Lovers’ Vows

“Let us do nothing by halves. If we are to act, let it be in a theatre completely fitted up with pit, boxes, and gallery, and let us have a play entire from beginning to end; so as it be a German play …” (Ch. 13)

Lovers’ Vows is a play by Elizabeth Inchbald. She adapted it from the German play Das Kind der Liebe (literally “Child of Love” or “Love Child”) by August von Kotzebue. It was first performed in 1798 at Covent Garden and was successful, though some considered it too risqué.

Lovers' VowsThe story begins with Agatha being thrown out of an inn because she can no longer pay. A soldier comes across her and gives her the very little money he has. Agatha recognizes him as her son Frederick, who has been away  in the army for five years. He has come for his birth certificate which he finds he needs to gain employment. Sorrowfully, Agatha tells him that he has no birth certificate, for he is illegitimate. She tells him how she was seduced by the Baron Wildenhaim. Instead of fulfilling his promise to marry her, the Baron marries another woman. Agatha was turned out of her home and struggled to bring up her son on her own. Frederick leaves his mother with some generous Cottagers and goes to beg for money. Coming across a hunting party, he begs of them and, not receiving enough money for his mother’s wants, draws his sword and attempts to rob one of them and gets arrested.

The man Frederick attempted to rob was Baron Wildenhaim. He is trying to get his daughter Amelia to marry Count Cassel, a stupid, dissolute man. The Baron asks Amelia’s tutor Anhalt, a chaplain, to discuss marriage with her. Unknown to him, however, Anhalt and Amelia are in love. Amelia takes the opportunity to force a declaration of love from Anhalt. They are interrupted by the “rhyming Butler” who tells them in verse of Frederick’s arrest. The Baron insists that Frederick must be punished as an example, but Amelia takes pity on him and brings him “a basket of provisions”. From her, Frederick learns the identity of the man he attempted to rob and requests a private interview with the Baron.

Amelia has learned of Count Cassel’s dissolute behaviour and reveals it to her father who confronts him. The Count readily admits to having made promises of marriage to other women and points out that “if every man, who deserves to have a charge such as this brought against him, was not permitted to look up—; it is a doubt whom we might not meet crawling on all fours”. Reminded of his own behaviour to Agatha, the Baron is embarrassed. Amelia tells her father of her love for Anhalt. Anhalt tells the Baron of Fredericks wish for an interview. Frederick reveals his relationship to the Baron and then leaves. Anhalt goes to Agatha and explains how the Baron came to marry another woman. Persuaded by Anhalt, the Baron agrees that he must marry Agatha despite her low social position. He also allows Anhalt and Amelia to marry, despite Anhalt’s poverty. Everyone is reconciled.

In Mansfield Park, the characters were cast as follows:

Baron Wildenhaim … John Yates
Count Cassel … James Rushworth
Anhalt … Edmund Bertram
Frederick … Henry Crawford
Verdun the Butler … Tom Bertram

Agatha Friburg … Maria Bertram
Amelia Wildenhaim … Mary Crawford
Cottager’s Wife … Mrs. Grant

Elizabeth InchbaldElizabeth Inchbald lived from 1753 to 1821. She was an English actress, playwright, and novelist. She was born Elizabeth Simpson, one of the nine children of John and Mary Simpson. The family was Roman Catholic. Elizabeth’s brother George became an actor in 1770, and when she was 19 she went to London to act. In 1772, she married the actor Joseph Inchbald. They travelled with a theatre company. After her husband’s death in 1779, Elizabeth continued to act. She wrote many plays, including Lovers’ Vows, and two novels. She quarreled with Mary Wollstonecraft in 1797 when it was discovered that Mary had not been married to her daughter Fanny’s father. Elizabeth died in August 1821 in Kensington.

August von KotzebueAugust von Kotzebue had a rather dramatic life (pun intended). He was a German dramatist and writer and lived from 1761 to 1819. He also worked as a consul in Russia and Germany. As a young man he studied legal science. After graduating in 1780, he practiced law in Weimer. He then became secretary to a Governor General in Russia. He married the daughter of a Russian lieutenant general in 1783. His first literary works were well received. His first wife died in 1790 and Kotzebue left Russia. He was appointed dramatist to the court theatre in Vienna in 1798, but the position did not last long. He returned to Germany, but had troubles there due to disagreements with Goethe as he had attacked the romantic style which Goethe was known for. In 1800 he tried to return to Saint Petersburg, but was arrested on suspicion of being a Jacobin and was transported to Siberia. He was rescued by Tsar Paul I of Russia and was appointed director of the German theatre in Saint Petersburn. After the Tsar’s assassination, Kotzebue returned to Germany. After Napoleon’s victory in 1806, he fled back to Russia. Beethoven suggested that Kotzebue write libretto for an opera, which never ended up being written. However Beethoven composed music for two of Kotzebue’s plays. His famous “Turkish March” was originally written for Kotzebue’s play Ruin of Athens. Eventually he returned to German as consul general for Russia. He was disliked by nationalist liberals due to his writings against Germans who wanted free institutions. On March 18, 1819, soon after moving to Mannheim with his family (he had eighteen children), he was murdered in his own home by one of the national liberalists, Karl Ludwig Sand.


Symbolism in Mansfield Park

In discussing Jane Austen’s craft in his book A Fine Brush on Ivory, Richard Jenkyns observes that in Mansfield Park she “experiments with touches of symbolism and develops a new sense of the significance of place”.1

1 Wilderness

Her exploration of the significance of place and area is most strikingly visible in the visit to Sotherton, where she makes her experiment with what one is bound to call symbolism. The lawn enclosed by a wall, Mary Crawford wanting to pass beyond the door in the wall and finding it unlocked, her leading the way into the ‘wilderness’ beyond and talking with Edmund there (and making an explicit comparison with the metaphorical ‘wilderness’ of a lawyer’s profession) — the symbolic force of these things needs no explication. Christ was tempted in the wilderness, as were the Israelites before him, and Mary acts the temptress’s part, pressing Edmund to abandon him plan to become a clergyman. In the next chapter the symbolism is plainer still. Henry tells Maria that she has ‘a very smiling scene’ before her. ‘Do you mean literally or figuratively?’ Maria replies, preparing us for the fusion of literal and figurative in the episode that follows. Maria continues, ‘Yes, certainly the sun shines and the park looks very cheerful. But unluckily that iron gate, that ha-ha, give me a feeling of restraint and hardship. I cannot get out, as the starling said.’ Rushworth has the key, and is slow in bringing it. Henry questions whether she needs Rushworth’s authority and protection, and suggests that with his own help she could get around the edge of the gate and allow herself ‘to think it not prohibited’.2

This symbolism works because “Henry is fully conscious of it, and Maria at least partly so. It is not imposed from the outside, but developed by the characters themselves: it is part of Henry’s apparatus of flirtation, his testing of Maria to see how far she might go.”3

2 Key and Gate 3 Key and Gate


1 A Fine Brush on Ivory, by Richard Jenkyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 95.

2 Ibid. pp. 145-46

3 Ibid. pp. 146-47


Mansfield Park is a home of propriety, order, and consideration. When faced with the chaotic contrast of her parents’ home, Fanny Price thinks how, “[a]t Mansfield, no sounds of contention, no raised voice, no abrupt bursts, no tread of violence, was ever heard; all proceeded in a regular course of cheerful orderliness; everybody had their due importance; everybody’s feelings were consulted” (ch. 39). Despite its advantages, however, Mansfield Park is lacking is a very important virtue — joy.

Although orderly and well-bred, Mansfield Park is too solemn. Looking back at his failures as a parent, Sir Thomas realizes that, in attempting to counteract Mrs. Norris’s “excessive indulgence and flattery” by his own severity, he had taught his children “to repress their spirits in his presence so as to make their real disposition unknown to him” (ch. 48). This makes the young people at Mansfield particularly susceptible to the influence of the lively, worldly Crawfords. When Sir Thomas leaves Mansfield Park, his daughters, feel “relieved by [his absence] from all restraint; and without aiming at one gratification that would probably have been forbidden by Sir Thomas, they felt themselves immediately at their own disposal, and to have every indulgence within their reach” (ch. 3).

In his book, Miniatures and Morals, Peter J. Leithart observes, “The Crawfords’ desire for entertainment, their need for amusement, their impatience with old ways and their eagerness always to be attempting some novelty infects the rest of the young people at Mansfield Park.” This is the more easily done because of the void in their lives. In the absence of good, evil gained a foothold.

Consideration and sobriety are virtues, but so is joy — and it is every bit as important.


Miniatures and Morals, by Peter J. Leithart (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), p. 120.


The beautiful details of Mansfield Park are one of the reasons I like it so much. Young Edmund ruling paper so that Fanny can write to her brother. The drawing of a ship hung on the wall in Fanny’s East room. The comings and goings in the wilderness at Sotherton. Fanny’s amber cross and neat gold chain. The noise of the Price home in Portsmouth. Susan’s silver knife. These details are significant. They show character. Jane Austen had a talent for taking the plain events of everyday life and showing their importance.

In the book he wrote with Steve Chandler, Two Guys Read Jane Austen, Terrence N. Hill observes this in a humorous way.

H.M. Brock Sotherton Mansfield ParkThe chapters we just finished in Mansfield Park (8 through 15) are almost entirely concerned with the two smallish events in an English country neighborhood: the day’s outing to Sotherton (estate of the proposed groom of Maria Bertram) and the planning of an amateur home theatrical performance.

This is where Jane is fabulous — in these unexceptional events in country life. If these things were described to you as major events in a novel, you’d make a special point of noting the title just to make sure you didn’t pick it up by accident. And yet, Jane makes the incidents crackle with scheming and intrigue. As Nabokov points out, the Sotherton excursion is laid out like moves in a chess game.


Two Guys Read Jane Austen, by Steve Chandler and Terrence N. Hill (Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed Publishers, 2008), pp. 73-74.

Audiobook Review

“All her attention was for her work. She seemed determined to be interested by nothing else. But taste was too strong in her. She could not abstract her mind five minutes: she was forced to listen; his reading was capital, and her pleasure in good reading extreme.” (Mansfield Park, by Jane Austen, Ch. 34)

LibriVox currently has three complete, free, public domain recordings of Mansfield Park by Jane Austen — one with various readers, one read by a full-cast, and a third read by Karen Savage.

LibriVox (Savage, Karen)Karen Savage’s reading of Mansfield Park is quite good. She speaks clearly and not too quickly or too slowly, has a pleasing voice, and reads as if she understands what she is reading. She does skip, add, or change words from time to time, however. For example, in chapter 19, instead of reading “Why do not I see my little Fanny?” she says, “I do not see my little Fanny.” When, also in chapter 19, Mr. Rushworth complains of Mr. Crawford, she deletes the second “not” from his speech, “I do not say he is not gentleman-like, considering; but …” In chapter 47, during Edmund’s final summarization of Miss Crawford, she reads “Hers are not faults of principle” — the “not” is not in the book, for Miss Crawford’s faults are faults of principle. Still, I think the meaning remains clear throughout the reading. The biggest flaw, I think, is the way Karen Savage chose to read Miss Crawford’s voice — it is much too drawling for such a lively character.  Then, she pronounces “Miss Sneyd” as “Miss Snayd”, and “Cowper” as “cow-per” (like the animal). These may not be faults, but I am used to hearing them pronounced otherwise. With few exceptions, however, Karen Savage does an excellent job of interpreting each character and differentiating between them. And, of course, there is the added benefit that her audiobook is free!

Henry in Love

“Sophie” of A Reasonable Quantity of Butter has agreed to write several guest posts for my blog in honor of Mansfield Park‘s bicentenary. They will be posted over the next month or so.

The 9th of May was the bicentennial of Mansfield Park’s publication. To celebrate, I walked up to the library to borrow the book for the first time with my own card, conscious that Fanny’s feelings were echoing in my own heart, “amazed at being anything in propria persona; . . . to be a renter, a chuser of books!”

This was not my first reading. I had read Mansfield Park at least twice since my graduation; but the complexity of the novel rewards revisiting.

Henry in Love

Reading through Mansfield Park this month, perhaps for the fourth time, I realized what it meant that Henry Crawford was in love with Fanny. I’m not sure what I thought before —perhaps that his love sprang only from vanity, lust, novelty, or the pleasure of discovery and pursuit. Now I think that I know.

Frontispiece copyHenry wanted to hold Fanny’s hand. He wanted her to lean on his arm while they talked of plans for their future. Hearing her opinions fascinated, excited, and engrossed him. Her conversation was intelligent and informed and eager to be more so. When they spoke together they were conversing, not flirting.

Henry trusted Fanny completely, and felt that with her he would have a family security which he had not known before, as he had been orphaned and raised by a dysfunctional couple. She made him feel like a man—that he needed to be responsible and mature in order to care for her and inspire her respect.

Fanny’s principles gave new life to Henry’s own good nature. Possessions and interests became duties through Fanny’s eyes. This perspective gave Henry new zeal when he visited his estate. Kindness and ability as a manager he already had, but Fanny’s vision gave him purpose.

While other women had flattered his vanity, Fanny animated his life. Not only were his eyes pleased with her beauty, but his mind and spirit were satisfied. It was easy to imagine her as his wife.

Mansfield Park is a tragedy—the tragedy of how Henry Crawford “lost the woman whom he had rationally, as well as passionately loved.”


Using the word “spirit” in a non-religious sense feels awkward to me, but I think the use is appropriate. It means “the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character”, which is exactly what I mean here.

Real Reads Mansfield Park

1 Real Reads Jane Austen

Gill Tavner has rewritten all six of Jane Austen’s novels for children. In the Real Reads Mansfield Park, she did an excellent job of capturing the personalities, strengths, and weakness of the characters in a way that is accessible to young children. As she writes in the “For Further Information” section, “nothing can beat the original”,1 but she manages to keep the most important events and details. One omission, or change, that I didn’t like so much was the lack of Sir Thomas’s offer to release Maria from her engagement to Mr. Rushworth. Instead, he is portrayed as wanting her to marry “as soon as possible”.2

The opening, with its portrayal of Mrs. Norris shaping her nieces minds, followed by her injunction to young Fanny to be grateful was presented well. The Crawfords are portrayed as more overtly evil than they really were (I was reminded of their portrayal in the 2007 movie adaptation of ‘Mansfield Park’). Henry Crawford views Maria as a “particularly enjoyable challenge” because of her engagement, while Julia, he tells his sister, “will love me only too easily”.3 Jane Austen’s novel is much more subtle, but this would be difficult to get across in a children’s story. Fanny’s brother William is mentioned, though he does not visit her at Mansfield. The ball is portrayed as a farewell ball before Edmund leaves to be ordained. Fanny’s visit to Portsmouth was removed. Most of the changes and omissions are explained in a section in the back of the book called “Filling in the Spaces”.

2 Fanny and Edmund on the stairs Ann Kronheimer Mansfield ParkAs I said before, Gill Tavner does a good job of depicting the personalities of the various characters in the story. Mrs. Norris is just as spiteful as she is in Jane Austen’s novel, Edmund as kind, Sir Thomas as generous and dignified, though they are all simplified. Although the Crawfords are more blatantly unscrupulous, their actions do not go beyond what is presented in the novel. This story lacks Jane Austen’s complexity, of course, but does well for a children’s story.

In the back of the book are several interesting and informative sections. I’ve already mention the “Filling in the Spaces” section. Also included is some “Background Information” which tells that “Mansfield Park is a controversial novel. … Responses to Fanny Price herself differ …. She is considered by some readers to be Jane Austen’s least interesting heroine, by others the most complex of them all.”4 The practice of adoption at that time period is discussed, along with wealth, marriage, clergymen, and, inevitably, the slave trade. The activity of playacting is also mentioned, though I’m not sure I agree that “Jane Austen clearly disapproves of the pastime”.5 Some notes on Jane Austen’s style of writing are included in a “Food for Thought” section, along with some interesting “Critical thinking questions”. One complaint I have about the additional information in the back of the book is the mention of Patricia Rozema’s adaptation of ‘Mansfield Park’, which should never be recommended to children.

The illustrations by Ann Kronheimer are quite simple and pretty and suit the style of the story. I thought it odd that, although the text includes the story of Fanny’s cross and necklace (in part, at least), the illustration of her at the ball does not show her wearing it. There are a couple of cute illustrations of, not one, but two pugs (see pages 6 and 52).

3 Two pugs! Ann Kronheimer Mansfield Park

For a book attempting to introduce young children to the story and complexities of Jane Austen’s novel, I think this does well.


1 Tavner, Gill, Mansfield Park (New York: Skyview Books, 2010), p. 55.

2 Ibid. p. 37.

3 Ibid. p. 16.

4 Ibid. p. 58.

5 Ibid. p. 60.