What Made Willoughby a Scoundrel?

Austen’s villains, such as Willoughby, could be considered villains even by our modern-day standards. Willoughby was a man who abandoned girl after girl for want of a richer bride. But what was it that made Willoughby a scoundrel by the standards of Regency society, and resulted in a scandal?

                                                               Images from: imdb.com.

In Georgette Heyer’s Regency World, Jennifer Kloester writes that it was acceptable for a Regency gentleman to have several affairs before and after marriage, as long as he played the part of a responsible husband and father. “Only a scoundrel…would stoop to seducing a respectable girl of good family and subsequently deserting her and their bastard child. …society perceived his sin not in having fathered an illegitimate infant or having multiple affairs but in his not providing for the child.” (p.48)

So, according to the rules of Regency society, it was just about acceptable for a man to be a libertine, but not to ignore his moral duty, which is what ultimately labelled Willoughby as a scoundrel.

Rules and Etiquette of Regency Society

It is sometimes perplexing to read a Jane Austen novel as we do not always relate to the rules and customs of the period. Understanding what did and what did not constitute acceptable behaviour at the time, we can follow the plot and the character references better.

One book to shed light on the social etiquette of the time is Georgette Heyer’s Regency World, written by Jennifer Kloester. Although she writes with specific reference to Georgette Heyer’s novels, we can equally well use this book as a guide to the world of Jane Austen. 

Here is an interesting and helpful list of rules and etiquette in Regency Society, from Chapter 8.

• Social connections were usually formed through a series of meetings, usually beginning with morning calls to the homes of those in fashionable society.
• Morning calls were generally undertaken in the afternoon.
• A morning call did not usually exceed half an hour.
• In London, a woman paid morning calls to her social equals or inferiors but not to her social superiors until they had called on her or left a card.
• A person new to the city or country area waited for calls of ceremony to be made to them by those already established before they made a call of their own.
• In the country it was acceptable for a man to make a call or leave a card with someone of higher social standing if they were new to the neighbourhood.
• A gentleman calling on a family asked for the mistress of the house if the visit was a social one, and the master if it was a business call.
• A card was left if the lady of the house was indisposed or not at home. It was acceptable for a gentleman to call on a daughter of the house if she were well above marriageable age or a long-standing friend.
• Callers were received by men in their business room or library, by women in the morning room or in their drawing-room.
• A lady, either married or single, did not call at a man's lodging.
• A lady was permitted to drive her own carriage, but only about the town attended by a groom, or by herself on the family estate.
• A lady never drove on he open road or engaged in any kind of public contest or race.
• It was acceptable to go out riding or driving with a man as long as a groom or other chaperone was in attendance.
• It was acceptable to go out driving or riding with a man without a chaperone if he was a relative of close family friend.
• Galloping in Hyde Park was prohibited.
• During the season it was essential to be seen in Hyde Park during the promenade hour of 5.00 to 6.00 pm.
• Servants and social inferiors were always kept at a proper distance but without arrogance, pride or aloofness.
• Servants were spoken to with exactly the right degree of civility and never with the casual informality with which a person would speak to an equal.
• Neither a lady nor a gentleman discussed private business in the presence of servants.
• Servants were generally ignored at mealtimes.
• It was essential to dress for dinner.
• When going in to dinner, the man of the house always escorted the highest-ranking lady present. The remaining dinner guests also paired up and entered the dining room in order of rank.
• Dinner guests were seated according to rank, with the highest-ranking lady sitting on the right-hand side of the host, who always sat at the head of the table.
• When dining informally it was acceptable to talk across or round the table.
• At a formal dinner one did not talk across the dinner table but confined conversation to those on one's left and right.
• Ladies were expected to retire to the withdrawing room after dinner, leaving the men to their port and their 'male' talk.
• A hostess should never give the signal to rise from the table until everyone at the table had finished.
• It was acceptable to offer one's snuff-box to the company but not to ask for a pinch of snuff from anyone else.
• Overt displays of emotion were generally considered ill-bred.
• Laughter was usually moderated in polite company, particularly among women.
• Men could give themselves up to unrestrained mirth, provided they were in the company of other men or among women of low repute.
• Well-bred persons controlled their features, their physical bodies and their speech when in company.
• A lady always spoke, sat and moved with elegance and propriety.
• A bow or curtsy was always made when meeting or speaking to royalty.
• Children always bowed or curtsied on meeting their parents for the first time each day.
• A bow or curtsy was executed according to the status and relationship of the person encountered and with regard to the particular circumstance.
• A bow was made on entering or leaving a room, at the beginning and end of a dance, and on encountering any person one wished to acknowledge.
• Debutantes did not stand up for more than two consecutive dances with the same partner.
• Only those young ladies who were 'out' danced the waltz and then only with an acceptable partner, usually someone she already knew, or to whom she had been formally introduced.
• Full mourning dress was worn for an appropriate period, which varied depending on the mourner's relationship to the deceased. A person did not go into society while in full mourning. Half mourning (usually grey or lilac) could be worn after an acceptable period of mourning had been observed and the mourner could choose to attend social functions but not fully particpate in them.
• To be thought 'fast' or to show a want of conduct was the worst possible social stigma.
• A lady never forced herself upon a man's notice.
• No lady was to be seen driving or walking down St James's Street where several of the gentlemen's clubs were located.
• No lady was to walk or drive unattended down Piccadilly.
• No female was to refer to any of those male activities about which a lady should feign ignorance.
• A husband was expected to keep his indecorous activities and less cultured friends separate from his marriage.
• A wife was expected to be blind to her husband's affairs.
• A married woman could take a lover once she had presented her husband with an heir and so long as she was discreet about her extramarital relationships.
• Women were expected to be ignorant of any proposed duel.
• A lady did not engage in any activity that might give rise to gossip.
• Subjects of an intimate nature such as childbirth were never discussed publicly.
• When out socially a lady did not wear a shawl for warmth no matter how cold the weather.
• A gentleman was expected to immediately pay his gambling debts, or any debt of honour.
• It was unacceptable to owe money to a stranger.
• It was acceptable to owe money to a tradesperson.
• It was considered bad form to borrow money from a woman.
• A female did not engage in finance or commerce if she had a man, such as a husband, father or brother, to do it for her.
• A lady did not visit a moneylender or a pawnbroker.
• Extremes of emotion and public outbursts were unacceptable, although it could be acceptable for a woman to have the vapours, faint, or suffer from hysteria if confronted by vulgarity or an unpleasant scene.
• A well-bred person behaved with courteous dignity to acquaintance and stranger alike, but kept at arm's length any who presumed too great a familiarity. Icy politeness was a well-bred man's or woman's best weapon in putting 'vulgar mushrooms' in their place.
• A well-bred person maintained an elegance of manners and deportment.
• A well-bred person walked upright, stood and moved with grace and ease.
• A well-bred person was never awkward in either manner or behaviour and could respond to any social situation with calm assurance.
• A well-bred person was never pretentious or ostentatious.
• Vulgarity was unacceptable in any form and was to be continually guarded against.
• Indiscretions, liaisons and outrageous behaviour were forgivable but vulgarity never was.

Elinor and Marianne in the 21st Century

I’ve never been a fan of reading sequels to Jane Austen’s novels, as I feel that they simply don’t do justice to her writing. However, as I was reading Sense and Sensibility the other day, I couldn’t help but visualise what Elinor and Marianne would be like, had Jane Austen set the novel in the 21st Century. I will now share some of the ideas that came to me.

First of all, the modern-day Elinor and Marianne would certainly have pursued careers. Perhaps their characters would have been older, too, as marriages nowadays rarely take place during the late teens as they do in the novel.

Image from: http://imdb.to/iQOGyG

Houses and homes are an important theme throughout Sense and Sensibility. Elinor, who has plenty of common sense and is the first to take an initiative to find a suitable family home for the Dashwoods, might have made a good estate agent. She would have good business acumen and, although she might not make much money as an estate agent, she would be able to live comfortably within her means, being so economical and wise. On the other hand, she might make a good architect, too, what with her excellent skills at sketching.

Marianne, on the other hand, being a dreamer and an artistic soul, might be less practical about her career choices. Perhaps the modern-day Marianne would dream of the career of a singer/songwriter, living on very little but loving her freedom. I visualise her living in a small but quaint flat in a romantic, leafy area, where she would spend her evenings playing her guitar and singing melancholy love songs. 

                                               Image from: http://bit.ly/jymQJA

John Willoughby would probably have a penchant for fast motorbikes with which he would impress the modern-day girls, taking them on wild rides around the countryside. This modern scoundrel who would drift from one girl to another, would not be a hard-worker in the traditional sense and would probably earn his money by making risky investments in the stock market.

Image from: http://imdb.to/iU4YhB

The more laid-back Edward Ferrars, on the other hand, would be unlikely to have a well-payed, fashionable job and would live in a less fancy area. He might be a struggling academic living within modest means on a university campus and drive an old Fiat.

Image from: http://imdb.to/aEVyKw

The middle-aged Colonel Brandon – or simply known as Brandon – would be well-to-do and in an established position, perhaps a business man with plenty of work experience behind him. He would have worked abroad and seen much of the world, and live in a comfortable house of his own…

…I could go on!

Have you ever tried imagining any of Jane Austen’s heroes living in the modern day and age and if so, what did you visualise them to be like?

Metropolitan Youth Under the Guidance of Jane Austen

Metropolitan, a film directed by Whit Stillman in 1990, is said to be loosely based on Mansfield Park. Therefore it may come as no surprise that I was keen to see how one of my favourite novels has inspired a modern film-maker.

Like Mansfield Park, Metropolitan is a comedy of manners, but it is a modern take, set amongst a group of upper-class urban youth in Manhattan. A group of young girls and men are on holiday from college and get together for the debutante season. Dressed in smocks and white ruffles, they attend formal ball room parties and after parties at each others’ houses and get into intense discussions on social status and mobility.

Nick Smith, a Harvard student, introduces Tom Townsend, a less well-off Princeton student, to the group as an escort for the girls. One of the girls, Audrey Rouget, is soon charmed by his nonconformist views and strong principles. However, like Mansfield park, Metropolitan is largely a story of unrequited love. While Audrey – our modern day Fanny – likes Tom, Tom - as our Edmund - is obsessed with his not-so-faithful ex-girlfriend, Serena Slocum. It takes a few twists and turns before Tom realises that Audrey is what Serena will never be – a good person with strong morals who truly cares about him.

Interestingly, Audrey is a great fan of Jane Austen. She tells Tom that her two favourite books are Mansfield Park and Persuasion. To her dismay, Tom – without ever having read the book – disagrees with her.

“Mansfield Park…is a notoriously bad book”. “The whole story revolves around the immorality of a group of youngsters putting on a play.” “The context of the novel, and nearly everything that Jane Austen wrote looks ridiculous from today’s perspective.”

To this, Audrey argues back,

“Has it ever occurred to you that today, from Jane Austen’s perspective, would look even worse?”

Tom continues to say what the literary critic, Lionel Trilling, says about Austen:

“No one would like the heroine of Mansfield Park.”

Audrey aptly argues,

“Do modern people resent Mansfield Park because its heroine is virtuous?”

To Audrey’s relief, Tom later gets round to reading some Jane Austen and tells her that he “liked” Persuasion and was “surprised” at it being so good!

While the story is only very loosely based on Mansfield Park, Jane Austen is always there in the background as a strong moral backbone for the youngsters. Amongst the girls and young men, there is a conflict between what constitutes right and wrong behaviour, and who is a good person and who is not.  The film has its Austenesque romantic seducer-villain, Rick Von Sloneker, who stands as a rival to the men. The men are convinced that he is not a good person and are desperate to show this the girls, rushing off to rescue them from his charms. Mansfield Park is the most moralistic of all of Jane Austen’s novels, and this moral tone carries on to Metropolitan as well. 

What Audrey sees at a shop window…

In the novel, Fanny is against setting up a play, “Lover’s Vows”, as she feels that  it may not be a good influence during Sir Thomas’s absence. In the film, the others suggest playing a game of “Truth”, while Audrey is strongly against playing it. Like Fanny, she morally argues against it:

“There are good reasons why people don’t go around telling people their most intimate thoughts… I just know that games like this can be really dangerous”.

Incidentally, it is Audrey who has to give in and who, in the end, suffers from the consequences of “Truth”.

The screenplay is an excellent  take on Austenesque dry wit and clever dialogue, and Nick Smith’s sarcastic remarks - in a style not unlike Woody Allen’s - are particularly enjoyable. While I wouldn’t go as far as to call Metropolitan an adaptation of Jane Austen, I would say that it is a comedy of manners and morals in the style of Jane Austen with plenty of references to her work.

Have you seen Metropolitan, and if yes, and what was your impression?

The Fashion Revolution of 1795

In her blog Austen Only, Julie  Wakefield recently wrote an intriguing article, analysing whether Thomson’s illustrations for Sense and Sensibility from 1896 were accurate, as they portray Jane Austen’s characters dressed in the old, pre-revolution fashions. Fascinated by the fashion of Jane Austen’s time, the article inspired me to look into of the changing fashions of the time.

At around the time when Jane Austen was 20 years old and writing her first great novels, social change brought about a great change in fashion, too. 1794-1795 was a turbulent time in Europe, with the French revolution shaking the foundations of feudal society and with it, the upper classes.  Marie Antoinette preferred the simpler ‘English’ styles to the prevailing fashion of ornate gowns and hoops, which she hated wearing. Rousseau agreed with the more casual styles, as these were viewed to be more ‘democratic’, and this also encouraged the shift in style. 

         Napoleon’s wife Josephine in an empire dress. Image from Wikipedia.

With France at the forefront of European fashion, the social change in France had a marked influence on fashion all across Europe. During these years, fashions shifted from the large, hooped, frilly styles to easy flowing, thin silhouettes. Fashion reverted back to the classical, neo-Grecian style, emulating the democratic republics of the ancient world. Marie Antoinette was the first person to embrace the so-called ‘empire style’ in dress, which was soon adopted by gentry and nobility all over.

The 20-year-old Jane – and her characters – probably underwent these changes, although we fail to see this in the more recent film adaptations of her novels, which tend to display only the newer Regency fashions.

This engraving by Chataignier from 1797 shows the contrast between old and new fashions, the followers of new fashion mocking the old “Oh! What relics!” and the more conservative dressers disapproving of the new “Oh! What a foolish new fashion!”

                                                                                      Image from the British Museum.

The new styles brought great relief to ladies, as the tightly-laced corsets and hoops were abandoned and the dresses had a more comfortable, natural flow to them. The gowns were short-sleeved, made of soft, thin muslins, which were tied with a ribbon right below the bosom.  Underwear consisted of simple petticoats and cotton bodices. Men ridiculed the fashions, as the natural waistline had disappeared and the shape of the body was largely hidden below the chest; however, the new fashion was welcome to women, as it was less restricting and easy flowing, the footwear was more comfortable and the hairstyles were easier to manage.

While the old fashion had men and women wearing buckled, heeled shoes, the new fashion introduced flat shoes for ladies, which resemble the modern ballerina slipper. For men, boots were in fashion.  This caricature contrasts the hoop-skirts and high-heeled shoes of 1742 with the high-waisted narrow skirts and flat shoes of 1794.

Image from Wikipedia.

The gowns before the Revolution were heavily ornamented, with plenty of ruffles and bows adorning the dress. The ornamentation changed into simple designs, and the empire dress would nearly always be white and often transparent, at the most embroidered with intricate patterns.

                                                  The changing silhouette:

                                                              A hooped ornamented dress.

                                                                                             Delicate muslin gowns.

                                                                         (Images taken at the Fashion Museum in Bath). 

As the earlier fashion was characterised by large silhouettes, the hairstyles were large as well. Hair was gathered in a huge pyramid, backcombed, powdered and decorated with ornaments. On top of the pyramid, there might be a tall hat as well. The men, on the other hand, would either wear a wig, or wear their powdered hair long, clubbed with a black ribbon to hold the pigtail. All this changed when a tax on hair-powder was introduced in 1795, and men would gradually move towards cropped hairstyles. Women, on the other hand, now preferred shorter hair with loose curls around the face. Instead of large hats, long ostrich feathers were worn to display high status for evening gatherings.

For men, it was a time of more masculinity in style. It was goodbye to white stockings and buckled shoes, and hello to a more outdoors, sporty style suited to an active life in the countryside. While the earlier fashion placed a great deal of importance to shirts, with lace ruffles on the front and in the cuffs, shirts were now less important and neck-cloths were more prominent. Men would wear long riding coats with long tails, and breeches lengthened into skin-tight pantaloons tucked into boots. Later on, the fashion guru of the time, Beau Brummell, introduced trousers, and there was no going back. The new style was complete with stylish top hats, which emerged later in the period. 

         Towards a more natural style:

A man’s outfit from 1790. Image from V&A.

                     A model of a Regency outfit.

     Image taken at the Jane Austen Centre in Bath.

Predictably, there was a generation gap between those who sported the new styles with enthusiasm and those who disapproved of the new fashions, preferring to cling to the fashions of their youth. While we may assume that the characters from Jane Austen’s later novels - Emma, Mansfield Park and Persuasion – certainly followed the new style, the characters from the earlier novels – Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey – written in 1795-6, 1796-7 and 1798 respectively – will almost certainly have portrayed a mixture of old and new fashion. The older, more conservative and rustic characters would have stuck to the old fashions, while the younger, more fashionable characters would have proudly embraced the new styles.

 

References and further reading:

• Downing, S.J. (2010) Fashion In the Time of Jane Austen. Shire Library.

This book gives a very interesting and useful introduction, with a clear outline of the fashion in the time of Jane Austen and excellent images.  

• Le Faye, D. (2002) Jane Austen – The World of Her Novels. Frances Lincoln.
• Articles on Regency fashion: Jane Austen Centre online magazine
• A comprehensive list of links on fashion history: La Mode Historique
• Several well-researched articles on fashion:  Jane Austen’s World
• Information on 18th century fashion: La Couturiere: 18th Century
• Costume history from the late 18th century to 1820: Fashion Era

Notebook Win!

I was the lucky one to win this beautiful notebook from Raquel Sallaberry’s one-year anniversary Giveaway Contest on Jane Austen Today. The notebook has been handmade by Raquel Sallaberry to celebrate the bicentenary of the publication of Sense and Sensibility.

The cover beautifully captures the famous scene from Sense and Sensibility where Willoughby rescues Marianne after she falls in the rain and hurts her foot.

“A gentleman carrying a gun, with two pointers playing round him, was passing up the hill and within a few yards of Marianne, when her accident happened. He put down his gun and ran to her assistance. She had raised herself from the ground, but her foot had been twisted in the fall, and she was scarcely able to stand. The gentleman offered his services, and perceiving that her modesty declined what her situation rendered necessary, took her up in his arms without farther delay, and carried her down the hill.”

Sense and Sensibility p. 31

 

There was also a ribbon bookmark that came with the notebook.

Thank you, Raquel and Vic!

“Weep You No More Sad Fountains…”

I loved the soundtrack of Sense and Sensibility 1995, and when I came across the CD at a jumble sale, I just had to buy it.

Now I don’t usually listen to instrumental music, but this score really touched me. Having listened to it, I understood why Ang Lee’s adaptation stands out from the rest – good music really does arouse various strong feelings in you while you are watching a film.

Patrick Doyle’s orchestrated version perfectly follows the moods of the characters throughout the film, reminding me of the various scenes, whether happy or sad…

 

You can get a taster of all the tracks here.

They lived happily ever after… and then?

As we all know, Jane Austen’s heroes and heroines all had their share of happy endings (and the villains perhaps less happy ones, deservedly). Although Jane Austen never wrote sequels to her novels and gave little indication of what would happen to her characters after the wedding, she is known to have shared these little secrets with her close friends and family, such as her nephews and nieces.

Let’s have a look at these intriguing nibbles of information!

 

Sense and Sensibility

Ann Steele, Lucy Steele’s older sister, who can’t stop talking about the eligible Dr Davies, never managed to catch him in the end.

 

Pride and Prejudice

One of the foolish younger Bennet sisters, Kitty, ended up marrying a clergyman near Pemberley, being close to Elizabeth and enjoying a wider, classier social circle.

The plain younger sister, Mary, married one of Uncle Phillips’ clerks and was content with the small social circle of Meryton.

 

Emma

Mr Woodhouse continued to live for 2 years after Emma’s marriage, keeping Emma and Mr Knightley from settling down at Donwell Abbey until then.

While playing the alphabet game that irritated many of those present, Frank Churchill placed some letters in front of Jane Fairfax, which she brushed aside in anguish, without reading them. These letters contained the word ‘pardon’.

The weak, poorly Jane Fairfax only lived for another 9-10 years after her wedding, succumbing to tuberculosis. 

 

Mansfield Park  

The ‘considerable amount’ of money given by the insufferable Mrs Norris to Fanny’s brother, William, was one pound.

Jane Austen had a high regard for her heroes and felt that they were of higher calibre than the real men of her acquaintance. Edmund Bertram was along with Emma’s Mr Knightley, one of her two favourite characters.  “They are very far from being what I know English gentlemen often are”, she described (A Memoir, p. 118).

                                              *                      *                       *

Unfortunately, Jane Austen never got to share her secrets of Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, as these novels were published after her death and those close to her never had the chance to give their views to the author.

If you had had the chance to meet Jane Austen, what would you have asked her about her characters?

 

References:

Austen-Leigh, J-E. (2002). A Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections. Oxford World Classics.

Le Faye, D. (2002) Jane Austen – The World of Her Novels. Frances Lincoln.

 

Images from: http://sharetv.org

Jane Austen’s Regency World

I’ve done it - I’ve become a proud subscriber of Regency World – a magazine produced by the Jane Austen Centre in Bath. I’ve been wanting to read this magazine for a long time now, and I’ve finally managed to get my act together and make an annual subscription. Now I can stay up-to-date with happenings in the world of Jane Austen.

Can’t wait to get my hands on my first issue!

Do any of you read the magazine and if so, would you recommend it?

Left Speechless by the King’s Speech

At the weekend, I finally had the chance to see the long-awaited King’s Speech. Many blogs have been paying tribute to Colin Firth’s performance as King George VIth and, needless to say, having seen the film, I too feel that the Golden Globes and the Oscars were well deserved.

For a man who will always be remembered as Mr Darcy from Pride and Prejudice (1995) – and who will probably always remain my favourite version of Mr Darcy – Colin Firth fails to disappoint in each role that he undertakes, and this is one of his most powerful performances to date.

Seeing the film triggered off some intense discussions on monarchy between us. Although I am hardly what you would call a monarchist, what I did like about The King’s Speech was that it shows the human side of a a monarch and the heavy burden of responsibility inflicted on you as a member of the royal family, despite your will and your level of competence to do the job.

It’s great to see Colin Firth go from strength to strength and still now, 16 years after his most memorable performance as Mr Darcy, surprise us with his amazing talent and ability to assume a role so unlike his own in real life.

You can also spot two other actors from the 1995 Pride and Prejudice in this film: Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth) as the King’s speech therapist, Lionel Logue’s wife, and David Bamber (Mr Collins) as a theatre director. A wonderful cast make a wonderful film!

Jane Austen and the Evangelicals

As I visited the Paragon in Bath, where Jane Austen spent a few weeks in 1799 with her Uncle and Aunt Leigh-Perrot, I came across this quaint little chapel across the road from the Leigh-Perrots’ lodgings.

On the gate, it read “The Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel”.

I became intrigued and was left wondering if this Countess of Huntingdon lived at the time when Jane Austen stayed in Bath, and whether Jane had anything to do with this undoubtedly formidable lady.  I decided to find out what the story was behind the church.

Countess of Huntingdon. Image from Wikipedia at http://bit.ly/heuxFG.

I discovered that the chapel was an evangelical connection set up by Selina Hastings,  Countess of Huntingdon, in the 18th Century. The Countess was born in 1707, became a born-again Christian at the age of 32 and, after she became a widow at the age of 39, she started to devote her time to religion. The Countess opened several private chapels like this for the public preaching of the gospel. After her death in 1891, there were local trusts running the chapels, and this small congregation is still active in Bath.

In Jane Austen’s times there was an evangelical revival, which would later have a great effect on the pious Victorians. The principle of the evangelicals was to express faith and to share the gospel actively and publicly. They were known for showing plenty of emotion in their worship and for singing hymns with fervour. 

Is this why Jane Austen wrote in a letter to her sister Cassandra, on January 24, 1809  [66],  "I do not like the Evangelicals", refusing to read a piece of religious fiction written by Hannah More, an evangelical reformer? Perhaps she first came across evangelicals during her first visit to Bath and, staying so close to the chapel, found them to be noisy and even vulgar?

Cover page for Hannah More’s “Calebs”, which Jane did not wish to read. Image from the Open Library:  http://bit.ly/fkIy2b.

For Jane Austen, religion was a more private affair. Being brought up as a moderate 18th Century Anglican clergyman’s daughter, religion was a part of her daily life, but it was demonstrated in a discreet manner. While Jane was well versed in her scriptures and attended morning prayer without fail, in her public writing she preferred to steer away from these topics, perhaps feeling that it wasn’t her place to preach. She did compose several sermons and prayers, but was otherwise undemonstrative in her approach to religion. In the Austen family, religion was demonstrated through action rather than feeling – through acts of charity and through their responsibility to the parish. The public preaching by the chapel might have put Jane off Paragon for good. She vastly preferred the location of her next lodgings at Queen’s Square, and wrote that the view from the drawing room windows was ‘far more cheerful than Paragon’.

                                                                           The Paragon as seen from the chapel.

It may be surprising, therefore, that five years later in 1814, Jane wrote in a letter to her niece, Fanny Knight, “I am by no means convinced that we ought not all to be Evangelicals, & am at least persuaded that they who are so from Reason & Feeling, must be happiest & safest.” This statement suggests that Jane may have become more religious as she grew older, perhaps growing up to see the permissive, indulgent Regency society, of whose monarch she despised. During the first two decades of the 19th Century, the evangelical movement did indeed become popular within the Anglican church, perhaps to counter the low morality of the time and to educate people of vice and virtue.

At the time when Jane Austen first stayed in Bath, she was still young and perhaps resisted restrictions on behaviour. Her later, more serious novels, such as Mansfield Park and Persuasion, reflect a less permissive approach. Fanny’s character in Mansfield Park, in particular, stands for morality and even saintliness, considering her forgiving and principled nature.  

But do Jane Austen’s novels actually show religious influences? Surely her characters make moral choices without any reference to god or religion? The debate on Jane Austen’s religiousness vs. her ambivalence towards religion continues, but I think we can safely say that Jane Austen was a practising Anglican with religion in her heart, even if she preferred not to show it to the outside world.  

 

Further reading:

Jane Austen’s Letters:

• Jones, V. (2004). Selected Letters by Jane Austen. OUP.

On the history of the Chapel of the Countess of Huntingdon:

• http://www.cofhconnexion.org.uk/history/

Frequently cited work on Jane Austen’s religion:

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/27028479/Christian-Encounters-Jane-Austen-by-Peter-Leithart
• Collins, I. (2002) Jane Austen and the Clergy. Hambledon and London.

Nancy Meyer–Regency Researcher

I have just received a wonderful link from the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, for an extensive site for research on Jane Austen. Nancy Meyer has been collecting information on Jane Austen for years, and this information is free to access on her website:

Nancy Meyer – Regency Researcher

 

On her site, you can also ask her questions on a variety of topics that you would like to learn more about, such as:

Was it legal for an Earl to have a fox hunting party on his own estate in June?

How soon could a Regency widow remarry?

Did Mothers wear mourning clothes for stillborn infants?

 

             Images from Wikipedia Commons.