Jane Austen (20 page)

Jane Austen died at 4.30 a.m. on 18 July 1817 at the age of 41. It was left to Jane’s sister Cassandra to describe the last few hours of her life which, in a letter to her niece Fanny Knight, she did in a most moving way:

Jane’s funeral was attended by only a handful of mourners, including three of her brothers: Edward, Henry and Francis. James did not attend, but sent his son James E. Austen-Leigh in his place. The reason was, according to the latter’s sister Caroline, that:

Caroline also stated that:

The funeral was arranged by Henry and conducted by the Revd Thomas Watkins, precentor of the cathedral. It was held early in the morning to avoid clashing with Morning Prayers at 10 o’clock. Women were not expected to attend funerals and Cassandra’s last sight of the coffin was when it left 8, College Street.

Two days after Jane’s death, Cassandra wrote to her niece Fanny Knight:

However, Cassandra goes on to say:

In other words, yes, my sister has died, but I shall soon get over it. How strongly this contrasts with Jane’s sentiments when she lost her dearest friend Mrs Lefroy, and four years later wrote a moving poem in her memory. There follows an even stranger statement from Cassandra:

So what were these ‘many causes of self-reproach’? Did Cassandra feel that in some way during the course of Jane’s final illness, she had neglected her sister? Or was it something else that she felt guilty about; something far more profound; something, perhaps, that related to Jane’s love affair in Devonshire all those years ago in the summer of 1802?

On 29 July 1817, when Cassandra wrote again to Fanny, it is clear that once again her concern is principally for herself:

In her will, Jane left everything to her sister Cassandra, apart from a legacy of
£
50 to her brother Henry, and
£
50 to Mme Bigeon – Henry’s former housekeeper; the residue of her estate being
£
561.2
s
0
d
. Martha Lloyd received Jane’s topaz cross which had been given to her by her brother Charles.

After Jane’s death, her brother Henry, whom she had named as her literary executor, oversaw the publication of
Northanger
Abbey
(previously
Susan
) and
Persuasion
, both by John Murray in December 1817 (dated 1818).

In many ways, Jane Austen was a woman of the twentieth or twenty-first centuries (rather than of the nineteenth), in that she found a great deal that was archaic and ridiculous about the society in which she found herself: its manners, its customs, its traditions, its prejudices. Equally, this provided a great deal of material for her to satirise and, in doing so, employed all those tools of the satirist’s trade – irony, sarcasm, invective, wit, parody, mockery, humour – as a means for achieving her ends. However, those features of middle-class, nineteenth-century life which she did admire, such as good manners, smartness of appearance and traditional family values of love and friendship (which was the title of one of her books), she embraced wholeheartedly.

The influence of Jane’s cousin Eliza, which in the past has been underestimated, has been discussed. The similarity of their humour has been remarked upon, and of their style of writing. Also, Eliza encouraged Jane with her French and her music and singing, and taught her manners and social graces. But as already mentioned, there are elements of Eliza’s character with which Jane would certainly not have approved.

In
Northanger Abbey
Jane parodies the Gothic novel. In
A
History of England
she parodies the dry, dull, formal historical textbooks of the day. In
Persuasion
she makes a burlesque of Sir Walter Elliot who, she declares, had never read any book but
The Baronetage
and to whom vanity was the ‘beginning and
end’ of his character. In
Pride and Prejudice
, through her heroine Elizabeth Bennet, she mocks Mr Darcy for his insufferable pride and for the way he regards Elizabeth and her connections as being inferior.

The satirist may also be accused of being destructive; critical and dissatisfied with everything that he or she encounters, while at the same time having nothing positive to put in its place. This is certainly not the case with Jane. Her heroines know exactly what they want from their husbands-to-be, and are quite capable of using satire as a weapon in order to make such prospective husbands more amenable and turn them into better people. Elizabeth Bennet used this technique to great effect, both against Darcy’s pride and against his prejudices. Nevertheless, in a society which was deeply class conscious, a certain amount of courage is required from Jane’s heroines if they are to make their voices heard. An example of this is the way Elizabeth Bennet stands up to the opinionated and insufferable Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

From the words and deeds of Jane’s heroines one may deduce that she, herself, was fiercely egalitarian. She felt strongly that people should be judged on their merits of character, judgement and education, rather than on what their connections were or how many thousand a year was going into their bank accounts. Also, there is a deep, underlying humanity in the novels, for example, in the solicitous way in which Mr Woodhouse shows concern for his daughter Emma, who reciprocates by showing her concern for him. Again, one may deduce that courage and humanity were also a part of Jane’s make-up.

When a character is found to be wanting, such as Mr Wickham (
in Pride and Prejudice
), who elopes with Mrs Bennet’s daughter Lydia, Jane does not seek to humiliate and destroy him. There is no spiteful and retributive destruction of
the miscreant on the part of Jane the author. Instead, matters are usually resolved in a civilised manner and the offender is allowed to retain some dignity.

Jane’s ability to see the humorous side of a situation permits the present-day reader to look back at her life and times, and at those of her contemporaries, in the same light-hearted way; rather than judging and, perhaps, condemning them by the standards of today.

In her early life Jane was dependent on a small allowance made to her by her father George, who himself was obliged to take in pupils in order to supplement his modest income. This, as Jane’s letters indicate, meant that she was always obliged to live frugally. From the time of her father’s death in 1805, Jane’s position became worse in that her family became reliant on the charity of her brothers; in particular Francis, who accommodated them at his home in Southampton, and Edward who found them a home at Chawton. Only latterly did the income from her books provide Jane with what she herself would have described as a ‘modest competence’. How she must have longed for the security, which in happier circumstances, a loving husband of even modest means might have provided.

Jane, undoubtedly, lived vicariously through her heroines and relished the moment when they could find the right man, marry and live happily ever after. How sad that in her life, despite the fact that she had a number of romances, she was never able to achieve such a state of marital bliss as she effected for the likes of Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse. Instead, with her final illness which caused not only pain but disfigurement, she knew that her last chance of happiness had gone. Yet, with her wonderfully creative spirit she carried on writing in the same satirical and witty way that she had always done, this time choosing, in
Sanditon
, to satirise groups of neurotic people who could produce medical ailments at the drop of a hat.

The many aspects of Jane’s personality and life continue to intrigue to this day:

It would be a mistake to think of Jane as a weak and sentimental person. She was well able to stand up for herself as, for instance, when the Austens relocated from Steventon to Bath, and she felt that her siblings were helping themselves to more of their fair share of the family’s possessions. And why should she not have done so? ‘Stoical’ is an epithet which may rightly be applied to Jane, and yet occasionally, the mask slips and she reveals her vulnerabilities as, for example, when she admits to weeping at the departure of her early love, Tom Lefroy.

This was one of Jane’s most remarkable qualities. She demonstrates it not only in her novels, but also in real life, in respect of Mrs Lefroy and also her sister Cassandra. A good example is found in
Pride and Prejudice
, where Elizabeth Bennet is willing to be reconciled to Wickham even though the latter has previously brought disgrace on the family by eloping with her sister Lydia.

This was not always one of sweetness and light. In her letters Jane harangues her sister for failing, in her eyes, to be a good correspondent, and also for failing to be there when Jane needed her.

In her novel
The Watsons
, Jane chooses to deal, in an uncharacteristically immoderate, even bitter way, with the subject of sisterly betrayal. Her poem entitled ‘Miss Austen’, discovered by Lord Brabourne in 1807, is about love and it refers to those who were once friends becoming bitter foes. Also, the fact that after the title Jane has included Cassandra’s name – written in brackets – implies that Jane intends the sentiments which she expressed therein, to be directed towards her sister. Finally, Cassandra’s phrase, ‘my many causes of self-reproach’, was written in respect of Jane after her death. These coded signals appear to reveal that the sisters had a falling out and that one, presumably Cassandra, betrayed the other, in an affair of the heart.

Until now, the identity of Jane’s Devonshire lover has remained a mystery, largely because Cassandra destroyed those letters of Jane’s which might have shed light on the subject. Cassandra did, however, admit both to her niece Caroline and to her niece Anna, that the man’s name was Blackall. Evidence has been put forward that this lover was, in fact, the Revd Samuel Blackall, the same gentleman whom Jane had met (at Mrs Lefroy’s instigation) in 1798. The evidence for this, although circumstantial, is strong:

Firstly, we have Cassandra’s word that his name was Blackall. Secondly, we know he was visiting his brother who was a doctor in South Devonshire. Thirdly, we know that the Austens paid a visit to South Devonshire, and more particularly to the vicinity in which Dr John Blackall practised medicine, in the summer of 1802. What clinches the matter is the fact that, according to parish records, Samuel Blackall is known to have
had a younger brother, Dr John Blackall, who was practising in Devon at the time.

Why did Cassandra choose to destroy the evidence relating to Blackall, but not that which related to another gentleman with whom Jane fell in love, namely Tom Lefroy? If Cassandra did indeed attempt to steal Blackall from Jane, as both
The Watsons
and the poem ‘Miss Austen’ appear to imply, and if Jane had alluded to this in her letters, then surely this would have given Cassandra a motive to destroy them. After all, had their contents become known to the family, or to the public at large, Cassandra would have been portrayed in a very poor light indeed. Also, the time frame fits perfectly in that the ‘missing letter’ period encompasses the year 1802, when Jane and Blackall were reunited.

That Cassandra was mightily impressed by Blackall is born out by Caroline Austen in her (previously mentioned) letter to Mary Leigh. Caroline states that when she, her mother and Cassandra ‘made the acquaintance of a certain Mr. Henry Eldridge of the Engineers’, Cassandra said that this gentleman, whom she regarded as ‘very pleasing’, ‘good looking’, ‘unusually gifted’ and ‘agreeable’, reminded her of the gentleman ‘whom they had met one Summer when they were by the sea’.

Alternatively, is it possible that Cassandra – and not Jane – was the victim, and that it was the former to whom Blackall was attracted? This is unlikely, for if Jane was the culprit then why was she so anxious to emphasise the subject of sisterly betrayal, both in
The Watsons
and in her poem?

Did Blackall keep in touch with Jane during the ‘missing letter’ years, and if so, why did he not propose to her (instead of to Susannah Lewis) when he finally obtained his Somersetshire living and became Rector of Great Cadbury in 1812? After all, Jane, at that time was in good health, her final illnesses not yet having manifested themselves. This question remains unanswered.

In 1804 Jane lost her dear friend Mrs Lefroy, and in 1805 she lost her beloved father George. It also seems to be the case that in 1802 she had experienced the trauma of a failed relationship with Blackall. If, in addition, there was a simultaneous breakdown in Jane’s relationship with her, hitherto, beloved sister Cassandra whom she adored, this may explain why her novel-writing virtually ceased for over a decade (from 1798 to 1810).

Reading between the lines, it appears that Jane convinced herself that her sister had influenced Blackall against her, and tried to steal him for herself. There is, however, another interpretation of events. In meeting with the Austen family again in 1802, was Blackall merely attempting, in his words, to improve his ‘acquaintance with that family’, rather than with one of its members in particular – i.e. either Jane or Cassandra? Had Jane misread the signs, believing him to be in love with her when he was not? And when this became obvious, did she turn, unfairly, on her sister and apportion blame for the failed relationship to her? There is evidence that Jane sometimes did get matters out of proportion as far as Cassandra was concerned; she scolded her, for example, when the latter failed to write to her, or was absent from home for what she considered to
be inordinately long periods of time; times when Cassandra clearly desired some life of her own.

The mystery relating to Jane’s final illness was largely solved by physician Sir Zachary Cope in 1964, when he diagnosed her condition as Addison’s disease. This, however, was only part of Jane’s problem for, as has been demonstrated, it is highly likely that she was also suffering from tuberculosis of the spine – a disease which she appears to have contracted from her brother Henry while she was nursing him.