The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This discussion is for Lady Susan being read as a companion to the March group read of Persuasion, both by Jane Austen.

READING SCHEDULE

Begins March 1

AVAILABILITY

Project Gutenberg

This is available in print as part of "Complete Works" volumes at your local the library. Additionally (through my library) I found it in digital form on Overdrive and hoopla.com.

BACKGROUND

Lady Susan is a short epistolary novel by Jane Austen, possibly written in 1794 but not published until 1871. This early complete work, which the author never submitted for publication, describes the schemes of the title character.

I could not find much in the way of background information that would not be riddled with spoilers.

Ooh! I've never read Lady Susan. If I can get my act together, I'll join you in this read. I have to say, though, that mine is a hard act to get together... Yours ever hopeful, Pip x

Pip wrote: "Ooh! I've never read Lady Susan. If I can get my act together, I'll join you in this read. I have to say, though, that mine is a hard act to get together... Yours ever hopeful, Pip x"
I feel you Pip, my life has felt out of control recently. Good luck!

I, too, have never read it, although I downloaded it last year hoping to get in a side-read on the Jane Austen project I was participating in.

I did read Lover's Vows, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Given that Lady Susan is short and could be said to be all plot and no or very little descriptive, it is hard to talk about and avoid Spoilers.

Wiki reports it as an early ,book by Jane Austin. Never submitted by her for publication. About 60 years after her death it made its way before the public.
Still fm Wiki, it has been adopted for both stage ans screen , most recently in 2016 as a movie: Love and Friendship.
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/lad...
states that Jane had never titled her manuscript.

The same web page has a tree of the Characters, which may help reader, I wish I had had it while I was reading.

I am closing for now with this web addy and some cut and paste. Mostly because it plays to my sensa humor BTW a full read , be aware Spoilers are abundant.
http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/re...
Quote
OMG HAVE YOU READ LADY SUSAN?

This is a book that Austen sort of kind of finished – I mean, it looks kind of done but it reads like she planned to do some major edits and also maybe make it more than eighty pages long. She never attempted to have it published, and therefore it is often overlooked.

But OMG those eighty pages! It’s like cake infused with acid and then more cake. It’s THE BEST in the sense of being subversive, wicked fun, albeit not the most polished. I realize that Austen is doing just fine as a literary figure without my reviews – but if, like me, you missed Lady Susan, allow me to urge you to check it out.

Close Quote

and a quote from Jane:
Where there is a disposition to dislike, a motive will never be wanting.

True that, Phrodrick! If it will tempt anyone to join in on the read, Lady Susan has some of the best one-liners in all of Jane Austen! Don’t be looking for romance, though—it’s all social satire.

Wasn't there a movie based on this a few years ago?

Robin wrote: "Wasn't there a movie based on this a few years ago?"

Yes (as mentioned in message 5, above). But it can be hard to find information on it, since, for some reason, it was titled after another, different, piece of Jane Austen's early writings, "Love and Friendship." (Well, actually, the manuscript spelling is "Love and Freindship," and it is often cited in that form in the scholarly literature.) I recall being taken aback on reading a summary of the movie on its release, and thinking "Hey, that's the wrong story!"

Love and Friendship by Whit Stillman is roughly based on Lady Susan but it changes quite a lot in the story.

It's funny, because Whit Stillman is so often compared to Jane Austen for his previous movies (Metropolitan in particular).

There's a scene in Metropolitan where the heroine buys herself the Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen for Christmas.

Unfortunately, I missed Love and Friendship.

I have never read this one. I just started the other night. I will be joining in as time permits.

I'm looking forward to this one as well. I hope to start it over the weekend.

I finished reading Lady Susan few days ago. It was a very rewarding experience. I'm surprised how it is so less known.

In your discussion you may use the below as starting points or you may begin your own discussion.

1. Lady Susan is an epistolary novella. How does Austen’s use of this form enhance Lady Susan or detract from it?

2. What are some of Lady Susan’s characteristics? Are they the same in all of her roles? For example , is there a difference in the way she acts toward her friend Mrs. Johnson and her daughter Frederica? If so, why?

If you have read some of Jane Austen’s other works, how is Lady Susan similar or different from her other heroines?

3. Does Austen discuss events going on in the world around her or in England at the time the novella is written? Are there any customs or manners that point to the time period we are in?

What does Austen focus on/explore in this work?

Austen is known for her sharp wit and her keen observation of human nature. Do you see examples of these in this work?

4. How were the characters portrayed? Did they remind you of any people you know?

5. Austen did not have this work published. Her nephew published it as part of Austen’s biography after her death. If this were the only work by Austen that you had read, would you read her other novels?

6. What role does Mrs. Johnson serve to the novella? Could she be easily removed?

7. Austen’s quotes are seen more often than most other authors. Were there any quotes that stood out for you in Lady Susan?

Candace wrote: "In your discussion you may use the below as starting points or you may begin your own discussion.

1. Lady Susan is an epistolary novella. How does Austen’s use of this form enhance Lady Susan or detract from it?

If you have read some of Jane Austen’s other works, how is Lady Susan similar or different from her other heroines?
..."

The epistolary style used by Austen in Lady Susan was a novel experience to me. I haven't read any work written using this writing style before. Personally it was appealing to me.
And in this work I felt epistolary writing enhanced the enjoyment of the story and allowed better understanding of the characters. It was quite interesting to read how the characters, while being nice to one another in person, write to their confidants all they truly think about the character in the secrecy of a letter. At the same time it is interesting to read how Lady Susan draws schemes and plot against various characters with the help of Mrs. Johnson (her friend) to achieve her selfish ends.
It was really an entertaining read.

I've only read Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Emma thus far. And through that experience I can say that Lady Susan is a character I have not come across in any other Jane Austen work; certainly not as a female protagonist. She is scheming, manipulative, shameless and totally self centered. I could only compare her with Mr. Wickham of Pride and Prejudice and to some extent Mr. Willoughby of Sense and Sensibility!

5. The answer would be a big yes. The author's powerful and critical observation of characters and the regency society is quite appealing. Had I not read any other work by her, I would definitely have been interested in exploring more of her work.

6. Although Mrs. Johnson seems a minor character, I think she is one of the main anchors in the story. It is through Mrs. Johnson and Ladys Susan's correspondence that we learn the true character of Lady Susan. Mrs. Johnson is also an accomplice in Lady Susan's despicable schemes.

Hi Piyangie,
Your discussion Covered most of what I thought about when reading LS! I love what you say about the benefits of the epistolary novel. I agree with your reason about how it enhanced the work.
I’ll just add that at times, I felt that LS is lacking in the great, witty writing that is all over in her other novels. I think it’s because there is not a narrator to give us smart commentary. We do get some in the letters, just not as much.
You have read most of the Austen works. Many people love Persuasion, our group read this month, which has a heroine that is a little different than the others also. One thing that is different is that we have an older woman seducing a younger man. Usually it’s the other way around! I wonder what readers would have thought of this novella at the time it was written.
I agree with you 100% about Mrs. Johnson. Although she seems unimportant, how else do we know what LS is doing?
Thanks so much for sharing your input with me! I read LS about a year ago and I was confused by all the characters in the beginning. I flew through it and enjoyed it very much this time!

Mrs. Johnson, I think, serves two purposes. One is practical—giving Lady Susan someone to write to. But also, the fact that she endorses Lady Susan’s values (if you can call them that) means that Lady S. has someone with whom she can be frank. If her correspondents were all disapproving, we’d get only her lies. That would be another book—more subtle, perhaps, but also less entertaining and less liberating for the reader.

The epistolary genre has the strength that it allows a window into different characters’ points of view; it also allows parallel storylines in different locations (though most epistolary novelists have made little use of that potential). But it often seems artificial, with ridiculously long letters that reproduce scenes word-for-word (though actually, Fanny Burney’s letters are like that in the real world). Fielding’s spoof Shamela makes hilarious use of the absurdities of the genre, and it would have been hard for Jane Austen to be unaware of the pitfalls once she had read that book.

It’s also notable that in earlier epistolary novels by other authors, few of the central characters were villainesses. Mostly these novels feature a young innocent cast out into the world with inadequate parental supervision. So Lady Susan the character is pretty revolutionary in the world of novels.

I too miss Austen’s narrative voice! Perhaps she never prepared Lady Susan for publication because she was feeling trapped by the constraints of the genre. Certainly the narrative summation at the end implies that she was impatient with this mode of storytelling.

One thing that’s not much addressed in analysis of Lady Susan, or Jane Austen’s works in general, is how much her characters and situations draw from popular plays of the time. Paula Byrne has recently published an interesting study on this topic, The Genius of Jane Austen: Her Love of Theatre and Why She Works in Hollywood. The characters in Lady Susan especially feel like something out of Sheridan. Austen wrote very little in the way of plays, and considering why that was so offers an interesting window into what she was trying to do with her art. She writes such sharp dialogue, and is so adept have making characters betray themselves through their words, so why was that not enough for her? Clearly the role of the narrator, being able to add shading and insight beyond the action, was crucial for her.

Candace wrote: "Hi Piyangie,
Your discussion Covered most of what I thought about when reading LS! I love what you say about the benefits of the epistolary novel. I agree with your reason about how it enhanced the..."

Thank you for your kind words, Candace. :-)

I agree with you that comparatively Lady Susan lacked the wit which was vastly demonstrated in her major works. Perhaps, it was due to the writing style and it being a short work.
Then again, since this is said to be possibly written in 1794, it is an early work of her. I have read that her early work did not have the careful reserved mannerism of her later work. Some of her early written pieces which Jane Austen read only within the family circles is said to have shocked them for the bold and blunt style of her writing. Perhaps, Lady Susan was written in that time period where she lacked refinement which she successfully adopted later in her major work. Lady Susan was published posthumously. I doubt whether Jane Austen ever contemplated of publishing it.

I will be reading Persuasion and hoping it to start over the weekend.

@Piyangie
Good luck with Persuasion ! I hope I’ll have time to see you there. I have to read it also! I read it quickly once before. I’d like to read it again.
I read a lot about how close Austen was to her family. She shared the same bedroom with her sister Cassandra until Jane died. She grew up in her father’s parsonage. Her nephew wrote this about her in my Introduction, “Her own family were so much, and the rest of the world so little, to Jane Austen.” If that is true, she cared more of what her family thought of her work than anyone else.

Hi Abigail,
Thanks for some background on the epistolary...I would not shy away from reading another one, but I will not seek another one out. I remember reading a good YA one, but I don't remember what it was. I do see how it would fit that genre better because there is less to it. Also epistolary can include more than just letters; it can include emails, articles from newspaper, maybe forms of social media I am not aware of! Etc. I can see where that would be fun for a teen to read.
I did not know that about Austen and the theatre. Do you know if Austen was a fan of the theatre? That is interesting! Everything I read on her painted her as someone who liked to stay at home with her family writing and reading to them in the drawing room.
Thanks for the link!

I can’t find the name of the epistolary novel I loved as a child but I did run across I Capture the Castle (diary entries in a girl’s coming -of -age story) which I loved after I found it as an adult.

8. Two words used to describe Lady Susan are “selfish” and “deceitful “. Discuss why she is described this way.

How does Lady Susan use relationships to benefit herself? Discuss Lady Catherine Vernon. Discuss Frederica. Discuss any other persons that LS tries to use their status in or out of a relationship to benefit herself?

Hi, Candace, Jane Austen was a huge fan of the theatre! Her family did home theatricals for years, and she even wrote a play for one of their performances (based on Sir Charles Grandison). And she went to the theatre whenever she was in London, often every night.

There’s an entertaining Austenesque novel based on Pride and Prejudice that makes good use of e-mails and messaging: Pen and Prejudice by Claire M. Johnson. It’s set in the world of murder mystery writers.

Abigail wrote: "Hi, Candace, Jane Austen was a huge fan of the theatre! Her family did home theatricals for years, and she even wrote a play for one of their performances (based on Sir Charles Grandison). And she ..."

Thx Abigail. I have been looking for a good Austen biography for years and have not decided on one. ( The introduction in my LS which is taken from her nephew’s work A Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections is almost hilarious how one-sided it is. I loved this one example “”The family talk had abundance of spirit and vivacity, and was never troubled by disagreements even in little matters,...”. )

Do any of you Janeites recommend one biography over the others? I could use the help. One does not stand out in my research.

I do have a favorite edition of each of Austen’s major works, unfortunately this does not include Lady Susan. However, I will include one here for those interested in lots of annotations and drawings that help explain the text proper. They are annotated and edited by David Shapard. The Annotated Emma
I love them!

I’d say Claire Tomalin’s biography is probably the most widely admired, and it’s quite readable. An earlier one that had a good run of popularity was Park Honan’s. A little more controversial but interesting to read as a counterpoint is John Halperin’s The Life of Jane Austen.

Another side read I only began is the second family memoir:

Jane Austen, Her Life and Letters: A Family Record

(Is this the one which included Lady Susan?)

I see I only managed to read 8 percent of it, but here is a sample of its tone:

She read French easily, and knew a little of Italian; and she was well read in the English literature of the eighteenth century. As a child, she had strong political opinions, especially on the affairs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. She was a vehement defender of Charles I and his grandmother, Mary, and did not disdain to make annotations in this sense (which still exist) on the margin of her Goldsmith's History.

As she grew up, the party politics of the day seem to have occupied very little of her attention, but she probably shared the feeling of moderate Toryism which prevailed in her family. Politics in their larger aspect—revolution and war—were of course very real at that date to every patriotic citizen, and came home with especial force to the Austens, whose cousin's husband perished by the guillotine, and whose brothers were constantly fighting on the sea.

In her last published sentence at the end of Persuasion the author tells us how her Anne Elliot 'gloried' in being the wife of a sailor; and no doubt she had a similar feeling with regard to her two naval brothers. But there was then no daily authentic intelligence of events as they occurred. Newspapers were a luxury of the rich in those days, and it need excite no surprise to find that the events are very seldom mentioned in Jane's surviving letters.

Christopher wrote: "Another side read I only began is the second family memoir:

Jane Austen, Her Life and Letters: A Family Record

(Is this the one which included Lady Susan?)

I see I only managed t..."

No.

The Delphi Complete Works edition sums it up neatly: "A Memoir of Jane Austen" was written by Austen's nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh in the late 1860's and first published in 1870 by Richard Bentley and Son. Austen-Leigh released a second edition in 1871, which included "Lady Susan" and fragments of the author's uncompleted works."

(The Delphi edition includes both the "Memoir" and the 1913 "Life and Letters.". However, "Lady Susan" and the fragments are included elsewhere in the collection, and not in their version of the "Memoir." Which is annoying if you are looking for it there, and hadn't noticed the Table of Contents.)

Let me try to clear it up for those of us who don’t know as much about the above works, please correct me if I get it wrong: Jane wrote Lady Susan as an early practice piece in one of her three journals. Her juvenile work is now collected in: Volumes 1,2, and 3. ( I saw the volumes but did not purchase because I could not read Austen’s handwriting slanting across the pages.) She did not plan on publishing Lady Susan; however, after her death when her nephew publishes the book I discuss in message 25 and Ian discusses it in 29 aboveA Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections, Lady Susan is published as an appendix.That is the history of Lady Susan as I understand it.

I saw her Letters and I was glad to see that they were typed so that I can read someday! But it sounds like there is an edition that holds the Memoir and the Letters by Delphi ( but not Lady Susan)?

Thanks for info on these other works. I’m always combing used stores and it helps to know what I’ve found or what I’m looking for!

It was the first time I had run across her Vols 1-3 - are those very rare?

Thanks Abigail. I have been looking for the Claire Tomalin one. I like the search, but I may just buy this one new.

Vols. 1-3 are also known as the Jane Austen Juvenilia and Short Stories. I don't know if they are free online, but they are public domain, and pretty easy to find.

The Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen: Volume VI: Minor Works

I don't think Lady Susan is technically juvenilia. The writings in vols. 1-3 are much shorter parodies or burlesques of the novels of the 18th C.

It’s funny that you mention that because whether I agree with it or not during some research if also, it was described as a parody of sentimentality. I’m going to look back and see if I wrote in my notes where I saw that, but it will be tomorrow.

Thx for info about public domain ; I’d love to read some of those works just to see what they are like.

austenauthors.net is where I confirmed that love and freindship (Austen’s spelling) which became Lady Susan is in Volume the second of the juvenilia. Other sites also call it her juvenilia.

Surprising how well she was writing at very young ages!

Candace wrote: "austenauthors.net is where I confirmed that love and freindship (Austen’s spelling) which became Lady Susan is in Volume the second of the juvenilia. Other sites also call it her juvenilia. ..."

austenauthors.net seems to be confused.

"Love and Freindship" is quite distinct from "Lady Susan," except for both being early epistolary novels (or mock-novels): however, the title was recently 'filched' for a film adaptation of "Lady Susan" as "Love and Friendship." (Note the modern spelling.)

A convenient Kindle version of these, and all the other surviving juvenilia, together with the family memoirs and surviving letters, can be found in the (very inexpensive) "Delphi Complete Works of Jane Austen (Illustrated)."

(This doesn't come up readily on the add book/author function -- too many titles to sort -- but see https://www.amazon.com/Delphi-Complet... )

There are, of course, other editions out there.

The three short volumes (Volume the First, Volume the Second, etc.) are available not only in print, but in facsimile editions: collectively they are, apparently, the largest extant example of her handwriting. They are not drafts, or otherwise contemporary with the composition of these works, however, but "clean copies" made later in life -- there may have been more she didn't save.

The other juvenile writings are heavily weighted toward the epistolary form: so was "Elinor and Marianne," the original version of "Sense and Sensibility." Of course, this was THE eighteenth-century form for the sentimental novel (most notably by Richardson, a great favorite of Jane Austen), in competition with more-or-less picaresque narratives, like Fielding's "Tom Jones" and Smollet's "Roderick Random." And, of course, Sterne's "Tristram Shandy," which was, and remains, in a category all to itself.

The use of a story in letters eventually fell out of favor, partly because of the absurdities to which it was vulnerable in less competent hands, as Jane's parodies make clear. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" skates very close to the edge: it starts off as an epistolary novel, with four short letters (to which no reply could be expected), but just one "letter," reporting Victor Frankenstein's story of his life, takes up almost the whole book. Fortunately for the book's success, most readers seem to forget the frame as soon as it is discarded, and concentrate on the picture.

I was pointing out that LS is juvenilia, which I’ve read and confirmed in several places. Ian, are you saying that the site is confused about Love and Freindship- that there is an independent piece of writing separate from what would later become Lady Susan?

That is so interesting. I don’t think think I came across that in my research. Thank you for sharing that. I did come across that the writing called “Susan” is what would later become Northanger Abbey. That is in my intro to Persuasion which I’m re-reading for the group read.

It is very interesting to note that how the titles which was originally given to her work were changed after each of them were revised.
What was to become Sense and Sensibility was formerly titled Elinor and Marianne. Like wise Pride and Prejudice was first titled First Impressions.

I too thought Lady Susan was what first named as Love and Friendship. I didn't know they were two distinct work. Interesting. Thanks Ian for sharing that information.

I read that Austen did not decide on a title until she was finished with the work ( makes sense!) so her nephew chose the title Lady Susan when he published it.

Ah, interesting! Thanks for sharing, Candace.

Candace wrote: "I was pointing out that LS is juvenilia, which I’ve read and confirmed in several places. Ian, are you saying that the site is confused about Love and Freindship- that there is an independent piece..."

Yes. The situation with the 2016 movie, which has confused a lot of people, is briefly explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%2...

"Love and Freindship" is also an epistolary novel, but it contains neither plot nor characters in common with "Lady Susan."

There is a summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_an...
but I suggest reading it instead -- the Delphi edition I mentioned earlier contains it, along with all the other juvenilia.

"Love and Freindship" is generally dated about 1790, and is included in "Volume the Second," one of three notebooks containing Jane's clean copies of her early writings.

"Lady Susan" is considered to be later -- some argue for 1794, although this is debatable. Whether it should be included with the juvenilia or the adult fiction is likewise debated.

I wanted to know more about Ian’s info. I wanted to find out as much as I could about this piece of work, “ Love and freindship.” However, all I found is that it is also juvenilia , and that it’s title was also assigned to it after Austen’s death.

Ian just answered all my questions above!

I’m glad that I read Ian’s links; not knowing these names meant two seperate works affected my research! In message 33 when I stated that it was a parody of sentimentality- the site had gone on to say it’s also “a parody of romance novels.” That information was about “love and friendship” which I now know to be separate from LS.

Sorry for that confusion! It is confusing!!

Candace wrote: "I wanted to know more about Ian’s info. I wanted to find out as much as I could about this piece of work, “ Love and freindship.” However, all I found is that it is also juvenilia, and that it’s title was also assigned to it after Austen's death..."

Thanks.

However, "Love and Freindship" is given its title in Jane's own handwriting, like the rest of the juvenilia she collected herself -- whether these all were her working titles, or some her later decisions, is anyone's guess.

(Well, definitely not with her parody "History of England" -- it is hard to think of an alternative title for that one!)

Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery (recently re-issued after 60 years or so) begins with a chapter on the juvenilia. This is a long excerpt, but it gives a flavor of Love and Freindship:

... The lachrymose novelist is not afraid to contrast art with life; and Jane Austen accepts the challenge in her own way. At a corresponding point in “Love and Freindship,” she makes her first explicit juxtaposition of literary convention and social convention, and—more crucially—her first departure from the object parodied, as she suddenly confronts the hero with a worldly character not villainous but practical.

When Sir Edward insists that Edward marry Dorothea, Edward exclaims: “… Lady Dorothea is lovely and Engaging; I prefer no woman to her; but know Sir, that I scorn to marry her in compliance with your Wishes. No! Never shall it be said that I obliged my Father. …”
Sir Edward was surprised; he had perhaps little expected to meet with so spirited an opposition to his will.
“Where, Edward in the name of wonder (said he) did you pick up this unmeaning gibberish? You have been studying Novels I suspect.” (LF 10)

How does a character of sensibility survive? Obviously it is beneath Edward’s dignity to work for a living. His practical sister, Augusta, asks him whether he will depend on his father’s generosity:

“Never, never Augusta will I so demean myself. (said Edward). Support! What support will Laura want which she can receive from him?”
“Only those very insignificant ones of Victuals and Drink.” (answered she).
“Victuals and Drink! (replied my Husband in a most nobly contemptuous Manner) and dost thou then imagine that there is no other support for an exalted mind (such as is my Laura’s) than the mean and indelicate employment of Eating and Drinking?”
“None that I know of, so efficacious.” (returned Augusta). (LF 13)

Irony draws the lachrymose premises to their social conclusion. If a penniless lover may not work, or depend on generosity, it follows that he must steal. The two pairs of lovers live for some time on the “considerable sum of money which Augustus had gracefully purloined from his unworthy father’s Escritoire” (LF 18); and even after this money is exhausted, they “scorned to reflect a moment on their pecuniary Distresses and would have blushed at the idea of paying their Debts.”

Ian wrote: "Candace wrote: "I wanted to know more about Ian’s info. I wanted to find out as much as I could about this piece of work, “ Love and freindship.” However, all I found is that it is also juvenilia, ..."

I’m sorry ,Ian. I did my due diligence in the culturalgutter.com 2nd paragraph. Should I have known by the name that they might be “confused”? ;-)

Christopher wrote: "Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery (recently re-issued after 60 years or so) begins with a chapter on the juvenilia. This is a long excerpt, but it gives a flavor of Love a..."

Thanks Christopher. I enjoy seeing these. While LS is not Pride and Prejudice. And I can see a big difference between LS and this. But to me it is like enjoying the different stages of an author’s work.

No need to apologize -- the situation *is* confusing.

I had to search elsewhere for quite a while to confirm that "Love and Freindship" was in fact in "Volume the Second," although one would think that so elementary a fact about the manuscript would be mentioned right off.

There are facsimile editions of the three manuscript volumes currently available on Amazon: the "Look Inside" feature was decisive in checking the titles included in each. They are probably fascinating for scholars and devoted fans, but otherwise not the most user-friendly way to get acquainted with them.

(This doesn't come up on the add book/author function, either. See https://www.amazon.com/Second-Jane-Au...

This goes a little beyond Lady Susan, but I seem *compelled* to clip anything that gives a clue to JA's politics, which were, it seems "Jacobite.":

Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery

We know that Jane Austen possessed and made marginal notes in a copy of Goldsmith’s History: one of her relatives has anxiously adduced as proof of her warmth of feeling a note she made next to a passage attacking the Stuarts: “A family who were always ill-used, BETRAYED OR NEGLECTED, whose virtues are seldom allowed, while their errors are never forgotten.”

The question of feeling in Jane Austen’s work turns, however, not on what she could put into a marginal note at a moment of indignation, but on what her work itself, from its most private beginnings, habitually reveals. If warmth of feeling ever appears in her “History,” it is quickly diverted into her habitual pose of amused non-commitment, the same—perhaps a more overt—compulsion to irony, the same safeguarding of distance:

[quotes from JA's juvenile "History of England"]

Henry the 4th ascended the throne of England much to his own satisfaction in the year 1399, after having prevailed on his cousin and predecessor Richard the 2nd, to resign it to him, and to retire for the rest of his life to Pomfret Castle, where he happened to be murdered. It is to be supposed that Henry was married, since he had certainly four sons … (LF 85)

During Henry V’s reign “Lord Cobham was burnt alive, but I forget what for.”

[end quote] There really is a difference between the "uncharacteristc" sincere outburst (Jane Austen tweets!) and the "characteristic" ironic tone, which is present even in her juvenilia.

Ian wrote: "No need to apologize -- the situation *is* confusing.

I had to search elsewhere for quite a while to confirm that "Love and Freindship" was in fact in "Volume the Second," although one would think..."

These are the ones I found at my local used store last week but I passed because I could not read the writing.

@Christopher It’s so interesting to think of Jane Austen having any type of life outside her writing. Her nephew writes as if she she did not. In fact, he wrote that she started wearing mid-life garb before it was time as if she had nothing better to do! I really wonder what would a Jane Austen biography have in it!

Candace wrote: "@Christopher It’s so interesting to think of Jane Austen having any type of life outside her writing. Her nephew writes as if she she did not. In fact, he wrote that she started wearing mid-life ga..."

The whole family has a lot to answer for on the biographical side. Cassandra, Jane's sister, "purged" their letters, and their Victorian relatives tried, for example, to finesse the fact that the Austen ladies actually did any work around the house (as a country clergyman could, *of course,* afford an unlimited supply of servants to manage everything).

Good modern biographers have had to work hard to come up with facts, and reasonable interpretations of the evidence. Of course, there are those who still follow the "Dear Aunt Jane" tradition of the "Memoir," and others who strain for sensation.

Over on the "Persuasion" thread, I've suggested some books which deal with specialized topics, and manage to shed some light on her, AND on her work.

The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things by Paula Byrne, using artifacts from the time, and in some cases preserved by the Austen family itself, as starting point, presents an intriguing picture of what was going on around Jane, and in her mind, mostly without getting overly speculative. (Being tied down to such concrete objects seems to help.)

What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved by John Mullen, nicely interweaves the novels and the realities of life in England during the Napoleonic Wars, with, of course, close attention to Jane's experiences, including such things as the theater, and sea-side resorts (the latter important for "Persuasion" and the unfinished "Sanditon").

Maggie Lane's Jane Austen and Food (one of a number she's done on Jane Austen topics) gives a picture of household routine valid for the Austens, as well as of special occasions (parties, dances). She makes a lot of use of the seemingly impersonal documentary evidence for the family as a whole. And this makes details in the novels much clearer (not just what it is that they are eating or drinking).

(All of these are available as Kindle books, but, unfortunately for the merely curious, are now fairly expensive -- I got my copies from Amazon sales over the course of a couple of years.)