You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Persuasion’ tag.
To conclude my series posts with an Irish theme this week, as a tribute to Jane Travers of the Jane Obsessed with Jane blog, I thought you might like to read about Jane Austen and Maria Edgeworth. Both alive at the same time, both authors of novels, both possibly influencing each other-perhaps even subconsciously- and both with some surprising connections to each other.
********************
Most people are aware, I think, that Jane Austen read Maria Edgeworth’s books, and vice versa. During her life time Maria Edgeworth was feted and was a much more successful celebrated and published author than was Jane Austen. And that is usually the sum of most peoples knowledge of the two. But there is much more to their story and connections than that…
Lets examine what is known about them shall we?
The Austen and Edgeworth families were connected via Jane Austen’s aunt and uncle, the Leigh Perrots. Richard Edgeworth, Maria’s father, though born in Ireland, became neighbours of the Leigh Perrots when he moved to the village of Hare Hatch in Berkshire in 1766. Scarletts, the home of the Leigh Perrots was situated in that village, and Mr Edgeworth soon became part of their social circle.
(Section from map of Berkshire (1797) by John Cary, showing the position of the village of Hare hatch, which along with all the other illustrations in this post,can be enlarged merely by clicking on them)
“Among those who sooner or later were neighbours of the Leigh Perrotts were Richard Lovell Edgeworth (amateur scientist and father of the novelist Maria Edgeworth) who acknowledged the help he received from Mr Leigh Perrot in his experiments of telegraphing from Hare Hatch to Nettlebed by means of windmills…”
(See le Faye, Jane Austen: A Family Record , page 118).
Maria Edgeworth was born in Hare Hatch in 1768. She moved back to Ireland with her father and his third wife Elizabeth, in 1782 in order that he might run more efficiently the family estate, Edgeworthstown, which he had inherited.
Jane Austen and Maria seem to have shared the same tastes in literature: in 1796 both Maria Edgeworth and Jane Austen’s both names appeared as subscribers to Fanny Burney’s novel, Camilla.(Indeed this was the only time that Jane Austen’s name appeared in print during her lifetime)
This novel was published by the London publishing house of Cadell and Davis who were of course the same firm that refused the Reverend George Austen’s offer to publish First Impressions, Jane Austen’s first daft of the novel that was eventually to become Pride and Prejudice. Of course, the title of Jane Austen’s most famous novel was inspired by this passage from Camilla :
The whole of this unfortunate business,’ said Dr Lyster, ‘has been the result of PRIDE and PREJUDICE. Your uncle, the Dean, began it, by his arbitrary will, as if an ordinance of his own could arrest the course of nature! and as if he had power to keep alive, by the loan of a name, a family in the male branch already extinct. Your father, Mr Mortimer, continued it with the same self-partiality, preferring the wretched gratification of tickling his ear with a favourite sound, to the solid happiness of his son with a rich and deserving wife. Yet this, however, remember; if to PRIDE and PREJUDICE you owe your miseries, so wonderfully is good and evil balanced, that to PRIDE and PREJUDICE you will also owe their termination: for all that I could say to Mr Delvile, either of reasoning or entreaty, – and I said all I could suggest, and I suggested all a man need wish to hear, – was totally thrown away, till I pointed out to him his own disgrace, in having a daughter-in-law immured in these mean lodgings!’
In 1800 when Mrs Leigh Perrot stood trial for larceny being accused of stealing a quantity of lace from a shop in Bath,
one of the first letters they received to congratulate them on Mrs Leigh Perrot being found not guilty was from their friend Richard Edgeworth, now living in Ireland :
My Dear Sir,
I do not think that I ever felt so much astonishment or indignation as at the abominable transaction which was related in the Star of March 31st.
Among my numerous friends and acquaintance if there was a couple whom I could have selected as the farthest removed from being the objects of such a villainous attack it would have been yourselves! But I know too well that neither perfect innocence nor consummate prudence are sufficient shields against conspiracy and folly and that bankrupt fortune and bankrupt character prepare men for the most desperate attempts.
I trouble you, my Dear Sir, with a few lines to express the deep sense that I have of regard and esteem for you and the amiable partner of your happiness; for so many as thirty-four years we have been acquainted, and during that time I do not think that I have met any man of such singularly nice feelings of honour and justice.
I am sensible that there is some impropriety in this address-but you must excuse it as I snatched this piece of paper the moment I had read the paragraph I allude to-with tears of indignation in my eyes-aye,Sir!-with actual not sentimental tears in my eyes as I sat down to write to you….
(See: Letter written from Edgeworthstown to Bath dated 7th April 1800, quoted in Jane Austen : Her Life and Letters ,A Family Record by William Austen Leigh and Richard Arthur Austen Leigh, 1913, page 139 )
By 1801 when Jane Austen was living in Bath, with her retired parents, in close social proximity of the Leigh Perrots, who were living in the Paragon, Maria Edgeworth began to enjoy enjoyed considerable publishing success. Her novel, Belinda was held up to general public and critical acclaim, and it is tempting to think that Jane Austen, whose social life revolved around the Leigh Perrots must have heard of the news of their friends daughter’s success- perhaps with not a little envy-Jane being an unpublished and a totally rejected author at this time.
It was of course Maria Edgeworth’s disclaimer in Belinda that she was not writing a novel but a moral tale,
‘Every author has a right to give what appellation he may think proper to his works … the following work is offered to the public as a Moral Tale, the author not wishing to acknowledge a Novel.
that Jane Austen later mocked in Chapter 5 of her revised Northanger Abbey:
….they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together. Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel–writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding — joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust. Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine–hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel–reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss — ?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best–chosen language. Now, had the same young lady been engaged with a volume of the Spectator, instead of such a work, how proudly would she have produced the book, and told its name; though the chances must be against her being occupied by any part of that voluminous publication, of which either the matter or manner would not disgust a young person of taste: the substance of its papers so often consisting in the statement of improbable circumstances, unnatural characters, and topics of conversation which no longer concern anyone living; and their language, too, frequently so coarse as to give no very favourable idea of the age that could endure it.
Maria Edgeworth read Northanger Abbey ( published posthumously in 1817) and did not so far as I can find, comment on Jane Austen’s criticism of her in that passage. But she didn’t seem to think much of the novel in general. Writing to her aunt, Mrs Ruxton on January 24th 1818 she had this to say:
I entirely agree with you my dearest aunt on one subject as indeed I generally do on most subjects, but particularly about Northanger Abbey….The behaviour of the General in Northanger Abbey, packing off the young lady without a servant or the common civilities which any bear of a man, not to say a gentleman, would have shown, is quite outrageously out of drawing and out of nature’
She also later dammed Northanger Abbey with feint praise, dismissing it as
‘milk and water’
Perhaps the criticism by Austen of her calling Belinda a moral tale and not a novel had finally stung her a little ?
Presumably unaware of Maria Edgeworth’s criticism-(there is more made during Jane Austen’s lifetime-see below), Jane Austen appears to have admired Edgeworth’s novels. In her letter to Anna Austen dated 28th September 1814 she wrote, tongue in cheek but not without a grain of truth I suspect:
I have made up my mind to like no Novels really, but Miss Edgeworths, Yours and my own…
She also chided Cassandra Austen gently ( but seriously I think) in her letter of the 23rd August 1814 for not liking Maria Edgeworth’s novel, Patronage;
I got the willow yesterday, as Henry was not quite ready when I reached Hena. St. I saw Mr. Hampson there for a moment. He dines here to-morrow and proposed bringing his son; so I must submit to seeing George Hampson, though I had hoped to go through life without it. It was one of my vanities, like your not reading “Patronage.”
Maria Edgeworth appears to have enjoyed Jane Austen early works immensely. She advised her step brother, Charles Snyed Edgeworth, to buy Pride and Prejudice, writing to him on the day she had visited the Cambridge Colleges, a day spent partly in the company of Dr Clarke the brother of James Stanier Clarke who was, of course, the librarian and chaplain to the Prince Regent who had fallen under Jane Austen’s spell:
“Now we are again on the London Road and nothing interrupted our perusal of Pride and Prejudice for the rest of the morning. I am desired not to give you my opinion of Pride and Prejudice but desire you to get it directly and tell us yours…”
(Letter dated may 1st 1813)
The Edgeworths also admired Mansfield Park. A family friend, Lady Anne Romilly wrote to the Edgeworths at Edgeworthstown with lukewarm praise of it:
‘Have you read Mansfield Park? It has been pretty generally admired here, and I think all novels must be that are true to life which this is, with a good strong vein of principle running thro’ the whole. It has not that elevation of virtue, something beyond nature, that gives the greatest charm to a novel, but still it is real natural every day life, and will amuse an idle hour in spite of its faults’
but they made up their own minds about it nevertheless.
During Christmas 1814 the Edgeworths read it aloud amongst the family as was their custom, and thought it excellent:
‘We have been much entertained with Mansfield Park,’
and indeed in 1823 Maria was still talking of the characters in the novel as if they were real( a habit many Janeites fall into !):
‘Be pleased, therefore, to go back to Moulinan, and see us eat luncheon; for in spite of Mr. Grant’s contempt of these bon-vivant details, habit will not allow me to depart from my practice of giving the bill of fare’
(Letter to Lucy Edgeworth dated July 23rd 1823)
Jane Austen sent a presentation copy of Emma via her publisher John Murray, to Maria Edgeworth in Ireland, but she seems not to have valued it at all as a novel . The wondering acknowledgment of her receipt of the presentation copy,which seems to suggest to me at least that she did not know of Jane Austen’s connection with the Leigh Perrots,
‘The authoress of Pride and Prejudice has been so good as to send me a new novel just published, Emma’
(Letter dated 10th January 1816)
was followed by this statement:
‘There was no story to it, except that Miss Emma found that the man whom she designed for Harriet’s lover was an admirer of her own – & he was affronted at being refused by Emma… and smooth, thin water-gruel is according to Emma’s father’s opinion a very good thing & it is very difficult to make a cook understand what you mean by smooth thin water gruel”
Persuasion she seems to have generally liked much better than Emma:
‘Persuasion – excepting the tangled, useless histories of the family in the first fifty pages – appears to me, especially in all that relates to poor Anne and her lover, to be exceedingly interesting and natural. The love and the lover admirably well drawn; don’t you see Captain Wentworth or rather don’t you in her place feel, taking the boisterous child off her back as she kneels by the sick boy on the sofa? And is not the first meeting after their long separation admirably well done? And the overheard conversation about the nut? But I must stop; we have got no farther than the disaster of Miss Musgrave’s (sic) jumping off the steps.
(Letter dated, February 21st 1818)
There is one final connection with Jane Austen which I find absolutely intriguing. In the Introduction to her edition of Castle Rackrent and The Absentee,(1895)
Anne Thackeray Ritchie wrote of a visit to Ireland to find Edgeworthstown, the home of Maria Edgeworth and while there she also made some trips out into the surrounding country side:
Our host took us that day, among other pleasant things , for a marvellous and delightful flight on a jaunting car, to see something of the country. We sped through storms and sunshine by open moors and fields and then by villages and little churches, by farms where the pigs were standing at the doors to be fed, by pretty trim cottages.
The lights came and went; as the mist lifted we could see the exquisite colours, the green, the dazzling sweet lights on the meadows playing upon the meadow-sweet and elder bushes; at last we came to the lovely glades of Carriglass. It seemed to be that we had reaches an enchanted forest amid this green sweet tangle of ivy of flowering summer trees of immemorial oaks and sycamores…
The great Irish kitchen garden, belonging to the house with its seven miles of wall, was also not unlike a part of a fairy tale. Its owner, Mr Lefroy, told me that Miss Edgeworth had been constantly there. She was a great friend of judge Lefroy. As a boy he remembered her driving up to the house and running up through the great drawing room doors to greet the judge.
This was of course none other than Tom Lefroy, the subject of Jane Austen’s youthful flirtation, who rose to become the Chief Justice of Ireland and had his estate at Carriglas.
Edgeworthstown and Carriglass are both in Country Longford and are only just over 8 miles apart.
I find it so intriguing that Maria Edgeworth should have known the same Tom Lefroy, who so charmed Jane Austen as a young girl( though I seriously doubt that Tom Lefroy was the love of her life , writing in her letters about him as she did). I often wonder had Jane Austen lived if she would have met the Edgeworth and possibly Tom Lefroy. Now, that would have made for an interesting letter home to Cassandra…
That is the sum of all I can find out about Jane Austen and Maria Edgeworth…but I think most of it is interesting and does throw up some intriguing questions: the answers, however ,we are probably never going to find…
I’ve just been made aware of a new Jane Austen digital project which sounds very exciting: Jane Austen’s Fiction Manuscripts which aims to digitize all the extant manuscripts of Jane Austen’s works-which of course sadly do not include The Six-and for the first time since 1845,to hold them in a single accessible collection on-line.
The main aims of the project are, according to the website ,:
To create a digital resource reuniting all the known holograph surviving manuscripts of Austen’s fiction in an unprecedented virtual collection.
To provide for the first time full descriptions of, transcriptions of, analysis of, and commentary on the manuscripts in the archive, including details of erasures, handwriting, paper quality, watermarks, ink, binding structures, and any ancillary materials held with the holographs as aspects of their physical integrity or provenance.
To develop complex interlinking of the virtual collection to allow systematic comparison of the manuscripts under a number of headings representing both their intellectual and physical states.
The works which will be included in the project are:
Volume the First,
Volume the Second, Volume the Third, Lady Susan, The Watsons, Plan of a Novel’, ‘Opinions of Mansfield Park’ and ‘Opinions of Emma’ ,The Cancelled Chapters of Persuasion
and Sanditon
Eventually a print edition of facsimiles of all the works will be released.I think that will definitely go on my wish list…
London Calling is a newish blog written by General Southerner, aka Tony and while his blog is not Jane Austen specific, he does mention her enough to warrant our attention.
He has a lovely interesting account of a trip to Chawton
(this is the view from the stairs taken from just outside Jane Austen’s bedroom at the rear of Jane Austen’s House Museum) and neighbouring Alton ,the small town where Frank Austen sometimes resided and where Jane would often walk to visit her friends.
A trip to Richmond in Surrey,where the rather demanding Mrs Churchill expired, and a trip to Lyme for a treacherous walk on the Cobb( re engineered in 1825, and overseen by one Captain Darcy ( no relation I’m sure),IIRC!) and much more.
I do recommend a visit over there to Tony’s blog:he is an occasional visitor here. I do hope you enjoy it. Frankly it’s refreshing to get a masculine take on things Jane, don’t you agree?.
She, poor soul, is tied by the leg. She has a blister on one of her heels, as large as a three shilling piece
Persuasion, Chapter 18
I confess that when I first read Persuasion as a callow youth of 13 (all those years ago), I thought this was a piece of humour on the Admiral’s part,comparing his wife’s blister to something like a non-existent piece of coinage, rather like the infamous 9 bob note (which referred to a disastrously fraudulent attempt to print a 10 shilling note, a piece of information which once again gives some indication of my great age)
But no. These coins actually existed. So it was no joke on the Admiral’s part.
This is a picture of the coinage in use during Jane Austen’s life time:
The three shilling piece is shown at the bottom right of the picture. And do remember you can enlarge this and all the other illustrations here simply by clicking on them.
But this is a clearer picture of a 1814 three shilling piece, that I was lucky enough to find on my travels over Easter
The story of the 3 shilling piece is very interesting. In the latter years of George III’s reign, as a result of the shortages caused by the continuing Napoleonic Wars, the price of silver was high . Therefore using silver for making coins became increasingly prohibitive in relation to the face value of the coins themselves, and as a result there was an acute shortage of silver coins available for circulation.
This as you can imagine caused problems for both tradesmen and ordinary people. The Bank of England took steps to remedy this situation by issuing two tokens, not made of silver, which had values of three shillings and eighteen pence, between the years 1811 and 1816.
In 1816 a Great Recoinage took place, and after 1820 the tokens were no longer considered to be legal tender.
So, just how large was the three shilling coin, and what sort of suffering was Mrs Croft undergoing?
On examining this picture you can see that the coin is in fact quite large: 1 and a 1/4 inches in diameter. And unless the Admiral was prone to exaggeration I therefore feel a great deal of sympathy for Sophie Croft, who would have been in a great deal of discomfort with a blister that size on her heel. Poor lady….no wonder she was tied by the leg in Gay Street 
By all their calculations there was just time for this; but as they drew near the Cobb, there was such a general wish to walk along it once more, all were so inclined, and Louisa soon grew so determined, that the difference of a quarter of an hour, it was found, would be no difference at all; so with all the kind leave-taking, and all the kind interchange of invitations and promises which may be imagined, they parted from Captain and Mrs. Harville at their own door, and still accompanied by Captain Benwick, who seemed to cling to them to the last, proceeded to make the proper adieus to the Cobb.
Persuasion, Chapter 12
Unless we are lucky enough to live at Lyme Regis, then the answer is probably, no.
But if you go here, you will able to watch the view from the Cobb all day, every day via the good offices of the official Lyme Regis Web Cam Enjoy yourselves do, but watch your steps….Remember what happened to Louisa Musgrove;-)
Today’s post has nothing to do with Sandition, although Laurel’s really fascinating Group Read of Jane Austen’s fragment continues at Austenprose.
But it does concern a seaside resort of which Jane Austen was fond, Lyme Regis, and the Lyme Regis Philpot Musem’s attempt to publish a manuscript “epic” poem about the town written in 1819. Mary Godwin ,the museum’s curator, has very kindly supplied me with some images and quotes from the poem so that I can share news of their project with you here.
The Lyme Regis Philpot Museum has had in its collection since 1978, a manuscript which was given to the museum by the artist, Laurence Whistler.
Called The Lymiad, or Letters from Lyme to a friend in Bath by a Unknown Gentlewoman, the manuscript consists of a series of eight letters all written in verse, about the town of Lyme and it inhabitants as they were in 1819.
Each letter describes in turn, the streets and lodgings, the sea and beach, the civil war siege and Monmouth, the assembly room,; the mayor and worthies of the town, theatrically entitled, the dramatis personae
the surrounding scenery and bad weather; and, finally, departure from the resort. All of which would have been familiar to Jane Austen who visited the town in September 1804.
The writer John Fowles who in 1978 had just started his ten-year stewardship of the Museum as its Honorary Curator, was very intrigued by the new addition to the collection. After reading it he was so impressed with The Lymiad that he regarded it as among the Museum’s most precious possessions.
He liked it for its wit and satirical humour and its vivid evocation of the manners and pastimes of a small Regency seaside resort:
Say, is there not the mostly group among,
One generous bard, one gentle “child of song”
To celebrate thy wonders, matchless Lyme!,
In all the wild luxuriance of rhyme? …
Each letter in turn looks at at the streets and lodgings; the sea and beach; the civil war siege and Monmouth; the assembly rooms; the mayor and worthies; scenery and bad weather; and finally departure from the resort by the narrator.
The Lymiad contains many vivid portraits of local residents: for example in this extract The Lymeiad’s author probably refers to the geologist, Henry de la Beche’s sailing boat:
That “Blood-red flag” which gaily floats
On the full-swelling breeze, denotes
The Conrad Sir Fopling Fossil’s pride;…
He is the most accomplished youth,
That is, if Madame Fame speaks truth;
And more than this I cannot tell,
But some who know Sir Fopling well,
Inform me he’s a F.G.S.
During the 1980s John Fowles made a transcript of the poem, prepared a general introduction and made some explanatory notes on local references within it.
In 1997 the manuscript, which was on display in the Museum, came to the attention of Dr. John Constable, then Professor of English Literature in Kyoto University. During consultations with John Fowles over the next few years, Professor Constable studied the transcript and wrote a substantial introduction to it. He considers that The Lymiad is
“a highly political and a thoroughly Whig poem, with some leanings towards the left of that party, though stopping short of Radicalism itself.”
In this extract the author is poking fun at the fact that Lyme was a “rotten borough” in the control of the Fane family, the most senior member of that family being the Earl of Westmoreland:
Know then my friend, since last I wrote,
Here hath been pass’d a day of note,
When ‘tis the fashion to declare,
Who next shall be our worthy Mayor.
This day is honoured every year
By presence of a noble peer,…
The town of voters hath but few;
So few, that at th’Election last…
Th’Electors, and elected too,
In one horse chaise appear’d to view:
Sadly, John Fowles died in 2005 before any publication of the poem could be undertaken. But now the Lyme Museum has decided to ask for subscribers so that a first and fully annotated edition can be published.
The Museum has already secured some grants towards the cost of producing the book from charitable foundations and other donors, but in order to complete the task of publishing this manuscript they now need to attract 100 subscribers, who will pledge £20 per volume, and whose names will be recorded in the publication itself.
Once sufficient numbers of subscribers have been received the publication project will be able to be got underway.
If you go here you will find a form that can be copied, filled in and sent to the present curator of the Lyme museum, Mary Godwin (and she will even accept subscriptions made by copying and pasting the form in an email: I know because that how I subscribed) .
If you would like any more details of the publication her email address is
curator-at-lymeregismuseum-dot-co-dot-uk
replacing “at” and “dot” with the necessary to fool spammers
The Lyme Regis Museum’s publication of The Lymiad will rather fittingly and touchingly be dedicated to John Fowles’s memory.
Do note that the new edition will not be a facsimile of the original manuscript. Instead, it is being cleverly designed to appear as it might have done in had it been published in 1819 .It will have stitched pages and marbled card covers .
I understand that the edition will contain an essay by John Fowles on Lyme in the early 1800s which he revised in 2003, a general introduction and textual notes by John Constable, a transcription of the text complete with editorial notes by John Fowles, John Constable and Jo Draper and that it will be illustrated with pictures from the Museum’s wonderful collection, which have also been selected by Jo Draper.
I have already subscribed because I am absolutely fascinated by the thought of reading an insider’s view of the place Jane Austen visited and liked so much that she ensured that pivotal scenes from Persuasion occurred there . And also because I adore this museum, and try visit it every time I visit Lyme.
I do hope that some of you may be sufficiently interested to subscribe to this fascinating pubication project too.
We do not know exactly when the Austen ladies quitted their rented accommodation in Gay Street but it must have been sometime at the end of 1805.
We do know that Mrs Austen, Cassandra, Jane and, by this time, their friend and sister of James’s wife, Martha Lloyd took a trip to Steventon Rectory in January 1806,and it is possible that they quitted number 25 at that time.
They visited their old home in order to visit James and Mary and their family in January 1806. Martha became part of their household on the death of her mother Mrs Lloyd in April 1805 They returned to Bath at the end of January.
When they arrived back in Bath from Steventon the Austen sisters did have some welcome news. An old friend of the Leigh Perrots , Mrs Lillingston, had left them a legacy of £50 each, which funded Jane Austen’s whole expenditure for a year. Mrs Lillington indeed, may have inspired part of the character of Lady Russell in Persuasion.
The Austen ladies then took what they hoped would be temporary lodgings right in the very heart and bustle of Bath in Trim Street.( Number 7 on the annotated map, above) A place Cassandra Austen had once hoped they might never inhabit….
In the meantime she assures you that she will do everything in her power to avoid Trim Street although you have not expressed the fearful presentiment of it which was rather expected.
(See Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 3rd January 1801)
This position was rather confined-right in the heart of the town- and had no prospects of views to the surrounding countryside. It was also old, noisy and as the street was narrow possibly dark and consequently, not a little smelly….
The street was named after George Trim, a wealthy clothier of Bath, whose mother is reputed to have been related to the architect Inigo Jones. Writing about the design of the original Guildhall in Bath (which was replaced by the present Guildhall designed by Thomas Badlwin in 1776), reputedly by Inigo Jones, John Wood in his book, A Description of Bath noted :
For if my information be true, Mr Jones not only thought it a Duty incumbent on him as Kings Architect to examine what had not many years before been repaired by the Board of Works, to see if anything remained to be done from that Office; but was led by a natural inclination to render the City all the service in his Power; he having been a near relation to Mrs Trim the Mother of Mr George Trim the founder of Trim Street…
Page 316
Mr Trim was a member of the Bath Corporation (the ruling council in Bath) and he was one of the first to support the plans for the city’s expansion against much opposition as detailed by John Wood, again in his book, A Description of Bath:
But notwithstanding this Mr. George Trim a worthy Member of the Corporation thought it expedient to augment the Building of the New City and in the year 1707 that Gentleman began a new street at the North West Corner of it; His Example stirred up another Citizen to purchase a Lease of some Land at the South East Corner of the Town and to promote building there; So that as the City now began to shew graceful suburbs the Inhabitants were desirous of Promoting a trade for the better support of it; and with this view, they not only proposed to make the River navigable to Bristol but the later end of the Year 1710, they applied to Parliament for a Power to carry their design into Execution and obtained an Act accordingly…
As above, page 226
It has often been remarked that this time spent in Bath was Jane Austen’s “barren” period- years in which she did not write or achieve much by way of composition. I’m not sure. I think she used her mind like some form of word processor and “worked” on her texts, revising and composing continually , not necessarily committing it to paper before she was on to almost the final draft.
But, to my mind Jane Austen needed peace and quiet and a settled routine to be truly effective in her composition and writing : I think her life in Bath, when she was at the beck and call of the Leigh Perrots, her mother , visiting cousins etc and making a delicate balance between those with whom they could afford to keep company and those who had a far wealthier lifestyle and accordingly the Austen ladies couldn’t afford to allow “in”, was a constant vexation and distraction. I also think she found the constantly changing population of Bath- many people only stayed a matter of weeks to take the waters-totally exhausting. Just look at this telling extract from her letter to Cassandra Austen of 8th April 1805:
They want us to drink tea with them tonight, but I do not know whether my Mother will have nerves for it. We are engaged tomorrow Evening. What request we are in! Mrs Chamberlayne expressed to her niece her wish of being intimate enough with us to ask us to drink tea with her in a quiet way. We have therefore offered ourselves & our quietness thro’ the same medium. Our Tea & sugar will last a great while. I think we are just the kind of people & party to be treated about among our relations; we cannot be supposed to be very rich.
Her walks were probably the only peace and quiet she could command, and I think they were consequently rather important to her. They are certainly mentioned a lot in her letters. If you look at this section from John Cary’s map of the Environs of Bath from Cary’s Traveller’s Companion or a Delineation of the Turnpike Roads of England and Wales etc. (1812)
you can see some of the places she waked to during her stay in Bath. Do click on the maps(as you can all the images here) in order to enlarge them:
….notably Lyncombe and Widcombe: mostly uphill out ward journeys as Bath is situated in a sort of pudding basin terrain
Some of the places she visited on foot are marked on the annotated map as follows:
1 Charlecombe
2 Lansdown
3 Twerton
4 Widcombe
To return to Trim Street. By April Mrs Austen if we can judge from the address written on her letter to her daughter in law Mary, wife of James, was feeling exasperated at still living there:
Trim Street Still.
I had a letter the other day from Edwd. Cooper, he wrote to congratulate us on Frank’s Victory and to invite us to Hamstall in the ensuing Summer., which invitation we seem disposed to accept…we are disappointed of the lodgings in St James’s Square, a person is in treaty for the whole House, so of course he will be prefer’d to us who want only a part- We have look’d at some others since but don’t quite like the situation-hope a few days hence we shall have more choice as it is supposed many will go from Bath when this gay week is over…
The St James Square house did not materialize:
which was a pity as it was a far more congenial area of Bath- on rising ground in the Upper town on the outskirts, overlooking open countryside. But obviously far more expensive accommodation than they could afford: the reality of their financial situation I think was now beginning to set in.
And though the Austen ladies did eventually make the trip to visit their cousins, the Coopers, at Hamstall Ridware in Stafffordshire , they decided it was time to leave Bath and give up the hunt for elusive good accommodation for ever…..because Jane‘s brother, Frank, fortuitously suggested they set up home with his new bride, Mary Gibson in Southampton.
And thus ended Jane Austen’s time in Bath: we shall never know if it was a wholly happy time. I tend to think it was not: a mixture of a busy period, a period of sorrow, frustration and perhaps, some pleasure for her…but Im sure she used her time there to her eventual advantage,watching and learning a lot about human behaviour in all its manifestations while she lived in that busy place.
She certainly used her knowledge of the topography of Bath to great effect in Persuasion, and also knew how to portray the lives of the seemingly rich (the Elliots in Camden Place )and those clinging onto gentility by a very slender thread (Mrs Smith in Westgate Buildings).
But I think, on the whole she was glad not to be there any more for, as she wrote to Cassandra Austen in 1808
It will be two years to-morrow since we left Bath for Clifton, with what happy feelings of escape!
(See Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 30th June 1808)
After Mr Austen’s death in Green Park Buildings in January 1805, Mrs Austen gave up the lease there sometime towards the end of March of that year, and moved with Cassandra And Jane to number 25 Gay Street, numbered 6 on the above plan which, along with all the other illustrations in this post can be enlarged by clicking on it
Gay Street was part of John Wood’s original plan for the development of a new upper town in Bath, which began with his construction of Queens Square, then led up the hill via Gay Street to the Circus, and along Brock Street to the Royal Crescent.
In his book, A Description of Bath,
John Wood the architect tell us of his plans to buy land in Bath from Mr Robert Gay, an eminent Surgeon of Bath and London in order to build this important connecting street:
After my return to London I imparted my first design to Mr Gay an eminent Surgeon in Hatton Gardens and Proprietor of the land; and our first Conference as upon the first day of December 1725….
Page 232)
Business calling me twice not the North of England in the summer of the Year 1726 my designs for Improving Bath lay under Consideration till the following Autumn; and Mr Gay’s Land appearing then the most eligible to begin buildings upon, I therefore on Wednesday the 18th of November 1726 fixed my Preliminary Articles with him; and the Saturday after he empowered me by his Letter of Attourney, to engage with anybody that I could bring into the scheme for Building a Street of one thousand and twenty five Feet in length from south to North by fifty Feet in Breadth from East to West for a way to the grand part of the design.
(pages 240-1)
Here is a print of The Cirucs, which is situated at the top of Gay Street, as it appeared in 1773:
You can see that Gay Street steeply descends the hill towards Queen’s Square in the break in the circle of houses in the middle of the picture. You can also see Beechen Cliff looming above it in the distance:
You can also see many chairs. They were the most practicable manner of getting around some of the areas of Bath as they are very steep and, something I can confirm from personal experience of toiling up the hill that is Gay Street, when pregnant and also later with a pushchair containing my deceptively heavy son, it is not easy terrain. The alternative route ,via the Gravel Walk as used by Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth in Persuasion is much preferable, being of a gentler gradient.
The Austen ladies were of course at this time beginning to find that their financial position was not particularly secure. By his will Mr Austen left everything to Mrs Austen. But of course his main source of income was the money from his livings of Deane and Steventon and any entitlement to that money ceased at the moment of his death. Mrs Austen had a little independent income and Cassandra had the interest on the £1000 left to her by her late finance Tom Fowle, but Jane Austen had nothing whatsoever in the way of income.
The letters sent between the Austen brothers at this time indicate quite interesting attitudes to the economic and social fate of the Austen ladies. Frank -who is quite my favourite of the Austen brothers – had just been appointed to the 80-gun HMS Canopus. He generously offered £100 per annum towards the upkeep of Mrs Austen and his sisters, and did so in a letter to Henry Austen requesting that he keep this offer secret from the ladies.
Here is part of Henry’s illuminating reply to him:
It was so absolutely necessary that your noble offer towards my Mother should be made more public than you seem’d to desire, that I really cannot apologize for a partial breach of your request. With the proudest exultations of maternal tenderness the Excellent Parent has exclaimed that never were Children so good as hers. She feels the magnificence of your offer, and accepts of half. I shall therefore honor her demands for 50 pounds annually on your account. James had the day before yesterday communicated to me & Her his desire to be her Banker for the same annual assistance, & l as long as I am an Agent shall do as he does. – If Edward does the least he ought, he will certainly insist on her receiving a £100 from him. So you see My Dear E, that with her own assured property, & Cassandra’s, both producing about £250 per ann., She will be in the receipt of a clear £450 pounds per Ann. – She will be very comfortable, & as a smaller establishment will be as agreeable to them, as it cannot but be feasible, I really think that My Mother & Sisters will be to the full as rich as ever. They will not only suffer no personal deprivation, but will be able to pay occasional visits of health and pleasure to their friends..‘
I cant help but hear some resonances of John and Fanny Dashwood of Sense and sensibility in that extract.
James Austen also wrote to Frank about the financial situation:
Her (Mrs Austen-jfw) future plans are not quite settled, but I believe her summers will be spent in the country amongst her Relations & chiefly I trust among her children – the winters she will pass in comfortable lodgings in Bath. It is a just satisfaction to know that her Circumstances will be easy, & that she will enjoy all those comforts which declining years & precarious health call for. You will I am sure forgive Henry for not having entirely complied with your request for secrecy upon one very important subject in your letter … You would indeed have had a high gratification could you have witnessed the pleasure which our Dear Mother experienced when your intention was communicated to her.
So poor old Jane Austen was also now an object of charity .I’m sure this did not sit well with her. it’s one thing to be kept by ones parents, but ones married brothers?
There are some hints in the two letters written at this time by Jane Austen that still exist, that life in Gay Street without the kindly and benign influence of Mr Austen might have been rather trying: Mrs Austen was most definitely in charge:
The Mr Duncans called yesterday with their Sisters, but were not admitted, which rather hurt me.
(See Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 8th April 1805)
Jane Austen found few congenial souls to bond with in the transient society of Bath: to have some friends turned away by your mother when you were actually “at home” and ready to engage must have been hurtful indeed.
We know very little about the house as it was at the time when Jane Austen lived in it. Gay Street was a very busy street, full of chairs carrying people from the Upper to the Lower town, and would have been noisy. It was firmly set into the centre of town with very little chance of good views of the surrounding countryside. But Jane Austen obviously absorbed all the details and was perhaps fond of it for Gay Street is the setting for a very important meeting between Captain Wentworth and Anne Elliot in the Cancelled Chapters of Persuasion, at the home of the Crofts in Bath..in Gay Street.
I’ve tried to decipher these cancelled chapters on many an occasion when I’ve seen them on show in the British Museum, the British Library and at Jane Austen’s House in Chawton but with not much success: I’ve scanned these in for you form a recent “translation” : here is part of the meeting between Anne and Frederick in Gay Street:
It was altogether a confusion of Images & Doubts–a perplexity, an agitation which she could not see the end of–and she was in Gay St & still so much engrossed, that she started on being addressed by AdmL Croft, as if he were a person unlikely to be met there. It was within a few steps of his own door.–”You are going to call upon my wife, said he, she will be very glad to see you.”–Anne denied it “No–she really had not time, she was in her way home”–but while she spoke, the AdmL had stepped back & knocked at the door, calling out, “Yes, yes do go in; she is all alone. go in & rest yourself.”–Anne felt so little disposed at this time to be in company of any sort, that it vexed her to be thus constrained–but she was obliged to stop. “Since you are so very kind, said she, I will just ask Mrs Croft how she does, but I really cannot stay 5 minutes.–You are sure she is quite alone.”–The possibility of Capt. W. had occurred–and most fearfully anxious was she to be assured–either that he was within or that he was not; which, might have been a question.–”Oh! yes, quite alone–Nobody but her Mantuamaker with her, & they have been shut up together this half hour, so it must be over soon.”–”Her Mantua maker!–then I am sure my calling now, wd be most inconvenient.–Indeed you must allow me to leave my Card & be so good as to explain it afterwards to Mrs C.” “No, no, not at all, not at all. She will be very happy to see you. Mind–I will not swear that she has not something particular to say to you–but that will all come out in the right place. I give no hints.–Why, Miss Elliot, we begin to hear strange things of you–(smiling in her face)–But you have not much the Look of it–as Grave as a little Judge.” –Anne blushed.–”Aye, aye, that will do. Now, it is right. I thought we were not mistaken.” She was left to guess at the direction of his Suspicions; –the first wild idea had been of some disclosure from his Br in law–but she was ashamed the next moment–& felt how far more probable that he should be meaning Mr E.–The door was opened–& the Man evidently beginning to deny his Mistress, when the sight of his Master stopped him. The Adml enjoyed the joke exceedingly. Anne thought his triumph over Stephen rather too long. At last however, he was able to invite her upstairs, & stepping before her said–”I will just go up with you myself & shew you in–. I cannot stay, because I must go to the P. Office, but if you will only sit down for 5 minutes I am sure Sophy will come–and you will find nobody to disturb you–there is nobody but Frederick here–” opening the door as he spoke.–Such a person to be passed over as a Nobody to her!–After being allowed to feel quite secure–indifferent–at her ease, to have it burst on her that she was to be the next moment in the same room with him!–No time for recollection!–for planning behaviour, or regulating manners!–There was time only to turn pale, before she had passed through the door, & met the astonished eyes of Capt. W—. who was sitting by the fire pretending to read & prepared for no greater surprise than the Admiral’s hasty return…..
There was time for all this to pass–with such Interruptions only as enhanced the charm of the communication–and Bath cd scarcely contain any other two Beings at once so rationally & so rapturously happy as during that eveng occupied the Sopha of Mrs Croft’s Drawing room in Gay St.
Jane Austen was famously unsatisfied with this scene and reworked it, making the scene of the presentation of The Letter and the reconciliation of Anne and Frederick take place in the Musgrove’s rooms at the White Hart Inn and let it continue on through the walk through Bath up to the heights of Camden Place, through the Gravel Walk, a gentler incline than Gay Street as I’ve noted and also …the longer way around….perfect for reconciling lovers who have been apart for far too long;-)
Jane Austen first visited Bath in 1797, staying with her uncle, James Leigh Perrot and his wife at their home in Paragon. They spent every winter in Bath, to take the waters and enjoy the fashionable social life there.
No letters that Jane Austen wrote survive for that year -1797- and so we have little evidence of her first impressions of Bath.
We can, however, guess that she saw things in this crowded, fashionable place with her unerringly clear eye for it was in 1798-99 that she wrote what was to become Northanger Abbey,a satire not only on the rage for Horrid books, but also on the busy but ultimately vacuous life to be found in Bath, husband hunting, shopping and entering into the round of fashionable entertainments…
However, some of her letters written during her second stay in Bath do survive. She travelled to the spa to stay there in some style with her brother Edward, his wife and children, Fanny and Edward, and her mother, Mrs Austen, in number 2 on this annotated 1803 map of Bath (above-do click on it to enlarge it)- in Queen’s Square.
The Austen family’s arrival in Bath was noted in the Bath Chronicle for Thursday 23rd May , 1799. A “Mr and Mrs Austin”(sic) were noted among the new arrivals to the city. On arrival in the house, Jane immediately set down to write to her sister Cassandra and it is her letter of 17th May 1799 which provides us with much information about the house, number 13 on the south side of the square :
which was to be their base for their stay of just over a month:
Well, here we are at Bath; we got here about one o’clock, and have been arrived just long enough to go over the house, fix on our rooms, and be very well pleased with the whole of it.
(One of the buildings on the south side of Queen’s Square from John Wood’s Description of Bath etc.,1765)
Queens Square was one of the first parts of Bath to be developed in the early 18th century by the architect, John Wood. It took seven years to complete – from 1728-1736- and was the first stage in the creation of the new Upper Town of Bath(the remainder was the creation of Gay Street and the Kings Circus). The concept behind the creation of the square was to provide a unifying façade to the houses so that they looked like one massive mansion on the south facing side (and indeed this range did contain a very large house for John Wood himself)
Walter Ison in his magnificently detailed book The Georgian Buildings of Bath writes about the development:
Queens Square is sited to the north-west of the old city boundaries on the high southward sloping ground which Robert Gay granted to John Wood in a series of 99 year leases…Wood envisaged the north, east and west ranges of buildings as forming a palace forecourt, the ensemble to be viewed from the south side. The magnificent north front, elaborately modeled to gain the fullest advantage of light and shade offered by a south aspect, fully realizes the body of this supposed palace, to which the east and west sides were to form wings…While the east side was carried out to this design at an early date, circumstances arose later which prevented Wood from building the complementary range. The buildings on the west side eventually took the form of a large mansion…The south side was built more or less in accordance with Wood’s original intentions
This is the plan of the square from Wood’s own book which detailed the history and the early 18th century architectural innovations designed by him, A Description of Bath etc ( 1765)
Jane Austen was pleased with the house, characteristically noting it quirks along with its good points:
We are exceedingly pleased with the house; the rooms are quite as large as we expected. Mrs. Bromley is a fat woman in mourning, and a little black kitten runs about the staircase. Elizabeth (Edward’s wife-jfw) has the apartment within the drawing-room; she wanted my mother to have it, but as there was no bed in the inner one, and the stairs are so much easier of ascent, or my mother so much stronger than in Paragon as not to regard the double flight, it is settled for us to be above, where we have two very nice-sized rooms, with dirty quilts and everything comfortable. I have the outward and larger apartment, as I ought to have; which is quite as large as our bedroom at home, and my mother’s is not materially less. The beds are both as large as any at Steventon, and I have a very nice chest of drawers and a closet full of shelves — so full indeed that there is nothing else in it, and it should therefore be called a cupboard rather than a closet, I suppose.
She also very much preferred the views over the square towards the rising ground of the Upper Town, to the rather enclosed and dark situation of her uncle’s house in the Paragon:
I like our situation very much; it is far more cheerful than Paragon, and the prospect from the drawing-room window, at which I now write, is rather picturesque, as it commands a prospective view of the left side of Brock Street, broken by three Lombardy poplars in the garden of the last house in Queen’s Parade.
Though she didn’t mention it, Jane Austen’s view across the square also took in the small square of grass in the centre of the square and its obelisk, commemorating Frederick, Prince of Wales the father of George III:
Queen’s Square is charmingly situated and composed of elegant buildings which display all the grandeur of architectural excellence. It was designed by Wood, to whose professional taste and spirit Bath owes so much. In the area is a pleasure-ground, enclosed by iron palisades, adorned in the centre with an obelisk seventy feet high shaped and pointed like a bookbinders needle and charged with the following inscription:
In memory of humours conferred,
And in gratitude
For benefits bestowed
In this city
By his Royal Highness
FREDERICK PRINCE OF WALES
and his
ROYAL CONSORT
in the year MDCCXXXVII.
This Obelisk is erected
by RICHARD NASH esq,
(See The Guide to all the Watering and Sea -bathing Places etc (1803) by John Feltham)
For Mrs Austen,the Square-so called for it was the first of the important squares to be built in Bath, remained THE place to stay: in 1801 when they were trying to find somewhere to live in Bath upon the Reverend George Austen’s retirement, Jane wrote almost despairingly to Cassandra that:
My mother hankers after The Square dreadfully and it is but natural to suppose my Uncle will take her part…
(Letter to Cassandra Austen, dated 21st January 1801)
Of course by the time Jane Austen was writing Persuasion – in 1815-16- The Square was one of the oldest of the new developments in Bath: it was far more fashionable to live higher up in the new town with its crescents and pleasant outlooks across the city and the river. Which allowed her to make a small joke at her mother’s expense when the fashionably minded Musgrove girls declare that Queens Square is too old-fashioned for them to contemplate as a place to stay in Bath for the winter season:
I hope we shall be in Bath in the winter; but remember, papa, if we do go, we must be in a good situation: none of your Queen-squares for us!
Persuasion, Chapter 6
The Austen’s stay in Bath ended in late June and Jane Austen returned to Steventon-away from the glare of Bath in the summer. And she could joke to Cassandra that she had better prepare a good meal for them as they were used to high level of living in Bath:
You must give something very nice for we are used to live well
(See Letter to Cassandra dated 19th June 1799)
I daresay had she been presented only with a dish of bread and cheese, the fact that she was back in her beloved Steventon home would have made it seem like a feast.
Like this:
This is a map of Bath as it was in 1803 from my copy of John Feltham’s Guide to all the Watering and Sea-Bathing Places etc, of that year, and I have annotated with the locations of places very much associated with Jane Austen-and ones that we shall be visiting over the next few days. You can, as ever, click on the map to enlarge it.
They are as follows:
1. Walcot Church
2. Queen’s Square
3. The Paragon
4. Sydney Place
5. Green Park Buildings
6. Gay Street
7. Trim Street
8. Great Pultney Street
Jane Austen lived in Bath from 1801-1806. During this time her father had died and was buried there and the Austen ladies - Cassandra, Mrs Austen and Jane- had begun to realise exactly what living as quite poor, dependant, unmarried and widowed women meant in the early 19th century…Her intimate know ledge of Bath was used to great effect in her novels Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, where Bath is a ’character” of the novels in its own right. Eventually in 1806 the Austen ladies left bath, visited nearby Clifton and took a summer tour of relatives in Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire before settling in Southampton.
Prior to settling in the city in 1801 Jane Austen had visited Bath, staying at Queen’s Square and it is there that we will begin our tour of Austen related sites in Bath in the next post. Do join me, won’t you?
So, tonight PBS airs Persuasion starring Rupert Penry-Jones and Sally Hawkins. This is not my favourite adaptation of Persuasion, sadly, not by any stretch of the imagination. No, my favourite is Nick Dear’s wonderfully atmospheric film which first appeared in 1995. The latest version contains too many oddities and anachronisms for my addled brain to compute. Too many to list here. And the sight of poor Anne Elliot running up and down the incredibly steep Bath terrain was (unintentionally) hilarious rather than touching to my eyes, I’m afraid.
Still, each to his or her own.
So, tomorrow we begin a new season and as we have concentrated on the novels recently I thought it was time to give some space to the woman who so inspired us. So from tomorrow, for a few days, we will concentrate on Jane;-)
The season will begin with my first post written by a Guest Blogger, Karen of Bookish NYC, who will be reviewing the Morgan Library of New York’s exhibition devoted to entirely to Jane Austen- A Woman’s Wit: Jane Austen’s Life and Legacy
I do hope you will join me.
Sophie Croft is possibly my favourite of all Jane Austen’s female characters. Intelligent, kind, shewd, witty and self sufficient(as long as she is near the Admiral).
Mrs. Croft, though neither tall nor fat, had a squareness, uprightness, and vigour of form, which gave importance to her person. She had bright dark eyes, good teeth, and altogether an agreeable face; though her reddened and weather-beaten complexion, the consequence of her having been almost as much at sea as her husband, made her seem to have lived some years longer in the world than her real eight-and-thirty. Her manners were open, easy, and decided, like one who had no distrust of herself, and no doubts of what to do; without any approach to coarseness, however, or any want of good humour.
Pesruasion,Chapter 6
She is very much part of the Admiral’s world and their relationship is one of the most balanced and loving in all Jane Austens works:
The Crofts knew quite as many people in Bath as they wished for, and considered their intercourse with the Elliots as a mere matter of form, and not in the least likely to afford them any pleasure. They brought with them their country habit of being almost always together. He was ordered to walk to keep off the gout, and Mrs. Croft seemed to go shares with him in everything, and to walk for her life to do him good. Anne saw them wherever she went. Lady Russell took her out in her carriage almost every morning, and she never failed to think of them, and never failed to see them. Knowing their feelings as she did, it was a most attractive picture of happiness to her. She always watched them as long as she could, delighted to fancy she understood what they might be talking of, as they walked along in happy independence, or equally delighted to see the Admiral’s hearty shake of the hand when he encountered an old friend, and observe their eagerness of conversation when occasionally forming into a little knot of the navy, Mrs. Croft looking as intelligent and keen as any of the officers around her.
Persuasion Chapter 18
And of course, Mrs Croft is the most travelled of any of Jane Austen’s female characters:
“What a great traveller you must have been, ma’am!” said Mrs. Musgrove to Mrs. Croft.
“Pretty well, ma’am, in the fifteen years of my marriage; though many women have done more. I have crossed the Atlantic four times, and have been once to the East Indies and back again, and only once; besides being in different places about home: Cork, and Lisbon, and Gibraltar. But I never went beyond the Streights, and never was in the West Indies. We do not call Bermuda or Bahama, you know, the West Indies.”
Persuasion Chapter 8
(Map of the East Indies circa 1805 from my collection, not included in the book. Please click to enlarge it)
And it is her travels that interest me, for this recently published book, Birds of Passage edited by Nancy K Shields, details just the type of journeying Mrs Corft would have undertaken when she traveled to the East Indies, via the cape of Good Hope. I have been waiting since Christmas for the oportunity to tell you of this book. I thought today was perfect timing with the airing of Persuasion on PSB tonight.
Birds of Passage records the journey to India made by Lady Henrietta Clive- seen on the cover of the book, above as portrayed by Sir Joshua Reynolds- and her two daughters, Harry (Hernitetta) and Charly (Charlotte). She was married to Lord Edward Clive, son of Clive of India. Lord Edward was Governor of Madras. Accompanying them on their journey was the children’s governess, Anna Tonelli, and her paintings of the places they encountered on the whole expedition illustrate this book.
This is one of the Government House and Council Chamber in Madras.
The book consists of extracts from Lady Henrietta’s diaries and letters written to her brother, Geroge Herbert, second Earl of Powis, a rather Byronic figure. Extracts from Charly’s journals are also presented. They detail the journeys to and from the East Indies, stopping at the Cape of Good Hope en-route, and at St Helena on the return journey to England.
(Simon’s Bay, the Cape of Good Hope)
When in India Lady Henrietta and her children made a journey of over 1000 miles from Madras via Bangalore, Mysore, Coimatoor,Tranquebar and Ponidcherry, returning to Madras seven months later. Her aim was to see the recently conquered Seringapatam and the remains of Tipu Sultan’s capital – the fall of which was part of the foruth Anglo-Mysore cmpaagin. In 1799 the English Army had attacked Seringapatam. Lady Henrietta’s original plans to vist Seringupatam were postponed by Lord Mornington- Wellington’s brother, and the Governor General of India-a difficult character by Lady Hernietta’s account.
The journals are chock full of interest for those of us who like the teeny-tiny details of life in the early 19th century, and are of extra special interest to those of us who adore Mrs Croft, for naturally Lady Henrietta chronicles many of the sights, sounds and experiences that Mrs Corft must have shared.
The book recounts, in some great detail, life on board ship-sadly unlike Mrs Croft Lady Henrietta never felt entirely well while at sea. We accompany her while she learns Persian(the language of the India Courts) and she frequently expresses her exasperation with the limited role that women could play in this and indeed the wider world, dominated by men.
We learn from the journals what was considered to be essential travelling equipment in India for an aristocratic party: harp and pianoforte of course; fourteen elephants; a hundred bullocks to carry provisions and, not forgetting a train of camels which were essential for the delivery of express messages.
The trials if family and domestic life is also related. Unlike Sophie Croft, Lady Henrietta’s marriage was not entirely happy. Lord Edward Clive was not at all lively and was a poor intellectual match for his spirited wife. As Wellington noted-he was also part of their world in India, leading the British Army’s campaign against Tipu Sultan- Lord Edward was :
A mild moderate and remarkably reserved man having a bad delivery and apparently heavy understanding…
We learn of Lady Hernitta’s maid becoming pregnant as a result of a dalliance with an officer and discretion is the key: mother and prospective child are treated with utmost kindness, a way life for them both being provided by Henrietta, and discretion at home in England being insisted upon by Henrietta to save the poor girl’s reputation. She thinks very ill of the officer involved indeed.
She was, of course, viewing India from the standpoint of 18th century British colonialists: this is not a treatise on the Indian way of life, but notes of the lives of British in India. She was interested in the people, the flora and fauna, their religion and language but clearly on her terms. In no way did she “go native” as you can see from this small extract:
March 16th 1800
We breakfasted in the commanding officer’s fort -house..I went at seven o’clock to the fort and an old pagoda, magnificent and well carved, constructed of granite now converted into a military storehouse. The sculpture is much better than any I have yet seen, some of the open work is extremely neat and well executed…I breakfasted at the commanding officer’s house and afterwards the Princes came to see me…The Padshaw begin a legitimate son is extremely interesting. I understand that Col Wellesley was much pleased with his manners in Seringapatam….
(Map of India circa 1815 from my collection)
That being said, I adored this book, and was grateful for the glossary explaining the Indian words Lady Henrietta used often. If anything is lacking I would say it is some more explanatory footnotes…but then I’ve been thoroughly spoiled by the extreme notation of the excellent Deirdre le Faye;-)
This book is a bargain. Buy it and revel in the fascinating details with which Lady Henrietta regales us: of the plants she collects and sees, the travails of travel by sea-leaks, mutinies, prize taking-all are recounted here; the strangeness of travel within India itself; the social life of the British at the Cape and in India all of which would have been familiar to my favourite Austen lady, Sophie Croft.
You may have realised by now that I like to know the teeny-tiny details of social history…How exactly did people make a whipp’t syllabub ? What exactly did having a putrid throat mean? How was it treated? The list is endless…Hence this blog.
But I confess that until I read Dr Helen Doe’s fascinating book Enterprising Women and Shipping in the Nineteenth Century, I had not really given a second thought to how the ships on which Captains Benwick, Wentworth and Harville ( not to mention Admiral Croft) sailed to war were actually created. And not for one moment did I consider that among the shipyard owners would be some amazing women who were not only owning the yards but were hands-on running some of the ship yards that created the British naval fleet of the early 19th century, managing complex business scenarios, and importantly, ordering labouring and professional men.
Dr Doe’s book is a tour de force. A very readable and detailed overview of the ship making process, the communities that surrounded the shipyards, the law relating to women- most of the female owner of ship yards inherited them from their husbands, ancillary maritime trades and the women who were involved in them.
The book does cover the whole of the 19th century and therefore a lot of the content, while of great interest, does not specifically have much relevance to Jane Austen’s era. But the chapters on warship builders and the detailed studies of shipyard owners such as Mrs Frances Barnard of Deptford are engrossing.
(Remember you can click on the picture above- not included in the book,sadly-and all the illustrations in this post to enlarge them.)
The story of Mrs Mary Ross of Rochester, Kent (below) is, to me, a revelation.
The most prominent business in a maritime community was the shipyard. It was physically large, noisy and used a large amount of labour and on its output rested may other businesses such as sailmakers, ropemakers and blockmakers. The largest yards were major industrial concerns in their time directly employing hundreds of men…The building of warships was high value and high risk to the shipbuilder and the peak time for navy contracts with merchant yards was during the French revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars.
Frances Barnard inherited her shipyard form her husband in 1760,and it was one of the foremost yards on the Thames at Southwark. She eventually retired from the business in 1803. Mary Ross inherited her ship yard from her husband in 1808. Mary took control of the yard, showing amazing business acumen and skill. Dealing with the rather slippery Navy Board could be difficult: she managed it with aplomb.
This book will alter your perceptions of genteel women in our era. Once widowed they resolved not to live the life of a poor dependant widow ,but with practical sense and intelligence ran shipyards- for profit. Rational creatures indeed.
Admittedly, this is a very expensive book, but I have to say as someone who is not that keen on reading about matters maritime ( low be it spoken), I found it fascinating. The depth of detail is so just so satisfying to read. Dr Doe, a Fellow of the Centre for Maritime Historical Studies at the University of Exeter, leaves virtually no stone unturned in her attempt to convey to us that, in our era, the term a woman in business did not automatically mean that this woman was a milliner or a manuta maker.
“Well, mother, I have done something for you that you will like. I have been to the theatre, and secured a box for to-morrow night. A’n't I a good boy? I know you love a play; and there is room for us all. It holds nine. I have engaged Captain Wentworth. Anne will not be sorry to join us, I am sure. We all like a play. Have not I done well, mother?”
Persuasion Chapter 22
When Jane Austen wrote about attending the theatre in Bath in Persuasion the old Orchard Street theatre in Bath had been closed for some years. Its last performance was on the 13th July 1805.
As we have seen in a previous AustenOnly post, this small theatre, during its fifty year history, built a solid reputation for good if not excellent performances, and had established itself as the best and most influential provincial theatre, rivalling the two London patent theatres-Covent Garden and Drury Lane-for the quality of its performances, actors and actresses.
No, in Persuasion, Jane Austen was writing about the theatre that replaced it, the Theatre Royal, Beaufort Square.
Here is a map of Bath in 1803 from my copy of A Guide to all the Watering and Sea-Bathing Places(1803) by John Feltham:
And this is a section of it which shows the position of the new theatre:
Proposals to build a new theatre in Bath to replace the tiny, old-fashioned Orchard Street theatre were first mooted in 1802. In August 1804 a final decision was taken to build a larger, modern theatre on land forming the south side of Beaufort Square. Here is part of the history of the old theatre and the decision to build a new theatre from A Guide to all the Watering Places etc (1816):
The liberal and enterprising spirit of Mr John Palmer, father to the yet more entertaining and truly amiable John Palmer Esq. and grandfather of one of the present representatives of his native place, prompted him, amidst various other extensive concerns and speculations, to engage very deeply in the risk and expense of building a new and commodious theatre here, which had long been extremely wanted. In 1760 he obtained His Majesty’s patent for this purpose; and from him the property devolved on his son (the late amiable and intelligent gentleman who invented and successfully carried into execution the popular plan for the improvement of the posts of this kingdom by mail coaches etc), who rebuilt and considerably enlarged the house and, having connected the Bristol theatre with it, disposed of the greater part of that valuable concern. The old theatre at Bath was superior to any out of the metropolis; when the increasing population of Bath, and the rank of the company, seemed to require a new one, more capacious than the old and to which the access should be more commodious.
The funds needed to build the theatre were raised by way of a tontine. The tontine-named after Lorenzo Toni a Neapolitan banker who introduced this device- worked in this way: members of the tontine bought shares, and when they died their shares were shared between the surviving members of the tontine, and in theory the last standing survivor inherited it all.
On hundred first shares were issued of the theatre tontine, each costing £200 each. Each shareholder received income on that share of 3 per cent per annum, plus free admission to all performances at the theatre once it was built. A secondary issue of shares at a price of £150 per share did not entitle the holders to free admission, just to the income.
The subscribers to the shares included the great and the good. And the not – so – good .The Prince of Wales headed the list along with his brother, the Duke of York.
The foundation stone of the theatre was laid in 1804 and less than a year later the building, built in accordance with a design by George Dance, then the professor of architecture at the Royal Academy, was complete:
The following description of the sumptuous new theatre appeared in The Beauties of England and Wales (Volume XIII) by Edward Weylake Brayley and John Britton:
There are three entrances, in as many directions, the grand front being in Beaufort Square. The audience part is somewhere less than that of the late Covent Garden Theatre, but the space behind the curtain is much larger. The length, within the main walls is on hundred and twenty feet; and breadth, sixty feet; and the height seventy.
The exterior buildings including dressing rooms, scene room, wardrobe and every other convenience for the artistes, servants etc; the ante rooms and saloons to the boxes, rooms to the numerous private boxes; taverns etc ; are very extensive.
There are three tiers of boxes excessively lofty and affording a depth of rows towards the centre.
Cast iron bronze pillars are placed at a distance of two feet from the front, by which the first row of each circle appears as a balcony, independent of the main structure, and as inconceivable lightness is communicated to the tout ensemble.
The private boxes are inclosed with gilt lattices; the entrance to them is by a private house, part of the property connected with the theatre, and they are accommodated with a suite of retiring rooms.
The decorations are very splendid, particularly the ceiling, which is divided into four compartments, each of which is adorned by one of those exquisite paintings by Cassali, formerly belonging to Fonthill ,Wiltshire.
The wreathes of flowers etc which connect these paintings are executed with great skill and taste. The walls are covered with stamped cloth stuffed of a crimson colour and are papered above to the tops of the boxes with paper of the same colour; and Egyptian pattern fringed with gold stripe. The seats and edges of the boxes are also covered with cloth. The front is painted of the same colour with four broad stripes of gold and the centre ornamented with tasteful scrolls of gold.
This is the description from A Guide to all the Watering and Sea Bathing Places (1816) by John Feltham:
The whole south side of Beaufort-square was accordingly purchased in 1804, and such was the activity employed that in twelve months a theatre was opened, which, in elegance of structure, and magnificence of decoration, may vie with any in Great Britain. Its size is considerably larger than that of the little theatre in the Haymarket, being one hundred and twenty-five feet in length, sixty wide and seventy high. Four private boxes are taken from the first tier, on each side next the stage, and handsomely fitted up. There is an air of warmth,comfort and ease, about the house, not to be found in any other theatre in England; and two of the back rows of the front boxes, with similar conveniences as in many of the theatres in Italy. The scenery and stage-apparatus are not inferior to those of the London houses, and the actors are considerably the best out of the metropolis.
The Bristol theatre now belongs entirely to the same proprietors and it is needless to observe that these theatres have been long held next in consideration to those of London; and that there have arisen under their fostering care, the greatest ornaments of the British stage: we need enumerate only the names of Henderson, King, Edwin, Abingdon, Crawford, Siddons, Murray, Incledon and Kean; and though last, certainly not least in the esteem of the public, Elliston.
When the company is at Bristol, the performances are on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays there and on the Saturday at bath; and, during the season at the latter place, the performances are on Monday at Bristol and Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at Bath…
As you can imagine from the descriptions, the new theatre was altogether a very different and larger theatre than the intimate Orchard Street playhouse where Henry Tilney really has no excuse for not seeing Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey.
Let’s compare the interiors. Here is the Orchard Street theatre drawn by Rowlandson circa 1790:
And here is the interior of the Beaufort Square theatre, ready for a ball, circa 1820.
It was much larger,and very ornate, as you can see. Do remember you can enlarge all the illustrations here merely by clicking on them. The new theatre had its first performance on 12th October 1805, nine days before the battle of Trafalgar.
This is the playbill for that opening night. Sadly, it was a flop- the role of Richard III was given, rather unwisely as it turned out, to an unknown actor who was overcome with stage fright and forgot his words….Poor soul.
Jane Austen was living in 1805 at 25 Gay Street, where the Austen ladies lived after the death of Mr Austen. In 1806 they lived in temporary accommodation in Trim Street- both not far from the new theatre as you can see on this map.
The theatre is still in existance, though it is somewhat changed from Jane Austen’s day for it was destroyed by fire in 1862: go here to see it as it now appears.
Back to Persuasion….
Sadly because of the prior engagement at the Elliot’s evening party the Musgroves and Anne could not go to see a play at the relatively new Bath theatre. Charles Musgrove is not impressed:
“Phoo! phoo!” replied Charles, “what’s an evening- party? Never worth remembering. Your father might have asked us to dinner, I think, if he had wanted to see us. You may do as you like, but I shall go to the play.”
He is eventually persuaded to go to the Elliot’s…..My sympathies are with him. I’d much rather have spent time in congeal company at the theatre than spend a night-with not even a dinner in sight- in the company of the coldly elegant Elizabeth and the idiotic, egotistical Sir Walter…not to mention Mrs Clay.
Of all the family, Mary was probably the one most immediately gratified by the circumstance. It was creditable to have a sister married, and she might flatter herself with having been greatly instrumental to the connexion, by keeping Anne with her in the autumn; and as her own sister must be better than her husband’s sisters, it was very agreeable that Captain Wentworth should be a richer man than either Captain Benwick or Charles Hayter. She had something to suffer, perhaps, when they came into contact again, in seeing Anne restored to the rights of seniority, and the mistress of a very pretty landaulette; but she had a future to look forward to, of powerful consolation.
Persuasion, Chapter 24
Typically, in one small passage, Jane Austen gives us a lot of information about Anne Wentworth (as she now is), her husband’s essential nature and that of her sister Mary.
Frederick Wentworth is shown to be a man of a generous and practical nature, but not without a certain wicked style.
For he gives his wife a very pretty Landaulette to enable her to be driven around the country and be independent when it came to travel.
This is what William Felton, London coachmaker has to say about this type of vehicle in his Treatise on Carriages etc (1797):
A Landaulet or Demi-Landau.
This carriage has the same advantage as the landau only that the number of passengers are proportionally less; but, for convenience, where only one carriage is kept, none exceeds it for country use.
This was quite an expensive two-seater vehicle and a rather impressive gift on Captain Wentworth’s part.
(Do remember- to enlarge all these illustrations in order to make the detail easier to read, just click on them)
Mr Felton gives the cost of a new one, fitted out with all the top level furnishings and finishes, at £156, 10 shillings and 3 pence. In addition to the purchase cost, it also required the services of a coachman,
and perhaps also a groom( though the two jobs could be combined) and a footman, if he was employed by the Wentworths, could also stand on the back to accompany his mistress on her journeys.
Note that this is also a rather grand gesture by Frederick Wentworth. Employing male servants at the time incurred an extra tax: they were therefore a ‘luxury’ for from 1777 onwards an annual tax of a guinea was imposed on households that employed one male servant. The rate increased with the number of make servants one kept. This tax remained in force( thought it was modified occasionally) until 1937.
And of course, in addition to the cost of male employees, the Wentworths would have to factor in the cost of stabling the horses which would draw the carriage.
Sandy Lerner, the chatelaine of Chawton House, in her article in The Female Spectator Volume 4 number 1 has this to say about Wentworth’s gift:
This light four-wheeled conveyance gained popularity as it was well suited to England’s uncertain climate in that it could be converted from an open to a closed carriage with little trouble. The landaulette was a smaller version of the landau, a very formal postillion driven vehicle. The landaulette was also known as a demi-Landau with only a rear seat. Again this is a lady’s vehicle, and its inclusion denotes Captain Wentworth’s extreme generosity to his wife as well as a remarkable concern for her independence
William Bridges Adams in his book English Pleasure Carriages (1837) remarks that these vehicle ,along with their close-cousins landaus, were rather expensive to maintain in good order:
This is an expensive carriage to build and very liable to get out of order as the leather and wood work of the head is affected by cold and heat, damp and dryness. The expense of repairs is considerable.
So, this gift on Wentworth’s part to his wife of a very pretty landaulette was one made with much consideration for her ability tot ravel independently, in safety, and in some considerable style at no little extra cost to himself.
A much more practical carriage than Charles Musgrove’s curricle, being an all weather vehicle. Small- only a two-seater- but very stylish,with its moveable roof, perfect for summer driving.
In effect, Wentworth has given Anne the equivalent of a luxury convertible sports car.
And it rankles with Mary because she (and we !) know that she only has the services of Charles’s rather masculine and impractical curricle to call upon. No wonder she sees Anne’s gift through the green eyes of jealousy.
And now to Extravagant Monsters. We know that Sir Walter Elliot has to retrench and leave Kellynch Hall, tenanted out to the far superior ( in every way)Admiral and Mrs Croft, but does he leave Kellynch for Bath in any penitent style?
Of course not.
The last office of the four carriage-horses was to draw Sir Walter, Miss Elliot, and Mrs. Clay to Bath. The party drove off in very good spirits; Sir Walter prepared with condescending bows for all the afflicted tenantry and cottagers who might have had a hint to shew themselves: and Anne walked up at the same time, in a sort of desolate tranquillity, to the Lodge, where she was to spend the first week.
Persuasion, Chapter 5
Four carriage horses draw Sir Walter’s coach, note. Not two…four.He could never be expected to retrench that far….And can you imagine what sort of coach it might be? Not a serviceable comfortable coach like the Musgrove’s might own, I fear, but one like this, again from William Felton’s Treatise.
An Elegant Crane Neck Coach
Which would cost at least £337 pounds (gasp!) fitted with every conceivable luxurious extra…
.
In addition no doubt the panels of the coach were emblazoned with Sir Walter’s arms and emblems, as garish as his servant’s livery…..
Oh, yes, I’m sure his tenants and cottagers were impressed as he rode away, in his grand extravagant coach pulled by four horse with coachman and footmen galore, retrenching like mad….Don’t you think?
There are numerous mentions of carriages in Persuasion, and if we examine them they are very interesting: considering the owners and their choices of carriage reveals much about their essential characters.
Today we shall consider Charles Musgrove and his curricle. The existence of which so irritates his wife, Mary…well, to be fair, it is not its sole existence which irritates her but their lack of a coach.
Let me explain further. To Curricles…..Dashing, wealthy young men owned them in the late 18th /early 19th centuries and this was reflected in Jane Austen’s books. Darcy had one in Pride and Prejudice, Henry Tilney had one in Northanger Abbey, Mr Rushworth ( not dashing but very rich) in Mansfield Park; Willoughby (not rich but deceptively dashing – boo, hiss- )owned one in Sense and Sensibility. Mr Elliot, in Persuasion, also owns one, though he is driven in his by his servant, properly kitted out in mourning for Mr Elliot’s dead but unlamented wife :
They had nearly done breakfast, when the sound of a carriage (almost the first they had heard since entering Lyme) drew half the party to the window. It was a gentleman’s carriage, a curricle, but only coming round from the stable-yard to the front door — somebody must be going away. It was driven by a servant in mourning.
The word curricle made Charles Musgrove jump up, that he might compare it with his own; the servant in mourning roused Anne’s curiosity, and the whole six were collected to look by the time the owner of the curricle was to be seen issuing from the door, amidst the bows and civilities of the household, and taking his seat, to drive off.
Persuasion, Chapter 12
They were smart, fashionable carriages and gave the young man the opportunity to drive himself ….an opportunity to show the world that he knew how to do these things in style and was a competent sort of chap.
Sandy Lerner, the chatelaine of Chawton House and noted carriage owner/driver, wrote this interesting passage about curricles in The Female Spectator ,Volume 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2000):
The curricle was a conspicuous display of wealth and fashion analogous to the ownership of a high-priced, 2-seater convertible sports car. It was an unnecessary and expensive addition to an establishment as one necessarily had at least one other traveling all-weather vehicle. Also called a “bankrupt cart” because in the words of a contemporary judge they were “frequently driven by those who could afford neither the Money to support them nor the Time spent in using them, the want of which in their Business, brought them to Bankruptcy”. It was a young person’s vehicle noted for its lightness and speed, especially as it was drawn by two horses.
In Pride and Prejudice ”when the sound of a carriage drew them to a window, and they saw a gentleman and lady in a curricle driving up the street. Elizabeth, immediately recognising the livery, guessed what it meant, and imparted no small degree of surprise to her relations by acquainting them with the honour which she expected.” Mr Darcy is, in one word, portrayed as stylish wealthy and competent.
The curricle shown above was designed by William Felton. He was a coach-maker, of 36, Leather Lane, Holborn, London and the illustration (along with all the others in this post) comes from my copy of his Treatise on Carriages, published in 1794
This is how he describes a curricule and its owners (and frankly sounds a little blase about the type of customers this vehicle attracted :
The proprietors of this sort of carriage are in general persons of high repute for fashion and who are continually of themselves, inventing some improvements, the variety of which would be too tedious to relate
In his book he estimated the cost of a new curricle at between £58, 9 shillings and 3 pence and £,103, 5 shillings depending on the finish and extras added to it.
And now we can see a little more clearly one of Charles and Mary Musgrove’s problems: Charles has a curricle ( a rich man’s plaything) …but as they have a growing family, they really needed not a flash sports car but a “people carrier” -a coach- in order to travel around all year in the countryside without constantly having to rely on the goodwill of Mr and Mrs Musgrove.
“I am very glad you were well enough, and I hope you had a pleasant party.”
“Nothing remarkable. One always knows beforehand what the dinner will be, and who will be there; and it is so very uncomfortable, not having a carriage of one’s own. Mr. and Mrs. Musgrove took me, and we were so crowded! They are both so very large, and take up so much room; and Mr. Musgrove always sits forward. So there was I crowded into the back seat with Henrietta and Louisa; and I think it very likely that my illness to-day may be owing to it.”
Persuasion, Chapter 5
Mr and Mrs Musgrove senior own a coach-a good all-weather vehicle that can carry at least four, plus lots of luggage when they travel about the country.
This is Felton’s design for a plain coach and this is what he has to say about it:
Where only one carriage is kept, and the use of it is almost constantly required, a plain, substantial coach is to be recommended, in preference to a slight ornamental one: as by being exposed to all weathers and rough roads it is less liable to require expensive repairs and if well formed and neatly executed in the finishing, will always preserve a genteel appearance: in this pattern of a coach there is nothing superfluous or wanting to make it complete; and for convenience may be considered as one of the cheapest of all four wheeled carriages.
A coach commissioned from Felton would cost at least £133, 9 shillings.
Mary Musgrove is, in my very humble opinion more than a little justified in saying that it is very disagreeable not having a carriage “of their own”. The curricle is hardly a practical all-year-round vehicle: it cannot comfortably hold more than two passengers and has limited capacity for carrying luggage as non can be stored on the roof for it is in effect, a soft top which cannot bear a load. Living in the country where the effects of the weather would be more keenly felt than in a city, a good plain coach would surely make her more mobile and comfortable. She cheers up immensely when “tending” Louisa in off-season Lyme:
Mary had had her evils; but upon the whole, as was evident by her staying so long, she had found more to enjoy than to suffer. Charles Hayter had been at Lyme oftener than suited her; and when they dined with the Harvilles there had been only a maid-servant to wait, and at first Mrs. Harville had always given Mrs. Musgrove precedence; but then she had received so very handsome an apology from her on finding out whose daughter she was, and there had been so much going on every day, there had been so many walks between their lodgings and the Harvilles, and she had got books from the library, and changed them so often, that the balance had certainly been much in favour of Lyme. She had been taken to Charmouth too, and she had bathed, and she had gone to church, and there were a great many more people to look at in the church at Lyme than at Uppercross; and all this, joined to the sense of being so very useful, had made really an agreeable fortnight.
Persuasion, Chapter 14
I think a lot of her unhappiness stems from boredom and isolation. A coach would alleviate some of that by providing her with all year-round traveling opportunities. Felton himself advises that if only one carriage is to be owned ( by a family )it ought to be a good plain coach. You can clearly see why Charles wants a fashionable, smart curricle , as a fully paid up member of the ”Heirs to a Pretty Little Estate Club”.
But I think in this case you can see that he is being a little selfish and Mary Musgrove really is more than a little justified in saying that it is very disagreeable not having a carriage “of their own” .
Its rather like a 21st century man not wanting to sell his two- seater soft top Porsche when the family has grown and what they really need is a Citroen Picasso.
Did Jane Austen ever base her characters on real people?
I’m not sure she ever did.
And she certainly told her friend, Mrs Ann Barrett of Alton that her creations were all her own:
On one occasion soon after the inimitable Mr Collins had made his appearance in literature and old friend attacked her(Jane Austen-jfw) on the score of having pourtrayed (sic)an individual: in recurring to the subject after wards she expressed a very great dread of what she called an “invasion of social proprieties.” She said she thought it fair to note peculiarities, weaknesses and even special phrases but it was her desire to create not to reproduce and at the same time said “I am too proud of my own gentlemen ever to admit they were merely Mr A or Mr B…..
(See Deirdre le Faye Jane Austen : A Family Record page 233.)
However, recent research by Deirdre le Faye, published in Bath History, Volume VII seems to suggest that Lady Russell, Anne Elliot’s sometimes exasperating mother-substitute in Persuasion, may have been based on the facts surrounding a member of Jane Austen’s acquaintance in Bath.
We have had Mrs. Lillingstone and the Chamberlaynes to call on us. My mother was very much struck with the odd looks of the two latter; I have only seen her. Mrs. Busby drinks tea and plays at cribbage here to-morrow; and on Friday, I believe, we go to the Chamberlaynes’. Last night we walked by the Canal.
( See: Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 5th May 1801)
and
We met not a creature at Mrs. Lillingstone’s, and yet were not so very stupid, as I expected, which I attribute to my wearing my new bonnet and being in good looks.
(See: Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 12th May, 1801)
and
Were to have a tiny party here tonight; I hate tiny parties-they force one into constant exertion-Miss Edwards and her father, Mrs Busby and her nephew, Mr Maitland and Mrs Lillingstone are to be the whole
(See: Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 21st May 1801)
My evening visit was by no mean disagreeable. Mrs Lillingstone came to engage Mrs Holder’s conversation and Miss Holder and I adjourned after tea to the inner drawing room to look over Prints and talk pathetically.
(See : Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 26th May 1801)
There are not many mentions of Mrs Lillingston in Jane Austen’s letters from Bath: these quoted above- reflecting a little flurry of activity concerning her slightly - are all that survive. But she does merit our attention…..
She was a member of the Leigh Perrots’ circle of friends, and her story is an interesting one, so If you will allow it I will tell you it and of her relationship with Jane Austen.
When Jane Austen met her in 1801 she was 60 years old and was a widow, living at 10 Rivers Street in Bath where she lived alone save for her little dog, Malore and her staff. She was attended by her faithful maid, Molly Stowe , her man servant, Francis Varley and a seeming endless succession of cooks.
I think both Jane Austen and Cassandra must have met Mrs Lillingston before the dates of these letters quoted above _ probably on a previous visit to Bath?-because Jane Austen does not mention her or describe her to Cassandra as a new acquaintance.
We do not know exactly how Mrs Lillingston became part of the Leigh –Perrots’s circle of friends. But Mrs Lillington was born Wilhelmina Johanna Dottin in 1741 in Barbados. This may have been the link between her and the Leigh Perrots, for Mrs Leigh-Perrot was born Jane Cholmeley also in Barbardos. At the time of writing her letter’s, quoted above, Jane Austen was living with the Leigh Perrot’s at their home at Number 1, the Paragon,
which as you can see was not far from Rivers Street.
Poor Mrs Lillington’s nearest relations seem to have made her the subject of much litigation, and much legal dispute seems to have taken place regarding her late husband’s will ; there may have been legal disputes arising from marriage settlements made in favour of her daughter and her husband.
The exact nature of these claims is not known, but there still exists a letter from Mrs Lillington’s London lawyer, a Mr Coulthurst of Bedford Row who was very happy to inform her that the Lord Chancellor had thrown out the case in Chancery against her and her late husband’s estate:
…your Cause was heard yesterday & I am happy to add that the Chancellor has dismissed so much of the Bill as seeks to set aside the Release saying there was not the least Pretence for it, and that the Bill was filed from Spleen and ill Humour, but he thought that as you had executed the deed of August 1797 which from the Purport of it might be so construed as to induce a Belief in the Husband that no debt was due from the daughter to you, the Chancellor thought that you was not from the Words of the Deed intitled to call upon the plaintiffs for any money due at the time of the marriage- the Chancellor and everyone present were perfectly satisfied with the purity of your Conduct and the general opinion was that the Bill was a most unjust and unnatural one.
After all the trials her own family put her to, when she made her will on the 11th July 1804 she, quite understandably, cut out her family completely. She appointed Mr Leigh Perrot to be her chief executor and residuary legatee : and in the will also made provision for her servants: Molly Stowe was to have £90, a wide selection of the lesser valuable household effects and to take care of
my favourite Little dog Malore ,a faithful Companion though all my suffering. Francis Varley was to have £220 plus all his bedroom furnishings plus Mrs Lillingston’s old black mare “Sissy”
requesting that she shall never be Road worked or Shod but enjoy the same indulgences she has done the last eight years of her life.
Mrs Lillington’s library was a treasured possession and she had taken care to label each volume with a direction confirming the name of its final recipient under her will.
Now, here we come to the interesting part of the story.
She must have taken a shine to Jane and Cassandra, for in her will she left them the then rather large sum of £50 each. Mrs Lillington died on the 30th January 1806.
(Remember you can enlarge all these illustrations merely by clicking on them)
This is the balance sheet drawn up by Mr Leigh Perrot, made when he was settling all Mrs Lillingston’s estate.
This is the an extract from it detailing the legacies paid to Jane and Cassandra Austen
Mr Leigh Perrot organised her funeral ( the undertaker’s account of which makes for fascinating reading) and then set about disposing of her estate according to the instructions in the will.
Her house at 10 River Street in the fashionable upper town in Bath was sold privately to …..a Mr Russell. Hmmmmm….doesn’t that set you thinking?
So- what did Jane Austen do with this welcome and very large lump sum of £50 which she received in late 1806 ? Remember that unlike Cassandra who had a little annual income from the £1000 capital left to her by her fiancé Tom Fowle (who sadly died prematurely while on service in the West Indies as the chaplain to Lord Craven in San Domingo in 1797) at this time in her life Jane Austen had absolutely no independent income. She relied at this time totally on income from gifts from relations or friends. Her father had died in 1805, and so the female side of the Austen family were finding it particularly difficult to live in their somewhat straightened financial circumstances.
Well, in this case we do know what happened for, luckily and almost unbelievably for us, there is still in existence Jane Austen’s account of her expenditure for the year 1807 from her pocket book and the Jane Austen Society published it (See the article Jane Austen’s Piano by Patrick Piggot ,Jane Austen Society’s Report 1981)
This page is now in the possession of the Pierpoint Morgan Library of New York.
One item that is of note is that the legacy enabled Jane Austen to hire a PianoForte in 1807 at a cost of £2 13 shillings and 6 pence. Her piano at Steventon had been sold along with most of the other Austen articles of furniture and library at Steventon when they left to live in Bath in 1801. We know that playing the piano was important to Jane and so it appears that Mrs Lillingston’s legacy enabled her to indulge her interest by hiring a piano while she lived in Southampton.(The Austen ladies left Bath in 1806 and from the autumn of that year lived in Southampton until 1809 when they removed to Chawton).
So I do wonder if Lady Russell, sometimes of River Street, Bath an intellectual and ,IMHO, mostly kindly widow sometime subject to the indifference of youth was based on this kind benefactress of Jane Austen and her sister? We shall never know for sure,but it is fun to speculate upon it.
Surprise was the strongest emotion raised by their appearance; but Anne was really glad to see them; and the others were not so sorry but that they could put on a decent air of welcome; and as soon as it became clear that these, their nearest relations, were not arrived with any views of accommodation in that house, Sir Walter and Elizabeth were able to rise in cordiality, and do the honours of it very well. They were come to Bath for a few days with Mrs. Musgrove, and were at the White Hart. So much was pretty soon understood; but till Sir Walter and Elizabeth were walking Mary into the other drawing-room, and regaling themselves with her admiration, Anne could not draw upon Charles’s brain for a regular history of their coming, or an explanation of some smiling hints of particular business, which had been ostentatiously dropped by Mary, as well as of some apparent confusion as to whom their party consisted of.
Persuasion Chapter 22
I’ve been researching The White Hart Inn, Bath for some time.
The reason why it excites my curiosity is that, for such a famous and celebrated place, it was demolished in 1869 and never rebuilt. And information about it is hard to find. In its heyday it was one of the most famous inns in the country let alone Bath and was duly celebrated for its style and efficiency
Images of it are scarce.
In this print of the Pump Room, you can just discern the roof of the inn appearing over the colonnade running to right angels of the Pump Room.
And this very early photograph is of the view from the site of the White Hart after its demolition.
You can imagine my delight when, a few years ago, I found this picture of it in its busy glory days
….with all its amazing detail…The White Hart -a deer- standing proud above the entrance. The print also conveys just how very busy it was-(do I count 7 coaches?)
It must have been very noisy. Something Jane Austen alluded to in one of her letters:
Poor F. Cage has suffered a good deal from her accident. The noise of the White Hart was terrible to her-They will keep her quiet I daresay…
(See: Letter to Cassandra Austen dated 15th September 1813)
Hopefully, you will be able to envisage its situation, just to the north of Bath Street ( see the colonnade running to the left of the print). You can also guess its size and how many visitors it must have accommodated. It says a lot for its organization and for its proprietor that I have never been able to find a bad review of the facilities
Here is my map of Bath of 1803 from A Guide to all the Watering and Sea-Bathing Places etc by John Feltham
Here is a section of it showing Stall Street
and this is the same section annotated with the positions of the Inn and the Pump Room
The Guide from which this map was taken gave the Inn a good review:
The principal inns and Taverns are the White Hart in Stall-street where the accommodations and treatment are excellent.
Here are a few of the other reviews I have collated over the years. Parson Woodford, from Norfolk, in his dairy gives us these two brief but glowing mentions of the inn:
28 June 1793
About 10 o’clock this Evening, thank God, we got safe and well to Bath to the White Hart Inn, where we supped & slept – a very noble Inn
and
11 October 1793
We got to Bath … about six o’clock this Evening, to the White Hart in Stall Street, kept by one Pickwick, where we drank Tea, supped and slept, a very good, very capital Inn, everything in stile.
Louis Simond , the rather puritanical American who wrote his Journal of a Tour and Residence in Great Britian during the years 1810 and 1811 ( published in 1815) wrote in detail of the White Hart. He was clearly impressed:
January 8th 1810.
We arrived at Bath last night. The chaise drew up in style at the White Hart. Two well-dressed footmen were ready to help us alight , presenting an arm on each side. Then a loud bell on the stairs, and lights carried before us to an elegantly furnished sitting –room where the fire was already blazing. In a few minutes a neat looking chamber maid with an ample white apron pinned behind, came to offer her services to the Ladies and shew the Bed-rooms. In less than half an hour five powdered gentlemen burst into the room with three dishes etc and two remained to wait. I gave this as a sample of the best or rather of the finest inns. Our bill was £2 ,11 shillings sterling dinner for three, tea, beds and breakfast. The servants have no wages-but depending on the generosity of travellers, they find it in their interest to please them. They (the servants-jfw) cost us about five shillings a day.
Here is a link to the portrait by John Saunders of the proprietor of the inn-sadly in black and white and rather small. He was one Eleanzer Pickwick, who would have been the owner of the inn when Jane Austen knew of it (and when the Musgroves stayed three). The portrait shows him as a bluff ruddy-cheeked man in simple riding habit, clearly at ease in a country setting.
Eleazer Pickwick was the son of Moses Pickwick and his wife, Sarah Smith, and was baptized at Freshford parish church, Somerset, on 2 February 1749. His parents were from the village of Limpley Stoke just outside Bath.
Eleazer was the grandson of a foundling, baptized Moses Pickwick in 1695 due to his being discovered as a baby at Pickwick in Corsham, Wiltshire He was immortalized in Charles Dickens’s Pickwick Papers, which made his name a household word.
In 1780, building on his experience as serving as a postboy at the Bear Inn, he was able to provide the services of a post-coach to London from the Angel Inn in Bath whose license he held. He soon enlarged his business by increasing the number of services scheduled, especially to London, from Bristol as well as Bath, and by transferring his base to the White Hart, which was, as we have seen, a major inn in the city
He was made a freeman of Bath in 1799, and a member of the common council in 1801, becoming mayor in 1826. In 1797 he purchased the manor house and lands in the parish of Bathford in Somerset. To this land he added Hartley Farm in Batheaston, Somerset, as well as a manor house and lands in the parish of Wingfield in Wiltshire.
He owned a freehold property in Bath, in Bath Street, but actually resided in Westgate Buildings from 1800. He died on 8 December 1837. His wife had predeceased him, dying in 1835; they were both buried at Bathford parish church.
I have one last “review” to add to all this and it is from my copy of John Cary’s Itinerary etc. (1798).
This book originated from the library of John Ruskin at his Lakeland home of Brantwood.
Authentication of the handwriting in the book is ongoing at present, but the owner of this book in the early 19th century was a sort of early “Egon Ronay” and he devised his own code to describe the places he was staying and their facilities.
(Do remember you can enlarge all the images here, merely by clicking on them)
Above is the page in the Itinerary for the White Hart, and you can see that he marks the entry for the inn with a lower case “a”.
I am pleased to report that, as you can see from his annotations above, this is his code for
“Excellent”
So we can rest assured that the Musgroves will have every attention , good food and that the service will never be “indifferent and inattentive” or (horrors) the pale will not be “doubtful as to beds”-two categories which he indicates by the use of the initials q and b.
They deserve no less, frankly.
This book ,by Emma Rutherford, was an unexpected and very welcome Christmas gift this year made to me by a very dear friend. It is the most beautiful and sumptuous book on silhouettes I have ever seen. I have always been interested in silhouettes as they have always been present in my homes. I have a small collection of family silhouettes dating from the early to mid 19th century,and even had one taken as a child. This is one from my collection and it dates from around 1810:
(Do remember you can enlarge all the pictures on this blog merely by clicking on them)
But it is the book’s fascinating explanation of the history of silhouettes that I have found very intriguing.
Silhouettes in the 18thcentury were known in England as “shadows” or ”shades” and in the early 19th century as “profiles’. Dorothy Wordsworth wrote to her friends in 1807, asking them to
send their profile
to her.
In France they gained the term “silhouette” by association with Etienne de Silhouette who was appointed France’s Comptroller General( an equivalent post to our Chancellor of the Exchequer) during the year 1759 by Louis XIV. He levied land tax on France’s nobles and reduced their pensions, and furthermore hurt their pockets by taxing all external signs of wealth. Opposition from the ancien regime,the nobility and the church-previously exempt from such audacious taxes -was loud. After only eight months in office he was forced to retire from his post to his château in the countryside.
There are two theories regarding the adoption of the term silhouette for this type of portraiture, and both reflect Monsieur Silhouette’s unpopularity. The first comments upon the fact that taking a silhouette is a very quick process and as such it reflected Etienne de Silhouette’s very short tenure in office. The second theory has it that as this type of portraiture was, in it’s simplest state, the cheapest form of portraiture available at the time, it deserved to be named for him. Etienne ‘s hated penny-pinching methods of raising tax may therefore have associated his name for ever with this type of portraiture for, in France, the phrase a la silhouette came to mean to do anything ” on the cheap”.
It may interest you to know that the “science” of physiognomy used silhouettes to determine a sitter’s character. Physiognomy is of unknown origin,but it formed an integral part of ancient Greek medicine,and the revival of its popularity in the 18th century was attributable to the idea that the study and judgement of a person’s outer appearance – particularly the face- would give insight into that person’s character. Johann Caspar Lavater (1741-1801) used the term silhouette in continental editions of his very influential book, Essays on Physionomy ; Designed to Promote the Knowledge and the Love of Mankind (17 75).
In English versions the term was translated as “shades”.This was a sensationally successful book both in Europe, England and the United States.By the middle of the nineteenth century over 150 edition had been published. As Emma Rutherford writes:
It is easy to imagine that,at the height of the book’s popularity to turn sideways for others observation was to ask for analysis of one’s personality. Later in the 1830s Charles Darwin found that the captain of the Beagle had done just that:
“Afterwards on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy I heard that I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected on account of the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater and was convinced that he could judge of a man’s character by the outline of his features and he doubted whether any one with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage.”
I wonder if Ang Lee and Emma Thompson were thus trying to tell us something about Willoughby’s appearance when Marianne Dashwood takes his shadow in their adaptation of Sense and Sensibility in a scene reminiscent of this plate fromLavater’s book…Hmmm…..?
The book is sumptuously illustrated with the many, many different types of silhouettes, a term that was eventually popularised in an unsuspecting England, by the French artist Augustin Edouart in the 1820s, and describes in great detail the many different methods of taking a “profile”. There were those made by cutting paper
….those painted on paper….
and on the reverse side of glass, or on ivory.
I adore this foursome : it reminds me forcibly of Admiral and Mrs Croft , Captain Wentworth and Edward Wentworth of Persuasion.…
We are all of course familiar with this paper silhouette which is possibly of Jane Austen:
It was found in a second edition of Mansfield Park with the inscription, “L’amiable Jane“.
This book is marvellously readable, and is sumptuously illustrated. It will enchant anyone interested in silhouettes, and clearly explains the very many different types which were made. The explanation of the development of this form of portraiture in this book is admirably and carefully done. The wonderfully reproduced silhouettes also give us the chance to examine in exquisite detail tiny aspects of domestic life in the late 18th and early 19th century as recorded in them, as here demonstrated by this silhouette of a lady serving herself a cup of chocolate.
I have lost myself in this absorbing book over the Christmas season and I can highly recommend it.
Among the pies on Mrs Musgrove’s festive tressel tables is some brawn, a dish probably very unfamiliar to us today:
On one side was a table occupied by some chattering girls, cutting up silk and gold paper; and on the other were tressels and trays, bending under the weight of brawn and cold pies, where riotous boys were holding high revel…
(Persuasion, Chapter 14)
The term originally meant the flesh of a wild boar and, then by extension, the preserved meat preparation made therefrom. It is interesting to note that well before the long 18th century the ‘boar pig’ used for making brawn was a tame, and not a wild, animal.
The term “brawn” later came to have the more general meaning of the fleshy part of a hind leg of an animal, not necessarily a pig. And by Jane Austen’s time the term “Brawn” really meant just a kind of potted meat and it was most often referred to in recipe books of the era as “Sham” or “Mock brawn”
This is Mrs Rundell’s recipe,taken from my 1819 edition of her New System of Domestic Cookery. Do note she does not use only a cut of belly-pork but “neat’s feet”,and by that she means the feet of Ox:
Susanna Carter in her book, The Experienced Cook (1822)
gives slightly more detailed instructions:
As Ivan Day of Historic Foods writes:
This spectacular English special occasion dish was also garnished with elaborately carved citrus fruits. Brawn was a kind of pickled pork prepared from domestic boar meat poached until very tender in a souse of wine, vinegar and spices. The cuts of boned meat, which were called collars, were cooked for such a long time that they were tightly wrapped in linen parcels to stop them disintegrating. When they cooled, they became firmer as a result of the jelly released in the cooking process. Collars of brawn could be kept for a number of weeks in the souse. To leach the brawn was to carve it into thin slices. This now extinct dish had been a mainstay of English cookery since the late medieval period when it was usually served with mustard at the beginning of a meal.
Here is a brawn prepared and ready to be soused in its linen fillet:
And here is a finished brawn decorated in the old fashioned way with accompanying rosemay “tree” covered in snow (really whipped egg white),which though the traditional manner of serving a brawn in the early 18th century ,as advised by Robert May in his book The Accomplish’d Cook ,
may still have held sway in the Musgrove’s old fashioned household.
