_Slow growth of her fame--Ill success of first attempts at
publication--Two Reviews of her works contrasted_.
Seldom has any literary reputation been of such slow growth as that of
Jane Austen. Readers of the present day know the rank that is generally
assigned to her. They have been told by Archbishop Whately, in his
review of her works, and by Lord Macaulay, in his review of Madame
D'Arblay's, the reason why the highest place is to be awarded to Jane
Austen, as a truthful drawer of character, and why she is to be classed
with those who have approached nearest, in that respect, to the great
master Shakspeare. They see her safely placed, by such authorities, in
her niche, not indeed amongst the highest orders of genius, but in one
confessedly her own, in our British temple of literary fame; and it may
be difficult to make them believe how coldly her works were at first
received, and how few readers had any appreciation of their peculiar
merits. Sometimes a friend or neighbour, who chanced to know of our
connection with the author, would condescend to speak with moderate
approbation of 'Sense and Sensibility,' or 'Pride and Prejudice'; but if
they had known that we, in our secret thoughts, classed her with Madame
D'Arblay or Miss Edgeworth, or even with some other novel writers of the
day whose names are now scarcely remembered, they would have considered
it an amusing instance of family conceit. To the multitude her works
appeared tame and commonplace, {136a} poor in colouring, and sadly
deficient in incident and interest. It is true that we were sometimes
cheered by hearing that a different verdict had been pronounced by more
competent judges: we were told how some great statesman or distinguished
poet held these works in high estimation; we had the satisfaction of
believing that they were most admired by the best judges, and comforted
ourselves with Horace's 'satis est Equitem mihi plaudere.' So much was
this the case, that one of the ablest men of my acquaintance {136b} said,
in that kind of jest which has much earnest in it, that he had
established it in his own mind, as a new test of ability, whether people
_could_ or _could not_ appreciate Miss Austen's merits.
But though such golden opinions were now and then gathered in, yet the
wide field of public taste yielded no adequate return either in praise or
profit. Her reward was not to be the quick return of the cornfield, but
the slow growth of the tree which is to endure to another generation. Her
first attempts at publication were very discouraging. In November, 1797,
her father wrote the following letter to Mr. Cadell:--
'Sir,--I have in my possession a manuscript novel, comprising 3 vols.,
about the length of Miss Burney's "Evelina." As I am well aware of
what consequence it is that a work of this sort shd make its first
appearance under a respectable name, I apply to you. I shall be much
obliged therefore if you will inform me whether you choose to be
concerned in it, what will be the expense of publishing it at the
author's risk, and what you will venture to advance for the property
of it, if on perusal it is approved of. Should you give any
encouragement, I will send you the work.
'I am, Sir, your humble Servant,
'GEORGE AUSTEN.'
'Steventon, near Overton, Hants,
'1st Nov. 1797.'
This proposal was declined by return of post! The work thus summarily
rejected must have been 'Pride and Prejudice.'
The fate of 'Northanger Abbey' was still more humiliating. It was sold,
in 1803, to a publisher in Bath, for ten pounds, but it found so little
favour in his eyes, that he chose to abide by his first loss rather than
risk farther expense by publishing such a work. It seems to have lain
for many years unnoticed in his drawers; somewhat as the first chapters
of 'Waverley' lurked forgotten amongst the old fishing-tackle in Scott's
cabinet. Tilneys, Thorpes, and Morlands consigned apparently to eternal
oblivion! But when four novels of steadily increasing success had given
the writer some confidence in herself, she wished to recover the
copyright of this early work. One of her brothers undertook the
negotiation. He found the purchaser very willing to receive back his
money, and to resign all claim to the copyright. When the bargain was
concluded and the money paid, but not till then, the negotiator had the
satisfaction of informing him that the work which had been so lightly
esteemed was by the author of 'Pride and Prejudice.' I do not think that
she was herself much mortified by the want of early success. She wrote
for her own amusement. Money, though acceptable, was not necessary for
the moderate expenses of her quiet home. Above all, she was blessed with
a cheerful contented disposition, and an humble mind; and so lowly did
she esteem her own claims, that when she received 150_l_. from the sale
of 'Sense and Sensibility,' she considered it a prodigious recompense for
that which had cost her nothing. It cannot be supposed, however, that
she was altogether insensible to the superiority of her own workmanship
over that of some contemporaries who were then enjoying a brief
popularity. Indeed a few touches in the following extracts from two of
her letters show that she was as quicksighted to absurdities in
composition as to those in living persons.
'Mr. C.'s opinion is gone down in my list; but as my paper relates
only to "Mansfield Park," I may fortunately excuse myself from
entering Mr. D's. I will redeem my credit with him by writing a close
imitation of "Self-Control," as soon as I can. I will improve upon
it. My heroine shall not only be wafted down an American river in a
boat by herself. She shall cross the Atlantic in the same way; and
never stop till she reaches Gravesend.'
'We have got "Rosanne" in our Society, and find it much as you
describe it; very good and clever, but tedious. Mrs. Hawkins' great
excellence is on serious subjects. There are some very delightful
conversations and reflections on religion: but on lighter topics I
think she falls into many absurdities; and, as to love, her heroine
has very comical feelings. There are a thousand improbabilities in
the story. Do you remember the two Miss Ormsdens introduced just at
last? Very flat and unnatural. Madelle. Cossart is rather my
passion.'
Two notices of her works appeared in the 'Quarterly Review.' One in
October 1815, and another, more than three years after her death, in
January 1821. The latter article is known to have been from the pen of
Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin. {140} They differ much from
each other in the degree of praise which they award, and I think also it
may be said, in the ability with which they are written. The first
bestows some approval, but the other expresses the warmest admiration.
One can scarcely be satisfied with the critical acumen of the former
writer, who, in treating of 'Sense and Sensibility,' takes no notice
whatever of the vigour with which many of the characters are drawn, but
declares that 'the interest and _merit_ of the piece depends _altogether_
upon the behaviour of the elder sister!' Nor is he fair when, in 'Pride
and Prejudice,' he represents Elizabeth's change of sentiments towards
Darcy as caused by the sight of his house and grounds. But the chief
discrepancy between the two reviewers is to be found in their
appreciation of the commonplace and silly characters to be found in these
novels. On this point the difference almost amounts to a contradiction,
such as one sometimes sees drawn up in parallel columns, when it is
desired to convict some writer or some statesman of inconsistency. The
Reviewer, in 1815, says: 'The faults of these works arise from the minute
detail which the author's plan comprehends. Characters of folly or
simplicity, such as those of old Woodhouse and Miss Bates, are ridiculous
when first presented, but if too often brought forward, or too long dwelt
on, their prosing is apt to become as tiresome in fiction as in real
society.' The Reviewer, in 1821, on the contrary, singles out the fools
as especial instances of the writer's abilities, and declares that in
this respect she shows a regard to character hardly exceeded by
Shakspeare himself. These are his words: 'Like him (Shakspeare) she
shows as admirable a discrimination in the character of fools as of
people of sense; a merit which is far from common. To invent indeed a
conversation full of wisdom or of wit requires that the writer should
himself possess ability; but the converse does not hold good, it is no
fool that can describe fools well; and many who have succeeded pretty
well in painting superior characters have failed in giving individuality
to those weaker ones which it is necessary to introduce in order to give
a faithful representation of real life: they exhibit to us mere folly in
the abstract, forgetting that to the eye of the skilful naturalist the
insects on a leaf present as wide differences as exist between the lion
and the elephant. Slender, and Shallow, and Aguecheek, as Shakspeare has
painted them, though equally fools, resemble one another no more than
Richard, and Macbeth, and Julius Caesar; and Miss Austen's {142} Mrs.
Bennet, Mr. Rushworth, and Miss Bates are no more alike than her Darcy,
Knightley, and Edmund Bertram. Some have complained indeed of finding
her fools too much like nature, and consequently tiresome. There is no
disputing about tastes; all we can say is, that such critics must
(whatever deference they may outwardly pay to received opinions) find the
"Merry Wives of Windsor" and "Twelfth Night" very tiresome; and that
those who look with pleasure at Wilkie's pictures, or those of the Dutch
school, must admit that excellence of imitation may confer attraction on
that which would be insipid or disagreeable in the reality. Her
minuteness of detail has also been found fault with; but even where it
produces, at the time, a degree of tediousness, we know not whether that
can justly be reckoned a blemish, which is absolutely essential to a very
high excellence. Now it is absolutely impossible, without this, to
produce that thorough acquaintance with the characters which is necessary
to make the reader heartily interested in them. Let any one cut out from
the "Iliad" or from Shakspeare's plays everything (we are far from saying
that either might not lose some parts with advantage, but let him reject
everything) which is absolutely devoid of importance and interest _in_
_itself_; and he will find that what is left will have lost more than
half its charms. We are convinced that some writers have diminished the
effect of their works by being scrupulous to admit nothing into them
which had not some absolute and independent merit. They have acted like
those who strip off the leaves of a fruit tree, as being of themselves
good for nothing, with the view of securing more nourishment to the
fruit, which in fact cannot attain its full maturity and flavour without
them.'
The world, I think, has endorsed the opinion of the later writer; but it
would not be fair to set down the discrepancy between the two entirely to
the discredit of the former. The fact is that, in the course of the
intervening five years, these works had been read and reread by many
leaders in the literary world. The public taste was forming itself all
this time, and 'grew by what it fed on.' These novels belong to a class
which gain rather than lose by frequent perusals, and it is probable that
each Reviewer represented fairly enough the prevailing opinions of
readers in the year when each wrote.
Since that time, the testimonies in favour of Jane Austen's works have
been continual and almost unanimous. They are frequently referred to as
models; nor have they lost their first distinction of being especially
acceptable to minds of the highest order. I shall indulge myself by
collecting into the next chapter instances of the homage paid to her by
such persons.