The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. April 1, 2000
Dear Folks,
I announced my plans for a search for Jane Austen's influences on 3/25/00. Cheryl derided me for even contemplating such a thing on 3/28/00. Well, I decided to take a shot in any case. I am only a little way into the effort but I am developing some strong feelings already and I want to discuss them with someone - guess who?
The original form of my question was, who made the better guess of Jane Austen's main influence? C.S. Lewis identified Samuel Johnson while Jane Austen's own brother, James Austen, thought of Sterne. The brother's suggestion always seemed a bit silly to me because, so I thought, Austen and Sterne seemed to write in very different ways. I am having a number of second thoughts based upon some things I have read, and based upon some ideas inspired by postings from Cheryl and Ray Mitchell. I am exploring those second thoughts.
First of all, let me admit that I am ill-equipped for this task. I am no more likely to make a discovery about literary style than I am to make an archeological find - and for some of the same reasons. I am ill-equipped and doomed to failure. So what?
I have begun by reading some things by Johnson and I am half way through Boswell's biography. (I have not yet begun a study of Sterne.) My initial reactions - and they are strong - are a diminished respect for Lewis, a greatly increased respect for Jane Austen (who would have thought that possible), a deeper understanding of our Lady's novels (ditto), a better understanding of Fanny Burney's novels, a profound hatred of Boswell, and a slightly contemptuous view of eighteenth-century, fashionable, London society.
Let me explain - try and stop me.
It is very true that Dr. Johnson (his degree was honorary) wrote beautifully; he was clear headed and he was very, very clever. But, aren't we all? No, seriously, all of you have made postings about which we can say the same things - does that make us "influences"? Are those things the essence of style? You know, Jane Austen's own mother wrote beautifully and had a clever, funny repartee; if we are going to focus on those things, then it makes more sense to me to look to mumsey rather than to Samuel Johnson! (Maybe, this is my old complaint about people focusing on Jane Austen's humor rather than on her other talents.) Let me repeat a C.S. Lewis statement because it contains, I think, a profound blunder:
"... [Jane Austen] is described by someone in Kipling's worst story as the mother of Henry James. I feel much more sure that she is the daughter of Dr. Johnson: she inherits his common sense, his morality, even much of his style. ..."
Mm-mm-mm, NO! I am going to attack this statement by questioning Johnson's "common sense" and "morality"; I am going to focus on his essay, Richard Savage. This is a biography of a poet much acquainted with and favored by Johnson. The essay was intended as a vindication of a friend but turned out to be an unintended expose of a scoundrel. The essay begins with a description of Savage's mother and what a monster is described there. I mean this woman makes Lady Susan seem a saint by comparison. You want to read of someone worse than Tony Soprano's mom? - read Richard Savage. Except, I am not convinced - I mean the story doesn't quite hang together - far too little nature or probability. What I suspect is that Savage fed Johnson a line and the good Dr. Johnson bought it - hook, line and sinker. This is not "common sense". We cannot imagine Jane Austen imposed upon in this way. The story of the mother is affecting enough, but it just doesn't ring true.
A central event in the biography is the story of that time when Savage was mistreated to a conviction of murder. Poor misunderstood poet! Oh sure, he readily admitted pulling out his sword and stabbing that guy in a brothel, but he explained that it wasn't his fault because he didn't want to go there in the first place - it was his friend's idea. I guess that this is a plea of "innocent by reason of prior bad influences". The court room was dazzled by his self-defense on the witness stand. He was a poet. The judge was cynical, Savage never forgave him for that - satirized (savaged?) him in a pamphlet. Johnson had an even worse - I mean an even better explanation; he explained that the party was wondering about in the London streets and walked into the house merely because they saw a light in the window. A BROTHEL!? imagine their surprise. No wonder Savage stabbed that guy. The thing was that everyone - I say EVERYONE present said the attack was unprovoked and that the victim had never drawn a weapon. The victim made the same insipid claim before he died. I suppose that grumpy Judge cited this testimony when he sentenced Johnson's buddy to death. Dr. Johnson explained all this away:
"The witnesses against him were proved to be persons of characters which did not entitle them to much credit; a common strumpet, a woman by whom strumpets were entertained, and a man by whom they were supported; and the character of Savage was by several persons of distinction asserted to be that of a modest, inoffensive man, not inclined to broils or to insolence, and who had, to that time, been known only for his misfortunes and his wit."
Oh well!, if he has wit. I don't know about you folks, but I am amused. Johnson forgot to catalog the maid in this sentence - excuse me, the maid to strumpets. That maid tried to restrain Savage when he attempted to run, so he opened a gash with a blow to her head. Another of my concerns here is for Johnson's logic. Who the hell did he imagine could testify about a murder in a brothel? the local Blue Stocking Society?
Oh, I forgot to mention how Johnson introduced this portion of the biography:
"... both [Savage's] fame and his life were endangered by an event, of which it is not yet determined whether it ought to be mentioned as a crime or a calamity."
Excuse me! What, exactly, is the mystery here? Apparently, Johnson was not the only person confused because the Queen presented the naughty poet a full pardon. We can only hope that he learned a good lesson from this: how about the rule that the law favors the rich and the articulate?
Dear Ashton,
Concerning the question of who had the greater influence on Jane Austen's writing style, I think that Sterne is the front runner simply because James Austen knew Jane and probably talked to her about her works. Lewis, as much as I enjoy and respect his work, has been known to have come to questionable conclusions.
The Richard Savage incident in Johnson's life was, I think, a case of mind trying to overcome matter. I do not know what kind of poet Savage was, but Johnson obviously thought highly of him. In a way it brings to mind the Jack Abbot/Norman Mailer mess. While Mailer never said that Abbot never committed the crimes for which he was serving time, he practically promised that, once released, Jack would be a good boy and walk the straight and narrow because Abbot was, in Mailer's opinion, a good writer. The result? A dead waiter, Abbot back in the hole and Mailer basically ignoring the mess he helped bring about. No matter your opinion, take a look at the Mumia Abu Jamal case. Why is it a cause celebre? Simply because the man is handy with a pen.
Oftentimes intellectuals are the easiest people in the world to fool. Dr. Johnson was, in his own way, an intellectual. Our Dear Jane, on the other hand, was not. She was superior to an intellectual. She was intelligent and an observer of the human condition and in that way she may have been influenced by Sterne. They both could look, with clear eyes, at this ship of fools and create from what they saw.
Dear Kathy and Carly,
I would be happy to help, if I can. Perhaps you could e-mail me with the
actual essay questions?
Julie
For english class I need to pick apart Austen's writing style espically in Sense and Sensibility. Anything you know about it will help. My teacher loves details and I am so lost. I love her writing but I can't explain why. Help.
Dear Kathy,
I think that there are a number of people here who are willing to help you. You might begin by linking to the index and looking under "Jane Austen, her art", "Sense and Sensibility", "Dashwood, Marianne", etc. Also, can you be more specific in your request? Finally, I should point out that your e-mail address is incomplete so that no one would be able to contact you privately.
Whoever can help
Dear Carly,
You might begin by linking to the index and looking under specific topics. Can you be more specific about the sort of help you are looking for?
Dear Sir,
What an absolutely fascinating website. I'll probably spend the rest of
the day exploring it. Now, of course, I want to learn how to do bargello work -
something for my spare time?
Julie
From the Meister: I hadn't looked at that site
for
two years now. It has greatly improved, but it was
very good to begin
with. Did you notice the awards?
Dear Janeites,
For those of you interested in George Eliot, be aware that the April issue of First Things magazine has a combination review/article titled "George Eliot: Good Without God." The article reviews the book George Eliot: The Last Victorian by Katherine Hughes. It also looks into Eliot's abandonment of religion. (First Things is a magazine that looks at society through a Christian lens, but not obnoxiously so.)
Here is an interesting quote from Nietzshe's Twilight of the Gods regarding Eliot:
"G. Eliot- They have got rid of the Christian God and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality: that is English consistency, let us not blame it on little bluestockings a' la Eliot. In England, in response to every little emancipation from theology one has to reassert one's position in a fear-inspiring manner as a moral fanatic. That is the penance one pays there. With us it is different. When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality."
But that's Germans for you. The last sentence makes sense and is echoed by Camus.
On other fronts, we all know that Queen Elizabeth II of England visited
Tasmania this week. While in Hobart someone chucked a love apple (aka, the
controversial tomato) at her and managed to knock Prince Philip's chapeau. But,
of course, Philip may have been the shy in the first place. The only description
of the pitcher is that she was dressed in a marabou garter belt, fishnet
stockings and spike-heeled Wellingtons and that she was in the company of three
billy goats Gruff. Keep an eye out. I hear there's a reward. Dinner with Charles
or some such.
Dave Payton
Dear Dave,
But then, why would I want to go around assaulting innocent German geriatrics, who are suffering enough from terminal boredom, I should imagine. The couple in question have gone now, thankfully, and our news bulletins are no longer decorated with breathless descriptions of funny hats. Actually, the whole thing was so embarrassing one wanted to crawl under a rock - I'm sure they commandeered the population of an orphanage and a geriatric unit, and bussed them from place to place, in order to provide at least the semblance of public interest.
How did Nietzsche equate George Eliot's supposedly rigid morality with her private life? What he says is crap. George Eliot was a moral woman, certainly, but moral by her own standards, not by those imposed on her by some patriachal institution. She lived, unmarried, with George Lewes for many years, she helped to support Lewes' wife and children (the children were by the wife's lover, incidentally), and nursed one of the sons when he was dying of tuberculosis of the spine. There was nothing rigid or fanatical in her personal standards, but rather an intelligent ability to distinguish the great 'rights' and 'wrongs' of life, and to live according to the 'rights'.
And some patronising little prick dismisses her as 'a bluestocking'.
Shopping list: buy more tomatoes!
Julie
From the Meister: Yes, very good, except I think you
will find that
Nietzsche was a German and not an aboriginal native of
Scotland.
Dear Miss Julie,
I thought Prince Phillip was a Greek. Where in the hell is King Arthur when you need him?
Anyway, I'm afraid that this messenger is going to have to dodge the spear. If you want an explanation of Nietzsche's remarks about George Eliot you're going to have to dig the old fellow up or visit a spiritualist. As a matter of fact, I haven't read any of old Friederich in many years, but I do remember that he was given to hyperbole. It may have had something to do with the syphilis. I'm a Pascallian, myself.
I came across a quote from Adam Smith written in 1776 that somewhat applies to the discussion of Georgiana Duchess of Whozit:
" In every civilized society, in every society where the distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there have been always two different schemes or systems of morality current at the same time; of which the one may be called the strict or austere, the other the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system. The former is generally admired and revered by the common people, the latter is commonly more esteemed and adopted by what are called the 'people of fashion'."
ODJ (Our Dear Jane), I think, fell into the former.
While Oka-san (aka Jonesy) was burning up the phone lines using the computer, I dug out an old CD and played it and was reminded why I bought it. The CD is titled Rule Britannia and other music from the Last Night of the Proms, and it was released by Naxos. It's enough to make one nostalgic for the roast beef of England. I asked Jonesy if it inspired her to want to move to Albion and she replied that she'd move there even without hearing the CD. But she's a gardener and we know how they worship at the foot of Ann Scott James.
Dear Dave,
Phillip Mountbatten (a.k.a. Battenberg) is the nephew of the late Lord Mountbatten, and the great grandson of Queen Victoria his mother was Alice, daughter of Victoria of Hesse and Louis of Battenberg. He and his wife are, of course, cousins. Phillip's family hardly had two bob to rub together, and he was reputedly born on a kitchen table. His mother became a nun in later life. His father was Andrew of Greece, but (no time to drag out a reference book here), I'm pretty sure that he wasn't Greek, either.
The Last Night of the Proms always has me singing 'Land of Hope and Glory' to the goats for days after I watch it - must conduct a study sometime to see what the effect on milk production might be.
Have you seen 'Brassed Off'?
The most I intend to know about Nietszche is his place in The Philosophers' Song:
Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heideger, Heideger was a boozy beggar
Who could drink you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schlossed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Neitzsche couldn't teach you
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed ...
WAY too much time on my hands!
Julie
Dear Miss Julie,
Your right. But if we look closely enough we'll see that most of the royals for a long time have been Germans of one sort or another. As I said before, where's King Arthur when you need him?
Dear Dave,
It depends upon which of the legends you prefer, of course, but in some,
Arthur was at least partly Norman, and in others ended up as the enemy of the
Old People. Oh woe, Oh woad!
Julie
Yikes! I go away for a few days and all hell breaks loose. I can't wait to get into this month's link. I confess, I generally feel a little sorry for QE2. It's not as if she was given a choice (and she's spent her life doing her duty as her world saw it.) It can't be easy living your life in a fishbowl. On the other hand, she's richer than God, so I don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about it. And in my opinion, the world needs more women who wear hats.
It appears to me that Nietzshe is talking about G. Elliot's characters being blue stockings, not GE herself.
Dave: I hope you're not suggesting that an individual cannot act
in a moral manner unless he is a Christian or otherwise God-fearing.
Christianity isn't the only belief system with standards of
behavior.
Cheryl
Dar Cheryl,
Well, I still don't agree with him. Hetty Sorrel's stockings were not only not blue, they were not even on most of the time. The grande dame in Felix Holt likewise relieved herself of her hosiery when she felt like it (with the agent, no less!). Incidentally, that novel still delights me with its description of a beautiful woman 'the weight of whose hair is more than that of her brains'.
Gwendoline virtually sold her stockings to the highest bidder. That pretty well leaves us with Dorothea - and her stockings were only pale blue, really. I suppose Mirah could be considered such? But as, like Jane Fairfax, she was obliged to play well in order to earn her living, she was justified in being 'accomplished' (if a Jew could be such a thing?)?
Poor Rosamond had her (conventially coloured) stockings virtually torn from her by vicious public opinion.
No, I still think Nietszche was ... what was it now? ... oh, yes: a
presumptuous little prick.
Julie
From the Meister: I am losing the thread here.
Correct
me if I am wrong - but, weren't the "blue
stockings"
progressive, intellectual-women's societies? I don't
get
any sense of that in this debate.
Dear Sir,
Certainly, that was the original meaning of the term, but I doubt that it had
been in use more than five minutes before it began being applied as a form of
ridicule 'bluestocking' came to mean a severe old maid who, if well-read,
was so only because she lacked the sex appeal required to snare a husband.
When Nietzsche talked of 'little bluestockings a la Eliot', I very much doubt
that he was trying to be complimentary.
Julie
Miss Julie: When I refer to King Arthur I intend King Arthur to be taken as a symbol or pre-Norman Britain. This deconstruction really has to stop.
Miss Cheryl: I did not intend to say that other religions do not have codes of morality. This is really a theological discussion and has no place on the board. I would just ask you to look up Camus' quotation regarding behaviour.
Dear David,
It happened to be your misfortune to make the comment as I was finishing a
book that dissected and analysed all the different versions of Arthur, from
Mallory to Bradley and far beyond. T. H. White remains my personal
favourite (mysogyny notwithstanding), though I can never read Bradley's work
without developing an urge to tattoo my forehead and acquire a sickle
knife.
Julie
My Russian lit. instructor confided that a fellow graduate student at Princeton in 1960 or so groused at her for being a "woman" and therefore was unworthy of being allowed to study on a serious level. At the time, I was reading Sense and Sensibility and Jane's heroine was confronted similarly by an oafish fellow and made a reply which my professor of Russian lit. At the University of Hawaii and whose name is Virginia Bennett (appropriate surname a la P&P!) could have utilized and refuted the fellow. Alas, the allusion escapes me now but maybe one of your readers could recall the touche and the situation.
I am,
waxlessly yours,
alba
Dear alba,
You are very welcome here. I hope you will join our conversations.
I wonder if you are thinking of the correct author? Your recollection doesn't sound like Jane Austen. What you say sounds more like her contemporary Mary Wollstonecraft who was far more likely to introduce male stereotypes and caricatures. The only thing that comes to mind, and remotely sounds like the sort of thing you are describing, involves minor characters and neither of the heroines of Sense and Sensibility. The passage deals with an exchange between Mrs. Jennings and her son-in-law, Mr. Palmer. Palmer was given to ridiculing his wife in public. Mrs. Jennings controlled the money in that family and she reminded her rude son-in-law that he had been bought and paid for (with the dowry she supplied her daughter) and so he should simply remember his place, accept the bargain he had made, and shut up.
There is a somewhat similar instance described in Jane Austen's letters in which our Lady became upset. Jane Austen was walking with a young man who mentioned that Fanny Burney's novels must have been written by Samuel Johnson. (Burney was a member of Dr. Johnson's coterie.) It is extremely unlikely that Jane Austen would have made a sharp reply directly to her walking companion. That just was not her way.
In any case, there are members of this community who will be able to help you if I have missed something.
Dear alba,
I have no idea if this is the line you're thinking of, but my favorite put down in S&S is (quoting from memory, so it's probably not verbatim): "Eleanor agreed with everything he said, because she didn't think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
Dear Alba, Bruce, and all,
Bruce refers to the conversation between Robert Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood (CH 36) during which Robert expatiates on the charms of a cottage. He intends, he says, to build a cottage and describes it as a rather grand house. He concludes that anyone can be as comfortable in a cottage as in the most spacious house. Elinor, who has lived in both sorts of dwellings, thinks that Robert is too foolish, too ridiculous to merit correction.
From the Meister: John! where
have you been? We
missed you.
Links