Making an Offer of Marriage

by Maria Grace

Ideally, the rigors of a 19th century courtship culminated in a proposal, called in the era ‘making a woman an offer of marriage.’ Sounds a bit like a business proposal, doesn’t it? Not surprisingly, there were a lot of similarities between the two, including prescribed expectations for exactly how the transaction between the couple would be conducted. (Nothing is ever that simple, Show me the Money).

It’s hard to believe that Jane Austen’s iconic proposal scene between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Collins fit those expectations more or less exactly. But, seriously, it did.  Take a look.

Parental approval

In earlier centuries, a suitor applied first to the family before speaking with the woman herself. If her father or guardian did not approve, then the suitor dared not approach the woman herself. But in the Enlightened Regency era, such a course was outmoded. Modern society believed that young people had a right to choose their mates themselves—as long as their parents didn’t veto their choices afterwards, of course.

Until the age of twenty-one, both parties to a marriage required parental consent to marry. After that, parental approval was highly desirable, but not essential. Since a couple’s parents often contributed financially to their upkeep, keeping mom and dad happy was pretty important.

“But even where little or no property was at stake, parents of daughters (much more than sons) wanted to be consulted, especially when the daughter was still living at home, in part because they thought young women were ignorant and willful and could not be trusted to find a man with a good character and sufficient economic prospects.” (Shoemaker, 1998). For a child, son or daughter, to ignore the opportunity of making a grand alliance would have seemed foolhardy, not just to their family, but to their peers as well (Lewis, 1986).

Proposals

A gentleman who wished to propose—and it was only the gentleman who could extend an offer of marriage—had dubious advantage of having very clear procedures to follow. He did have some choices, though. He could offer a proposal in person or in the very formal form of a letter.

In either case, it was nearly impossible to conceal his intentions from his intended. An unengaged couple was never left alone, unless an offer of marriage was being made. Similarly, a man did not write to a woman he was not related to unless it was to make an offer. So either way, the lady could be fairly certain of what was coming.

In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Collin’s proposal, though it makes the modern reader cringe and squirm a bit, contains all the hallmarks of a proper Regency era proposal.

“… but allow me to assure you that I have your respected mother's permission for this address…”

He secured parental approval.

“You can hardly doubt the purport of my discourse, however your natural delicacy may lead you to dissemble; my attentions have been too marked to be mistaken. Almost as soon as I entered the house I singled you out as the companion of my future life.”

He, as convention required, recognized her maidenly modesty—a proper woman would never be direct about her expectations or feelings—and treated it as a feminine virtue.

“Allow me, by the way, to observe, my fair cousin, that I do not reckon the notice and kindness of Lady Catherine de Bourgh as among the least of the advantages in my power to offer. … I am, to inherit this estate after the death of your honoured father (who, however, may live many years longer…” 

He established his credentials, including the means he could offer to support her and her future children.

“…it is usual with young ladies to reject the addresses of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first applies for their favour; and that sometimes the refusal is repeated a second or even a third time. I am therefore by no means discouraged by what you have just said, and shall hope to lead you to the altar ere long.”

And he did not take her seriously when she refused him.

Rejected offers and jilts 

“According to the conventions of proposing, a man should express great doubt about the woman's answer, regardless of what he really felt about his probable reception. This would be a sign of respect, since it suggested that her charms were such that she could expect many worthy offers of marriage.” (Shapard, 2011).

While a young woman could refuse an offer of marriage—not really considered a good idea, mind you, but it was possible—she could easily acquire a reputation for being a jilt for doing so. In fact, both parties could be damaged by a refused offer of marriage, so matters were to be handled with the utmost delicacy and consideration for the feelings of the young man. Not only was it more ladylike to do so, it might mollify his dignity and prevent him from gossip that could taint her reputation. Thus, a rejection should begin as Elizabeth Bennet’s did, with reference to her consciousness of the honor being bestowed upon her by the gentleman in question.

“You forget that I have made no answer. Let me do it without farther loss of time. Accept my thanks for the compliment you are paying me, I am very sensible of the honour of your proposals, but it is impossible for me to do otherwise than decline them.”

This gentle approach to rejection also had the dubious advantage of making it easier for a suitor to propose a second time, as noted by Mr. Collins.

“When I do myself the honour of speaking to you next on this subject I shall hope to receive a more favourable answer than you have now given me; though I am far from accusing you of cruelty at present, because I know it to be the established custom of your sex to reject a man on the first application, and perhaps you have even now said as much to encourage my suit as would be consistent with the true delicacy of the female character.”

While being very civil, it did make it difficult to make one's true feelings clearly known. That was though in keeping with the general approach to courtship which largely kept feelings out of the conversation entirely.

Behavior during engagements

Once a couple became engaged, society expected them to act engaged. The couple might begin using each other’s Christian names. Letters and small gifts might be exchanged. A couple could express some degree of affection in public, dancing more than two dances together, for example.

Though her property would not yet be her husband’s, if a young woman did have property she should not dispose of it during her betrothal without her fiancé’s approval. Her transition to the legal state of coverture had begun (Show me the Money).

In general, engagements did not last very long, often only the three weeks required to call the banns or as long as it took to draw up marriage articles. Considering that according to church records (comparing marriage dates and dates of a couple’s first child’s birth) about one third of all Regency era couples went to the altar pregnant, short engagements were probably a good thing (Heydt-Stevenson, 2005).

References

Austen, Jane (1813). Pride and Prejudice.
Heydt-Stevenson, Jill (2005). Austen's Unbecoming Conjunctions: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewis, Judith Schneid (1986). In the Family Way, Childbearing in the British Aristocracy, 1760-1860: Rutgers University Press.
Shapard, David M., ed. (2011).  The Annotated Sense and Sensibility: Anchor Books.
Shoemaker, Robert B. (1998).  Gender in English Society 1650-1850: Pearson Education Limited.

Find previous installments of this series here:

Get Me to the Church on Time: Changing Attitudes toward Marriage
To Have a Courtship, One Needs a Suitor
Nothing is ever that simple: Rules of Courtship
Show me the Money: the Business of Courtship
The Price of a Broken Heart

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though Maria Grace has been writing fiction since she was ten years old, those early efforts happily reside in a file drawer and are unlikely to see the light of day again, for which many are grateful. After penning five file-drawer novels in high school, she took a break from writing to pursue college and earn her doctorate. After 16 years of university teaching, she returned to her first love, fiction writing.

Click here to find her books on Amazon. For more on her writing and other Random Bits of Fascination, visit her website. You can also like her on Facebook, follow on Twitter or email 

Mr. Darcy strips off...

by M.M. Bennetts

Upon occasion I feel the need to bring the late M.M. Bennetts' work to the forefront again. Today is one of those days. I'm sure you'll enjoy this amusing post, whatever era interests you. And if you have not read her books, please take a look at them. And now, the entertaining M.M. Bennetts:

First off, we have a conundrum.

Because, of course, there are two versions of the novel featuring Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, set in two sartorially different periods. Do I tell you about Mr. Darcy circa 1796-97 when First Impressions was being written? Hmn. Well, that's easily solved. In 1797 wealthy young men were wearing cravats in the style of the Prince of Wales, which "were then worn without stiffening of any kind, and bagged out in front, rucking up to the chin in a roll." Messy. Very messy. Not to say slovenly...

Therefore, a picture of Darcy circa 1813--when the revised novel, Pride and Prejudice as it was now called, was published--is no doubt the better choice.

Gentlemen's clothing had undergone a radical change during the early years of the 19th century. The long war with France had isolated Britain from the Parisian trend-setters who had dominated the 18th century, along with their preference for brightly coloured silks and satins. In their place, a new, austere, almost monochromatic aesthetic had taken hold, courtesy of one George Brummell, based on the finest of British tailoring, and drawing its inspiration from the military, from English horsemanship and a classical standard of masculinity as seen in the ancient Greek and Roman statuary, most notably the Apollo Belvedere.

And this ideal of "unity, simplicity and a continuously flowing movement from one part of the body to the next" is at the core of Regency menswear.

The body beneath must needs be moulded into a figure worthy of the clothes too--hence the daily exercise taken by gentlemen at the many boxing saloons, such as Gentleman Jackson's, or Fencing schools about London. Riding is also known to build strong back and shoulder muscles, as well as those of the thighs and calves. Carriage driving also requires very strong shoulders...

So, there's the man and the ideal...but what's he wearing?

Among the essentials of this new neo-classical look were breeches or pantaloons for the day, made either of doeskin or chamois leather or a soft stocking-like fabric. (If made of soft leather, often the wearer first wore them dampened, allowing them to dry to his physique so that they more closely resembled a second skin--they weren't called bum-clingers for nothing.) Both had corset lacing at the back, a fall front fastened by side buttons over the stomach, and were held up with braces to maintain the severe and fitted line over the thigh. They were also cut wider on one side at the top of the thigh, and higher on the other, to accomodate the family jewels, in a custom known as dressing to one side. Beneath the knee, button fastenings kept the fabric taut down the length of the leg.

Evening breeches or pantaloons were made of sheer black silk jersey, knitted cashmere or a stretchy silk-stockinette imported from India, made with only one seam per leg and that along the outside--though this was sometimes embroidered or 'clocked' down the length of it--all of which was intended to frame the muscles of the thigh.

For summer, the breeches would be cut the same, but made of stout pale or white linen or nankeen, a heavy twilled cotton.

Just as important was a gentleman's fitted waistcoat, which would have been made of white or skin-toned fabric--the idea being that if a gentleman were to remove his coat, in his shirtsleeves and from a distance, he would resemble nothing so much as a naked Greek god, muscular, beautiful, carved from marble or stone.

Coats were now made of dark matte fabrics such as wool Bath cloth or 'superfine', sculpted through the back and shoulders, with a high collar to provide a contrasting frame to the whiteness of the starched cravats. Our Mr. Darcy has several specialist tailors from whose work to chuse: John Weston's at No. 34 Old Bond Street, or even Mr. Brummell's favourite, Schweitzer & Davidson on Cork Street.

Beneath it all, the shirt of white linen, plain and lightly starched, with collars "so large that, before being folded down, it completely hid [the] head and face..." with tiny buttons at the neck and cuffs. Cuffs were worn long--a good inch or two longer than the coat sleeve to emphasise the fact that the gentleman did not work.

About Mr. Darcy's neck was his starched cravat.

Made of fine Irish muslin, a triangle was cut on the diagonal from a square yard of fabric, with its edges plainly stitched. This triangle was then folded twice and wrapped carefully about the neck, with the ends tied in one of several manners before the wearer lowered his chin to create a neat series of folds which were either rubbed into place by a day-old shirt or pressed with a hot iron. (I favour the day-old shirt method, myself...less danger of frying the larynx.)

Footwear? Highly polished Hessian boots with spurs by day and thinly-soled black pumps for evening.

Underwear? Very little was worn and then only rarely--it being pretty much a thing of the 18th century, although it was still in use (in cold weather, for example) and referred to as 'summer trousers'. In this look of careless, casual, sensual arrogance, there was no room for lumpy knickers or rucked up shirt tails. However, due to the transparency and cut of the tight kneebreeches and pantaloons, a lining of either flannel or cotton was sometimes incorporated into the garments.

Mr. Darcy would have dressed some three or four times during the course of a normal day.

He would also have required, per week, in addition to the usual "20 shirts, 24 pocket handkerchiefs, 9 or 10 summer trousers, 30 neck handkerchiefs, a dozen waistcoats, and stockings at discretion", a chintz dressing gown and Turkish slippers for taking his breakfast.

He would also have several driving coats and/or greatcoats, caped, and made of a heavier wool worsted or "Norwich stuff" for colder, rainier weather (read every day from September to May and most of June).

Like Brummell and other gentlemen of his class and station, Darcy would have bathed every part of his body every day, and in hot water. He would have used no perfumes (they were considered very 18th century!) but smelled instead of very fine linen and country washing.

So there he is--drab greatcoat emphasising the width of his shoulders, thigh-hugging doeskin breeches, pale waistcoat, dark coat (navy, grey or black being the preferred colours), and pristine white cravat and collarpoints outlining the strength of his jaw. Polished Hessians are on his feet.

Does he not look fine? Every inch a god?

So now...let's take it off.

His high-crowned bevor, his cane, his gloves and his greatcoat he has, fortunately, left with the footman belowstairs. The door is shut.

His boots (with or without horse muck on them) have been left at the door or really anywhere but in the bedchamber, if at all possible. There are two reasons for this. One, this may be a good idea at a time when there are no Dysons or Hoovers. But also, the method of removing one's boots generally required the backside of another person, and gentlemen didn't much care for bootjacks as it was said to break down the back of the boot. Equally, the reason a gentleman did not 'sit down in all his dirt' was a pungent one.

So shoes are a better bet. Easier to slip off.

And it all starts this way: with the the kissing...this could go on for a long time. A very long time. Because the most important thing is always that his Eliza feels and knows that her wishes and desires are paramount to his.

Then, the coat comes off. It's easier, I'll be frank, if she'll slips her hands upward from his chest toward his shoulders and lifts it away from him. But assuming she's not forward and that he doesn't have his coats cut so as to make removing them akin to peeling an obstreperous orange, he shrugs the thing off, first one shoulder, then the other, all the while still kissing her.

Then, the waistcoat. Button by tiny button. All eleven or so of the things. More than that if the waistcoat is double breasted. And with each button, a sensation of incremental yet greater sensual liberty is attained.

The waistcoat now on the floor with the coat, Darcy slides his index finger into the front of that knot of white linen at the base of the throat and pulls. And index finger into the remaining tied-bit and pulls. And freedom. And the end of the cravat is yanked and pulled off and discarded onto the floor.

Then he takes down his braces, first one, then the other.

And finally, he undoes the small Dorset buttons at his neck and cuffs. But being not a little impatient, he pulls the shirt off over his head without unbuttoning it all the way.

But the removal of the shirt only happens when she wishes it to happen. For all the time, his removal of his clothes is secondary to touching her, kissing her, telling her in every wordless way that her beauty blocks out the sky and the stars and is all that he sees.

And that's how he did it.

"To teach thee, I am naked first..." John Donne




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M.M. Bennetts was a specialist in early nineteenth-century British and European history, and the author of two historical novels set in the period - May 1812 and Of Honest Fame: Amazon. Find out more at www.mmbennetts.com.

Touching the Heart of a Woman ~ A New Film about Jane Austen in the Making, and How You Can Help...

by Sue Pomeroy

At the start of this year I had no idea I would be making a film about Jane Austen. The catalyst for embarking on this extraordinary journey has been this 200th anniversary year of the publication of Jane’s beloved Pride & Prejudice. I almost feel as if I have been pushed to leap to her defense.

It’s not as if Jane Austen’s work is ignored or overlooked – quite the contrary. It’s not that the delight in the Regency world she created has become almost an end in itself; the balls and promenades, the making of costumes and dancing until midnight is joyful fun and harms no-one. And the academic recognition of her individual genius has not overshadowed the novels themselves.

It just troubles me that the Jane Austen ‘brand’ is becoming almost a public ‘craze’, and Janeite projects are firing off in all directions like a giddy firework display. News of this bi-centenary has pulsated around the world, Regency balls and banquets have honoured her, Harper Collins have even commissioned contemporary authors to write new versions of her novels. Whatever next?

She has become ‘a worldwide industry’ to quote a spokesman at the Jane Austen’s House Museum. Amid all the hullabaloo a striking image cuts through it all for me. I hear a woman’s voice, like a heart-achingly touching piece of music, break through the noise and chatter.

I see a single woman, an unknown writer by the name of Jane Austen, writing alone in her modest cottage, persevering against all odds, -- the loss of her beloved home in Steventon, the untimely death of her father, the loss of any hopes she nurtured of a love filled marriage – and despite everything keeping her inspiration and her hope and her lively wit burning bright.

The growing love and enthusiasm for her work across the world is breathtaking, but amid all the adulation my heart goes out to a woman at her modest desk in a quiet English village, having the tenacity and courage to keep on writing, to keep on hoping, to keep on loving. And I am deeply touched by her uplifting inspiration as she pours her heart and soul into her novels.

I am convinced her inspiration came as much from her walks through the beautiful Hampshire countryside, her love of the sea and her visits to the stunning coast nearby, and her love of the music which she played and listened to, which formed the texture of her church worship, as it did to the social whirl of Regency life.

She was in many ways a private person, her work written down quietly in the heart of her family with no fanfare and no great claims to fame. Jane never was at the centre of all the gaiety, the social whirl and the marriage merry-go-round she describes in her novels. She was an outsider.

She had connections to the life of wealth and opulence through a few of her friends and relatives. She was most certainly a player on that stage, but hers was a ‘cameo’ and not a leading role. The flirtation and ‘love affair’ with Tom Lefroy was cut short because of his expectations and her lowly standing in life, a poor country parson’s daughter.

Her life became more difficult when her family left the Steventon rectory and all their goods were sold to fund the move to Bath including Jane’s precious possessions, her piano and writing desk. The whole neighbourhood trooped around their house, viewing their belongings prior to the auction when it was all sold off. It must have been devastating.

A few years later, when her beloved father died suddenly, she and her mother and sister had to rely on the support of her brothers even to live. We might never have had the chance to read her novels had it not been for the generosity of her brother Edward who offered her sanctuary in a cottage in the grounds of his inherited estate in Chawton.

Jane Austen would have been expected to secure her personal and financial stability with a good marriage and had the opportunity to achieve that when Harris Bigg-Wither proposed to her. Instead she turned him down, and continued to write. In the context of her own time, writing six novels of the highest quality and establishing a new ‘social realism’ in literature was in itself a radical act.

Jane must have had such singleness of mind, such dedication to keep on writing. Many years later Virginia Woolf was to say that a woman needs an income and ‘a room of her own’ if she is to write fiction. Jane Austen, for most of her life, had neither.

From the age of twenty one when she wrote ‘First Impressions’ it was fifteen years before she saw a word of hers in print. I worry that we have lost sight of her individual journey to write those novels and aim to put the focus back on Jane herself, and the hope and dreams she nourished. To help redress the balance. That is the catalyst for making this film.

Some people may say that it was not such a significant achievement for Jane Austen as a woman to write and publish such exceptional novels – after all she had role models such as Fanny Burney, Madame de Stahl and Maria Edgeworth.

My response to that is to look at the Bronte sisters who more than thirty years later adopted male pseudonyms just to get published. Look at campaigners in our own time, like Caroline Criado Perez whose path unexpectedly criss-crossed with Jane Austen when the Bank of England bowed to pressure from her and 35,000 other campaigners to put a woman on the new £10 bank notes.

Criado-Perez approved of the Bank’s choice of Jane Austen: "She spent her time poking fun at the establishment. All her books are about how women are trapped and misrepresented. It is really sad that she was saying that 200 years ago and I am still having to say that today".

This decision by the Bank of England -- just over three months ago -- was enough for numerous threats, including violent acts, to be made against Criado-Perez and other women on Twitter from the day of the Bank of England's announcement in July. At this point Criado-Perez herself was receiving about 50 such threats hourly.

So, I ask, what was it like for Jane Austen over two hundred years ago to stand up and put her work into the public arena? Did it require courage and conviction? Did it draw on her deepest reserves of endurance and inspiration? To me it is self evident that it did.

I very much want to celebrate the events of this 200th Anniversary year. Don’t get me wrong. We have been filming and documenting many of these events for inclusion on the full length feature documentary, Jane Austen – Overcoming Pride & Prejudice. We’ve been interviewing the people who have attended them, some of them from all over the world. It demonstrates that the love of Jane Austen is international, without boundaries.

Star names have already got behind the project and interviews filmed with David Bamber (the obsequious Rev’d Collins in the BBC adaptation of Pride & Prejudice), renowned composer Carl Davis (who wrote the wonderful theme music for the series) as well as actress Jean Boht who played a wonderfully daft Mrs Bennett in my original stage production.


In fact this whole process has been so inspirational that we are making a special short film about this bi-centenary featuring the great and the good who we have met along the way, including leading academics and even a surviving member of Jane’s own family. The Jane Austen 200th Anniversary Special film should be a fascinating insight into what Jane’s vision means to us now in 2013 and why her novels have such power to captivate us still. This film is available on the Fuschia Films website (below)


Alongside this, as part of my individual homage to Jane and her work, I want to balance the delight and celebration with an acknowledgement of the difficult path she trod. We plan to film dramatised episodes of her life next year, in preparation for the full length film - discussions are taking place with some of our best actors to star in the film. These filmed sequences will juxtapose with and inform the documentary footage we are currently filming and the widespread passion of modern readers for Jane and her work.

I feel it is vital to bring the focus back to Jane herself and remind ourselves of her story. We will be touching the heart of a woman, a funny, brilliant and private woman who poured her love and hope into her novels. It will be about Jane Austen, overcoming pride and prejudice.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Sue Pomeroy is currently making a new film about 
Jane Austen’s life and work. To find out more about this new film, and to help make it happen please visit  http://www.fuschiafilms.com/jane-austen-film-products-and-events/.

You might still catch the recent BBC Radio interviews at: BBC Bristol: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01hyn76  1hr 17mins and 41secs into the programme

BBC Solent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01hvz05 1hr 16mins and 16 secs into the programme

BBC Hereford and Worcester: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01j9mts 2hr 34mins and 45 secs into the programme

For more on Fuchsia Films see http://www.fuschiafilms.com/
For regular updates follow the project on twitter http://www.twitter.com/JaneAustenFilm and http://www.twitter.com/FuschiaFilmsLtd
and www.facebook.com\JaneAustenOvercomingPrideAndPrejudice

Chawton today ~ a Walk in Jane Austen's village

by M.M. Bennetts

Walking up to the 'Big House'

Although she didn't settle in the village of Chawton in Hampshire until 7 July 1809, it's now one of the places we most associate with Jane Austen.

It's there that the cottage she lived in with her mother and sister Cassandra is found, and can be visited...and it's there that she wrote and rewrote during the most productive years of her short life.

As probably everyone knows, the Austen family had been living mostly in Bath and roundabout for a number of years, since 1800--though Jane, rather like her heroine Anne Eliot of Persuasion, did not like it there. Thus when her brother Edward offered the family the use of the small 17th century cottage in Chawton that was his as owner of the 'big house' in the village, Chawton House, it was a welcome change.

Chawton House, owned by Austen's brother Edward

Between moving to the cottage in Chawton in 1809 and her death in July 1817, Austen wrote or revised the novels which would change the face of fiction forever.

Though Austen's niece described the family's life there thusly, "It was a very quiet life, according to our ideas, but they were great readers, and besides the housekeeping our aunts occupied themselves in working with the poor and in teaching some girl or boy to read or write..." I think it's fair to say that while Austen's life may have appeared quiet, her imagination and her pen were busier than ever.

Starting with the publication of Sense and Sensibility in October 1811, she went on to publish Pride and Prejudice in January 1813, which was followed by Mansfield Park in May 1814, Emma in December 1815.  (Northanger Abbey and Persuasion were published posthumously in December 1817...)

It's been 200 years since Austen published Pride and Prejudice from that most modest address and to celebrate, earlier this month, the village of Chawton opened their gardens to visitors, and Chawton House besides opening their gardens, also brought the a company of Regency dancers to perform in the grounds as well as to teach some of the dances to visitors.

Into the church yard

Over the past few years, a great deal of work has been done on the Chawton property to open more of it to the public and to provide an education centre as well.  

Among other things, the garden has been carefully planted with flowers and shrubs that were available at the time of Austen's living there, rather than with modern cultivars and the effect is wondrous.  

Austen's garden

The church 

Walking the still-quiet lanes, peering into the beautifully kept gardens, observing the dancing at the big house, all of this is part of the life that Austen would have known when she resided there...so many of the cottages might easily have belonged to Miss Bates or housed the school where Miss Smith had grown up, don't you think?

The view from Austen's front door

Austen's garden

So please, take a moment to walk with her and see what she might have seen, to hear the distant bleating of lambs, and smell the scents of roses, pinks and rich earth as she did in those heady weeks after the publication of her most famous novel, when she had no idea how famous she would become, nor how many of us would make the pilgrimage to this tiny village in northeast Hampshire.

For a virtual tour of Austen's Chawton home/museum today, please click here. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

M.M. Bennetts is a specialist in early 19th century British and European history and the Napoleonic wars and is the author of two novels, May 1812 and Of Honest Fame set during the period.  A third novel, Or Fear of Peace, is due out in 2014.

For further information, please visit the website and historical blog at www.mmbennetts.com

The Publication of Pride and Prejudice

This week marks the 200th anniversary of the publication of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. It actually was on Monday, January the 28th. Today, though, is my day in our haphazard rotation, and as I have mostly presented pieces of history from the Regency era, this is one of them.

Often we equate John Murray (1778-1843) as a preeminent publisher of the period. He was. His father, also John (1745-1793), had started the famous publishing business. John II brought forth such works as Scott's Marmion, Byron's Childe Harold,  The Quarterly Review with the help of future prime minister George Canning.

Still, John Murray was not the first publisher of Austen's works, and not the publisher of Pride and Prejudice. This fell to Thomas Egerton. A man who did publish Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

Jane Austen began the writing of her most famous novel in 1796 and finished this novel then called First Impressions in August of 1797. On November 1 Austen's father, George, sent a letter to the London bookseller Thomas Cadell to see if he might have an interest in it. Cadell declined.

Jane revised the novel in 1811 and 1812. Fifteen years after she had written it, as a writer it is safe to say that her technique and skill would have improved in that time. She also of course changed the name of her novel during this time. Also of importance was that her Sense and Sensibility had been published.

But even prior to this, Austen had secured a publisher. In 1803 her brother henry had offered to Benjamin Crosby, Susan. The sum of £10 was paid. Crosby did nothing with the book beyond advertising it was "in the press." Even with her later success, the company did nothing and Austen repurchased her rights to the piece in 1816.

Thomas Egerton in the meantime accepted Sense and Sensibility for publication in three volumes in 1811 for his Military Library publishing house. Austen paid for the book to be published and then paid a commission on sales of the book. It cost more than a third of the annual household income of Jane and her family at the time. Yet she made a profit of £140 on the first edition, 1000 copies which sold out by July of 1813. A second edition was then published in October of 1813, but this is after Pride and Prejudice was released.

Thomas Egerton was obviously doing much better at taking a book from manuscript to sales than Crosby, and so Pride and Prejudice was offered to Egerton as well. Yet At the time, Austen did not know how well the book would sell, and Sense and Sensibility still had not finished selling its first printing. She sold the rights for a one-off payment to Egerton who made £450 from the first two editions. The amount Jane had paid Egerton to produce just the first printing of Sense and Sensibility.

You could have purchased the first edition of Pride and Prejudice for 18s. Today one of those editions would cost you more than £60,000. The first print run of 1500 copies sold out and a second edition was printed in November of 1813. A third edition was published in 1817. A French edition also appeared in 1813, and there were translations in German, Danish and Swedish. The First US edition was published in 1832. At the present time, Pride and Prejudice sells approximately 110,000 copies a year in about 130 different editions.

* * *

Mr. Wilkin writes Regency Historicals and Romances, Ruritanian (A great sub-genre that is fun to explore) and Edwardian Romances, Science Fiction and Fantasy works. He is the author of the very successful Pride & Prejudice continuation; Colonel Fitzwilliam’s Correspondence. He has several other novels set in Regency England including The End of the World and The Shattered Mirror. His most recent work is the humorous spoof; Jane Austen and Ghosts, a story of what would happen were we to make any of these Monsters and Austen stories into a movie.

And Two Peas in a Pod, a madcap tale of identical twin brothers in Regency London who find they must impersonate each other to pursue their loves.

The links for all locations selling Mr. Wilkin's work can be found at the webpage and will point you to your favorite internet bookstore: David’s Books, and at various Internet and realworld bookstores including the iBookstore, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Smashwords.

He is published by Regency Assembly Press

And he maintains his own blog called The Things That Catch My Eye where the entire Regency Lexicon has been hosted these last months as well as the current work in progress of the full Regency Timeline is being presented.

You also may follow Mr. Wilkin on Twitter at @DWWilkin

Mr. Wilkin maintains a Pinterest page with pictures and links to all the Regency Research he uncovers at Pinterest Regency-Era

The Real Identities Behind the Books we Love

By Karen V. Wasylowski

Not surprisingly, we all conjure up images of the characters in the books we love.  Did you ever consider that there were actual living people used as inspirations by the authors; and, if so, how close is our imagination to the reality?  I found an interesting article the other day that showed just that - the reality behind many of our most beloved books...

Alice - Alice Liddell

Author Lewis Carroll knew many families whose children he loved to play with but he had a special friendship with his neighbors the Liddells, and a great affinity for their daughter, Alice, the little girl pictured above.  This snapshot was taken of her by him sometime in 1860 when she was seven years old. She was the inspiration for the wonderful "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and he even used her real name for the character.

The One - The Only - Peter Pan!  - Michael Davies

It is well known that J. M. Barrie based the children in his books on the Davies family, friends of his in 1897, but it was Michael Davies who was the basis for Peter Pan.  Michael was an infant when Barrie began to write about Peter and as the child grew Barrie incorporated many of Michael's characteristics into the story, such as Michael's nightmares.  It was later that Michael's brother Nico said of his brother, "he was the cleverest, the most original, the potential genius."  That's our Peter.

Sherlock Holmes - Dr. Joseph Bell

Dr. Joseph Bell was a teacher in medical school where a young Arthur Conan Doyle studied.  When creating his iconic character Conan Doyle said he thought of Dr. Bell - of his eagle face, of his curious ways, of his odd ability to spot details that others missed.  In a letter to Dr. Bell, Conan Doyle wrote, "I do not think that [Holmes’s] analytical work is in the least an exaggeration of some effects which I have seen you produce in the out-patient ward. Round the centre of deduction and inference and observation which I have heard you inculcate, I have tried to build up a man who pushed the thing as far as it would go—further occasionally.”  The astute Dr. Bell shot back a note to his friend -  ”you are yourself Sherlock Holmes and well you know it.”

Anne Shirley???? - Evelyn Nesbit

It is hard to believe now, but Gibson Girl Evelyn Nesbit, above, played a very important role in the creation of Anne of Green Gables.  When Lucy Maud Montgomery was trying to envision her Anne she cut out a picture of the model from Metropolitan magazine and pasted it on the wall of her bedroom, not knowing who the girl was.  I myself imagined Anne as a bit more demure.

Antonia Shimerdas — Annie Sadilek Pavelka

“Every story I have ever written,” said Willa Cather “… has been the recollection of some childhood experience, of something that touched me as a youngster.” Cather once called the real Antonia (My Antonia) “one of the truest artists I ever knew in the keenness and sensitiveness of her enjoyment, in her love of people and in her willingness to take pains.”

Daisy Buchanan – Ginevra King

F. Scott Fitzgerald dated the socially important Ginerva King between 1915 to 1917 and, sure enough, their romance faltered because of the unequal social standing between them.  A heartbroken Fitzgerald wrote, "Poor boys shouldn’t think of marrying rich girls.”  She figured in other books of his as well.  And I always thought it was Zelda!

( http://www.flavorwire.com/333197/fascinating-photographs-of-famous-literary-characters-in-real-life?all=1)

Now to the important news - my new book, SONS AND DAUGHTERS, is on sale at Amazon.com and Amazon UK.com.  It is a continuation of my first book, DARCY AND FITZWILLIAM, a sequel to PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (yes, I know - it gets confusing)

This is shaping up to be a Family Saga of sorts with SONS AND DAUGHTERS taking the iconic Mr. Darcy and his best friend and cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, farther into the future with their growing families and all the problems that naturally come with parenthood.

Visit my blog, THE LEAGUE OF BRITISH ARTISTS, to read an excerpt of the new book and for a chance to win a Kindle or a copy of either 'Sons and Daughters' or 'Darcy and Fitzwilliam'

VISIT LEAGUE OF BRITISH ARTISTS 
AND ENTER 

THE "SONS AND DAUGHTERS" GIVEAWAY