The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. May 5, 2000
Dear Folks,
In my continuing investigation of the claims that Samuel Johnson was an influence for Jane Austen, I have come across something rather startling that I want to share with you. First of all, I should say I am growing ever more certain that he did not influence our Lady by example (I will have more to say about that in a subsequent posting). Also, his outlook and temperament were nothing at all like those of Jane Austen and he could not have been any kind of influence in that way either. However, he may have been an important influence by way of his opinions on what constituted a good novel and what a bad novel. To illustrate what I mean, I am going to concentrate on an essay that Dr. J wrote in 1750, some twenty-five years before our Lady was born. As you will see his description of a good novel is an exact blueprint of the form that Jane Austen would use for her own novels. I do not know if Jane Austen ever read this essay, but Johnson's thesis is so remarkably close to her own thinking, that it is reasonable to guess that she might have - might have read it and taken it to heart. Also, Dr J's description of the bad novel certainly has a clear echo in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey.
Firstly, a little background - Samuel Johnson was involved, at various times, in the production of three periodicals with rather short lives. In chronological order, those were The Rambler, The Adventurer, and The Idler. (It might be fun to pause here in order to enjoy these names - but I won't do that.) He also did a lot of the writing; in fact, he published over 300 of his own essays in those issues. (You may not find Boswell's interpretation of the nature of those essays to be useful.) Bound volumes of The Rambler and The Idler were afterwards bought by many including, I can only suppose, the clergyman of Steventon.
It seems certain that Johnson won some respect in the Austen Family. Here is an interesting tidbit: When older brothers James and Henry Austen were at Oxford together (1790) they published an undergraduate periodical called The Loiterer, which, it seems to me, is an echo of the names that Dr. J used. Some strongly believe that their fourteen-year old baby sister Jane was allowed to contribute an essay to that college magazine under the pseudonym "Sophia Sentiment". That essay is hilarious and slightly feminist, perhaps mockingly so. To cap off this aside, let me inform you that the Austen family was proudly Tory while Johnson was devoutly Whig. - Interesting?
Now I am back to my main point; that is Samuel Johnson's essay published in issue #4 of The Rambler (31 March, 1750). Johnson thought he saw a new tendency in literature, one he called the "comedy of romance". He wished to compare the newer strain with the older, which he called "heroic romance". In this essay, he described the new fashion in this way.
"The works of fiction with which the present generation seems more particularly delighted, are such as exhibit life in its true state, diversified only by accidents that daily happen in the world, and influenced by passions and qualities which are to be found in conversing with mankind. ... Its province is to bring about natural events by easy means, and to bring up curiosity without the help of wonder: it is therefore precluded from the machines and expedients of the heroic romance, and can neither employ giants to snatch away a lady from the nuptial rites, nor a knight to bring her back from captivity; it can neither bewilder its personages in deserts, nor lodge them in imaginary castles."
Of the authors of the older, heroic romances, Johnson had this indictment.
"Why this wild strain of imagination found reception so long in polite and learned ages, it is not easy to conceive; ... when a man had by some practice gained some fluency of language, he had no further care than to retire to his closet, let loose his invention, and heat his mind with incredibilities; a book was thus produced without fear of criticism, without the toil of study, without the knowledge of nature, or acquaintance with life."
Right on! I cannot help but think of the current American culture, and I cannot help but wonder that Johnson's past has become our present.
There is one attitude expressed in #4 that the Austens would not have been comfortable with, that would be Johnson's condescending attitude about novels in general:
"... These books are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introductions into life ..."
Well - ? - that is clear enough. Dr. J then goes on to make some observations about the old style novel:
"In the romances formally written, every transaction and sentiment was so remote from all that passes among men, that the reader was in very little danger of making any applications to himself; the virtues and crimes were equally beyond his sphere of activity; and amused himself with heroes and traitors, deliverers and persecutors, as beings of another species, whose actions were regulated upon motives of their own, and who had neither faults nor excellencies in common with himself."
Then, so his argument goes, the new style novel poses greater dangers and Johnson goes on to admonish the new writers of their moral obligations to the reader. Among other things, Johnson lobbies against the novel written about the anti-hero - it is too morally ambiguous. I won't spoil that part, I will let you read that for yourself. (Those of you that admire Hamlet, Othello, or Macbeth may end up a bit puzzled.)
The timing of #4 is interesting because I do not have sufficient background to know who he is talking about. 1750 was very early, Fanny Burney first published in 1778 and Maria Edgeworth in 1800. Richardson was publishing in the 1740s, but Heather Swallow will balk at the suggestion of his name; and, indeed, Richardson's novels do seem to more closely fit in the "heroic romance" category. I mention those authors, because we know that Jane Austen read them and admired them. A favorite target of Jane Austen was Ann Radcliffe - a heroic romanticist if there ever was one - and she first published in 1791, well after the admonition of #4. (Jane Austen first published in 1811.)
Jane Austen was only an adolescent when Dr. J died and so he would never know of her. On one side that is a great pity because he would have become the first Janite. On the other hand, he might not have rested until he found her true identity, and then he would have pressured her to make his acquaintance. Not even Jane Austen could have resisted a summons from the first among the literary coteries of London; that kind of association would have been a bad thing, a perversion of Jane Austen.
Dear Voices,
I have just completed Samuel Johnson's The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abbissinia. This may well be typical of Dr J's prose and it confirms me in an interim judgement - I have grave doubts that C.S. Lewis makes a very great point when he declares Johnson to be Jane Austen's intellectual and literary "father". I will briefly discuss Rasselas, in order to make my point, and then I will summarize my views after this, the end of my initial encounter with Samuel Johnson.
The background is this: the novel was written in 1759 and completed in the evenings of a single week. The motivation was to make some money very quickly in order to pay for a visit to his mother who was gravely ill. The mother passed away within a few days and so the motivation changed to a desire to earn enough to pay for a respectable funeral. This was the same year that Voltaire published Candide, and I mention that because Rasselas reminds me of that work - an inexperienced personality, a clean slate encountering the world for the first time. I have no idea what the experts think. (Although, one might say that Johnson weeps for us while Voltaire laughs.) Perhaps that sort of thing was in the air or, perhaps, Johnson desperately needed an idea for something that he wanted to turn out in record time.
Rasselas is a Prince of Abbissinia (sic) (our Ethiopia), but not the heir. He is kept in splendid isolation in a luxurious setting ("Happy Valley") with his siblings. The idea, I suppose, is that he is kept in guarded safety till such time as he might be needed to rule. He grows restless and desires to know more of the world; he then makes his escape with a sister, her lady-in-waiting, a wise man, and a great deal of wealth. The party moves into the wider world, which means Egypt. The young people are hungry for knowledge and understanding and soon hit upon the goal of finding the best way of living out one's life - they call it the "choice of life".
The rest of the novel (perhaps it should be called a long parable) is then devoted to the investigations of the young people as they examine the lives of many people in all possible situations of life - the hermit, the socialite, the poet, the rustic, the rich man, the poor, etc. etc. In every instance they become disillusioned and disappointed. They came together each evening to discuss what they had observed and what they had concluded. I reproduced one of their discussions, the one on marriage, for you on Mary Wollstonecraft Day; I signed that Sam.
Johnson was very intelligent, observant and wise. Rasselas is worth your time, only about 150 pages and easy reading. It is also melancholy, but Johnson was always melancholy - we say depressed. It is likely that he suffered at least two nervous breakdowns. How is it that we can imagine that such a man inspired Jane Austen? Even her Persuasion, which comes closer to melancholy than any of her other writings, was hopeful and inspiring. The entire Austen family bristled with pride, optimism, positive energy, laughter, talent, and upward mobility. Johnson was a depressed, urban intellectual and a Whig - a political liberal. The Austens chose the country life, the careful political attitudes, and the joyful life and style. Remember that famous Jane Austen line that Julie likes to quote frequently, "Let us let other pens dwell on guilt and misery, and quit such odious subjects as soon as we can ... ". Johnson tended to dwell on guilt, misery, and hopelessness. Don't get me wrong, I like to dwell on that stuff myself; it's just that I don't think that it could possibly have ever inspired or influenced Jane Austen's art.
And another thing, Samuel Johnson and Jane Austen did not paint with the same brush. Read "Sam's" posting again and you will see what I mean. I mean, in those few passages, Johnson takes on the entire subject of marriage! That is about as broad-brushed as you can get. There is much that is wise and interesting in those passages but, ultimately, the thesis fails as all painted with a broad brush must. Take any paragraph in that essay, and you will be impressed at first, but think about it long enough and you will come up with counter-examples and contrary ideas. When Jane Austen said that her art was "... the little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush...", she was referring to her narrow focus. That is the focus that holds some promise of success and the more we think about one of her passages, the more convinced we become that she had succeeded.
I am at the end of my first encounter with Samuel Johnson and I think that those that say he was a major influence, a "father", for Jane Austen are dead wrong. Perhaps the two are distant cousins in that they occupied the same intellectual niche - the highly intelligent and wise species - but, I think that niche is so highly populated, that parentage is not so easily assigned.
Dear Sir,
Rasselas was the novel that Helen Burns was reading when the young Jane Eyre first approached her, at Lowood School. Charlotte Bronte wished to make a point about the character of Helen Burns when she chose her reading matter (Helen being a posthumous portrait of Maria Bronte).
Incidentally, you were quite right in saying, a little while ago, that
Charlotte Bronte could write badly however, she could also write
very well indeed - rather better than Mary Wollstonecraft, in my
view.
Julie
From the Meister: What was CB's point in that context?
Do
you not think that the Bronte novels were neo-gothic? And,
in that way,
their novels represented a step backwards?
Dear Sir,
Or however you may choose to phrase it in America.
I've been waiting for a good, honest-to-goodness, no-holds barred discussion with you on the subject of the Brontes for so long, that I can hardly remember when I first became really irritated.
I have no proof, but I believe that Helen Burns was reading Rasselas because Charlotte was making a point about her sister's precocious intelligence. This is not to indicate, however, that Charlotte thought of her sister in such terms: the young Brontes had no yardstick against which to measure themselves, before being sent to Cowan Bridge: my belief is that Charlotte was making a point about the stunning, enervating stupidity often to be encountered when one is subjected to the machinations of a 'good education'. But then, on the other hand, Helen Burns was able to access Rasselas ...
I can no more answer your last question about the Bronte's style of writing, and their steps, whether forward or backwards, than I could consider such a question, were it applied to Jane Austen.
My preference is to consider authors individually, and judge their works on their own merits.
I know that you dislike the Brontes. They have many faults, certainly,
but they have power and originality, too. What I really would recommend to
you, however, is the 'Life' of the Brontes, by Juiet Barker - not for its
portrayal of the children, though that is extremely perceptive, but rather for
its analysis and discussion of Patrick Bronte, their father: Barker has
conducted such an exhaustive study of the newspapers and public records of the
time that gives any student of any matter that may have been produced from any
parsonage in England ... a bloody good read.
Julie
Dear Voices,
There's a new Jane Austen biography coming out this month that looks kind of interesting. The author is Deirdre Le Faye and the book supposedly contains a lot of amusing anecdotes about Austen's life. Le Faye also is supposed to make a lot of interesting connections between the characters in Austen's novels and the people she knew. I'm going to try to pick up a copy at work and I'll let you know what I think.
Dear Laurie,
Deirdre Le Faye is someone who must be taken seriously. I believe that she is a scholar with the British Museum, and she has a long record of publication dealing with Jane Austen. For example, she edited the most recent edition of Jane Austen's letters and what a fine job that was. Also, she updated the biography of Jane Austen that was normally updated by an Austen family member. See the bibliography of that last reference for a list of titles of Le Faye's scholarly papers on the subject of Jane Austen.
Dear Laurie and Ashton,
I have Deidre le Faye's Letters, and think so highly of that work that I've already ordered the biography. The letters are so well arranged, and so well annotated, as to almost qualify as a biography themselves.
While on the subject of people writing about Jane Austen, has anybody ever
had access to, or owned, the editions of Jane Austen edited by Professor Chapman
- sometime in the 1930s, I think? I would give just about anything to get my
paws on those books, but they seem to be thoroughly out of print.
Julie
Dear Julie,
I came across a copy of Chapman's editions in a college library last year while I was researching my paper, but I'm pretty sure that Chapman's books are out of print. Have you tried an out of print booksearch on the internet? You could also try Harvest Booksearch at 1-800-563-1222. We use Harvest at work and have had good results.
Dear Sir,
Until reading this biography (which I did because I wanted to learn more
about the period), I didn't know that George had a connection with the
U.S. I presume you are referring to the War of Independence?
The wonder is that he found time to take an interest, as he must have been flat
out (!) siring those fifteen children of his. As for Napoleon, like Mrs
Musgrove and Bermuda I can plead total innocence: I cannot be accused of
having thought about him during the whole course of my life. Modern
history studies when I attended school began with the late 19th century. I
know Napoleon was short, came from Corsica, and died on an island.
Julie
Dear To All,
See what happens when a nice Australian girl like Nicole Kidman goes and gets herself mixed up with Americans? The last decent film she made, in my view, was Flirting - though I thought she was reasonable in Dead Calm. Maybe it's all that hair straightener that's soaking into her brain and addling her judgement?
As for the submarine film (which I can pretty well guarantee I'll never
see!): this is where local knowledge must come in so handy: I would
never have known that the black soldier/white soldier thing would be
unlikely. Why so?
Julie
Dear Julie,
African-American men, called "boys" no matter what their age, were simply second class citizens here in the US. A black male who made eye contact with a white was considered uppity and simply asking to be taught his place (i.e. get the shit kicked out of himself.) Sad, but true. The US Armed Forces were still segregated at the time. White sailors could be reasonably expected to accept a black servant on board, but no one would have served on a boat with a black "sailor."
There were some black combat soldiers during WWII, but most were used by
Ordnance as stevedores, cooks and bakers and such, though this was often very
dangerous duty. After the War, Dwight Eisenhower desegregated the Armed Forces
to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Cheryl
Dear Julie and Cheryl,
I don't disagree with Cheryl's remarks at all - except to say that it was Harry Truman and not Eisenhower who desegregated the Armed Forces. That would have been about 1946 or 47. Cheryl is too young to have her own memories of these things, but I am not so young. An integrated Armed Force did not fight until the Korean War. Some things get simplified and that is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, it is commonly thought that Jackie Robinson desegregated American Sports in 1947 and that is overly simplified. To prove that, I need only remind you that Robinson was a two-sport, star athlete at UCLA in the mid-thirties, so that must mean that intercollegiate athletics were desegregated by that time. Also, my own interscholastic competitions began in 1949, and I competed against black athletes as had my father's generation before me. I promise you that blacks were not defenseless; on the contrary, the term "boy" would have been used with great peril at that time in northern California. I got a whole hell of a lot more than "eye contact"; there was the full complement of epithets and cheap shots - no more than from the average white player, but no less either.
There were some things that only a white man had the power to do, so it was Branch Rickey who integrated baseball in 1947. It is debatable whether Robinson was the best choice for Rickey (I think he was not - he was too high strung - Rickey should have chosen Roy Campanella instead.) Robinson was probably selected because he was a UCLA graduate and because he had been an officer in World War II. Baseball was one of the last bastions of discrimination in sports and for very good reason: at that time, professional, major-league baseball was played only in the northeastern part of the US, and in large cities where the crowds were predominately Irish, Italian, or German ethnics - the worst kind of audience for the purpose of integration.
Dear Cheryl,
Many years ago, Muhammad Ali (I think he may still have been Cassius Clay - that's how long ago it was) was invited to appear at the annual Australian Logies Presentation night (a gruesome event - T.V. equivalent of the Oscars, I suppose), and to present an award. The host on that night and on many others, before and since, was one Bert Newton, very well known as a T.V. personality. Well, the night was in progress, and patter was progressing nicely on the podium, when Bert, chatting to Mr Clay, said in response to something Cassius had said, 'I LIKE the boy!' He was, in fact, quoting from a play or some such, and he, like 99.9% of the live and T.V. audience, had no idea what he had done, but the effect on the boxer was electric: 'WHAT did you say??????!!!!!!!!!!' And he wasn't joking, either. The piece has become famous, and is still replayed in blooper tapes and such. An interesting case of language difficulties?
I believe they are still looking for at least one of the Logie statues, and
Mr Newton, to this day, has trouble sitting down.
Julie
Dear Ashton,
Not being much of a fan of the legitimate theater, I rarely pay much attention to what it going on the boards. But, one day, desperate for something to read at work, I was reading an article in the paper about the Tony awards nominations. And who do you think was nominated for a Tony? No one other than our dear Jennifer Ehle for her performance in Stoppard's The Real Thing. So I guess all us fans of the A&E P&P have someone to root for at this exercise in self indulgence.
Also nominated for best musical was a musical version of James Joyce's The Dead, which I don't get. Why in the world would anyone write a musical based on The Dead? It's really not a tub thumper of a play. Next thing you know, they'll be doing a musical comedy based on Lowery's Under the Volcano. A drunken limey is always good for a chuckle or two.
One another subject, when my father was in the Marines during WWII blacks were not even allowed to enlist in the Corps until late 1944. When I was in the Navy beginning in 1972, the Company Commanders (the Navy's version of D.I.s) referred to the recruits as "lads", i.e. "What the f*** do you think you're doing, lad?" The use of the term was a fairly recent development and one could tell that most of these old lifers were accustomed to using the word "boy" when dressing down the peach cheeked innocents. But, even then, a political correctness had wormed its way into the NAV and there was a fear of offending the black recruits by using the word "boy". The trouble was that every recruit was a "boy", whether he was some pie faced Irish kid from Boston, a corn fed Kansas farmer's son or a black kid from L.A. The trouble was that the use of the word "lad" was pretty foreign to most of us. It was what they used in the RN, not the USN.
Does the above paragraph really apply to anything cogent? Probably not, but I thought I'd add to the military controversy.
By the way, just to stick a pole in a hornets' nest, the CSA army was probably more racially integrated during the Late Unpleasantness than was the Federal Army - something that a lot of people would like to ignore.
Links