Dear Stan,

Hope that all goes well with your work deadlines. A bit of light relief from the "Daily Mash" on the G20 meeting, which is probably more accurate than the acres of "serious" commentary on the subject:

G20 PRODUCES ONE TRILLION DOLLARS FROM BEHIND YOUR EAR

At least one commentator reckons that the trillion dollar figure is a smoke-and-mirrors illusion.

Also an exclusive revelation on what happened when the Obamas met the Royals - though the real life antics of the Royal family are much funnier. See Kitty Kelly's book on "The Royals". If you add up all the rumours, Prince Charles has at least one brother and sister who are not related to each other.

I TAKE MY COFFEE BLACK - LIKE MY WOMEN, SAYS QUEEN

Spirit of the Age - from John Keble to Hitler

I always enjoy the motto:

He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower. As with great art, faith that lasts is faith that answers to higher standards than today’s trends.

—attributed to Dean Inge, St. Paul’s Cathedral, London.

This was visually demonstrated years ago when I took a wrong turn when driving in Mill Hill in north London. While passing the rows of ordinary houses in this very ordinary suburban road I saw a building which made me slam on the brakes and pull over immediately.

I had never seen a church, or indeed any other structure, quite like John Keble Church.

There can't be many churches named in honour of one of the leading lights in the 19th century Oxford Movement within Anglicanism which spawned Cardinal John Henry Newman. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keble). But it was not its name which was so arresting; its design was eye-popping. It was a church which had been designed to be ultra modern for the 1930s. The London sprawl and the electric railway had just reached out to nearby Edgware and created the need for new Anglican parishes.

The architect had obviously chosen a style which he conceived as fitting for the 1930s, as much of its time as the new railway stations on the line up from Central London or the semi-detached houses with their state-of-the-art radios and electric light all around it. A few very affluent families in the area would have had a car and, who knows, one or two might even have had a TV. The BBC started the first regular high-definition (405 line) transmissions in 1936, the same year John Keble was completed, and Mill Hill was within range of the only hi-def transmitter in the world.

Plainly any old-fashioned notions of church design were as ridiculous in 1930s suburban London as a horse and buggy. I don't know to what extent the clergy aided and abetted the design, or if it was done over their dead bodies.

As a result John Keble Church is now almost grotesquely dated and somehow much more old-fashioned than the thousands of beautiful older churches throughout the land. These ancient buildings, whether Gothic, Victorian or Norman in style, have a timeless quality while John Keble merely looks very odd. Hardly any other English churches in the interwar period were built in this style, which makes it even more of a curiosity.

The only remotely comparable church I have seen anywhere is the Sacred Heart in Prague, built a few years earlier. That is also one of a kind, but the boldness of its conception and detailing, especially the enormous clock, works far better than its London contemporary and it has aged very well.



I first saw the Sacred Heart from the top of the nearby TV tower. This started construction as a Communist era prestige project but by the the time it was completed in 1992 the old regime had been swept away. The TV tower's restaurant was decorated in a strange mixture of darkish blue materials; this was probably some local designer's idea of what was ultra-chic in 1980s terms, but it now looked as passe as John Keble.

John Keble Church is a terrific metaphor for the religious and secular fashions which now look even more dated and bizarre. At the time, of course, the 1936 Olympics were in full swing and the great and the good were queuing up to praise the wondrous things Herr Hitler was doing in Germany: eliminating unemployment, building a nation wide freeway system 20 years before the USA got started, launching the first public TV broadcasts in the world (in Berlin in 1935), promoting technological advances of every kind. The first jet aircraft in the world would be German and take to the air three years later.

As a recent article pointed out, the 1936 Olympics were the first truely "modern" Olympics in many ways: the first to be televised, as well as the first to have mass commercial sponsorship and the hokey "torch marathon" from the original Olympic site (this latter spectacle was invented by Hitler's propaganda geniuses).

If Herr Hitler was not quite your cup of tea, there were astonishing reports of Comrade Stalin's successes in boosting Soviet GNP, building a whole new egalitarian society and abolishing poverty. The Western parliamentary democracies with their mass unemployment and social injustice were plainly on their way out.

By the 1960s both Stalin and Hitler were SO five minutes ago, almost as dated as John Keble's architecture, and their erstwhile advocates were widowers indeed. The surviving Hitlerites and Stalinists had mostly either reinvented themselves as devote democrats or retreated into embarrassed silence, though a few faithful followers still preached the discredited "gospels." All popular opinion (as interpreted by the noisier media pundits) was now allegedly on the side of a new revolution in church and secular life: for the Mass in the vernacular, sexual liberation, overthrow of traditional authority (in favour of liberating politicians such as Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Chairman Mao), the worship of youth and the denigration of traditional culture in favour of new music, art, etc.

All these trends have either been abandoned, savagely ridiculed or produced horribly sour grapes. So we have yet another generation of widows and widowers. As I noted in a recent posting, you can tell the 1968 party is over when even "Le Monde" is willing to see the dark side of Fidel Castro.

Of course a few aging rebels still preach the liberationist gospel, most hilariously our own Polly Toynbee who only recently was vigorously defending the Permissive Society of her long-ago youth in the 1960s. Even Members of Parliament in her beloved Labour Party are unhappy at the fruits of the Swinging Sixties, if only because they are so horribly expensive at a time when the country is nearly bankrupt. It was all very well squeezing responsible families to support the feckless in the good times, but now in 2009 one parent families are a luxury we can't afford and can't get rid of.

And the vernacular Mass, the most visible relic of the 1960s turmoil in the Church? It is still surviving, but the liturgical revolution has never produced the great results anticipated 40 years ago - certainly not in terms of church attendance, which has been going downhill like an Olympic ski run. The English translations varied from banal to crass, and like the one parent families, proved horribly expensive as the one approved translator had monopoly rights. No one adopted the dignified existing translations by scholars such as Ronald Knox; these had the serious disadvantage that there was no money to be screwed out of a faithful congregation.



For a while the religious revoltionaries assumed that the Latin Mass would fade away with the aging generation still devoted to it. But who is turning up at the Latin Mass in our own St William of York? Certainly a few of the pre-Vatican 2 parishioners, but an astonishing number of mini-vans full of young families, plus students from the adjacent University. The future of the Latin oddly looks more assured than the vernacular.

Limits to Unity & the Monarchy

Dear Stan,

As a follow up to the pro-abortion "Catholic" politician row, here is a link to an article in the ever-excellent Touchstone magazine with reveals the chaotic and divided attitudes to abortion within US Christian churches. Yet again it highlights the vacuity of so much well meaning waffle on the importance of "Christian unity". If we cannot get agreement even on this issue, what on earth can "Christians" agree on?

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-02-039-c

The old saying "Divide and conquer" springs to mind.

I am also reminded of an article in "Faith" magazine years ago. It looked back to a very different Britain in late 1949 when there had been a lengthy exchange of letters in "The Times" on the subject of Church reunion. In one letter a Catholic bishop had courteously but firmly explained why Catholics and Anglicans could not logically say the Lord's prayer together. They would attach different meanings even to phrases such as "Thy Kingdom come". In this phrase a Catholic would be praying for the world wide establishment of the Catholic church, while the Anglican standing beside him in Christian fellowship would be praying for...er, something else, probably vague in the best Anglican tradition. Such a straight forward and clear thinking recognition of the real problems is absent in the ecumenical droning from modern pulpits.

This basic confusion and reluctance to face bedrock principles is evident this week, with the debate in Parliament on a Private Members Bill to remove one of the few remaining legal pieces of "discrimination" against Catholics. The heir to the throne cannot marry a Catholic without losing the right to secede to the throne. (This became a very faint possibility in the 1970s when Prince Charles' name was paired with Princess Astrid of Luxemburg, who is Catholic. Nothing came of it and she married someone else). But the "discrimination" against Catholics was ignorantly denounced as if it was the equivalent of racial discrimination. After all, no law explicitly forbids the heir from marrying a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or an atheist on pain of disinheritance.

Yet a fundamental issue of principle still exists and cannot be wished away on the basis of modern whims about "injustice" or "discrimination". Hardly anyone admits that there can be just discrimination. Admittedly British Airways can still discriminate against blind pilots and our hospitals are not forced to accept the mentally disabled as brain surgeons - well, not yet. But only one or two people pointed out one blindingly obvious fact. What if the heir Prince William marries a Catholic and they bring up their children as Catholics, as the Church has always demanded? The monarch after next will be a Catholic head of an Anglican church.

Fortunately the Bill has failed. But the fact that it could even be introduced and waste Parliamentary time and media space speaks volumes about the shallowness of understanding in this country of basic principles of religion and morality.

It is another aspect of the problem I described in an earlier blog. Just about everyone denounces pedophiles as viler than the vilest of the vile, Beasts, Monsters, hanging's too good for them..... But hardly anyone has a coherent understanding of WHY it is wrong and why our enthusiasm for total sexual liberation for adults leads inevitably to the sexual abuse of children.

Randall Terry - Archbishop Burke Discussion

Dear Stan

I am reminded of the time my Canadian friend declared in horrified disbelief: "You never heard of Wayne Gretsky?" Well, no. Hardly anyone in England has. Ice hockey just isn't a British sport despite efforts to introduce it. The only hockey played here on a large scale is on grass and mostly by girls and even that gets about as much national media coverage as the Chess championships. Most British people would be pushed to name a single grass hockey player, much less an ice hockey star. The British sports scene is utterly dominated by Soccer.

In the same spirit I feel singularly unqualified to jump in on the Randall Terry/Archbishop Burke discussion, seeing as I have never heard of either of these estimable figures before. But total ignorance of a subject plainly never discourages any British media pundits, so here goes. As the British newspaper motto goes: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

Based on about 15 minutes Googling, it seems the bruhaha centres on the attempts to publicly discipline Catholic politicians who have no qualms about supporting abortion - with Randall Terry leading a delegation to Rome to lobby various high placed Vatican officials on the visible infidelity of some American Catholic bishops in their attitudes to abortion and other crucial aspects of doctrine. I loved the title of the brief they presented to these title "Oves sine pastores" (Sheep without a shepherd). It is reminder of the Latin titling of encyclicals. Except that here the correspondence is going the other way from the faithful to the pastors.

Terry interviewed Archbishop Burke on videotape to discuss the attitude of bishops in denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. The Archbishops makes remarks that are clearly critical of those US bishops who do not deny Communion to such politicians. (That is assuming the substantial accuracy of the transcript I have read - see http://www.ahumbleplea.com/Docs/ArchbishopBurkeTranscript.pdf )

The Archbishop's statement (see http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/ ) of 26th March is plainly laughable and indicates that like so many senior clergy (most notably our own ludicrous Archbishop of Canterbury) he just ain't bright enough for the job. Once you have put your views on videotape and the videomaker has left the room, you have no control over how it is going to be edited, distributed or projected. Even if replays of the tape had just been restricted to a small number of pro-life activists, did he imagine that his criticisms of his fellow bishops would remain confidential?

The Archbishop's comments have plainly hugely and deservedly embarrassed many of the US hierarchy. Other clergy around the world must have similarly burning ears; what about those English clergy who accepted Tony B Liar into the Church in the face of overwhelming evidence about his long anti-Catholic record while Prime Minister, as I noted in an earlier blog?

It is heartening to see such militancy in the face of the abortionists. How far they can pursue other aspects of the campaign, such as publicly stigmatising any ordinary Catholic who voted for Obama...well, that is going to make any divisions between Latin Mas enthusiasts and other Catholics pale into insignificance.

Death of the Newspaper?

A politician is a guy who is generous with other people's money, courageous with other people's lives and eloquent with other people's words. A journalist is much the same, except that he/she usually has enough talent to scribble the words.

With the threatened demise of numerous British and American papers in the current recession, the politicised journalist (is there any other kind?) has become more repulsive than ever before, if that were possible. Two of my favourite hate figures Polly Toynbee of "The Guardian" and Johann Hari of "The Independent" have recently written equally ludicrous articles lamenting the downfall of the printed media as advertisers go elsewhere or stop advertising altogether. As you might expect from these two worthies, their remedies involve extorting yet more money from the ever-luckless taxpayer.

Obviously journalists want money spent on newspapers, just as admirals want more aircraft carriers and truck operators want cheaper gas. But even by the low standards of special pleading and pork barrel politics Toynbee and Hari's appeals were exceptionally crass.

Johann Hari's more laughable idea was that students should be compelled to subscribe to a newspaper as part of the condition for being on a college course. He imported this idea from some American philantropist who was concerned about the impending mass extinction of the major US newspapers and, like any politician, was prepared to be extra-generous with other people's money. This compulsory subscription would not only support endangered titles, but encourage the spread of general world knowledge among future graduates, who are woefully ignorant on many aspects of public life.

Obviously the only printable repost to such an idea, both from students and the rest of the population, would be something like "Go jump in a vat of acid". Why should anyone be forced to buy something which no one wants to buy voluntarily? Why should low-income students be singled out for this honour? And even if students were compelled to subscribe to a newspaper, how many would read it, or read anything beyond the sports and cartoon pages? And why should anyone be forced to buy something which everyone on the planet can read for free on the Internet?

Polly's slightly less laughable idea focused on supporting local newspapers and their allegedly essential role in facilitating local democracy. Numerous local councils spend small fortunes producing glossy magazines to tell the hapless local taxpayers how they are pouring their money down the toilet. The actual readership of these magazines is not known; unlike commercial papers, no one needs to measure readership to justify their existence or to put a reasonable price on advertising rates. But it is unlikely to be larger than three figures for each publication.

One of her ideas is that this visibly wasted expenditure should be re-directed into supporting local newspapers, perhaps via funding mechanisms such as charitable trusts. Again, my only charitable reaction is "Jump in an acid vat, Polly". Why should my hard-earned money be squandered either on a politicians' propaganda sheet or a dying local rag which can't support itself? Sadly, as this is a family blog, I can't quote all the riotously funny and indescribably obscene abuse heaped on Polly by various bloggers such as "The Devil's Kitchen".

And if having Polly in print and on the Internet is not appalling enough, there she was on BBC Radio 4 lunchtime news peddling exactly the same drivel at the licence payer's expense. Being a newspaper columnist is a great way of getting access to other media and thus even greater exposure for your fatuous opinions. It really is a case of "Unto him that hath much, much shall be given", though not in the Biblical sense.

To prove that lousy ideas know no language barriers, the Sarkozy regime in France are proposing to pay for a year's newspaper subscription for all 18 year olds. Given that France has much better broadband provision than Britain, with super-fast connections piping hi-def TV to your plasma TV/supersize computer display, this sounds like a super-fast non-starter. I can read "Le Monde", "Le Figaro", etc on line any time I want. In fact "Le Figaro" (see www.lefigaro.fr ) is happy to send a daily newsletter to anyone on earth, even to a "rostbif" like me. So I get "La lettre d'info du Figaro" in my inbox each day. If your high school French is up to it, sign on for free for a language refresher.

You can see what local papers are up against in sheer value for money terms. My mobile broadband connection costs £8.20 ($12.00) per month (I abandoned the AOL landline link months ago). For that I get every newspaper on the planet in every language, hundreds of superb magazines on every conceivable topic, (all hosting writers far better than Toynbee and Hari), free email, free multiple libraries (see www.refdesk.com to name only one) and only God knows how many awesome databases, such as the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com).On the lighter side there's instant shopping from Amazon and thousands of other providers, free music from www.Spotify.com (which is like having an Ipod the size of a suitcase - never buy a CD or MP3 again), video from countless sites, internet radio from 6,000 stations....the list goes on and on.

And I don't even have to get out of bed to obtain any of these goodies. With my netbook and mobile broadband dongle, surfing in bed is one of the little pleasures of modern life.

Our local "daily" rag, the "Evening Post", is published only on five days a week. In a month of 30 days, that is 22 issues at 40 pence per day....say £8.80. So-called "serious" national newspapers, filled with the sort of garbage peddled by Toynbee and Hari, cost twice as much per day. Comparing the "Evening Post", or any other "newspaper", to my internet link is like comparing a horse-and-buggy to a state of the art BMW. I'm afraid the old faithful nag is being retired to the knacker's yard. The difference is that some people actually want to use a horse and buggy on special occasions.

Unlike hundreds of local British papers, the "Post" is not going bust immediately, but it is being reduced to two issues a week from later in 2009. As the weekly "Reading Chronicle" is much fatter and more marketing-savvy (for example, it produces a Polish edition for the thousands of recent arrivals in town), how long a twice-weekly Post will survive is anyone's guess, especially once it loses its frequent publication edge over the "Chronicle".

It is obviously not just the technological gap between print and electronic media. It is displacement time; time spent sampling the internet is time not spent reading dead tree media. After a while you lose the habit and taste for reading traditional newspapers.

But all this is horribly selfish and inconsiderate, you cry. How can we ignore all the people who don't have Internet access and rely on the local paper for local news? Well, obviously the printed media themselves aren't much use to the 15 to 20 per cent of adult citizens who are wholly or partly illiterate. In fact sites like the brilliant www.spotify.com point one possible way to a post-literate future. At present Spotify is content merely to provide truckloads of free music in every conceivable genre from Janacek to Glenn Miller to children's nursery songs to U2. (Sorry, US readers, it is only available in certain European countries as yet). But it can obviously deliver every kind of audio material with equal ease; news broadcasts, documentaries, lectures, drama, "audio books" and much more.

The professed concern of Toynbee and Hari for local or national democracy if newspapers die is particularly laughable, given that their newspapers represent only a small minority of the British public. So-called serious papers like the "Guardian" and "Independent" are outsold 15 to 1 by the tit-and-bum titles like "The Sun". As Toynbee herself told me, when I emailed her in response to one exceptionally idiotic piece she had written: "We need a better quality public in this country". Obviously.....we need far more people who agree with La Toynbee. The true "De haut en bas" voice of the modern secular atheist.

Hari protested that traditional news-gathering journalism is very expensive and has been supported only by cross-subsidies of various kinds, e.g. from traditional advertisers. Seeing the vitality of on-line bloggers, some of whom make a good living from the Internet, and the fact that some bloggers have broken important stories which the traditional reporters have missed, I am not losing any sleep over the possible demise of the traditional hack.

Newspapers, like it or not, are only one small and disposable piece of the modern democratic jigsaw. Large numbers of people are going to lose out on local and national democratic access if they don't use the Internet, or can't read the local paper, or don't go to council meetings or never approach their local councillor or Member of Parliament.... Actual direct observation of council meetings and direct contact with local politicians costs nothing and is open to every one rich or poor, literate or illiterate.

Part of my joy at seeing the discomfort of Toynbee and Hari is that these two obviously sense that the days of influence of highly placed commentators like them are nearly over. The Internet gives unprecented open access to a worldwide audience to everyone with an opinion.

As I noted in an earlier blog, there are still horses around in present day Britain. But they play an utterly different role in the economy to that they enjoyed 100 years ago. One of the pleasures of studying the old Reading street directories in our local library is the sight of the long-extinct businesses who provided essential services in the early 20th century. Horse traders, blacksmths and suppliers of horse fodder and harnesses share the pages with the early car dealers who would soon replace them. The horse economy is important less than 40 miles west of Reading. In the Lambourn area, there is a major centre of race horse training and breeding. A major infrastructure, including a very specialised horse hospital, thrives in its support - though of course the horsie folk use Range Rovers and Volvo and Mercedes estate cars for everyday transport.

In the same way printed material will thrive in a different way in future. Our local newsagents shelves groan under the weight of traditional dead tree magazines covering hundreds of specialised interests. The "newspapers" stand is an isolated island which could be replaced in a few years by other merchandise with few people noticing or greatly caring. With the super-netbooks of the near future, who will bother to buy a newspaper even to read on the daily commute to London? Already the express coaches from Reading Station to Heathrow Airport boast free wi-fi. Those travellers are already more interested in continuos Web access. Most of the rest of us will soon follow them.

Conventional Wisdom - Pure Drivel

Dear Stan,

At least one commentator (Peter Hitchens, as ever) was willing to back the Pope. And incidentally willing to point out that conventional wisdom (i.e. 90% of both politicians' words and media output) is pure drivel.

* Conventional wisdom says the Pope is stupid and wrong to say fidelity and abstinence are better than condoms at guarding Africans from AIDS.

Conventional wisdom, as usual, is talking out of its backside. What the Pope says matters only if anyone listens to him. If nobody does, his opposition to condoms won’t stop anyone using them and will make no difference. If lots of people listen to him, his support for marital fidelity will persuade many people to follow this path, and so save untold lives.

The experience of such countries as Uganda suggests very strongly that he is right when he says this, and that fidelity is a far better protection than a rubber sheath. The only real hope is a change in sexual habits.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am weary of the concerted smearing and misrepresentation which the Pontiff constantly faces.

The Other Side of the Revolutions

After my recent visit to Basildon Park and seeing the exhibition for the "Pride and Prejudice" filmshoot, I reflected on my trip to Jane Austen's home in Chawton last year. Chawton is a picture postcard village and the Austen connection will doubtless ensure that it stays unaltered for a very long time to come.
 
But of course the outward shell of the buildings does not reflect the multiple social revolutions within the walls. As I toured the upper floor of the Austin house, I heard horses' hooves outside. Sure enough, there was a pair of well groomed animals, with their equally well groomed riders, walking at a relaxed pace down the one street of Chawton. No need to rush; after all, this was Sunday and these were animals kept as an expensive hobby.
 
In Jane's time, there would have been plenty of horses around, but as essential working beasts, supporting everything from farm work to deliveries of essential products to transporting people locally or nationally. The only horsepower used by most Chawton people today is the 200 bhp under the hoods of their BMWs as they set off for well paid jobs in the Thames Valley or up the M3 motorway to London.
 
As I came out of the Austin house, I heard the unmistakeable and very rare sound of a steam locomotive. The last steam locomotive ran on British Rail in 1968.  Of course - it was the preserved railway which runs behind the row of trees near the house. Again, a form of transport which was the backbone of the Industrial Revolution for over a hundred years is now a tourist curiosity. The famous "Watercress Line" starts at Alton, less than two miles north-east of Chawton. Alton is a little gem of a historic English town, as much as Chawton is a little gem of a village. Appropriately, Alton station is both the terminus of the Watercress Line and the terminus of the real present day trains which carry commuters to London.
 
Jane Austen's life finished shortly before the railway revolution started in the 1820s in England. No wonder such a famous person traveled only short distances in her lifetime, as I noted in a previous blog entry. Before the railways, any long distance travel was laborious, expensive, time consuming, uncomfortable and often downright dangerous. Period films hardly convey the problems; the immaculately polished carriages and impeccably presented horses are covered by present day Health And Safety laws and legislation forbidding cruelty to animals.
 
The Railway Revolution was only one of multiple revolutions which separate us from Jane. The Industrial Revolution of which it was an integral part is obviously another. The social and sexual revolutions within Chawton are less visible than the flat screen TVs and the broadband internet links within the historic houses or the BMWs in the driveways. But they are longer lasting and more deeply felt than the ephemeral technologies around us.
 
Watching the glossy, but unsatisfying 2005 version of "Pride and Prejudice", some of the aspects of the social revolution are far more startling than the beautiful houses and costumes. The interesting, but inadequate "additional material" on the DVD outlined some of the aspects of social attitudes underpinning British high society of the time. Obviously the kind of potential husband with an income of five or ten thousand pounds a year was part of a very, very tiny minority of the British population. Yet a procession of such desirable beaus was paraded across the screen.
 
Most telling was the position of clergymen. It is almost unimaginable now, but in Jane's time a clergyman held one of the most lucrative and desirable professions in the land - comparable to a very high powered lawyer or City trader today. This is evident in the reference to one character getting eyewatering compensation for losing out on preferment for a parish. The power and wealth of the ordinary clergy was a direct reflection of the national power and wealth of the established Church.
 
Almost as revealing are the courtesies and behaviors between the sexes - with the young ladies bowing automatically before any gentleman and the care taken over the reputations of the ladies. It was not merely bad being "damaged goods", as Elizabeth's youngest sister threatens to become as she elopes to London. Being related to the damaged goods would be social disaster and spell the end to any hopes of a respectable marriage.
 
The discretion exercised between a potential "couple" rang a distinct bell. Of course - all that old Catholic teaching about "avoiding the occasions of sin". You should not just avoid sin, but any circumstances likely to lead you to sin. No doubt Jane Austen and all her characters would have been horrified at any insinuation of Popery, but here they were, taking traditional Christian precautions, ensuring that a young man and woman should not even have a private conversation by themselves and that they behaved with the utmost decorum.
 
Even the present day actors portraying these characters could see some of the advantages of such rules; people knew where they stood, how they should behave and how to interpret the almost invisible signals given by the opposite sex. Not much scope for the present day excuses of "I though she meant Yes, Your Honour".
 
So here we are after 200 years of English revolutions far more radical than either the French or Russian variety. As Dr Johnson so truly remarked, no sensible man would pay a guinea to live under one form of government rather than another. Jane could hardly have comprehended our present day technologies, beyond anything imagined by the most visionary science fiction writers of her time. But she might have written an even more devastating satire on present day sexual behavior - "Nonsense and Insensibility" perhaps?