The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Feb. 9, 2001
Dear Folks,
In The History of Tom Jones, Henry Fielding makes several references to the artist/engraver William Hogarth (1697-1764). I think that an excellent idea because the two men share a similarly dark - some say "satirical" - view of eighteenth-century England. To illustrate Hogarth's vision to you, I went to an excellent website devoted to his art, and downloaded this single reprint and description.
Title: A Harlot's Progress: The Arrival of the Harlot in London
Artist: William Hogarth
Date: 1732 (reprinted c. 1822)
Medium: Etching and engraving
Location: The Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Northwestern University
Polly (Moll) Hackabout, a beautiful and innocent young country girl, has just stepped out of her carriage into London's Thames Street. The Procuress Needham, a well-known bawd of her time, welcomes and inspects Moll, recruiting her for her new profession.
This engraving is the first in a series. Others depict the prostitute in her profession - bare breasts and all - and the physical effects of venereal disease. Other of Hogarth's series deal with a "rake's progress" and with a dysfunctional arranged-marriage among the aristocracy. You can find far less provocative works as well.
Tsk, tsk, certainly not part of our Lady's vision or understanding - Jane Austen never thought in this way about society. If you think that, you may have another guess coming. It is my purpose, in this posting, to change your view a bit.
This is a quote from a letter from Jane Austen to her sister, Cassandra, dated Sept. 18, 1796. Our lady is joking about the possibility of being left stranded in London:
"My father will be so good as to fetch home his prodigal daughter from town, I hope, unless he wishes me to walk the hospitals, enter at the Temple, or mount guard at St. James'. It will hardly be in Frank's power to take me home -- nay, it certainly will not. I shall write again as soon as I get to Greenwich."
" ... "
"I am very glad that the idea of returning with Frank occurred to me; for as to Henry's coming into Kent again, the time of its taking place is so very uncertain that I should be waiting for dead men's shoes. I had once determined to go with Frank to-morrow and take my chance, &c., but they dissuaded me from so rash a step, as I really think on consideration it would have been; for if the Pearsons were not at home, I should inevitably fall a sacrifice to the arts of some fat woman who would make me drunk with small beer."
The Editor, Deirdre Le Faye, tells us that our Lady was making a reference to the very same drawing that is shown above. Jane Austen was twenty years old when she wrote that clever letter. No, that country clergyman did not shield his daughters from the truth.
However, I think many people, today, are so shielded. We once had a great "kissing controversy" at this bulletin board. I took a position and the rest of the world the opposite - quelle surprise! Ray Mitchell was in England, at a Jane-Austen retreat, where filmed versions of our Lady's novels were being shown. He mentioned that everyone in the audience groaned in the final scene when the celluloid Wentworth kissed his Anne Elliot while standing in a Bath public street. I reacted with my post of 7/23/99. The roof fell in on me. The women of the Commonwealth were especially adamant that, in my crude, American way, I had transgressed by suggesting that a gentleman's daughter would ever have been kissed in a proper English street; "The point is that Tom Jones could kiss a maid in the street, and indeed, so could Wentworth, but neither could kiss the daughter of a gentleman ... in the street."
Oh yeah! then explain this passage. This is from Chapter 12 of Book 5 of Tom Jones. Sophia Western is a gentleman's daughter (one of the most proper and most attractive in English literature), and out for a stroll when she came upon Tom, lying in a heep and covered with blood. (A couple of guys had just beat the wee out of him.) So, since Sophia was a heroine in a mid-eighteenth novel, she fainted - she knew her obligations and duties as a heroine. Tom revived to find his dearest, loveliest unconscious and so he scooped her up and ran to a nearby stream to revive her.
"Happy was it for Sophia that the same confusion which prevented her other friends from serving her, prevented them likewise from obstructing Jones. He had carried her half ways before they knew what he was doing, and he had actually restored her to life before they reached the waterside. She stretched out her arms, opened her eyes, and cried, 'Oh! heavens!' just as her father, aunt, and the parson came up. Jones, who had hitherto held this lovely burthen in his arms, now relinquished his hold; but gave her at the same instant a tender caress, which, had her senses been then perfectly restored, could not have escaped her observation. As she expressed, therefore, no displeasure at this freedom, we suppose she was not sufficiently recovered from her swoon at the time."
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Dear Voices,
I saw Part 1 of Anna Karenina last night (Part 2 is next Sunday) on "Masterpiece Theatre". I wasn't terrible impressed, though it was nice to see Amanda Root again. This morning I looked up Leo and "Anna" in Britannica.com and was very impressed. From what was said about Leo I could almost see "reflections" of our Dear Jane. Their values might differ, but they were both concerned about virtue. He sounded more secular, where Jane threw in her Christian values somewhat.
I saw War and Peace years ago (the Audrey Hepburn version) which was O.K. but not such a burning "issue" as P&P in my life. I always wanted to read it, but the "length" was a deterrent. Now I think I would like to read both W&P and "Anna" after I finish my JA "study", of course.
Here is a program note on "Abe". Tonight (Monday), Tuesday, and Wednesday (Feb. 19 - 21) there is a 3-parter on Abraham and Mary Lincoln on the "American Experience" program. It sounds interesting, especially if it has any similarity to what was done with the Napoleon program put on by PBS last year. I forget who made that one. We can hope though.
Oh, and BTW, I should probably never confuse "Anna" the movie with "Anna" the
book! Also, I see that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon did just fine
in the "Oscar" department! It is now showing in my neck of the woods, so I
hope to see it.
Linda
Dear Voices,
What is your opinion (have you posted it somewhere?) about JA and
caricatures? I am trying to figure out what everyone means by using
that word to describe her work.
Linda
Dear Linda,
That is just one of those crazy things that some people say sometimes. When someone has to publish or perish, a few occasionally will take an outlandish position in order to be "original". And, as all those conspiracy theorists have demonstrated, any position can be made plausible. Another example is that position taken by Alice Meynell and others.
My own opinion on "caricatures" is best expressed by the second quote from E. M. Forster.
Have you ever seen my theory that Jane Austen was a French spy and assassin? Also, see my posting on Mares' nests.
Dear Ash,
Since making that post, I have looked up the definition of "caricature" in the dictionary. Using that definition to compare with the traits of our Dear Jane's characters, I find no "exaggeration" to indicate caricature. IMO her characters are "true to life", because I have been witness to most all of them. Her characters are alive and well.
I looked up your references and had a good laugh. It seems that we
think alike in this case. Now, I think I have a handle on the caricature
business.
Thanks,
Linda
Dear Voices,
I found this article posted on the MP board at RoP. It is called Please Miramax, don't
call it Mansfield Park. The writer gets kind of "passionate" about
Persuasion.
Linda
Dear Folks,
Samuel Richardson's The History of Sir Charles Grandison has an interesting, if curious, epilogue. Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph (remember, Grandison is written in the epistolary form):
"The Editor [Richardson] of the foregoing collection has the more readily undertaken to publish it because he thinks Human Nature has often, of late, been shewn in a light too degrading; and he hopes from this Series of Letters it will be seen, that characters may be good, without being unnatural. ..."
What is that all about?
Well, you can answer that question, for yourself, with only a modest amount of research. Richardson published Grandison in the two year period 1753-4. Fielding had published Tom Jones in 1749, and you will begin to get the idea when I remind you that the actual title of Fielding's novel is The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. Yes, Richardson's novel was a reply to Fielding's classic. Apparently, Samuel Richardson (1689-1761) and Henry Fielding (1707-1754) didn't much care for one another.
And so, of course, I am now studying The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. What a find! - and what a relief after reading Grandison! Of course, I will not forget the basic question - what has all this to do with Jane Austen? Well, for one thing, we know that our Lady was quite familiar with Tom Jones, and was easy and comfortable in the knowledge. (Link here and scroll down to the letter Jane Austen wrote to her sister on Saturday, January 10, 1796.)
Actually, Fielding fired the first shot when he published his An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews (1741), which was a parody of Richardson's heroine, Pamela Andrews, in his Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (1740-1). Heather Swallow posted a number of times on both Fielding and Richardson. Find "Swallow, Heather" in the names index, skim through her postings, and link to those. See especially, our friend's postings of 6/23/99 and 6/24/99, and her posting on Shamela.
Dear Ashton,
That epilogue sounds familiar. Now that you mention it, I think I will read the books in their proper order to keep track of their carryings on. I suspect that our Dear Jane may have founded a lot (or some) of her work on theirs. She displays some "raciness" with her humor and morality (she called it "reflection").
I already have Pamela and Tom Jones, Shamela is
available, but Grandison still eludes me. So I will be
busy.
Linda
Dear Linda,
I think it will be wonderful if you read those novels in that order. Then you and I can converse more comprehensively on the subject. Actually, in that event, you will know far more than me. On the other hand, I would hate to think that I am pulling you off your own track. You have made valuable contributions around here by following your own lead; so, I might hope you will continue with your own plans as a priority.
Heather, Anielka, and Julie posted a number of things on Fielding and Richardson a few years ago, but I wasn't ready to hear what they were saying at that time. I am determined to go back and explicitly archive those efforts. (I am currently updating the archive and index - I am only a year behind now.) Here is a teaser - here is what Anielka said about Pamela on 11/20/99.
Fielding was much younger than Richardson and he came from a different social class. Richardson's background was what we now call "blue-collar", while Fielding was from the priviledged class. My own background is blue-collar and so I have a tendency to pull for Richardson, much as it is psychologically impossible for me to do otherwise than vote for a Democrat (whatever that means these days) or buy an American-made car (whatever that means these days). The simple truth is that Fielding was a ten-times better writer than Richardson, which makes him half as good as Jane Austen - Yes! - Fielding was that good! I am going to read everything that Fielding wrote except Shamela because that would mean that I would also have to read Pamela, and I am no stinkin' masochist. (Oooh - did you know that de Sade and Jane Austen were contemporaries?)
I mean, the immediate impression you get from Fielding's Tom Jones is that it is a complete composition in the sense that you might apply that term to our lady's novels. For example, it is obvious that the first sentence of the book (and any other thereafter) is tied into the ending of the novel. On the other hand, I had the distinct impression that Richardson was making up Grandison as he went along. The fact that Richardson published his novel in various volumes over a two year period tends to fuel that suspicion. I think that had to do with economics. Richardson's livelihood depended on his publishing and it may be that pressure that I am sensing. Both Fielding and Jane Austen had the leisure to "get it right" - to make the art the first priority. I should also point out that Tom Jones is wickedly funny - very ironic. Fielding and our Lady reflect exactly the same cultural influences when it comes to humor.
There is something else - there is a counterpoint to all this. At the beginning of Tom Jones, I was very enthusiastic (and, I remain so). But, about halfway through, I realized that what Richardson implied in his epilogue is true. Things are not as bad as Fielding paints them - all people are not as insensitive or as obtuse as Fielding finds them. In that sense, he does show "Human Nature" in a too degrading light; and, it is in that manner that we see the kinship of Jane Austen to Richardson. I suspect that it is those considerations that will help us understand why it was the themes explored by Richardson that Jane Austen chose to take up in some of her most famous novels.
Dear Ashton,
You said: "On the other hand, I had the distinct impression that Richardson was making up Grandison as he went along. The fact that Richardson published his novel in various volumes over a two year period tends to fuel that suspicion."
I forget exactly where (it most likely was the 1986 edition I got from the library of Grandison), but the editor did say that he "consulted" with many prominent people while writing it and made many revisions to reflect their suggestions. So indeed, what we now have is a conglomerate of ideas.
I do hope you get the index updated. I read what you have referenced so far and, wow, Heather, Anielka, etc. have contributed so much of what I need to know, of what helps me understand what's happening! Thanks, Ladies! And Gentlemen!
Some people do not care to know much about an author, but "knowing" helps me
understand their works a lot better.
Linda
Dear Linda,
I think your recollection is quite correct; in fact, I have the impression that Clarissa was published in the same manner. Apparently, in that case, people were writing in and begging for a happy ending, but Richardson heedlessly and heartlessly killed off his heroine - men are pigs!
I hope you get a chance, sometime, to read Russell A. Hunt's essay on Samuel Johnson, Henry Fielding, and Samuel Richardson. (Oh - before I forget - Fielding's sister was also a novelist and her novels are still in print!) I very much like Hunt's assessment of the situation, but there may be more important aspects to all this - I will bother you with my own speculations in this posting. I am willing to do that because I imagine I have the same background as Johnson and Richardson and so it seems that I must be allowed to make my wild guesses about them.
You and I are Janeites and I suspect that Hunt is a Johnsonite. I say that because the point of his essay seems to be to find some way to justify Johnson's championship of Richardson and attendant condemnation of Fielding (an unpopular stance these days.) I think Hunt succeeds admirably and he does that while not taking anything away from Fielding - Bravo! Still, I think he misses some things, a few things that have nothing to do with literature or morality. I am thinking about personal style and social class.
I want to be clear: I am neither contradicting Hunt, nor am I trying to supply alternative explanations. Rather, I am trying to color things a bit, based upon my own experience with an underclass beginning followed by a personal struggle for upward mobility. Of course, I cannot claim anything like the success of a Johnson or a Richardson; but, in a qualitative way, I think I know what they experienced.
First of all, there is the matter of style: I once made some speculative observations about the way in which Johnson worked and the unfortunate consequences of that style. That posting of mine was very unpopular - I never knew why - perhaps because I seemed to be dissing a famous Englishman. I didn't care why I struck a discordant note, because I thought I was in the right, and I still think so. And, I apply the same speculations to Richardson; I mean, I think that novels like Grandison are too long - way too long, because he was under pressure to publish in order to put bread on the table. Richardson's Grandison is 1,600 pages - if Jane Austen had written that same novel, it would have been 350 pages and contained more detail. Our Lady would also have taken five times as long to write it. But, the crucial point is that Jane Austen's circumstances were such that she could afford to take her time. And, the same can be said of Fielding - As a result, Tom Jones is a timeless classic. I can't help but wonder whether Johnson sensed Fielding's advantage and resented it on some level. That would have been true in my case.
Finally, there is the matter of social class. I always harbored a secret contempt for middle-class persons, their advantages in background and opportunity, and for their attitudes. That is the sort of thing you fight off, but it will break through sometimes to set up some prejudice in your mind. I am not saying that Johnson could never be a fair judge of true talent and beauty. But remember, Fielding started things with his ridicule of Pamela and that begged for taking sides. It is only natural that Johnson would recognize a soul brother in Richardson and been inclined in his favor.
Again, my intention is to offer only a nuance on Hunt's basic theme.
Links