Posted by Peter H on August 22, 2007 at 15:38:13 from 86.130.127.192 user Peter_H.
As the topic of the relationship of the lakeside locals to the Blackett family has, like it or not, been well and truly aired, I thought that ‘returning were as tedious as go o’er’ and that I would attempt a sort of summary of the main theories as so far expressed. The key texts on this topic concern the manner of address when the locals speak to the children, and in particular the Amazons, in other words the use of the address ‘Miss Nancy’ (which should be taken to include ‘Miss Peggy’ and ‘Miss Ruth’, and which I will abbreviate as ‘MN’ from now on). The three main theories are, as I see them:-
1) The locals are deferential and say ‘MN’ because they are tenant farmers who hold their land on a tenancy from the Blackett/Turner family and pay them rent.
2) The locals are deferential and say ‘MN’ because they recognise that the Amazons are of a different, well-to-do sort of class, i.e. their ‘betters’. This was well summarised by Adam Q recently.
3) The locals say ‘MN’ because they are talking to children and that was how you addressed children then, i.e. ‘Miss’ and ‘Master’.
Theory 3) can be dismissed straight away. I used to support it, but doesn’t fit in with the evidence and I have had to bite the bullet. For example – the doctor says ‘Nancy’, not ‘MN’. And John is never called ‘Master John’.
Theory 1) – ‘tenant farmers’. If true, it has some unpleasant consequences, but that does not mean we can dismiss it. I have plotted the ‘MN’ occurrences on the endpaper map of the lake. ‘MN' occurs at the Dixons, the Jacksons, the Swainsons, and the Tysons. It also occurs under Ling Scar when Slater Bob says it (although he presumably lives somewhere else), and when the postman says it (don’t know where he lives) and when Sammy Lewthwaite says it (he lives near Beckfoot). Slater Bob, the postman and the policeman can’t be tenant farmers, although I suppose they could rent their dwellings from the Blacketts but that seems unlikely – not all of them. The Dixons, Jacksons etc are certainly farmers but if they all hold their land from the Blacketts, then the Beckfoot estate must be vast. Not only must it extend up the Amazon valley to Tysons, but also along the lakeside to Swainsons and it must also take in the other side of the lake where the Dixons and Jacksons farm. In fact, the Blacketts would own half the lake and perhaps Rio as well. With this in mind I nervously re-read the chapter where Dick buys a blow pipe at the chemists, forgets the batteries, and Peggy goes back in and gets served immediately. ‘There was no waiting this time. Peggy caught the eye of the man . . .’ An outbreak of neo-feudalism at the chemists? Unfortunately the ‘man’ does not address Peggy in the text so there are no confirming ‘MNs’. Surely this is just the shop assistant recognising a local who knows what she wants, while the shop is full of visitors browsing. The Blacketts would be regular customers all the year round.
More evidence against – Mrs Dixon’s behaviour in WH. She is going to send a pork pie to Mrs Blackett. In lieu of rent? Hardly. And in my experience, land tenants do not bake pies for their landlords. It is surely a friendly gift to another lake-dweller. She tells Dixon ‘none but old friends here’. ‘Old friends’? Daughters of the landlady would not be described thus. A few paras later Mrs D calls N and P a ‘fair couple of gummocks’, a phrase which, under Theory 1), might lead to eviction after the next rent day.
Theory 2) – class deference. This has to be the most likely explanation. MNs are used by Mrs Dixon, Mrs Jackson, Mary Swainson, Mrs Tyson, Slater Bob, the postman and Sammy the policeman (there may be others). The doctor (member of a recognised ‘profession’ like ‘lawyer’, ‘magistrate’) does not say ‘MN’. Mrs Dixon addresses Susan as ‘Miss Susan’ for the same reason, and this also helps to rule out the ‘tenant’ theory as the Walkers are not tenants, quite the opposite. In fact if the tenant farmer theory were correct, then poor Mrs Dixon would find herself saying ‘Miss’ because she had to pay money to one family and ‘Miss’ because she was taking money from another family, and this seems farcical.
So I think Adam has got it absolutely right. One cannot altogether rule out a tenancy, and if there was one then the Tysons seem the most likely as they are in the valley of which Beckfoot is at the foot. But we don’t know.
One mystery still remains – why the male children are not addressed as Master John, Roger or Dick. I wonder if, as well as the deferential aspect, there is also an element of old-time courtliness here – the female children are very young women and should be treated accordingly? I don’t know but I’d like to think so. AR must surely have based his fictional conversations on what he had actually heard in the Lakes area.