They said it!
We received two wonderful quotations about Jane Austen’s work from Alert Janeites this week.
Alert Janeite James sent us this, from David Traxel’s 1898: The Birth of the American Century, “a history of the year the Spanish-American War began,” wrote James. “On page 75, when the author is trying to establish what people were reading and doing in that turbulent year, he notes:”
An English writer of genius did enjoy a revival in 1898. There is, announced a writer in the New York Times, “a veritable Jane Austen renaissance.” At least part of that renewed interest came through a general longing for a society as stable as the one she depicted so well, and admiration of the model Austen provided of how proper young women should behave.
James added, “I though it was interesting how the Times first noticed that Jane was having a renaissance 110 years ago!!!”
And journalists are still finding Jane Austen’s popularity amazing! But how did they do it in 1898 without a wet-shirt shot? 
Alert Janeite Paola sent us a bit of dating advice from the February issue of Glamour magazine’s UK edition’s Dos and Don’ts section:
“Recent research reveals that two-thirds of British people perceive readers of celebrity autobiographies to be physically unattractive. So if you plan to pull on your train journey home, leave Jade Goody and Kerry Katona’s life stories at home. Our tome of choice? Pride and Prejudice – nothing says, “I’m a classy lady, but I’m looking for love”, like a bit of Jane Austen.”
What were we just saying about using Jane as a litmus test for potential lovers? Faux Janeites never prosper!
Comments are closed.
Through the magic of google, for those interested in what was said in 1898, here’s from the NY Times, 5 Nov. 1898, written by one M. Gordon Pryor Rice.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A00E3D81438E433A25756C0A9679D94699ED7CF&oref=slogin
I imagine his view will spark some discussion here. Apparently in 1897 or 1898 a pundit or critic named Mr. Alden wrote an article criticizing Austen as an author no-one reads. According to this NYT article, the backlash:
“at once hurried so many lovers and friends to ‘the firing line’ in her defense … The plash of [Mr. Alden's] little stone, starting so many circles of recollections, of delicious rereadings, of good-humored defiance, is, we suspect, in some measure responsible for these new editions of Miss Austen’s novels.”
Here, I think, we see the first generation of American Janeites, although the term Janeite was not current in 1898, it was created or at least popularized in a 1923/4 story by Kipling. The article goes on:
“Miss Austen is a consummate mistress of ‘nuances,’ hence she has achieved the fine discrimination which makes each character not lifelike but life itself. … Too much cannot be said in praise of the healthful tendency of Jane Austen’s tales … always on the side of ‘whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are of good report.’ The heroines are true and sensible and sweet, good daughters and good sisters, sure to become good wives and mothers. … There is always room in their hearts for a sense of duty and of family affection. In short, they are well-poised, sweet-tempered young women, not complex, or heroic, or particularly cultured, but such girls as our mothers were, and our college-bred daughters might do worse than to become. Not least among the many charms of these remarkable novels is their cheerful spirit … Jane Austen recognizes that the function of art is to give happiness.”
One wonders: do Mr. Rice’s words “give happiness” to the austenblog readership?
>One wonders: do Mr. Rice’s words “give happiness” to the austenblog readership?
IT SURE DOES!!! To me.
Thanks for these ‘closer to those time’ comments.
It’s fantastic to read comments which do not include sexmoneymoneysexmoneysexxxxxxmonnnnnneeeeeyyyyyymarriagemarket etc etc.
What I liked was that being nearer to that era he came up with comments like;
>The heroines are true and sensible and sweet, good daughters and good sisters, sure to become good wives and mothers. … There is always room in their hearts for a sense of duty and of family affection.
I was relieved to not read the denigrating phrase much used nowdays – ‘marriage market’ – just because marriage was an important thing in society and life at that time.
In 1898 they seemed to understand it.
OK. Perhaps the word sweet may not apply that well, but I wonder if they meant heroines like Ann, Catherine Morland. Most of the adjectives used do apply to some heroine or other, I think.
*Heroines not being particularly cultured* – I think means sing, play music etc very well, which is quite true. Most of them do do these things but are not experts – except Jane Fairfax.
It does not refer to JA as a romantic author of boy meets girl stories, but something much much more.
I like the phrases;
- consummate mistress of ‘nuances,
- each character not lifelike but life itself.
-healthful tendency of Jane Austen’s tales (I think it means the morally inclined tendency)
The Best phrase;
-novels is their cheerful spirit (I think they mean humour).
Recently I discovered that *even* Mansfield Park has a silver lining of humour surrounding it throughout – keeps one (at least me) pretty cheerful indeed.
Well, I’d agree that Jane is a “consummate mistress of nuances,” but I do take issue with the description of her heroines. Who would call Emma Woodhouse “not complex … or particularly cultured,” for example?
What I’ve always admired about the way Jane Austen crafted her characters was the fact that even those who seemedsimple were in fact quite complex, and that complexity was only slowly revealed to the reader. As Jane herself used to say about Fanny Burney, “rereading always pays!” I’ve always found new clues and revealing moments each time I’ve re-read a Jane Austen novel.
I also take issue with the notion that “the function of art is to give happiness,” but that’s an entirely different soapbox.
What a hoot! I love the story of the 19th century Janeites getting up in arms in Jane’s defense, leading to a rash of new editions. Do you suppose this will happen again in another 100 years?
In another 100 years the Janeites will be fiercely debating the new crop of holographic three-dimensional personal-roleplaying adaptations of the novels that were just released, and arguing about whether it was more satisfying to play Elizabeth Bennet or Anne Elliot.
Ooh, I hope I’m still around when those are invented!
Don’t worry, Tina, it won’t be 100 years before something like that is developed. My bet is that it will be more like 3 months. Someone over on Second Life is probably working on it now (and if they aren’t, I think I’ll start … !)
It was in his “London Literary Letter” in the New York Times (April 16, 1898) that critic W.L. Alden wrote: “Does anyone ever read Jane Austen’s novels? I never knew of a person who had tried to read them and succeeded…” This, evidently, is what sparked a long series of letters in the Times from Jane’s defenders. I haven’t been able to find out more about this aberrant Mr. William Livingston Alden (1837-1908)except that he was an author and diplomat with a column in the Times. Incidentally, I did a ProQuest search for the terms “Jane Austen” in the New York Times and came up with 108 citations in 1898-1899, many of them letters to the editor in response to Mr. Alden.
Edward, thank you for doing this research and finding this article. Also thanks to James for sending the quote. It definately made my day to read them. It is like travelling back in time to read the thoughts and opinions that could be expressed now on the Austen blog. I love the reference to the “luminious simplicity” of Jane’s style.