Gentry y pailarisme

Retrato de una época Juan José López Burniol La Vanguardia, 2 de noviembre de 2013 ¿Qué mundo es el que refleja Jane Aus­ten en sus novelas? El de la gentry, que jun­tó -y por debajo- de la aristocracia consti­tuyó durante siglos la clase dirigente britá­nica. El 'pairalisme' se convirtió en la base de una clase media campesina, dice Vicens Vives en 'Cataluña en el siglo XIX' "Es una verdad mundialmente re­conocida que un hombre solte­ro, poseedor de una gran fortu­na, necesita una esposa". Así co­mienza Pride and prejudice -Orgullo y pre­juicio-, novela de la inglesa Jane Austen, publicada de forma anónima hace dos si­glos. La leí -casi seguro- de adolescente, pero lo que sí recuerdo bien es que, años después -con más de cuarenta-, estando aburrido la tarde de un día en que había subido a la Cerdanya, la cogí al azar de una estantería y comencé á releerla. No la terminé de un tirón, pero casi, y, en los me­ses posteriores, di cuenta de buena parte de la obra de Austen. Aún ahora, veo en una librería de mi estudio, ordenadamen­te dispuestos, todos los ejemplares. Ade­más, después de leerlas, he visto un par de películas -primorosamente inglesas- basa­das en su obra. ¿A qué se debe esta devoción tardía? Porque, si bien se piensa, las historias que cuenta no pueden ser más anodinas y convencionales, con un desarrollo previsible y un final cantado. Pero, no obstante, me atraparon, no por lo que se cuenta sino por cómo se cuenta. Jane Austen, cuyas obras se publicaron con dificultades y escaso éxito, irrumpió en un ambiente dominado por el delirio sentimentaloide y el tremendismo gótico de unos folletones de cartón piedra con castillos, pasadizos, ermitaños, crímenes, duelos, venganzas y secuestros. Ella, en cambio, escribió en la sala de estar de la rectoría de su padre una crónica exacta y distanciada del mundo que la rodeaba. Tan distanciada que parece escribir desde fuera de este mundo, sin que ella llegue a mostrarse ni, menos aún, a manifestarse. Cuenta y describe, pero no juzga. Es tan exacta, que de ella dijo Virginia Woolf: "Es la mayor escritora..., no intenta escri­bir como un hombre. Todas las demás mu­jeres lo hacen, por eso no las leo". ¿Qué mundo es el que refleja Jane Aus­ten en sus novelas? El de la gentry, que jun­tó -y por debajo- de la aristocracia consti­tuyó durante siglos la clase dirigente britá­nica. La gentry estaba com­puesta -escribe Esteban Ca­nales- por unos cuantos miles de familias (entre diez y trece mil), con propiedades de muy diversa cuantía, que en su límite inferior -los country gentlemen, que incluían pequeños hacendados o squires, clero, profesionales, ofi­ciales retirados y comercian­tes- eran propietarias de unos pocos centenares de hec­táreas y unos cientos de li­bras anuales de renta, y que, en su nivel superior, podían llegar a codearse con los pares del reino. Todas estas familias unían a su riqueza -mayor o menor- influencia política y prestigio social. Es cierto que la gentry apenas si tenía acceso al Parlamento de­bido a lo elevado de los costes electorales, pero desempeñó un importante papel en la ad­ministración local de la Ingla­terra rural, sobre todo desde los puestos de la justicia de paz. iSu conducta se guiaba por un código de valores que se fundaba en una cierta des­preocupación -sólo aparen­te- por las cuestiones prácti­cas, un acusado sentido del honor y el protocolo, un com­portamiento liberal y hospita­lario, y un talante deportivo ante la vida. Defendía la idea de libertad, pero no la de igualdad ni la de fraternidad; por lo que no es extraño que Coubertin extrajese de este modelo esta idea: "¡Renunciemos a esta peligrosa qui­mera de una educación igual para todos y sigamos el ejemplo del pueblo británico, que comprende tan bien la diferencia que hay entre democracia e igualdad!". Un dato que me llamó la atención es que la sencilla trama de un par de novelas de Austen gira en torno a una sustitución fideicomisaria, es decir, de la fórmula utili­zada habitualmente para vincular una pro­piedad -"la casa"- en manos de una fami­lia, si bien, en Inglaterra, esta familia no se centraba sólo en la explotación agraria si­no que se involucraba en el comercio cre­ciente. Así lo detectó Voltaire, al constatar cómo se enriquecía la clase terrateniente inglesa a través de sus incursiones en el mercado. El hecho de que los patrimonios familiares fue­ran heredados por los hijos mayores, mientras que los menores se dedicaban a los negocios, significaba que el altivo desdén por el comer­cio coexistía con una activa participación en él. Este mundo no es tan distin­to -salvando las distancias-de la estructura social catala­na de la época, como pone de relieve Vicens Vives en su li­bro Cataluña en el siglo XIX, donde escribe, con referencia al pairalisme, que este "se con­virtió en la base de una clase media campesina que iba a proveer a Catalunya de una le­gión de elementos activos en el campo y en la ciudad", gra­cias a la diáspora ciudadana de los fadristerns o cabalers. Así -dice Vicens- "las cases pairals o principals, vincula­das a una familia por la ley de herencia, constituyeron los puntos de referencia de una red de intereses sociales que sostuvo Catalunya en los mo­mentos de adversidad y de cri­sis. (...) Entre nosotros (el pai­ralisme) fue una especie de paternalismo con el que la gen­try del país dirigió el campesi­nado durante la época de la re­volución técnica agraria". Otra época.

La rivalidad entre María Estuardo e Isabel I (En Días Como Hoy), mp3

ENLACE: http://www.rtve.es/mediateca/audios/20091015/rivalidad-entre-maria-estuardo-isabel-dias-como-hoy/605361.shtml

El 15 de octubre de 1586, María Estuardo conoció su sentencia de muerte por conspirar contra su prima, Isabel I de Inglaterra. Nieves Concostrina nos explica la rivalidad que dominó la relación de ambos personajes históricos (15/10/09).

The Draughtsman's Contract (El contrato del dibujante) de Peter Greenaway, 1982

En el verano de 1694, Mr. Neville, un dibujante prometedor y ambicioso, visita la casa y las propiedades del hacendado Mr. Herbert de Compton Anstey, en Wiltshire. Venciendo los reparos iniciales, ya que su capacidad para el halago sólo la supera su jactanciosa pretensión de dibujar la verdad, el señor Neville recibe un encargo, pero no del hacendado sino de su mujer. Se firma un contrato y, a cambio de doce dibujos de la casa con el foso y los cuidados jardines, Mr. Neville convence a Mrs. Herbert para que le dé vía libre para disfrutar de su hospitalidad más íntima. Éste se verá envuelto en una intriga doméstica que le convertirá en sospechoso no sólo de adulterio sino además de muchas otras cosas. 

Opening scene from The Draughtsman's Contract - one of the greatest film ever made. A work ingeniously conceived through deep inspiring senses and forms of Art.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083851/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Drau...'s_Contract

England, 1694. Mrs Herbert (Janet Suzman) and her daughter Mrs Talmann (Anne-Louise Lambert) try to persuade Mr Neville (Anthony Higgins), an artist, to make a series of drawings of Mr and Mrs Herbert's house and estate. Mr Neville finally agrees when Mrs Herbert offers, in addition to paying for each drawing and giving him room and board while he draws, to sleep with him. (Oddly, she makes this offer in the presence of her husband's agent, Mr Noyes (Neil Cunningham), who is drawing up the contract.) Mrs Herbert intends the drawings to be a gift to her obnoxious and estranged husband, who dotes on his property and who is conveniently planning to be away from home while the drawings are created.

Mr Neville inconveniences the entire household with detailed and stringent requirements for his 12 drawings. For specified periods every day, the views he has chosen must be kept clear of carriages, animals, smoking chimneys, and people -- except for the one that requires Mr Talmann (Hugh Fraser) to stand still and wear the same clothes for several days running.

The atmosphere of the film is chilly; there's little indication that any of the characters like one another, and many of them are fairly hostile. Starting over the issue of Mr Talmann's wardrobe, Mr Talmann and Mr Neville snipe at one another continuously. Mr and Mrs Talmann have a bitter confrontation. It's hard to tell what the exaggerated costumes are meant to contribute: comically tall headpieces for the women, and for the men, very long, curly wigs -- waist-length, in some cases -- which, along with full-skirted coats, make them look like Edwardian schoolgirls.

Mrs Herbert is distressed by the sexual part of her agreement and tries to break the contract; Mr Neville refuses. Mrs Talmann makes her own bargain for sexual favors with Mr Neville (which doesn't affect her mother's). Later, we learn that Mr Talmann is impotent -- and also that Mr Herbert doesn't believe that women should own property, so the inheritance of the estate depends on Mrs Talmann producing a son.

Mr Herbert's injured horse turns up, and shortly thereafter his body is found in the moat. Mr Noyes, the agent, who as a young man wanted to marry Mrs Herbert, comes to her demanding assistance because he believes he will be suspected of murdering Mr Herbert. Mrs Herbert shows no interest in helping him, so Mr Noyes blackmails her: if she doesn't give him the drawings (why does he want the drawings?), he'll make the draughtsman's contract public, exposing her as an adulteress.

Mrs Talmann observes that many of the drawings include objects that have no business being where they are: a ladder leading to Mrs Talmann's bedroom window; a pair of boots belonging to her husband; and several items of clothing belonging to Mr Herbert. Mrs Talmann implies that Mr Neville is planting clues related to the demise of Mr Herbert. But Mr Neville is clearly drawing what he sees, and we have no evidence that he's responsible for the presence of any of the misplaced objects.

An odd feature of the landscape is a moving statue (Michael Feast), which turns up twined with vines against a wall, on the roof while Mrs Herbert and her guests are eating an outdoor meal in the foreground, and on a pedestal from which it first removes an obelisk.

Having completed his contract and gone away, Mr Neville comes back for a visit. Mrs Herbert offers him one more tryst in exchange for one more drawing, and he agrees. He completes a view of an equestrian statue in the garden, though he draws the horse without its rider. It's not apparent whether this is because he can't see the rider -- the moving statue may not be visible to everyone -- or because Mr Neville is alluding to the death of Mr Herbert.

Although his drawing is done, Mr Neville continues to sit by the statue. As it grows dark, he's surrounded by a group of masked gentlemen, most of whom are recognizable as members of the Herbert household or their friends. The gentlemen taunt Neville, put his eyes out with a torch, kill him, and throw his body in the moat. If their motivation is related to Mr Herbert's murder, they don't mention it. They burn all the drawings.

England, 1694. Mrs Herbert (Janet Suzman) and her daughter Mrs Talmann (Anne-Louise Lambert) try to persuade Mr Neville (Anthony Higgins), an artist, to make a series of drawings of Mr and Mrs Herbert's house and estate. Mr Neville finally agrees when Mrs Herbert offers, in addition to paying for each drawing and giving him room and board while he draws, to sleep with him. (Oddly, she makes this offer in the presence of her husband's agent, Mr Noyes (Neil Cunningham), who is drawing up the contract.) Mrs Herbert intends the drawings to be a gift to her obnoxious and estranged husband, who dotes on his property and who is conveniently planning to be away from home while the drawings are created.

Mr Neville inconveniences the entire household with detailed and stringent requirements for his 12 drawings. For specified periods every day, the views he has chosen must be kept clear of carriages, animals, smoking chimneys, and people -- except for the one that requires Mr Talmann (Hugh Fraser) to stand still and wear the same clothes for several days running.

The atmosphere of the film is chilly; there's little indication that any of the characters like one another, and many of them are fairly hostile. Starting over the issue of Mr Talmann's wardrobe, Mr Talmann and Mr Neville snipe at one another continuously. Mr and Mrs Talmann have a bitter confrontation. It's hard to tell what the exaggerated costumes are meant to contribute: comically tall headpieces for the women, and for the men, very long, curly wigs -- waist-length, in some cases -- which, along with full-skirted coats, make them look like Edwardian schoolgirls.

Mrs Herbert is distressed by the sexual part of her agreement and tries to break the contract; Mr Neville refuses. Mrs Talmann makes her own bargain for sexual favors with Mr Neville (which doesn't affect her mother's). Later, we learn that Mr Talmann is impotent -- and also that Mr Herbert doesn't believe that women should own property, so the inheritance of the estate depends on Mrs Talmann producing a son.

Mr Herbert's injured horse turns up, and shortly thereafter his body is found in the moat. Mr Noyes, the agent, who as a young man wanted to marry Mrs Herbert, comes to her demanding assistance because he believes he will be suspected of murdering Mr Herbert. Mrs Herbert shows no interest in helping him, so Mr Noyes blackmails her: if she doesn't give him the drawings (why does he want the drawings?), he'll make the draughtsman's contract public, exposing her as an adulteress.

Mrs Talmann observes that many of the drawings include objects that have no business being where they are: a ladder leading to Mrs Talmann's bedroom window; a pair of boots belonging to her husband; and several items of clothing belonging to Mr Herbert. Mrs Talmann implies that Mr Neville is planting clues related to the demise of Mr Herbert. But Mr Neville is clearly drawing what he sees, and we have no evidence that he's responsible for the presence of any of the misplaced objects.

An odd feature of the landscape is a moving statue (Michael Feast), which turns up twined with vines against a wall, on the roof while Mrs Herbert and her guests are eating an outdoor meal in the foreground, and on a pedestal from which it first removes an obelisk.

Having completed his contract and gone away, Mr Neville comes back for a visit. Mrs Herbert offers him one more tryst in exchange for one more drawing, and he agrees. He completes a view of an equestrian statue in the garden, though he draws the horse without its rider. It's not apparent whether this is because he can't see the rider -- the moving statue may not be visible to everyone -- or because Mr Neville is alluding to the death of Mr Herbert.

Although his drawing is done, Mr Neville continues to sit by the statue. As it grows dark, he's surrounded by a group of masked gentlemen, most of whom are recognizable as members of the Herbert household or their friends. The gentlemen taunt Neville, put his eyes out with a torch, kill him, and throw his body in the moat. If their motivation is related to Mr Herbert's murder, they don't mention it. They burn all the drawings.