Jane Austen's Mansfield Park | Summary & Review

Mansfield Park (first published in 1814) is widely considered Jane Austen's most controversial novel. Today, we're going on a deep dive, leaving no stone unturned! I hope you'll enjoy it! Don't forget to like the video as it really helps me out!
My Sense & Sensibility video: • Sense & Sensibility | ...
Mansfield Park, Kindle edition: amzn.to/4ca87TV
Mansfield Park, Paperback edition: amzn.to/3T92gWj
🌸 c h a p t e r s 🌸
0:00 Intro
0:48 Chapter I - The Estranged Sister
2:12 Chapter II - Meet Fanny
4:22 Chapter III - Enter the Crawfords
8:28 Chapter IV - Drama at Mansfield Park
11:14 Chapter V - The Sisters Leave Mansfield Park
16:11 Chapter VI - Henry Crawford's Plan
18:06 Chapter VII - The Ball
22:31 Chapter VIII - Edmund Returns
24:38 Chapter IX - Fanny goes to Portsmouth
26:59 Chapter X - An Unexpected Visitor
29:21 Chapter XI - Scandals of Mansfield Park
34:31 Chapter XII - Conclusions
36:22 My Thoughts
🌸 s o c i a l m e d i a 🌸
IG: / arnellahobler
FB: / authorarnellahobler
🌸 m y n o v e l s 🌸
Leaves of Holly
amzn.to/3V4ZpAm
Garden of Silver
amzn.to/3PdSi4O
(affiliate links ♥)
🌸 m u s i c & i m a g e s 🌸
No.9 Esther's Waltz - Esther Abrami
Sonatina No 2 in F Major Allegro - Joel Cummins
Habanera - Bizet
C Major Prelude - Bach
All illustrations are made by Charles E. Brock (died 1938) [Public domain]
#janeausten #mansfieldpark

[@3times_mom]

Your summary is amazing and absolutely as captivating as the novel itself. Well done!

[@ArnellaHobler]

Oh thank you so much! ☺

[@SuperEohippus]

About Fanny´s warming up to Henry: I always thought it only happened because she was so miserable away from Mansfield Park - that she was simply happy to see anybody somehow related to the "home" she was missing so much and that she was able to talk about Mansfield Park with him - in that situation he became a saving buoy for her.

[@ArnellaHobler]

That is definitely a valid theory and sounds believable for her character!

[@malexander4094]

When thinking about Fanny & Edmund, I do consider Austen's deliberate language of fraternity around their relation. (This is leaving aside how often Edmund & William are emphasized in equal terms as Fanny's two dearest men.) HOWEVER! I **also** think it's important not to use my 21st century mindset to evaluate that Regency era relation to what might seem like awkward modern undertones... Now, I don't mean simply to handwave it! What I mean is this: I see Austen here continuing a critique of marriage she's always been making....that the institution often became about economics & status, & family obligations/expectations. The woman herself has less say than these factors, and even less so, her own feelings. There's a very important line, after Sir Thomas leaves Fanny post-rejection of Henry: that she hopes her uncle would, being a good man, eventually come to consider **"how wretched, how unpardonable, how hopeless, and how wicked it was, to marry without affection."** What a damning line! But this is Austen's point: that when Fanny rejects Henry, it's shocking to all around her because she's rejecting a higher estate, status, & her family's own position, expectations, etc. Whereas to Fanny, even leaving aside Henry's playboy past, the fact is she feels no affection for him! For society, e.g., her uncle, that shouldn't be a problem.... For her, that's still dishonest, miserable, wicked, hopeless, etc. In fact, that's one of the 1st things Edmund says to Fanny when he reassures her he's on her side: "How could you imagine me an advocate for marriage without love?" he says. "...I think you perfectly right. Can it admit of a question? It is disgraceful if it does. You did not love him: nothing could have justified your accepting him." Edmund is exceptional here: no one else seems to think a woman's feelings are as consequential as status, estates, obliging their own families, etc. So across her works, Austen is arguing for different kinds of love as valid affection. In "Mansfield Park," what's interesting is that here she is positing a kind of "sibling" affection. I don't think of that in literal terms. Rather, take for example Fanny's coming-out ball: by the time she gets her dance with Edmund, they're both tired, and so they both just dance quietly, silently. They understand each other that well. Other times Edmund's referred to as her friend. So, here Austen seems to be proposing a valid mode of affection that isn't sentimental or passionate, etc., overflowing with romance (as much as even us modern readers may want that!) & is instead, indeed, a case for plain simplicity, and "fraternal." Sure, it's not as romantic as Lizzie & Mr. Darcy, or Ann Elliot & the captain etc. But, I think that's very much Jane Austen's entire point!

[@ArnellaHobler]

You do make a good point about different types of love being "valid" for marriage - like in this case, the fraternal. Edmund is many times referred to as a sibling, like when Fanny goes to Portsmouth his hug was that of brotherly affection. There is also a kind of foreshadowing to their relationship in when Fanny first arrives, and there's a discussion with Mrs Norris on where she should live. Norris assured the others that Tom and Edmund will grow up to think of her as a sister, so there's no need to fear them falling in love with her. I never really thought about *why* Jane Austen wrote it like this. Because I do think Edmund sees Fanny as a sister (whereas Fanny had been in love with him romantically for far longer). And it's only once he had experienced a major disappointment in Mary that he begins to see Fanny in a new light. It's not passionate, but it's safe and simple. Marriage between cousins were of course more accepted in those days. It is difficult to see past our 21st century mindset in that regard. Because today, the story would have Henry redeem himself to finally be worthy of Fanny's affection. It would be a slow-burn romance like the one between Lizzie and Mr Darcy, and readers would love it! I wonder if Jane Austen knew this, as well - and decided on a different approach for that very reason that you explained above, that fraternal love could also be a valid reason for marriage. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[@jobethk588]

Back then 1st cousins often married.

[@apollonia6656]

Of only they knew about the dangers of such marriages. It always surprised me that being taught the Bible , it never occurred to them that if one should not marry one's dead husband's brother (considered incest) was less of a "sin" than marrying a first cousin ! Well, if Lot had sex with his daughters....😝, what did it matter about cousins 🤔 Thank goodness there are certain Christian Churches (Greek Orthodox and I think Eastern Orthodox) would never allow such a marriage. Not sure about Catholics,though.

[@reginawhitlock4227]

I like Lady Bertram. Sure, she's lazy and spends her time on the sofa, but she's kind to Fanny, her husband loves her and she never raises her voice. Sometimes she is hilarious, like when the newly widowed Mrs. Norris says she hopes she can save money- Lady Bertram: I daresay you will, you always do

[@ArnellaHobler]

Lady B is indeed hilarious sometimes! Her relationship with Fanny, however, is quite one-sided. She wants Fanny as her caregiver/emotional support despite what this means for Fanny (such as keeping her from social gatherings and thereby keeping her from potentially finding a partner). It's quite selfish, even though she's clearly very fond of her.

[@myriampro4973]

I think she has some autistic traits. She always follow a routine, she refuses to go other places, even to do something fun. She doesn't understand why people could do something unusual, like inviting Fanny. She just lacks of intense feelings, and certainly she isn't empathic. I'm not sure about the loving feelings of her husband, he is absent most of the time. He seems very polite, and probably he had fallen in love because her beauty.

[@asdabir]

For me Mansfield Park was a fascinating read. The fact that it ends the way it does is what makes it really unexpected and interesting to me. While I am not a huge fan of the protagonists, I appreciate Jane Austen for writing them, as I am sure they are not quite her vibe. A lot of Mary Crawford’s “hot takes” in the first half were very entertaining to read, and while they would be considered shocking and cynical in those days are quite resonant with a lot of today’s collective consciousness. This is to me an example where the villains are the real entertainers.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I very much agree! It does stand out among Jane Austen's other works and I can see how it was seen as controversial even back in those days, for other reasons than today. I did find Mary Crawford's hot takes (hehe) very enjoyable and quite ahead of her time. So true - the villains are the entertainers in this one!

[@paolariveratirado4296]

It seems to me that Mary Crawford is the inspiration for Violet Crawley In Downton ;-) Not a villain per se but those hot takes are much needed in an otherwise too correct dialogue.

[@asdabir]

@@paolariveratirado4296 never made that comparison but that’s so true! I can see the cynicism, wit and practicality of Mary in Violet!

[@ArnellaHobler]

@@paolariveratirado4296 Now I wish I knew that before, it would have made my read through even more enjoyable 😄

[@MartinDSmith]

There is an undeniable chemistry between Edmund Bertram and Mary Crawford,but I am on his side in rejecting her moral ambiguity.In the same way Henry is like the leopard who can't change his spots and underneath his efforts to gain Fanny's affection is lurking his self serving aims.💝

[@ArnellaHobler]

There is indeed, although in Edmund's case I feel like his admiration of Mary is more surface level, which made him blind to all the red flags in the beginning. Although we can't really blame him for it :)

[@asdabir]

Definitely agree about Henry. His fancies would move on to the next interesting thing once his obsession with Fanny fades away and he realizes her principles are immovable and gets bored of them.

[@ArnellaHobler]

@@asdabir It is a fair assumption! I think his view of Fanny remained the way it was simply because he never "won" her. Had she actually accepted him, she would have been just like any other girl who fell for his charm 😕

[@snussinn]

Fascinating!

[@rebekahcopeland500]

I enjoyed your summary very much and would like to add my two cents worth; first cent; I found Fanny to be less insipid than you appear to, primarily due to her strong religious devotion. I attribute her compliance and 'meekness' to her striving for adherence to moral (christian) standards rather than to a lack of knowing her own mind and people pleasing. She seemed to feel it her christian duty to bear her Aunt Norris' badgering and sinping, if she was a genuine people pleaser she would have married Crawford from the first. Her determination to withstand his advances, and the subsequent pressure brought to bear by others, is based more on her comitment to being righteous than to her feelings for Edmund, strong though they are. second cent; Fanny's personal religious comittment makes her a great partner for Edmund (cousins notwithstanding) who comes to see her as his moral equal or even superior - I am more convinced that they will have a very happy home together with genuine companionship than I am than that she would survive the first pregnancy (due to her ill health).

[@ArnellaHobler]

I'm glad you enjoyed it! And you do have a point about the Christian values. Religion has never been a part of my life so I tend to overlook that sort of thing. While I still feel that the Bertram's neglect had a big impact on her, she must have gotten that firm determination to withstand Crawford's proposal from somewhere within. So it definitely makes sense! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@annabanana7298]

Well done! I only want to add that Fanny was NOT INVITED to stay with the Bertrams. The whole “adoption” of Fanny was a scheme of Mrs Norris. She wanted to look and sound generous with no expense to herself. So it is not until Fanny actually arrives that she is dumped on the Bertrams with no advance notice. No one in the house is expecting her, no plans have been made for her there, and Sir Thomas is pretty pissed off, but reluctantly accepts her to keep the peace. Setting aside whatever character flaws the Bertrams have, no wonder her welcome is cold. And also, some (not all) of Mrs Norris’ perpetual scolding of Fanny makes sense as Mrs Norris trying to cover her own ass about dumping this random kid on the household.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I tend to compress details like this for the sake of time, which does affect some of the story - I admit that. In the end, since Mrs Norris is a family member living on their land, I chose to summarise it this way. It is my hope however that those who haven't read the book would feel curious to do so after having seen the video, simply to get more details like this :)

[@thesisypheanjournal1271]

Frederick wasn't Agatha's love interest. He was her illegitimate child. This meant that Maria and Henry spent a lot of time hugging and showing other signs of affection.

[@kuroneko5390]

Well, when you read older books you have to also keep in mind that society has changed a lot since those books where written. At that time it was not unheard of that cousins would marry each other in certain circles. It was often about keeping titels and wealth in the family. In modern days our values and family dynamics shifted very much, we wouldn't consider a marriage between cousins as a common thing now. We find it weird but we also don't have to worry about titels, entails, and inheritances as much anymore. You also have a much lager pool of potential Partner since our social classes aren't as ridgit. If you can only marry people of a certain social class there aren't just as many options. If you are the daughter of a gentleman you'd have to marry a Gentelman or try to marry up, which wasn't so easy and If your Dad where titled Gentry you'd marry someone with a Titel. Those stay in the same family's so the pool gets even smaller and when you look at the Royal Famlies you can see that they all are somehow related since you have to marry in your own social class. So the higher the social class the higher the chances that you'd end up with some relatives in the dating pool xD since society is less ridgit, travel is a lot faster and cheaper you can look for a suitable Partner in a much bigger radius. Oh and we know much more about how genetics work. All that changed our perspective. We also don't have the need to get married anymore unless we want to. I'd never want to marry my cousin in modern time but if I would be in the regency era and I'd need to find a husband to survive and my cousin would be my only safe option I'd probably take it so that I don't end up homeless. All these things should be considered when we consume media of those times. All that being said, I am so glad I'm born in modern times.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I think you might have misunderstood my point, let me explain. I am aware of all of those factors, but they aren't that relevant when it comes to MP. As said by Mrs Norris at the start of the book; there will be no need to fear the boys falling in love with her (i.e. Fanny) as they will grow up together like brother and sister. This is foreshadowing for what will come to happen. Then we have Fanny, a deeply traumatised young girl who attached herself to the only kind person in her new surroundings - Edmund. My issue with their pairing is that they are more like siblings than like cousins. Edmund himself didn't see her as a valid option until he was heartbroken by Mary. Their match is not made out of necessity or for wealth keeping, as they both had other options. It was made because they both have a kind of trauma that made them distrustful of others.

[@jellogirl2010]

Honestly, I'm almost done with this right now and I'm watching this because I've seen many adaptations. An interesting character to me is Yates, when everyone clears out during the play, he sticks around to clean up the mess he helped make and to meet Sir Thomas, that's a stark contrast to Henry who leaves Mansfield Park immediately. I know it's probably to highlight stupidity versus his moral character but it's something that's stuck out to me, none the less.

[@brucealanwilson4121]

JK Rowling chose to call the Hogwrts caretaker's mean cat "Mrs. Norris" for a reason.

[@paladin1726]

I really wanted someone to tell Mrs. Norris off. Henry got in a couple shots and Sir Thomas did as well, but not enough to knock her down some pegs. Jane Austen was hilarious with Mrs Norris in showing her to be a phony and a leech, but I would’ve loved it if she were really put in her place. She saw the writing on the wall when she chose to leave, and I know the gentlemen are gentlemen, but still.

[@yunidelarte]

Girl, you’re feeling nauseous about Fanny marrying her cousin (when that was common or at least acceptable in those days) but expect her to accept Henry’s proposal based off of helping her family because it was more “common” in those days?? (Also idk if it was all that common, I know that when people married without love it was usually frowned upon by society)

[@ViciousGreeneyed]

I wouldn't call Edmund a groomer. I always had an impression that he had not the least clue Fanny loves him until the very end. Certainly he never thought of her in "that" way through the book. He was madly in love with Mary, he actively encouraged Fanny to marry Henry etc. I never saw the faintest traces of him purposefully acting around Fanny in any other way than simply brotherly. And clueless. Though I don't have problems with that whole first-cousin-business in historical literature, considering different times and different views; you're right about this novel. It's the only novel I can remember I actually had a problem with first-cousin-mess. Relationship between Fanny and Edmund was described too much "brother and sister" for any possibility of something different ever - even for historical novel; and unfortunately, I didn't like Edmund and was angry at Fanny because of her stubborn, pointless feelings (which were never recognized from his side, in my opinion, let alone returned. I never bought idea that he fell in love with her, not even in the end. I still think he loved Mary even then - probably forever - and was bitter and married Fanny just because she was there and willing.) And, I actually liked Henry, and even Mary to some degree (I thought her oddly rational). At least they were never dull like (sorry) Fanny and Edmund. My least favourite of Austen's though people should read it because of other stuff - horrible Mrs. Norris, that whole theater-drama (very amusing, watching from 21.century) etc. And, of course, because of Austen's brilliant writing. Anyway, thank you and apologize for my bad English!

[@ArnellaHobler]

You're right, I can't remember having a problem with first-cousin couples either in older literature. I very much agree that there was too much emphasis on their "close family" relationship for a romantic connection to feel natural. I understand Fanny having a crush on him as a child, but expected her to grow out of it. And yes, the book is still very enjoyable despite this, of course! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and your English is excellent 😊

[@angelagardner1123]

This is my least favorite of all Jane Austen's works. Although, I love Fanny, as a character. She saw through Henry Crawford when no one else did. I don't like Edmund because he saw all the red flags and chose to ignore them and seemed to just, settle for Fanny in the end. So, even looking past the first cousin thing, AND the growing up like siblings; he still doesn't deserve Fanny. Maybe if he had just a brief infatuation with Mary, and then had him slowly show how his affection for Fanny grew over the course of the novel, I'd have enjoyed it more.

[@ArnellaHobler]

It does make the ending very anti-climactic, but at the same time I don't think it's supposed to be that satisfying. It's all very tragic, which I suppose is a bit of a downer when you're expecting some light-hearted comedy romance like P&P or Emma! Thankfully it can still be rather enjoyable with some well-written side character shenanigans :)

[@EmilyGloeggler7984]

I found Colonel Brandon to be more odious and repugnant, as much as Henry Crawford.