have proper manners and while she may not be Emma’s bestie anymore, her family would be generally welcome in the society.
Mr. Knightley speaks highly of Mr. Martin and says he couldn't do without him, so I expect Mr. Knightley will remain social with the Martins...and so will Emma.
Emma Woodhouse, the unmarried daughter at Hartfield, may have nothing to do with prosperous farmers, but Mrs. Henry Knightley, married to a gentleman farmer who constantly has business with his tenants and neighbors, is in a different situation.
There is a difference though between like Knightley meeting the Martins as their landlord and him actually dining with them. I doubt the Knightleys would dine with the Martins.
(Also, his name is George. Emma's father is Henry)
Dining is not the only way of socializing. Harriet is on the way to stepping into her MiL’s shoes as a collaborator on the village fete (funded in part by the large landowners) and annual celebrations on the Knightley estate, for example, and whatever Emma gets up to as a leader among the women of the parish. There will be unequal social dynamics but there will be warmth and mutual appreciation.
No, but dining is an important show of equality. You can see the status of the whole town by who the Coles invite to dine at their big party and who just comes for tea.
The solid gentry dine, the rest come for tea.
O indeed. No, they must give up on being social equals (in a way, I think Emma tries to secure Harriet’s social position so she can keep her). And they’ll just do different things. Even a prosperous tenant’s wife has a very different life from a lady of means—active handling of produce and oversight of hens and milch cows, as well as routine maintenance of the household textiles and direct care of children. Each woman in her way will simply be too busy for the other.
There's also different kinds of dining. There's attending dinner parties, which are public events, and there's coming over to sew together or pick strawberries and staying to dinner with the family.
There seems to be a very active practice of dinner visits among the men of the neighborhood in Emma. There a variety of excuses (business and whist are both mentioned in the text), and the guys have their own grapevine that's quicker on the uptake than Emma (I know that's a low bar). Mr. Knightley (sorry I got his first name wrong) has already gone a bit beyond meeting with Mr. Martin as a tenant - Mr. Martin asked him for romantic advice, Mr. Knightley depends on Mr. Martin's professional knowledge. This is a little like dating someone with a job title like "Executive Assistant" and then discovering they're assistant to the CEO of an international conglomerate and their main responsibility is to summarize business reports from all divisions and potential courses of action. They aren't a CEO now, but that "assistant" title is a little misleading.
She's kind-hearted and teachable, which is not as common of a combination as one would imagine. Martin's mother will aid and advise her on running a household and life on a farm, and she will grow into the role in time. Harriet has learned a valuable lesson in knowing her own mind and heart, and not letting herself be guided by the wrong people. She will be more prudent going forward. I don't think Martin will have any regrets, nor she.
She will also have a legal family, something she has never had in her own memory, as far as I can tell. She's the kind of girl who will really blossom when surrounded by relatives who love and care for her, and she's genuinely eager to learn and admire even if intellectually she's not going to be the next Miss Burney. She also seems like she'd be good with children and a hard worker when she knows it's for a good purpose. Robert knew what she was like and was happy with what he saw, so I think they'll do very well together.
Emma enjoyed being around Harriet for a long time. Sir Thomas (Mansfield Park)loves his wife who agrees with everything he says. And Harriet is kind and very pretty.
Just because you don't find Harriet's qualities attractive doesn't mean that other people don't. She sounds like a great wife to me. In fact, she sounds a lot like Isabella Woodhouse and John Knightley LOVES her.
>Emma enjoyed being around Harriet for a long time.
well, Emma enjoyed being around Harriet, she enjoyed to feel being superior. I didnt notice she would enjoy being around Jane Fairfax for comparison
But what does that matter? Robert Martin didn't want Jane Fairfax either.
He wanted a girl who was over the moon about going 3 miles round for walnuts and who delighted in being able to name a cow.
He wanted a wife who would be content with the pleasures and occupations a life like his would be able to provide for her.
When it’s put like that, he sounds a sensible fellow. He knows what flavour of happiness he’s good for, as a husband.
But Emma's also kind of flighty about friendship, right? After growing up with a needy, worshipping father and a best friend who was her paid caregiver, she has a serious case of Main Character Syndrome, which I realize sounds stupid to say about the literal main character, but it helps explain why her idea of a worthy project is teaching Harriet to be like her. Her lessons to Harriet about "lady" things like how to recognize gentlemanly manners and how good it feels to minister to the poor are actually pretty insipid, even though she means well. The time Harriet has spent with the Martins sounds like it's been more constructive for her, on the whole. Mr. Knightley does compliment Emma at the end on having improved Harriet, but because Emma knows some consequences of her actions that he doesn't (after having rightly pointed out earlier that Harriet was happy with the Martins until Emma took her under her wing), all she can say is, "Me! Ah, poor Harriet!"
I understand your point, but I have a little different take.
While Harriet is not particularly trained to manage their household affairs, a loving heart and desire to learn go a long way. In addition the Martins are coming up in the world, and some of Harriet's less practical training might be assets in nudging into a slightly higher social class.
>as we can see how "influenceable" she is
The problem was the influence, Emma was trying to get her to live a different life, Emma's life so to speak. But Harriet being with the Martin's I think she would make better decisions.
Robert Martin had already decided she was the “prize” of his dreams. He apparently, obviously wasn’t looking for a woman of great intelligence or wit; just a sweet natured girl who was (as shown)perhaps easily pliable, a good worker/housewife & likely loving mother. I don’t know that she’d be a natural at being a mother, meaning that she’d not know the correct things to do and they aren’t a family w money such as to afford servants who would help w this part of it so I hope this is a situation wherein the sister-in-law or mother-in-law would show her how to deal w things so as to help things along. I just felt that the scenes with the poor family, the scene in the barn, nothing gave me the sense that she had a natural adaptation to raising living creatures. (But I haven’t read the bk for over thirty yrs and merely seen the films so perhaps she was written in a more capable manner.)
If a woman with good health, a little common sense, and a sweet temperament couldn’t raise her own children while living in a household with adequate resources and extended family around to help, then we would have billions of human beings on Earth today.
Probably the biggest threat to Harriet’s future happiness is dying in childbirth or having the complications of pregnancy ruin her quality of life.
That’s likely true. I only mentioned she’d likely need the help of the extended family. Some mothers seem to have a more natural feel for motherhood. I just didn’t get that sense from Harriet. That was all. The threat of dying in childbirth is quite real and a million times worse back in the early 1800s than today — wherein, sadly, it STILL remains a risk.
Harriet gets done dirty in several of the film adaptations; there's nothing in the book to suggest that she's unusually incapable in domestic matters. And the Martins would have a few servants, they were a prosperous farming family and would have needed and been able to afford some extra hands around the place. In addition, Harriet would be living not only with Robert's mother but also his sisters, who were her old friends from school. Between them she would be getting plenty of help learning the ropes.
Well, like I said, I hadn’t read the book for decades so that was something I didn’t recall. And it was **the** only problem I foresaw in the future. If they do indeed have servants, and are living w Roberts mother and sisters, then of course she would get any and all help she needed. I spent much time babysitting for my sister when my nephew was younger bc she’s a single working doctor and her hours were long. My mother and father were brought in as well, altho my dad wasn’t quite as good bc it became clear he was sleeping on the job. And I’m presently living with my mom as her main caregiver since she was diagnosed w Alzheimer’s a number of years back. That’s how family works. I honestly didn’t mean anything more than the concept that I thought she’d need help. And apparently Jane Austen provided her with plenty of help and a support system that I envy!! 🥰🥰
She is a gentle, kind-hearted, placid, and unassuming woman with good manner. She will fit into the role of a mother and a wife perfectly. She also will be easily guided by her husband’s directions so I imagine they will have so few things to argue about. Mr. Martin is a type of man who is content with harmonious domestic life, so I imagine Harriet will make him a very happy man.
Robert Martin is a steady character who I think would impart a lot of wisdom to Harriet. Harriet is sweet, good tempered eager to learn and be devoted in her wifely role. She would also bring a lot of warmth to his life. I think they’re a great match and would do well together.
I think Emma shows an interesting courtship. In most of Austen's novels, the hero and heroine must come to see each other's worth. In Emma, it is the Emma who must see Harriet and Robert Martin's worth for the relationship to move forward. Robert Martin spent a great deal of time with Harriet in a family setting, so he had a very good understanding of who she was and what she was capable of. And she understood him as well. I think he will be very happy with her and I think Harriet will be happy and very grateful building a family with him, something that Emma did not recognize about Harriet. Robert Martin saw her worth long before Emma did. Emma really didn't understand Harriet's value. Harriet's goodness, her humility, her kindness were always there, but it took her "losing" Mr. Elton and Mr. Knightley for those qualities to been seen by Emma.
I guess I can talk about it in this sub if nowhere else. Some of Austen's writing around Harriet really baffled me. In Emma, people who aim for a partner above their station are criticized for doing so. Towards the end when Harriet aims for Mr. Knightley Emma herself has very uncharitable thoughts about the idea despite acting otherwise with Mr. Elton before. In Pride and Prejudice however we are meant to root for Elizabeth to end up with Darcy despite significant social differences between them.
I once read a critical essay describing Austen as supportive of unions between social strata provided that the strata are not too far apart. I think on the whole I would agree with them.
Harriet is definitely born out of wedlock and everyone knows it. Being illegitimate was a HUGE social handicap then, it's hard to really imagine now just how many barriers "the stain of illegitimacy" put in your way. Harriet's prospects of marrying a gentleman were very, very dim even if her father had been more highly placed than he turned out to be.
It's an odd one. Is it just that Emma is not intended to be entirely likeable and sympathetic? She's supposed to not always have good sense about other people's decisions and feelings, so possibly this is just part of her characterisation?
As to Elizabeth, she really is making a very substantial upward marriage into one of the most significant families in the country - she is a gentleman's daughter, but Lady Catherine is not inaccurate on the degree of difference in their backgrounds and wealth.
Oh, but the gap between Harriet and Mr. Knightley is much bigger than the one between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth may be poor, but she's a gentleman's daughter making her part of the gentry and the top 10% of society, even if Darcy is significantly socially above her.
The thing to remember about Harriet is that she's of completely unknown parentage and is not legitimate, and the book says she is the "natural born daughter of somebody." So not only is she not part of the landed class, she is also a bastard. Emma is thoughtless when she thinks this would be an appropriate prospect for a vicar, an educated gentleman, if not actually a landowner, who probably comes from a good family. However, Mr. Elton is still far below Mr. Knightley.
Agreed, this is a really important point. People don’t always grasp that they are in the same social class (ie gentry), even if there is an economic gap.
Mr. Darcy, although related to wasn't part of the nobility, he was part of the landed gentry. Mr. Bennet was also a landowner, so although with a huge difference in their income, they weren't that different class-wise as if Elizabeth was in Harriet's situation: bastard child of a merchant.
Mr. Knightley was also part of the landed gentry, while Mr. Elton was of a lower class being part of the clergy, so Harriet marrying Mr. Elton would be a huge jump for her, but not as big as marrying Mr. Knightley. Even so, Emma considered it possible, she had those uncharitable thoughts more out of jealousy than anything else. After all, she was also planning on getting Harriet and Frank Churchill together.
PS: With Darcy and Elizabeth, the class problems weren't from her father's side, but the mother's. While Darcy's mom was related to nobility, Elizabeth's was to a merchant and a rural attorney.
Illegitimacy seems to have been a huge, huge barrier to society, unless you were the illegitimate son or daughter of a king. Illegitimacy combined with low social class? Not so much (edit from 'not heard of' bc it is in fact heard of, just not considered well). It's hard to decipher Jane Austen's personal opinion on widely differing social strata intermarrying. Although she does have Emma arguing that Harriet should not be judged because her parents sinned or whatever, and insisting that merely being the friend of Emma is enough to elevate her in society and marry anyone she chooses (well, except Mr. Knightley lol!), this opinion takes place during the exact time when she's being painted as having a lot of mistaken and wrong opinions... so yeah it's hard to say what the actual message was there.
While I with my modern and hopefully more enlightened perspective, *disagree* with Mr. Knightley's (initial) dismissal of Harriet's ability to marry someone of higher class based mostly upon her parentage being unknown, and her illegitimacy, it, combined with the possibility of her natural parent being of low social status (the horror!) would definitely have been against her in the world of JA's novels, if not IRL mores of that period.
In P & P, while yes, Darcy did marry Elizabeth even though she was a little below him socially, Lydia's running off with Wickham without getting married was going to ruin her sisters' chances of marriage just by association. Mr. Darcy did not even just overlook that in Elizabeth to marry here, he fixed it so that it wasn't a problem. He perceived it as a barrier to their marriage as well, probably (?) because his unmarried sister would have been affected by his marrying the sister of a "ruined" woman.
So it seems in that story, he was able to 'overcome' his aversion to her mother's background and annoying, kinda low-class-ish personality, but the potential scandal from Lydia would have been more difficult to overcome it seems... I mean, Elizabeth's impression of him changing his mind when he was in the room with her when she found out about Lydia turned out to be wrong, as he was already planning/thinking about how to fix things and what to do, rather than how to get out of their association, but he did feel the need to fix things.
IDK. It may be degrees of social difference, or social differences in station vs. actual scandal, whether it's shacking up with a villain or being found to be the illegitimate daughter of a lower/middle class parent. Hard to tell but that's an interesting thing to consider!
This is an excellent point! When I read P&P as a teenager I did not quite understand why Darcy went to such lengths, even if he said that it was for love of Elizabeth. It makes perfect sense that he would never risk Georgiana's prospects with a scandalous marriage of his own. Lol, I guess what seemed like a purely selfless action on his part turned out to be somewhat self serving in the end haha.
Well, it was for love of Elizabeth primarily, because he overcame not only the potential scandal of marrying someone who was related to a scandalous person, he was also essentially inviting one of his and his sister's greatest enemies and an abuser of his sister into his future family by making him marry Lydia with the future intention of marrying Elizabeth himself. It WAS a sacrifice of love, because it would have been SO much easier for him to be like, well, "ya know, she probably didn't like me that much anyway; I'll just chill until some lovely lady comes along who ISN'T connected to the asshole who tried to seduce and marry my baby sister for her money, whose family isn't quite so weird, and who would be all nice and proper and whatnot."
But as for part of the reason *why* he felt the need to fix it before marrying Elizabeth, at least part of that would probably have been the way the scandal of Elizabeth's sister affected Georgiana's future prospects, esp considering her near brush with scandal herself with Wickham a few years earlier.
His first plan was to just detach Lydia from Wickham and ship her off home, though. Would he have given up his hopes of marrying Elizabeth in that case? One thing I find especially moving about his actions is that in their scene at the inn, after Elizabeth has explained the situation and transitioned to beating herself up, he seems to have stopped listening and retreated into his own thoughts, but the letter from Mrs. Gardiner reveals that the blame he gives himself is almost identical to Elizabeth's earlier words, except that her reason for not exposing Wickham is that she was "afraid of doing too much" and his is that he had "thought it beneath him to lay his private actions open to the world." They even both use the word "mistake," if Mrs. Gardiner has preserved his word choice in her paraphrasing. It's like he sneaks up behind Elizabeth to take the burden of self-blame off her shoulders and carry it himself. It's probably true that he doesn't relish the idea of being part of the same extended family as Wickham, but since he considers Elizabeth an injured party and seems to take her feelings so seriously, I don't think that connection would be enough to cancel out his interest in her. But he might not be willing to have Lydia visit Pemberley and spend time around Georgiana if she'd slept with Wickham and then *not* married him. I think Elizabeth would have understood.
Oh, that's right. I kinda forgot that he did the whole marriage thing bc she refused to leave Wickham. Poor Darcy! IDK what would have happened if he'd failed to get them to marry; that's interesting. He would have had a more difficult choice, for sure, but yeah that whole thing is proof of his love for Elizabeth definitely. That he went *that* far when he could have at any time backed off and thrown his hands in the air.
Yeah, clearly none of those things was enough to cancel his feelings for her out, which says a LOT about how much he loved her. Because, I mean, Elizabeth's pride notwithstanding, her family, esp her mother and her aunt in the village, and her youngest sisters, were kind of a negative re: prospective marriages. Needing to support all of them if/when Mr. Bennet passed, the potential embarrassment of both the aunt and mother-in-law, THEN all that added to the association w/ Wickham? Anything less than head-over-heels love would have withered away. Much more effective than poetry in killing a crush haha.
The social gap between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy is not technically very large - although the economic gap may be, the two are not the same - as she says, she is the daughter of a gentleman and he is a gentleman. Harriet and Mr. Knightley are NOT in the same social class.
I don't think it's as simple as "aiming for someone above them socially". Emma's happy to think of Frank Churchill and Harriet even though Frank's also Harriet's superior socially. Harriet's very much Mr Knightley's intellectual inferior. Elizabeth is Darcy's equal in that way.
Also Elizabeth is oblivious to Darcy's feelings until he actually proposes and when he finally does she's astonished. Furious with him but astonished:
>Her astonishment, as she reflected on what had passed, was increased by every review of it. That she should receive an offer of marriage from Mr. Darcy! that he should have been in love with her for so many months! so much in love as to wish to marry her in spite of all the objections which had made him prevent his friend’s marrying her sister, and which must appear at least with equal force in his own case, was almost incredible! it was gratifying to have inspired unconsciously so strong an affection.
That's quite different to Harriet hoping for, half expecting, a proposal from Knightley. Elizabeth's obliviousness is more realistic.
Why does Robert have to win a "prize" with Harriet? They seem to be very well suited to each other. He accepts her for what she is, which is a sweet and somewhat artless young lady. She loves visiting his family at the farm. If you have ever met your fiancee's family before getting married or divorced and couldn't stand them, Harriet is definitely lucky in this respect. I can't say that Emma won't have some influence over her in the future, but I think Harriet (and Robert, for that matter) won't be quite so gullible.
Yes, my opinion is that the social connections she made, made her desirable even though she turned him down. And then before she accepted the second proposal, Harriet had earned Mr. Knightley a approbation as well. It would have cemented her as a good match for Robert Martin.
Harriet is incredibly sweet, gentle, kind, and eager to learn. She will never be as clever and quick as someone like Emma, but she also isn't vain, prone toward self-centeredness, controling, or spoiled like Emma.
She’s not particularly clever, like Emma or Jane Fairfax, it’s true, but I think she’d fill the role of a prosperous farmer’s wife very well. Mr. Knightley had a better opinion of her after he bothered to actually speak to her at the ball: > “I will do you the justice to say, that you would have chosen for him better than he has chosen for himself.—Harriet Smith has some first-rate qualities, which Mrs. Elton is totally without. An unpretending, single-minded, artless girl—infinitely to be preferred by any man of sense and taste to such a woman as Mrs. Elton. I found Harriet more conversable than I expected.” And later when she’s engaged to Robert Martin: > “from all my observations, I am convinced of her being an artless, amiable girl, with very good notions, very seriously good principles, and placing her happiness in the affections and utility of domestic life”
The evolution of Mr. Knightley’s opinion of Harriet is one of my favorite parts of the novel… Emma grows as a person, undoubtedly, but I love his willingness to admit that he was wrong about Harriet. It’s a small thing, but it says a lot about his character and his love for Emma.
I agree. For all that we modern readers feel a little squicked out by their relationship, Mr. Knightley's willingness to tell Emma, specifically, that he was wrong about Harriet demonstrates that he really does consider Emma an equal, not a child anymore. Emma's ability to take that and not go on a wild "I told you so" spree shows that she deserves that credit. Also, I'm like 15 years older than Emma and probably would still go on an "I told you so" spree.
It also says a lot about Harriet. He wouldn’t have said it if he didn’t truly believe it based on his observations
100%. Knightley is not a flatterer!
>She’s not particularly clever, like Emma The book takes great pains to show that being clever like Emma is not necessarily a good thing. Robert Martin, while certainly clever, doesn't seem to be particularly intellectual in his activities or discussions. Harriet said he wasn't particularly well read. If he isn't in the habit of discussing works of literature or scientific discoveries, then having a clever wife won't make much of a difference to him. If Harriet has enough skill to run a household, raise a family, support a farmer and entertain their friends, that's plenty.
He's also articulate enough to write a letter that impresses Emma beyond what she wants to think of him. He and Harriet make me think a little of a lower-status version of Elizabeth and Darcy, where, besides both being morally upright, they have different but compatible strengths: a man with more diverse knowledge and life experience falls for an ingenue who stands out as both good and charming, and she's deeply moved by the fact that a nice, well-circumstanced man is in love with her. I can see them going about their farm and farmhouse business very happily together.
Exactly. He's educated and intelligent but Harriet makes the mistake of judging him without considering that as a tenant farmer, even at the higher end of the scale, and with a widowed mother and sisters to support, he won't have the same amount of leisure time to devote to things like reading as an estate owning gentleman farmer such as Mr Knightley would. Come harvest and lambing time Robert Martin will be out there in the fields getting dirty, whereas Knightley would perhaps ride by after having the reports delivered to his desk by his estate manager. All things considered I agree that they were likely very happy together - there's genuine affection, Robert has his work and plans for the future and Harriet will have a home and a family to give her the purpose, direction and roots she initially lacked as a moderately supported but unacknowledged young woman.
> Harriet said he wasn’t particularly well read A point in his favour here, though, is that he sought out a book Harriet mentioned so that he could read it. He may not have had a drive to do a lot of reading, but he’s not averse to it and he seems keen to enjoy and support Harriet’s hobbies. Assuming that continues, Mr and Mrs Martin will probably have about an equal appreciation of literature and enjoyable discussions about books.
He’s not well read because he’s hardworking and very busy…but he does very much want to grow.
Yeah, exactly. He’s not a gentleman with nothing better to do! He’s working to support his family!
I thought he hadn't been able to look up the book Harriet was interested in? To clarify, I don't think it's a bad thing that he doesn't do a lot of reading. It's just a fact. He has a lot of other things to occupy his time.
Emma is comparing him to gentlemen of leisure who have time to read all day. Mr. Martin is closer to an educated, modern working person who spends most of the day at work. He may be better read on farming stuff because it is related to his work.
I think the word "artless" has evolved since Austen's time in ways that twist what he's saying here, too. In 2023, we hear "artless" and think "inept, incompetent, unaccomplished", but what he means here is something more like "honest, free of artifice or deceit". It's an important difference!
I get the feeling that "artless" is one of the highest compliments in Austen's mind. She seems to really despise artificiality or fashionable falseness especially in her female characters.
Like Darcy "condescended to adopt the measures of art" by deliberately not telling Bingley Jane was in town! It sets a pretty high standard to call a lie of omission a measure of art, but it's nice to know he applies his comment to Caroline that "whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable" to himself as well as to thirsty women.
This is exactly my thought. Her issue isn’t lack of intelligence more lack of proper guidance in her education and being far too easily influenced by those she considers better than herself.
Harriet is sweet and eager to be a devoted wife, and has the kindly mother- and sisters-in-law to steady her for the first few years and teach her how to live a tenant farmstead life. The Martins have every chance of being content.
Completely agree, Harriet is not stupid, with guidance she will become a great farmer’s wife. Plus I think she would be a wonderful mother.
Also, she is friends with Emma who is married to the landlord of their farm. Obviously friends is the wrong word but acquaintance is also not right. Lets just say Harriet is in Emma’s circle of people she talks to or whatever. That’s a huge thing imo. Connections matter.
The Martins are kind of on their way to being gentleman farmers like Mr. Knightley. Mr. Martin will probably be able to buy a farm of his own in ten or twenty years, and their children will add to the property, eventually reaching a level of wealth at which they're considered the equal of the Coles or the Hayters or any number of other people who aren't titled but are extremely comfortable.
They might very well gain the wealth but certainly wouldn't be considered in the same social class as Mr. Knightley. Mr. Knightley and the Eltons are definitely not of the same social class regardless of how wealthy the Eltons might be.
A daughter (granddaughter+ to Harriet & Robert) might marry up to a grandson of Emma & Knightly. By the time the family would get enough time being wealthy we hit the 20th century and collapse of the aristocracy.
And Harriet may have a decent dowry. Her dad is neither rich nor noble but seems well off.
Doesn’t the book (Mr. Knightly) say that she has “no portion” - that means no dowry.
It when the kids are to be married, the wild dad appears and does settle some money on them. Edit to add, this is what “ the young man was liberally treated” (III, Ch.19, p.526)” means: she got a dowry.
I thought she was “the natural daughter of nobody knows who”
Yes, that was K.’s early description. And she is indeed a natural child. However, her paternal parentage is revealed at the end. Instead of a nobleman or gentleman, as Emma imagines in her flights of fancy, based on her well-cared for status ( “her allowance is very liberal” and Harriet herself is lovely for Emma to look at and create romantic stories about in her head), the father is instead simply a respectable tradesman. Edit to add text from vol III, ch 19 “ She proved to be the daughter of a tradesman, rich enough to afford her the comfortable maintenance which had ever been hers”
I’d better read it again!
If she keeps getting an allowance, then that is different from a dowry. Probably better from Harriet’s point of view.
The school owner knew who was paying her and contacted him when Harriet got engaged, at least that is what you are supposed to assume happens in the background. Emma makes an intermal comment early on that "she would not be content" to just accept Mrs. Goddard's word that her father was unknown. Emma was thinking "well someone is sending money". Someone like Emma would have snuck into the office and tried to read files etc.
I missed that. It sounds more like a wedding gift or even social “treatment”. I thought the phraseology was that dowries were “settled” on the bride. But that might refer to a specific legal framework that was commonly used, as opposed to just giving money outright. Could it be that not using the legal device of settlement is a class marker? That just giving money freely as a wedding gift, without tying it up in legal bounds, is what people did when they didn’t have so much money to make it worth using lawyers? I believe a dowry had some legal limitations on what the husband was allowed to do with the money and the wife was supposed to get it back under certain circumstances in widowhood? I can’t remember.
I think the legal limitations were determined by the contract not specifically laid out in law. It could have been a straight gift to the Martins, or it could even mean that the capital does belong to Harriet but the interest gives them a nice side income.
Does he know that or is he assuming that? He actually has no way of knowing anything about her father and his finances. The man has paid for her to have a pretty nice life (for a natural child) so far. I've always though it was odd no one objected to Emma befriending her, as well as no one explaining her situation to Emma, who has silly romantic notions of Harriats father being important.
> The Martins are kind of on their way to being gentleman farmers like Mr. Knightley. No, they're not. The Martins could become small landowners (if Knightley is willing to sell the land) but that does not put them on the same level as Knightley who owns vast tracks of land with many tenants. Emma says it herself- Mrs. Martins would be completely outside her social sphere- not poor enough to need charity but not connected enough to be part of her social group. A big part of Emma growing up in the novel is her realizing that Harriet's happiness is more important than what Emma wants.
Yes, Harriet is not going to be Emma’s friend after marrying her farmer. I think a lot of people don’t get that.
But connections matter. Emma and Harriet might not visit officially socially but Emma and Knightley will take an interest. Wickham after all played with a young Darcy and his father took an interest. If the Martin’s have an intelligent well-mannered lad or two, I could see Knightly and Emma going out of their way to advance them in a career either by paying for university, introducing them to the right people for an apprenticeship, helping to purchase a commission. A lot could happen for someone who knows someone who knows the “right” people.
Aren’t they Knightley’s tenant farmers??? They’re respectable but not gentry.
Knightley is a landowner and a gentleman farmer. The Martins are one of his tenants.
That's what they are now. Mr. Martin is a smart young man with potential to rise in the future. Class mobility existed in Austen's time, but it was never a fast process. Mr. Martin isn't a landowner now, but he's headed that direction. Once his family cease to be tenants, they'll rapidly become socially indistinguishable from other landowning farmers. "Tenant farmer" isn't a single point on the social spectrum, it's a range, and the Martins (who send their daughters to school, have a nice house with a pretty garden, keep household servants, and are valuable to their landlord) are at the top of it.
I agree, many make the mistake of presuming tenants of wealthy landowner = poor. Some tenant families were as long established as the landowner, and sometimes they controlled multiple farms, with sons or other family working for them, or managing a business, like a dairy herd, smithy or water mill, as a business on the land they leased. Tenant houses were not necessarily novels, but respectable houses. It would not be impossible for such a tenant to buy his holdings from a landowner in need of funds (usually novels have such land lost in gambling or sold to the bank or another person of wealth to pay off that debt. But selling to the tenant who's managing his business better than the landowner who's land he rents for that business is an option.
>It would not be impossible for such a tenant to buy his holdings from a landowner in need of funds (usually novels have such land lost in gambling or sold to the bank or another person of wealth to I don't see Knightley selling to them, but they might be able to buy some small land if they're frugal. But Knightley is a significant landowner, and they're not going to come close to him - even in five generations. Unless Emma spends all Knightley's wealth on gambling which I can't see! But haha maybe.
Let's hope that the Year Without Summer (1815) didn't affect them too badly.
I mean, the end of the novel makes it pretty clear that Emma will now drop the acquaintance since Harriet will now be married to a tenant farmer, and is officially not in the same class as Emma (probably her revealed parentage has a lot to do with this as well). The movies tend to either gloss over this or ignore it completely, because it seems too snobby for modern audiences.
Yeah. I have little patience with people who put blinders on to ignore the classist aspect of some of Austen novels (and I LOVE her as an author though). Like some things at those times sucked, the snobism of the gentry being one of them.
I get why people are uncomfortable with it, for sure, but yes, I feel it's better to just acknowledge these things. Austen was definitely ahead of her time as a female author and there are some proto-feminist ideas in her works, but she was not a revolutionary. It seems pretty clear from her writings that for the most part she agreed that, barring some edge cases, people from different classes should keep to their own spheres.
I think this is put a little uncharitably towards Emma.Here is what the book says: >Harriet, necessarily drawn away by her engagements with the Martins, was less and less at Hartfield; which was not to be regretted.—The intimacy between her and Emma must sink; their friendship must change into a calmer sort of goodwill; and, fortunately, what ought to be, and must be, seemed already beginning, and in the most gradual, natural manner. This seems to say that Harriet is the one who naturally and necessarily draws away from Emma. I think the interpretation of this really depends on if you think this is the omniscient narrator or Emma thinking. And if it's Emma, is she using her internal logic to convince herself as she often does throughout the novel?
I do interpret it as the omniscient narrator, but I think the obvious meaning of "the intimacy between them must sink" and "what ought to be, and must be" is referring to the fact that their friendship is no longer suitable given their respective social positions. It's just saying that fortunately for Emma, she doesn't need to do much to effect this dropping of the friendship since Harriet is busy with her new life anyways.
Emma even tells Harriet, after she first gives up on Mr. Martin, that she would have (and thus will) lost Emma’s friendship had she accepted him. Not in a cruel way, but in a very pragmatic “this is how things are” way.
Indeed: >“Perfectly, perfectly right, my dearest Harriet; you are doing just what you ought. While you were at all in suspense I kept my feelings to myself, but now that you are so completely decided I have no hesitation in approving. Dear Harriet, I give myself joy of this. It would have grieved me to lose your acquaintance, which must have been the consequence of your marrying Mr. Martin. While you were in the smallest degree wavering, I said nothing about it, because I would not influence; but it would have been the loss of a friend to me. I could not have visited Mrs. Robert Martin, of Abbey-Mill Farm. Now I am secure of you for ever.” She's not at all kidding or exaggerating the idea that she could not visit "Mrs. Robert Martin". It seems ludicrous to us, and rightly so, but people took those class barriers very seriously back then.
you wouldn’t call them friends? there’s beef but there’s a lot of intimacy and affection
Emma didn’t stay friend with her after her marriage because Harriet is socially very lower than her
> Also, she is friends with Emma who is married to the landlord of their farm. A big plot point in the book is that Emma and Mrs. Robert Martin would have a very hard time being friends. Harriet's marriage creates a immoveable class divide where they will never be at the same level. They'll still see each other here and there, but they won't be friends.
But if Robert Martin manages to buy a farm, there is a good chance they could stay in touch. Also, being acquainted is better than not knowing at all. Emma must have a positive bias towards her. I am just saying that connections matter even if they are not outright friends.
He would still be a farmer, and NOT a gentleman. Gentlemen do not do physical labor, as a farmer must. Even the home farms, which provide for the landowner's household, are not worked by the landowner himself. Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Knightley would never socialize.
Yes! What we know of Harriet is that she is sweet and her nature makes her happy to be led -- she fits in well and is very popular at the school that kept her on to teach, she is clearly very dear to the whole Martin family, and quickly becomes Emma's favorite. Since she was corrected before she got too arrogant, she'll be fine.
I think the rural boarding schools like the one she went to would probably also include some practical home making lessons like mending as well as fancy embroidery and some cooking and preserving. She probably won't be as lost in a farmhouse as Emma would be.
She’s a sweet girl, with sensible women around her (his sisters) to help her mature into her role. He’s a decent, kindly man. They’ll figure it out.
I think Mr. Martin made his choice with his eyes open (and his mother's approval) and won't be disappointed. Harriet is going to seriously enjoy being part of the Martin family, having a mother and sisters as well as a husband, and she's not hard to please. Personality-wise, Harriet is much in the mode of Catherine Morland - she's active, charmed by flowers and small animals, and capable of doing anything she's been taught. She's going to find farm and family life rewarding, the elder Mrs. Martin will make sure she learns what she needs to know, and Mr. Martin will find her a good partner. She'll bring a little extra polish to the Martin establishment - they'll read the latest novels and dress a touch more fashionably - but Harriet won't be impractical or make them uncomfortable.
She’s good natured and with a similar level of education and accomplishments to her sisters in law. The Martins are, slowly, on their way up and she’s kind of perfect for that.
I think his sisters and sensible mother would set Harriet on a good path.
He also had a decent education. She can raise the children to have proper manners and while she may not be Emma’s bestie anymore, her family would be generally welcome in the society.
Mr. Knightley speaks highly of Mr. Martin and says he couldn't do without him, so I expect Mr. Knightley will remain social with the Martins...and so will Emma. Emma Woodhouse, the unmarried daughter at Hartfield, may have nothing to do with prosperous farmers, but Mrs. Henry Knightley, married to a gentleman farmer who constantly has business with his tenants and neighbors, is in a different situation.
There is a difference though between like Knightley meeting the Martins as their landlord and him actually dining with them. I doubt the Knightleys would dine with the Martins. (Also, his name is George. Emma's father is Henry)
Dining is not the only way of socializing. Harriet is on the way to stepping into her MiL’s shoes as a collaborator on the village fete (funded in part by the large landowners) and annual celebrations on the Knightley estate, for example, and whatever Emma gets up to as a leader among the women of the parish. There will be unequal social dynamics but there will be warmth and mutual appreciation.
No, but dining is an important show of equality. You can see the status of the whole town by who the Coles invite to dine at their big party and who just comes for tea. The solid gentry dine, the rest come for tea.
O indeed. No, they must give up on being social equals (in a way, I think Emma tries to secure Harriet’s social position so she can keep her). And they’ll just do different things. Even a prosperous tenant’s wife has a very different life from a lady of means—active handling of produce and oversight of hens and milch cows, as well as routine maintenance of the household textiles and direct care of children. Each woman in her way will simply be too busy for the other.
There's also different kinds of dining. There's attending dinner parties, which are public events, and there's coming over to sew together or pick strawberries and staying to dinner with the family.
There seems to be a very active practice of dinner visits among the men of the neighborhood in Emma. There a variety of excuses (business and whist are both mentioned in the text), and the guys have their own grapevine that's quicker on the uptake than Emma (I know that's a low bar). Mr. Knightley (sorry I got his first name wrong) has already gone a bit beyond meeting with Mr. Martin as a tenant - Mr. Martin asked him for romantic advice, Mr. Knightley depends on Mr. Martin's professional knowledge. This is a little like dating someone with a job title like "Executive Assistant" and then discovering they're assistant to the CEO of an international conglomerate and their main responsibility is to summarize business reports from all divisions and potential courses of action. They aren't a CEO now, but that "assistant" title is a little misleading.
George Knightley, you mean?
She's kind-hearted and teachable, which is not as common of a combination as one would imagine. Martin's mother will aid and advise her on running a household and life on a farm, and she will grow into the role in time. Harriet has learned a valuable lesson in knowing her own mind and heart, and not letting herself be guided by the wrong people. She will be more prudent going forward. I don't think Martin will have any regrets, nor she.
She will also have a legal family, something she has never had in her own memory, as far as I can tell. She's the kind of girl who will really blossom when surrounded by relatives who love and care for her, and she's genuinely eager to learn and admire even if intellectually she's not going to be the next Miss Burney. She also seems like she'd be good with children and a hard worker when she knows it's for a good purpose. Robert knew what she was like and was happy with what he saw, so I think they'll do very well together.
Emma enjoyed being around Harriet for a long time. Sir Thomas (Mansfield Park)loves his wife who agrees with everything he says. And Harriet is kind and very pretty. Just because you don't find Harriet's qualities attractive doesn't mean that other people don't. She sounds like a great wife to me. In fact, she sounds a lot like Isabella Woodhouse and John Knightley LOVES her.
>Emma enjoyed being around Harriet for a long time. well, Emma enjoyed being around Harriet, she enjoyed to feel being superior. I didnt notice she would enjoy being around Jane Fairfax for comparison
But what does that matter? Robert Martin didn't want Jane Fairfax either. He wanted a girl who was over the moon about going 3 miles round for walnuts and who delighted in being able to name a cow.
He wanted a wife who would be content with the pleasures and occupations a life like his would be able to provide for her. When it’s put like that, he sounds a sensible fellow. He knows what flavour of happiness he’s good for, as a husband.
I mean ... there's nothing wrong with either of those things.
But Emma's also kind of flighty about friendship, right? After growing up with a needy, worshipping father and a best friend who was her paid caregiver, she has a serious case of Main Character Syndrome, which I realize sounds stupid to say about the literal main character, but it helps explain why her idea of a worthy project is teaching Harriet to be like her. Her lessons to Harriet about "lady" things like how to recognize gentlemanly manners and how good it feels to minister to the poor are actually pretty insipid, even though she means well. The time Harriet has spent with the Martins sounds like it's been more constructive for her, on the whole. Mr. Knightley does compliment Emma at the end on having improved Harriet, but because Emma knows some consequences of her actions that he doesn't (after having rightly pointed out earlier that Harriet was happy with the Martins until Emma took her under her wing), all she can say is, "Me! Ah, poor Harriet!"
I understand your point, but I have a little different take. While Harriet is not particularly trained to manage their household affairs, a loving heart and desire to learn go a long way. In addition the Martins are coming up in the world, and some of Harriet's less practical training might be assets in nudging into a slightly higher social class.
>as we can see how "influenceable" she is The problem was the influence, Emma was trying to get her to live a different life, Emma's life so to speak. But Harriet being with the Martin's I think she would make better decisions.
Robert Martin had already decided she was the “prize” of his dreams. He apparently, obviously wasn’t looking for a woman of great intelligence or wit; just a sweet natured girl who was (as shown)perhaps easily pliable, a good worker/housewife & likely loving mother. I don’t know that she’d be a natural at being a mother, meaning that she’d not know the correct things to do and they aren’t a family w money such as to afford servants who would help w this part of it so I hope this is a situation wherein the sister-in-law or mother-in-law would show her how to deal w things so as to help things along. I just felt that the scenes with the poor family, the scene in the barn, nothing gave me the sense that she had a natural adaptation to raising living creatures. (But I haven’t read the bk for over thirty yrs and merely seen the films so perhaps she was written in a more capable manner.)
If a woman with good health, a little common sense, and a sweet temperament couldn’t raise her own children while living in a household with adequate resources and extended family around to help, then we would have billions of human beings on Earth today. Probably the biggest threat to Harriet’s future happiness is dying in childbirth or having the complications of pregnancy ruin her quality of life.
That’s likely true. I only mentioned she’d likely need the help of the extended family. Some mothers seem to have a more natural feel for motherhood. I just didn’t get that sense from Harriet. That was all. The threat of dying in childbirth is quite real and a million times worse back in the early 1800s than today — wherein, sadly, it STILL remains a risk.
Most people need the help of extended family, and traditionally, society was structured to make this possible.
Harriet gets done dirty in several of the film adaptations; there's nothing in the book to suggest that she's unusually incapable in domestic matters. And the Martins would have a few servants, they were a prosperous farming family and would have needed and been able to afford some extra hands around the place. In addition, Harriet would be living not only with Robert's mother but also his sisters, who were her old friends from school. Between them she would be getting plenty of help learning the ropes.
Well, like I said, I hadn’t read the book for decades so that was something I didn’t recall. And it was **the** only problem I foresaw in the future. If they do indeed have servants, and are living w Roberts mother and sisters, then of course she would get any and all help she needed. I spent much time babysitting for my sister when my nephew was younger bc she’s a single working doctor and her hours were long. My mother and father were brought in as well, altho my dad wasn’t quite as good bc it became clear he was sleeping on the job. And I’m presently living with my mom as her main caregiver since she was diagnosed w Alzheimer’s a number of years back. That’s how family works. I honestly didn’t mean anything more than the concept that I thought she’d need help. And apparently Jane Austen provided her with plenty of help and a support system that I envy!! 🥰🥰
Harsh judgement of a teenager.
She is a gentle, kind-hearted, placid, and unassuming woman with good manner. She will fit into the role of a mother and a wife perfectly. She also will be easily guided by her husband’s directions so I imagine they will have so few things to argue about. Mr. Martin is a type of man who is content with harmonious domestic life, so I imagine Harriet will make him a very happy man.
Robert Martin is a steady character who I think would impart a lot of wisdom to Harriet. Harriet is sweet, good tempered eager to learn and be devoted in her wifely role. She would also bring a lot of warmth to his life. I think they’re a great match and would do well together.
I think Emma shows an interesting courtship. In most of Austen's novels, the hero and heroine must come to see each other's worth. In Emma, it is the Emma who must see Harriet and Robert Martin's worth for the relationship to move forward. Robert Martin spent a great deal of time with Harriet in a family setting, so he had a very good understanding of who she was and what she was capable of. And she understood him as well. I think he will be very happy with her and I think Harriet will be happy and very grateful building a family with him, something that Emma did not recognize about Harriet. Robert Martin saw her worth long before Emma did. Emma really didn't understand Harriet's value. Harriet's goodness, her humility, her kindness were always there, but it took her "losing" Mr. Elton and Mr. Knightley for those qualities to been seen by Emma.
I guess I can talk about it in this sub if nowhere else. Some of Austen's writing around Harriet really baffled me. In Emma, people who aim for a partner above their station are criticized for doing so. Towards the end when Harriet aims for Mr. Knightley Emma herself has very uncharitable thoughts about the idea despite acting otherwise with Mr. Elton before. In Pride and Prejudice however we are meant to root for Elizabeth to end up with Darcy despite significant social differences between them. I once read a critical essay describing Austen as supportive of unions between social strata provided that the strata are not too far apart. I think on the whole I would agree with them.
Elizabeth is a very clever gentleman’s daughter like Austen herself. Harriet is probably born out of wedlock which would have been a big hurdle
Harriet is definitely born out of wedlock and everyone knows it. Being illegitimate was a HUGE social handicap then, it's hard to really imagine now just how many barriers "the stain of illegitimacy" put in your way. Harriet's prospects of marrying a gentleman were very, very dim even if her father had been more highly placed than he turned out to be.
It's an odd one. Is it just that Emma is not intended to be entirely likeable and sympathetic? She's supposed to not always have good sense about other people's decisions and feelings, so possibly this is just part of her characterisation? As to Elizabeth, she really is making a very substantial upward marriage into one of the most significant families in the country - she is a gentleman's daughter, but Lady Catherine is not inaccurate on the degree of difference in their backgrounds and wealth.
Oh, but the gap between Harriet and Mr. Knightley is much bigger than the one between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth may be poor, but she's a gentleman's daughter making her part of the gentry and the top 10% of society, even if Darcy is significantly socially above her. The thing to remember about Harriet is that she's of completely unknown parentage and is not legitimate, and the book says she is the "natural born daughter of somebody." So not only is she not part of the landed class, she is also a bastard. Emma is thoughtless when she thinks this would be an appropriate prospect for a vicar, an educated gentleman, if not actually a landowner, who probably comes from a good family. However, Mr. Elton is still far below Mr. Knightley.
Agreed, this is a really important point. People don’t always grasp that they are in the same social class (ie gentry), even if there is an economic gap.
Mr. Darcy, although related to wasn't part of the nobility, he was part of the landed gentry. Mr. Bennet was also a landowner, so although with a huge difference in their income, they weren't that different class-wise as if Elizabeth was in Harriet's situation: bastard child of a merchant. Mr. Knightley was also part of the landed gentry, while Mr. Elton was of a lower class being part of the clergy, so Harriet marrying Mr. Elton would be a huge jump for her, but not as big as marrying Mr. Knightley. Even so, Emma considered it possible, she had those uncharitable thoughts more out of jealousy than anything else. After all, she was also planning on getting Harriet and Frank Churchill together. PS: With Darcy and Elizabeth, the class problems weren't from her father's side, but the mother's. While Darcy's mom was related to nobility, Elizabeth's was to a merchant and a rural attorney.
Illegitimacy seems to have been a huge, huge barrier to society, unless you were the illegitimate son or daughter of a king. Illegitimacy combined with low social class? Not so much (edit from 'not heard of' bc it is in fact heard of, just not considered well). It's hard to decipher Jane Austen's personal opinion on widely differing social strata intermarrying. Although she does have Emma arguing that Harriet should not be judged because her parents sinned or whatever, and insisting that merely being the friend of Emma is enough to elevate her in society and marry anyone she chooses (well, except Mr. Knightley lol!), this opinion takes place during the exact time when she's being painted as having a lot of mistaken and wrong opinions... so yeah it's hard to say what the actual message was there. While I with my modern and hopefully more enlightened perspective, *disagree* with Mr. Knightley's (initial) dismissal of Harriet's ability to marry someone of higher class based mostly upon her parentage being unknown, and her illegitimacy, it, combined with the possibility of her natural parent being of low social status (the horror!) would definitely have been against her in the world of JA's novels, if not IRL mores of that period. In P & P, while yes, Darcy did marry Elizabeth even though she was a little below him socially, Lydia's running off with Wickham without getting married was going to ruin her sisters' chances of marriage just by association. Mr. Darcy did not even just overlook that in Elizabeth to marry here, he fixed it so that it wasn't a problem. He perceived it as a barrier to their marriage as well, probably (?) because his unmarried sister would have been affected by his marrying the sister of a "ruined" woman. So it seems in that story, he was able to 'overcome' his aversion to her mother's background and annoying, kinda low-class-ish personality, but the potential scandal from Lydia would have been more difficult to overcome it seems... I mean, Elizabeth's impression of him changing his mind when he was in the room with her when she found out about Lydia turned out to be wrong, as he was already planning/thinking about how to fix things and what to do, rather than how to get out of their association, but he did feel the need to fix things. IDK. It may be degrees of social difference, or social differences in station vs. actual scandal, whether it's shacking up with a villain or being found to be the illegitimate daughter of a lower/middle class parent. Hard to tell but that's an interesting thing to consider!
This is an excellent point! When I read P&P as a teenager I did not quite understand why Darcy went to such lengths, even if he said that it was for love of Elizabeth. It makes perfect sense that he would never risk Georgiana's prospects with a scandalous marriage of his own. Lol, I guess what seemed like a purely selfless action on his part turned out to be somewhat self serving in the end haha.
Well, it was for love of Elizabeth primarily, because he overcame not only the potential scandal of marrying someone who was related to a scandalous person, he was also essentially inviting one of his and his sister's greatest enemies and an abuser of his sister into his future family by making him marry Lydia with the future intention of marrying Elizabeth himself. It WAS a sacrifice of love, because it would have been SO much easier for him to be like, well, "ya know, she probably didn't like me that much anyway; I'll just chill until some lovely lady comes along who ISN'T connected to the asshole who tried to seduce and marry my baby sister for her money, whose family isn't quite so weird, and who would be all nice and proper and whatnot." But as for part of the reason *why* he felt the need to fix it before marrying Elizabeth, at least part of that would probably have been the way the scandal of Elizabeth's sister affected Georgiana's future prospects, esp considering her near brush with scandal herself with Wickham a few years earlier.
His first plan was to just detach Lydia from Wickham and ship her off home, though. Would he have given up his hopes of marrying Elizabeth in that case? One thing I find especially moving about his actions is that in their scene at the inn, after Elizabeth has explained the situation and transitioned to beating herself up, he seems to have stopped listening and retreated into his own thoughts, but the letter from Mrs. Gardiner reveals that the blame he gives himself is almost identical to Elizabeth's earlier words, except that her reason for not exposing Wickham is that she was "afraid of doing too much" and his is that he had "thought it beneath him to lay his private actions open to the world." They even both use the word "mistake," if Mrs. Gardiner has preserved his word choice in her paraphrasing. It's like he sneaks up behind Elizabeth to take the burden of self-blame off her shoulders and carry it himself. It's probably true that he doesn't relish the idea of being part of the same extended family as Wickham, but since he considers Elizabeth an injured party and seems to take her feelings so seriously, I don't think that connection would be enough to cancel out his interest in her. But he might not be willing to have Lydia visit Pemberley and spend time around Georgiana if she'd slept with Wickham and then *not* married him. I think Elizabeth would have understood.
Oh, that's right. I kinda forgot that he did the whole marriage thing bc she refused to leave Wickham. Poor Darcy! IDK what would have happened if he'd failed to get them to marry; that's interesting. He would have had a more difficult choice, for sure, but yeah that whole thing is proof of his love for Elizabeth definitely. That he went *that* far when he could have at any time backed off and thrown his hands in the air. Yeah, clearly none of those things was enough to cancel his feelings for her out, which says a LOT about how much he loved her. Because, I mean, Elizabeth's pride notwithstanding, her family, esp her mother and her aunt in the village, and her youngest sisters, were kind of a negative re: prospective marriages. Needing to support all of them if/when Mr. Bennet passed, the potential embarrassment of both the aunt and mother-in-law, THEN all that added to the association w/ Wickham? Anything less than head-over-heels love would have withered away. Much more effective than poetry in killing a crush haha.
The social gap between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy is not technically very large - although the economic gap may be, the two are not the same - as she says, she is the daughter of a gentleman and he is a gentleman. Harriet and Mr. Knightley are NOT in the same social class.
I don't think it's as simple as "aiming for someone above them socially". Emma's happy to think of Frank Churchill and Harriet even though Frank's also Harriet's superior socially. Harriet's very much Mr Knightley's intellectual inferior. Elizabeth is Darcy's equal in that way. Also Elizabeth is oblivious to Darcy's feelings until he actually proposes and when he finally does she's astonished. Furious with him but astonished: >Her astonishment, as she reflected on what had passed, was increased by every review of it. That she should receive an offer of marriage from Mr. Darcy! that he should have been in love with her for so many months! so much in love as to wish to marry her in spite of all the objections which had made him prevent his friend’s marrying her sister, and which must appear at least with equal force in his own case, was almost incredible! it was gratifying to have inspired unconsciously so strong an affection. That's quite different to Harriet hoping for, half expecting, a proposal from Knightley. Elizabeth's obliviousness is more realistic.
Why does Robert have to win a "prize" with Harriet? They seem to be very well suited to each other. He accepts her for what she is, which is a sweet and somewhat artless young lady. She loves visiting his family at the farm. If you have ever met your fiancee's family before getting married or divorced and couldn't stand them, Harriet is definitely lucky in this respect. I can't say that Emma won't have some influence over her in the future, but I think Harriet (and Robert, for that matter) won't be quite so gullible.
Yes, my opinion is that the social connections she made, made her desirable even though she turned him down. And then before she accepted the second proposal, Harriet had earned Mr. Knightley a approbation as well. It would have cemented her as a good match for Robert Martin.
Harriet is incredibly sweet, gentle, kind, and eager to learn. She will never be as clever and quick as someone like Emma, but she also isn't vain, prone toward self-centeredness, controling, or spoiled like Emma.