The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Feb. 20, 2001
Dear Folks,
I am going to quote from Fielding's The History of Tom Jones (1749), Book 9, Chapter 1. Fielding divided his "History" into "Books" rather than volumes, and there are 18 Books in all. (My nice, hardbound copy is about 780 pages.) Fielding always began a Book with some philosophical observations made, apparently, while his tongue was firmly in cheek - his cheek. On the other hand, he is a little bit serious as well. In this particular rambling, he is musing over what makes a good novelist ("history" writer). I wouldn't be bothering you with this, if I didn't think that he is on to something. I have placed an emphasis with italics on key words in each paragraph not to insult your intelligence, but to make easy references for any future discussions that Fielding might inspire with this list of criteria. By the way, it is my opinion that one should substitute the word "experience" where Fielding writes the word "conversation" - what say you?
"... To prevent therefore, for the future, such intemperate abuses of leisure, of letters, and of the liberty of the press, especially as the world seems at present to be more than usually threatened with them, I shall here venture to mention some qualifications, every one of which are in a pretty high degree necessary to this order of historians."
"The first is, genius, without a full vein of which no study, says Horace, can avail us. By genius I would understand that the power or rather those powers of the mind, which are capable of penetrating into all things within our reach and knowledge, and of distinguishing their essential differences. These are no other than invention and judgment; and they are both called by the collective name of genius, as they are of those gifts of nature which we bring with us into the world. ... Now [invention] is the undisputed province of judgment, and yet some few men of wit have agreed with all the dull fellows in the world in representing these two to have been seldom or never the property of one and the same person."
"But though they should be so, they are not sufficient for our purpose, without a good share of learning; for which I could again cite the authority of Horace, and of many others, if any was necessary to prove that tools are of no service to a workman, when they are not sharpened by art, or when he wants rules to direct him in his work, or hath no matter to work upon. All these uses are supplied by learning; for nature can only furnish with capacity; or, as I have chose to illustrate it, with the tools of our profession; learning must fit them for use, must direct them in it, and lastly, must contribute part at least of the materials. A competent knowledge of history and of the belleslettres is here absolutely necessary; and without this share of knowledge at least, to affect the character of an historian, is as vain as to endeavour at building a house without timber or mortar, or brick or stone. Homer and Milton, who, though they added the ornament of numbers to their works, were both historians of our order, were masters of all the learning of their times."
"Again, there is another sort of knowledge, beyond the power of learning to bestow, and this is to be had by conversation. So necessary is this to the understanding the characters of men, that none are more ignorant of them than those learned pedants whose lives have been entirely consumed in colleges, and among books; for however exquisitely human nature may have been described by writers, the true practical system can be learnt only in the world. Indeed, the like happens in every other kind of knowledge. Neither physic nor law are to be practically known from books. Nay, the farmer, the planter, the gardener, must perfect by experience what he hath acquired the rudiments of by reading. How accurately soever the ingenious Mr. Miller may have described the plant, he himself would advise his disciple to see it in the garden. As we must perceive, that after the nicest strokes of a Shakespear or a Jonson, of a Wycherly or an Otway, some touches of nature will escape the reader, which the judicious action of a Garrick, of a Cibber, or a Clive,* can convey to him; so, on the real stage, the character shows himself in a stronger and bolder light than he can be described. And if this be the case in those fine and nervous descriptions which great authors themselves have taken from life, how much more strongly will it hold when the writer himself takes his lines not from nature, but from books? Such characters are only the faint copy of a copy, and can have neither the justness nor spirit of an original."
"*There is a peculiar propriety in mentioning this great actor, and these two most justly celebrated actresses, in this place, as they have all formed themselves on the study of nature only, and not on the imitation of their predecessors. Hence they have been able to excel all who have gone before them; a degree of merit which the servile herd of imitators can never possibly arrive at."
"Now this conversation in our historian must be universal, that is, with all ranks and degrees of men; for the knowledge of what is called high life will not instruct him in low; nor, e converso, will his being acquainted with the inferior part of mankind teach him the manners of the superior. And though it may be thought that the knowledge of either may sufficiently enable him to describe at least that in which he hath been conversant, yet he will even here fall greatly short of perfection; for the follies of either rank do in reality illustrate each other. For instance, the affectation of high life appears more glaring and ridiculous from the simplicity of the low; and again, the rudeness and barbarity of this latter, strikes with much stronger ideas of absurdity, when contrasted with, and opposed to, the politeness which controls the former. Besides, to say the truth, the manners of our historian will be improved by both these conversations; for in the one he will easily find examples of plainness, honesty, and sincerity; in the other of refinement, elegance, and a liberality of spirit; which last quality I myself have scarce ever seen in men of low birth and education."
"Nor will all the qualities I have hitherto given my historian avail him, unless he have what is generally meant by a good heart, and be capable of feeling. The author who will make me weep, says Horace, must first weep himself. In reality, no man can paint a distress well which he doth not feel while he is painting it; nor do I doubt, but that the most pathetic and affecting scenes have been writ with tears. In the same manner it is with the ridiculous. I am convinced I never make my reader laugh heartily but where I have laughed before him; unless it should happen at any time, that instead of laughing with me he should be inclined to laugh at me. Perhaps this may have been the case at some passages in this chapter, from which apprehension I will here put an end to it."
I very much like all this. My question to you is, how does your favorite author measure up with this yardstick?
Dear Ash,
My question to you is, how does your favorite author measure up with this yardstick? Since your question requires no answer, I will only add a few comments.
He wrote those words over 250 years ago - amazing! Judging by some of the "literature" written since then, there are some writers who should have read those paragraphs more closely. The concepts he states are some that have actually been "floating" around in the back of my mind, though never put into words, especially since reading our Dear Jane in the last 2 years. I am still astounded at the amount of knowledge possessed by people so long ago.
I am sorry if I seem to be taking a "dig" at some of our learned scholars of today, but of all the teaching in literature, creative writing, and associated studies, why has this been overlooked? Although I have not taken such courses, I am judging by the lack of "Jane Austens" in the world. There are a few exceptions (and probably some of which I am unaware - I don't profess to know everything) such as L. M. Montgomery. Bruce is so well read that he could probably make a list as long as your arm.
Fielding's comment about actors answered a question I had about "performing" Shakespeare. Shakespeare put so little stage directions in his writing I wondered how the actors knew what to do other than imitating those who went before. According to Fielding those actors possessing the qualities he writes about can "perform" without copious directions. It was also brought to my attention that the dramatist and director (who also should posses those Fielding qualities) help supply some of the necessary "tools".
Final thought: Those qualities listed by Fielding would come in handy for a lot of professions, not exclusively for "historians". Thanks for pointing this passage out makes me wonder what else is in store for us. Now you know why I want to read some of the books that our Dear Jane read, especially in view of what I "discovered" in Udolpho.
Dear Ashton,
I am not so surprised at our Dear Jane's "worldly" knowledge and here is why. If you remember I come from the South. For a reason I could not explain until now, I felt a "kinship" (like a kindred spirit sort of thing) with her. According to my genealogy, all my ancestors arrived in the US prior to, or about 1800. I am almost sure they were all English. They brought with them the culture and values of Jane's time. Right after the Louisiana Purchase (1803) they migrated from the Carolina coast (one came from Maine) to Louisiana. (I know, I know, Oglethorpe populated Georgia by emptying the jails in England or some such story, but let's not examine my ancestors too closely!) In La. they were practically isolated from the influence of the "Victorian Age" in England.
In the '50s when I grew up not much had changed, culturally speaking which brings me to the point. One of my Pastor's children once told me that she was a P.K. (Preacher's Kid). She also explained that P.K.'s were a little wild because of the strictness of their parents. Not "down in the gutter" wild, but more like irritating mischievousness. For example, one son smoked after church. A daughter (who wore only dresses) wore blue jeans after she was married. I don't really want to imply that the "strictness" was harsh it is simply that the best behavior was "expected" from Preacher's kids. That attitude may be a reflection of JA's time and would account for her "wildness".
That said, I have no trouble believing Jane's "worldly" side. And with all those lively brothers and male students in the house, God help her! There was probably not much she didn't know.
Dear Linda,
I didn't mean to suggest that Jane Austen was sneaking a peek at a surreptitiously obtained copy of Hogarth's engravings. I meant to say that her society, in general, was far more hip than the Victorian. I can't see how Fielding and Hogarth could have had an audience with the same level of respectability a century later. And, more importantly, will we not think of our Lady's novels a bit differently if we keep that fact in mind?
Also, I don't think of Fielding's and Hogarth's vision as "worldly" or "wild" so much as I think it a dark vision. I believe Jane Austen's vision was not much like Fielding's, and I don't say that for moral reasons; rather, I believe her view is a more positive assessment of human nature - a view more like that of Richardson's.
Dear Ash,
You are quite right about your assessment of Jane & Co.'s attitude towards Hogarth, etc. What I was trying to say was that our attitude today seems to put Jane & Co. on a very high moral pedestal. I wrote the "P.K." anecdote to illustrate the fact that preacher's kids, then and now, are no different than the rest of us. Where I grew up the mindset was that if you were a P.K. you were supposed to be "morally" better than the rest. The only reason she could get away with her "wildness" is because her parents were "Regency" not "Victorian".
I am not always careful about separating Regency from Victorian - they just get lumped together as "in the past". And you rightly asked, "And, more importantly, will we not think of our Lady's novels a bit differently if we keep that fact in mind?" The answer is "yes". I thought my generation was the worse in the world (our parents came down on us and acted as if they had never done those things - and we believed it!). Then as I grew up I found out we had not discovered anything new under the sun. That may be another reason why we don't want to believe Jane could be "risqué" [with an "accent" on the "e", kind sir - I still can't do accents]
I would certainly like to believe that her view of human nature was positive. Come to think about it, I really do not see any "hopelessness". Good point!
From the Meister: I left in your request for an accent so that I could respond in the "clear". I do accents in my word processor and then copy and "paste". To get an accent, hold down the Ctrl-key while typing the accent you want (say, a tilde); release the Ctrl-key and you won't see any result - but, if you then type a letter, it will appear with the proper accent. Here are some examples of what you can do that way: è, é, ê, à, ñ, ö, ü, etc. Notice that ~ and ^ are upper case keys so that you must simultaneously depress the "shift"-key when using the Ctrl-key in those cases. You achieve the umlaut, say ö, with the colon (also an upper-case key.) Incidentally, the folks at the BBC pronounce Wollstonecraft's name "Wellstonecraft" which makes me think that her name was once spelled "Wöllstonecraft."
Dear Linda,
As you know, I am no expert but I have definite ideas about the Victorian age and the distortion it causes in most of our generation's views of Jane Austen's novels. As I have often said it, the view from here suffers aberration as it passes through that unfortunate intervening age. To me, the Victorian was an age of myth-making - the English making up myths about themselves. In part, that was because the nineteenth century was the English century, so they might be forgiven for imagining things about themselves. (We, in America, have gone through the same process in this century - I mean the last century.) Also, the up-tight attitudes and rules are almost required for empire-building and industrialization.
Quite simply, Jane Austen missed all that. So, I read our Lady's novels with the idea that Jane Austen was a grown-up, knowing person. I cannot believe that Jane Austen did not know - or chose to ignore - that men and women had sex - all the time. For example, I always assumed that Elizabeth Bennet was about to be bedded by Wickham. That view outrages some people to whom I say, "Oh yeah! - well, he bedded her sister well enough, didn't he?" If I could not take this grown-up view of Jane Austen, I would not like her novels so well. It is just that Jane Austen implied matters about which Henry Fielding was very explicit.
Incidentally, I have come to believe that the current views of Tom Jones are distorted as well. Only, in this case, it is the intervening period of the American '60s that causes all the aberration.
Dear Ash,
Your statement ("Quite simply, Jane Austen missed all that.") is exactly why I want to read some of the books she read (Udolpho, etc.) and familiarize myself with her times in order to dispel some of my own distorted opinions.
Since you bring to our attention (in your own inimitable way) her knowledge of sex, I will add that it must be as you say, because how else could she explain away such large families. I believe there were farm animals around which could not be ignored and were talked about. When I get around to reading Fielding, etc. I am sure it will clear up this question somewhat. BTW I have now collected books by Richardson (1), Burney (1), Radcliffe (2), Fielding (3), Inchbald (1), Edgeworth (1) and Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. When I get through all those I might know something.
And Wow! I had never consciously thought about Elizabeth and Wickham in that way. But now that I do think about it, Elizabeth was no heiress and Wickham was after money, as in the case of Mary King (she had more than Lizzie) so how could his motives towards Lizzie been honorable? I think not. Hmm... Fielding was explicit, was he? I had better go check that out for myself, oh, excuse me, did I say that? I wouldn’t want to give you the wrong impression! I guess it’s too late now. Oh, well.
Dear Linda,
Wickham's motives only slowly dawn on Elizabeth Bennet as well. To understand what kind of a guy Wickham was, one need only excerpt from Aunt Gardiner's letter to Elizabeth written to explain Darcy's dealings with Wickham and Lydia after that couple had been found living together. (The underlining is my own.)
"... [Darcy] saw Wickham, and afterwards insisted on seeing Lydia. His first object with her, he acknowledged, had been to persuade her to quit her present disgraceful situation, and return to her friends as soon as they could be prevailed on to receive her, offering his assistance as far as it would go. But he found Lydia absolutely resolved on remaining where she was. She cared for none of her friends; she wanted no help of his; she would not hear of leaving Wickham. She was sure that they should be married some time or other, and it did not much signify when ... it only remained, [Darcy] thought, to secure and expedite a marriage, which, in his very first conversation with Wickham, he easily learnt had never been his design ... and [Wickham] scrupled not to lay all the ill consequences of Lydia's flight on her own folly alone. ..."
Lydia was sixteen years old and Wickham in his late twenties.
Earlier, Elizabeth had started to understand her own situation with Wickham when she was reacting to Darcy's letter which explained his own dealings with Wickham. Elizabeth thought,
"How differently did everything now appear in which [Wickham] was concerned! His attentions to Miss King were now the consequence of views solely and hatefully mercenary; ... His behavior to herself could now have had no tolerable motive; he had either been deceived with regard to her fortune, or had been gratifying his vanity by encouraging the preference which she believed she had most incautiously shown."
Well, she doesn't quite get it - not exactly - but, Jane Austen could not allow a complete understanding because, otherwise, Elizabeth would have been far adamant than she had been about keeping Lydia at Longborne.
And, what do you say about Willoughby's attentions to Marianne Dashwood? Remember, unbeknownst to Marianne, Willoughby had already seduced and impregnated Brandon's ward.
Dear Linda,
I don't know about you, but I am really enjoying the Lincoln series. I did notice that the basic outline follows that of Sandburg's biography, which I thought was pooh-poohed these days. I am glad to find that I was wrong about that. Of the two expert commentators, the woman, Kerns-Godwin, is far better. I don't see how Professor Donald can say that Lincoln did not favor abolishing slavery where it already existed - I mean how can he reconcile such an idea with the "house-divided" speech? (We have to eliminate that "publish or perish" thing so that our best minds can function better.)
I am so pleased that you like Amanda Root as well as I do. She was an absolutely superb Anne Elliot.
I am sorry that M.T. decided to do still another Anna Karenina because there are at least two other fine versions already; one starring Jacqueline Bisset and the other starring Sophie Marceau. What the world really needs is a decent version of Mansfield Park or Northanger Abbey. And will people please stop trying to produce Dickens on film! - those are always failures, and always will be, because a visually explicit representation of Dickens can only highlight all his flaws. Give it up! - it will never work.
And Antiques Roadshow? - Don't get me started on Antiques Roadshow!
Dear Ash,
I haven't really studied Lincoln as I should have; that is the main reason I wanted to watch the PBS series. BTW it is "done" by the same man who did Napoleon.
Fortunately, I am taping it all because with the kids running around and me dozing off, I am not catching it all. I will have to watch it when I can concentrate. Pitiable!
If I can get my hands on the other versions of Anna I would like to compare them.
At the risk of dodging bullets, what is the matter with Antiques Roadshow?
Dear Ash,
My problem with Antiques Roadshow is that it is organized as a greed show. All those poor people get so tense at the exciting climax when the expert announces the value of the item. Another thing, is that it is cheap to produce, so the PBS outlets devote too many prime-time hours to it - sometimes as many as six or seven hours per week. I have access to two PBS outlets on our cable, and too often my choice is between Antiques Roadshow and a John Wayne movie - spare me! However, Bravo and A&E have deteriorated even faster than PBS. What is going on? BBC-America is a flop, in my opinion. My faith in and loyalty to the CSPAN channels remains.
The Lincoln mini-series was well done. Is your inattention to Lincoln a characteristic of your region? He is a great hero in California. Does his wife remind you of Scarlet O'Hara? I wonder if her grief over the loss of her family to the Confederacy was expressed as grief for Willy. I think it was - must have been. Her pressure on Lincoln to punish the South after the war may have had the same source.
If you ever read War and Peace, be sure to read the epilogue; there, you will find a theory of history that is identical to my own (individuals don't count, only social conditions.) Also, it is a beautiful novel, as is Anna.
Dear Ash,
Well, don’t get ME started on the quality of TV programming. I see what you mean. My attention to Roadshow has slacked off since the newness has worn off. I was just curious as to what your problem was about it.
Your question Is your inattention to Lincoln a characteristic of your region? will bring on a rant. Dave might give you a better (and different) answer. Guessing at your meaning of "inattention" (it was late and I was sleepy nothing to do with the subject matter) are you referring to a "Southern" attitude? If so, in school everything was taught in a straightforward manner. We had to memorize the beginning of the Gettysburg Address, etc. I don’t remember any disparaging remarks made by our teachers or in our books. What I am now aware of, is the fact that we only skimmed the surface. I wish someone had required a more "in depth" study. I have learned more on my own than was taught in class, and even that is not deep enough. This program has really heightened my interest in Lincoln. Besides, my own attitude (as it was learned at home rather than school) has changed over the years, and I am beginning to think that Abe and I think alike. But I have to figure out exactly what he did think. Any recommendations to add to my "reading list"?
I am not even aware of Mary’s pressure on Lincoln to punish the South. I know that the word "carpetbagger" was a dirty word. Most of what I know is based on GWTW. Now you are really making me admit my ignorance. Where, oh, where can the real truth be found? I have always wanted to read a book about Mary L. because I wanted to examine her problems from a woman’s viewpoint. This series seem to touch on that area a bit, and, as you stated, as to the source of her grief.
I will make a note about War and Peace. I do want to read
it.
Linda
Links
