The Letters of Jane Austen E-Book

Edward Lord Brabourne

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Seitenzahl: 677

Beschreibung

This edition of Jane Austen's letters was edited by Fanny Knight's son Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen (the first Baron Brabourne, lived 1829-1893), and was published in 1884. The Letters of Jane Austen (1884) publishes these letters for the first time, and sets them in a family context drawn from the reminiscences of those who knew Austen personally. This first of two volumes begins with a biographical essay and then includes letters from 1796 to 1807. This is a wonderful book and gift for any Jane Austen admirer! It's a wonderful and enchanting read and in a beautiful layout with some illustrations and printed on cream paper.  Enjoy Jane Austen's letters to her sister Cassandra and dive into the Regency England and see it with Jane's eyes ...

Leseprobe

This edition of Jane Austen's letters was edited by Fanny Knight's son Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen (the first Baron Brabourne, lived 1829-1893), and was published in 1884. It's neither complete (about two thirds of the letters now known to have survived are included), nor are the texts of the letters necessarily always transcribed with minute scholarly fidelity, but it's out of copyright, and includes many annotations and quaint comments on the letters.

The dedication is to Queen Victoria: In 1946 a great-grandson of Lord Brabourne married a great-great-granddaughter of Victoria.

DEDICATION

TO

THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

MADAM,

It was the knowledge that your Majesty so highly appreciated the works of Jane Austen which emboldened me to ask permission to dedicate to your Majesty these volumes, containing as they do numerous letters of that authoress, of which, as her great-nephew, I have recently become possessed. These letters are printed, with the exception of a very few omissions which appeared obviously desirable, just as they were written, and if there should be found in them, or in the chapters which accompany them, anything which may interest or amuse your Majesty, I shall esteem myself doubly fortunate in having been the means of bringing them under your Majesty’s notice.

I am, Madam,

Your Majesty’s very humble

and obedient subject,

BRABOURNE.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: Godmersham and Goodnesstone

CHAPTER 2: AUSTENS AND KNIGHTS

CHAPTER 3: STEVENTON AND CHAWTON, WINCHESTER

CHAPTER 4: THE NOVELS

CHAPTER 5: THE NOVELS

LETTERS: 1796

Section I

Section II

Section III

Section IV

Section V

Section VI

Section VII

LETTERS: 1798, 1799

Section VIII

Section IX

Section X

Section XI

Section XII

Section XIII

Section XIV

Section XV

Section XVI

Section XVII

LETTERS: 1799

Section XVIII

Section XIX

Section XX

Section XXI

LETTERS: 1800, 1801

Section XXII

Section XXIII

Section XXIV

Section XXV

Section XXVI

Section XXVII

Section XXVIII

Section XXIX

LETTERS: 1801

Section XXX

Section XXXI

Section XXXII

LETTERS: 1805

Section XXXIII

Section XXXIV

Section XXXV

LETTERS: 1807

Section XXXVI

Section XXXVII

Section XXXVIII

LETTERS: 1808

Section XXXIX

Section XL

Section XLI

Section XLII

LETTERS: 1808, 1809

Section XLIII

Section XLIV

Section XLV

Section XLVI

Section XLVII

Section XLVIII

Section XLIX

Section L

Section LI

Section LII

Section LIII

Section LIV

LETTERS: 1811

Section LV

Section LVI

Section LVII

Section LVIII

Section LIX

Section LX

LETTERS: 1813

Section LXI

Section LXII

Section LXIII

Section LXIV

Section LXV

Section LXVI

Section LXVII

Section LXVIII

Section LXIX

Section LXX

LETTERS: 1814

Section LXXI

Section LXXII

Section LXXIII

Section LXXIV

Section LXXV

LETTERS: 1815, 1816

Section LXXVI

Section LXXVII

Section LXXVIII

INTRODUCTION.

It is right that some explanation should be given of the manner in which the letters now published came into my possession.

The Rev. J. E. Austen Leigh, nephew to Jane Austen, and first cousin to my mother Lady Knatchbull, published in 1869 ‘ a Memoir ’ of his aunt, and supplemented it by a second and enlarged edition in the following year, to which he added the hitherto unpublished tale, ‘ Lady Susan,’ for the publication of which he states in his preface that he had ‘ lately received permission from the author’s niece, Lady Knatchbull, of Provender, in Kent, to whom the autograph copy was given.’ It seems that the autograph copy of another unpublished tale, ‘The Watsons,’ had been given to Mr. Austen Leigh’s half-sister, Mrs. Lefroy, and that each recipient took a copy ofwhat was given to the other, by which means Mr. Austen Leigh became acquainted with the existence and contents of ‘Lady Susan,’ and knowing that it was the property of my mother, wrote to ask her permission to attach it to, and publish it with, the second edition of his ‘ Memoir.’ My mother was at that time unable to attend to business, and my youngest sister, who lived with-her, replied to the request, giving the desired per-mission on her behalf, but stating at the same time that the autograph copy had been lost for the last six years, that any letters which existed could not be found, and that my mother was not in a fit state to allow of any search being made. It so happened that no reference was made to me, and I only knew of the request having been made and granted when I saw the tale in print. But on my mother’s death, in December 1882, all her papers came into my possession, and I not only found the original copy of ‘ Lady Susan ’—in Jane Austen’s own handwriting—among the other books in the Provender library, but a square box full of letters, fastened up carefully in separate packets, each of which was endorsed ‘ For Lady Knatchbnll,’ in the handwriting of my great-aunt, Cassandra Austen, and with which was a paper endors'd, in my mother’s handwriting, ‘ Letters from nt dear Aunt Jane Austen, and two from Aunt Cas-sandra after her decease,’ which paper contained the letters written to my mother herself. The box itself had been endorsed by my mother as follows :—

‘ Letters from Aunt Jane to Aunt Cassandra at different periods of her life—a few to me—and some from Aunt Cass. to me after At. Jane’s death.’

This endorsement bears the date August, 1856, and was probably made the last time my mother looked at the letters. At all events, a comparison of these letters with some quoted by Mr. Austen Leigh makes it abundantly clear that they have never been in his hands, and that they are now presented to the public for the first time. Indeed, it is much to be regretted that the ‘ Memoir ’ should have been published without the additional light which many of these letters throw upon the Life, though of course no blame attaches to Mr. Austen Leigh in the matter.

The opportunity, however, having been lost, and ‘Lady Susan’ already published, it remained for me to consider whether the letters which hadcome into my possession were of sufficient public interest to justify me in giving them to the world.

They had evidently, for the most part, been left to my mother by her Aunt Cassandra Austen; they contain the confidential outpourings of Jane Austen’s soul to her beloved sister, interspersed with many family and personal details which, doubtless, she would have told to no other human being. But to-day, more than seventy long years have rolled away since the greater part of them were written ; no one now living can, I think, have any possible just cause of annoyance at their publication, whilst, if I judge rightly, the public never took a deeper or more lively interest in all that concerns Jane Austen than at the present moment. Her works, slow in their progress towards popularity, have achieved it with the greater certainty, and have made an impression the more permanent from its gradual advance.

The popularity continues, although the customs and manners which Jane Austen describes have changed and varied so much as to belong in a great measure to another age. But the reason of its continuance is not far to seek. Human nature is the same in all ages of the world, and ‘ the inimitable Jane’ (as an old friend of mine used always to call her) is true to Nature from first to , last. She does not attract our imagination by sensational descriptions or marvellous plots; but, with so little ‘ plot ’ at all as to offend those who read only for excitement, she describes men and women exactly as men and women really are, and tells her tale of ordinary, everyday life with such truthful delineation, such bewitching simplicity, and, moreover, with such purity of style and language, as have rarely been equalled, and perhaps never surpassed.

This being the case, it has seemed to me that the letters which show what her own ‘ ordinary, everyday life ’ was, and which afford a picture of her such as no history written by another person could give so well, are likely to interest a public which, both in Great Britain and America, has learned to appreciate Jane Austen. It will be seen that they are ninety-four in number, ranging in date from 1796 to 1816—that is to say, over the last twenty years of her life. Some other letters, written to her sister Cassandra, appear in Mr. Austen Leigh’s book, and it would seem that at Cassandra’s death, in 1845, the correspond ence must have been divided, and whilst the bulk of it came to my mother, a number of letters passed into the possession of Mr. Austen Leigh’s sisters, from whom he obtained them. These he made use of without being aware of the existence of the rest.

However this may be, it is certain that I am now able to present to the public entirely new matter, from which may be gathered a fuller and more complete knowledge of Jane Austen and her ‘belongings’ than could otherwise have been obtained. Miss Tytler, indeed, has made a praiseworthy effort to impart to the world information respecting the life and works of her favourite authoress, but her ‘ Life ’ is little more than a copy of Mr. Austen Leigh’s Memoir. I attempt no ‘ Memoir ’ that can properly be so called, but I give the letters as they were written, with such comments and explanations as I think may add to their interest. I am aware that in some of the latter I have wandered somewhat far away from Jane Austen, having been led aside by allusions which awaken old memories and recal old stories.

But whilst my ‘addenda’ may be read or skipped as the reader pleases, they do not detract from

CHAPTER 1Godmersham and Goodnesstone

My great-aunt, Jane Austen, died on July 18, 1817. As circumstances over which I had no control prevented my appearance in the world until twelve years later, I was unfortunately debarred from that personal acquaintance with her and her surroundings which would have enabled me to describe both with greater accuracy of detail than I can at present hope to attain. I feel, however, that I have some claim to undertake the task which I am about to commence, from the fact that my mother, the eldest daughter of the Edward Austen so often alluded to in the accompanying letters, was the favourite niece of Aunt Jane, and that the latter's name has been a household word in my family from the earliest period of my recollection. It is of my mother that Jane Austen writes to her sister Cassandra (October 7, 1808), 'I am greatly pleased with your account of Fanny; I found her in the summer just what you describe, almost another sister, and could not have supposed that a neice 1 would ever have been so much to me. She is quite after one's own heart.'

And it is to my mother that her Aunt Cassandra writes in 1817, after her sister's death: 'I believe she was better known to you than to any human being besides myself.'

The memory of 'Aunt Jane' was so constantly and so tenderly cherished by my mother, and I have always heard her spoken of in such terms of affection, that I feel very much as if I must have known her myself, and I am not content to let these letters go forth to the world without such additional information as I am able to impart with respect to the people and things of whom and of which they treat.

In order to be properly interested in a biography or in biographical letters, it is necessary that the reader should know something of the 'dramatis personae', so as to feel as nearly as possible as if they were personal acquaintances; and if this desirable point is once reached, the amusement to be found in the narrative is sensibly increased. Of course it is very possible to fall into the error going too much into detail, and provoking the exclamation, 'What has this got to do with Jane Austen?' I think that this is an exclamation very likely to be made by some of thos who may peruse these volumes; but, on the other hand, I am inclined to believe that, upon the whole, it is better to give too much than too little information. Fo my own part, I confess that, if I read letters of this kind at all, I like to know as much as is to be known about the people and places mentioned. To leave me at the end of my perusal uncertain as to the fat of some of the people, or as to the presend condition of the places, is to my mind a distinct fraud upon the good nature which has induced me to take sufficient interest in them to read the book. I like to know whom John married, waht became of Mary, who lives at A____ , and whether B___ is still in possession of the same family; and, such being my view of the case, I haveedeavoured to give as much information as I could about everybody and everything.

At the distance of time from which these letters were written, it is next to impossible not to miss, and perhaps occasionally misunderstand, some of the allusions; but, for the most part, I hope and think this has been avoided.

To a considerable extent, the letters tell their own story, the first being written in 1796, when the writer was not yet twenty-one - the last in 1816, the year before she died. The 'Memoir' published by Mr. Austen Leigh gives an outline of Jane Austen's history which these letters will do much to fill up and complete; but there are some points which he has left untouched, and others upon which I am now able to impart.

For instance, Mr. Austen Leigh speaks of letters written in November, 1800, as 'the earliest letters' he has seen, whereas the present collection comprises more than twenty which were written before that time. Again, he quotes a sentence written in April, 1805, as 'evidence that Jane Austen was acquainted with Bath before it became her residence in 1801', the fact which acquaintance, the reason for it and the manner in which it came about, will all be found in these letters.

It is not my desire or intention to attempt a regular biography of Jane Austen, by which I mean an account of the events of her life set down in chronological order and verified with historical precision. In truth, the chief beauty of Jane Austen's life really consisted in its being uneventful: it was empathically a home life, and she the light and blessing of a home circle. When it has been said she was born at Steventon Rectory on December 16, 1775, that the family movet to bath in 1801, that her father died there in January, 1805, that she subsequently went with her mother to Southampton, in 1809 settled in Chawton, and went in 1817 to die at Winchester, the whole record of the life has been nearly completed; its beauty is to be found in the illustrations which these letters afford, revealing to us as they do more of the character and inner life of the writer than could be discovered by the mere dry recital of events.

To judge the letters fairly, however, and to understand them as they ought to be understood to make them interesting, I think it is very desirable to arrive at a more complete knowledge than has hitherto been possible for the general public, of the circumstances under which they were written, and the places to and from which they were adressed.

Of Steventon, where the first half of Jane Austen's life was passed, there is little to be said beyond what has been already told by Mr. Austen Leigh. But it is interesting to enquire how it was that Steventon became Jane Austen's home, and she more so since it was through the same channel that her family became interested in Godmersham Park and Chawton House, from or to the former of which many her letters were addressed, and near to the latter of which was the home whereshe passed the later period of her life. In fact, before one can thoroughly understand and feel at home with the people of whom Jane Austen writes, and who were the friends and companions of her life, one should know something of the history of Godmersham and Goodnestone, in Kent, as well as of Steventon and Chawton, in Hampshire; and I am bound to say, speaking from personal experience, that the more we know about them, the better we shall like them.

I will take Godmersham first, partly because I know it best, and partly because it obliges me to enter upon a genealogical sketch which is required in order to trace the way in which this place became connected with Jane Austen and Jane Austen with the place.

Godmersham Park is situated in one of the most beautiful parts of Kent, namely, in the Valley of the Stour, which lies between Ashford and Canterbury. Soon after you pass the Wye Station of the railway from the former latter place, you see Godmersham Church on your left hand, and just beyond it comes into view the wall which shuts off the shrubberies and pleasure grounds of the great house from the road; close to the church nestles the home farm, and beyond it the rectory, with lawn sloping down to the River Stour, which, for a distance of nearly a mile, runs through the east end of the park. A little beyond the church you see the mansion, between which and the railroad lies the village, divided by the old high road from Ashford to Canterbury, nearly opposite Godmersham. The Valley of Stour make a break in that ridge of Chalk hills (the proper name of which is the backbone of Kent) which runs from Dover to Folkestone, and from Folkestone by Lyminge, Horton, Stowting, Brabourne, and Brook to Wye, there the break occurs, and on the other side of the valley the hills appear again, running down from Chilham, past Godmersham to Challock and Eastwell, and away Charing and Lenham. So that Godersham Park, beyond the house, is upon the chalk downs, and on its further side is founded by King's Wood, a large tract of woodland and containing many hundred acres and possessed by several owners. It is a healthy as well as a lovely situation, with Chilham Park to the north and Eastwell Park to the south, 6 1/2 miles from Ashford and 8 miles from Canterbury, and within an easy drive from the quaint little town of Wye.

Godmersham formerly belonged to the ancient family of Brodnax, one of whom lived in the reign of Henry V., and married Alicie Scappe, from whom descended various generations of the name, who seem to have lived either at Hythe, Burmarsh, or Cheriton - all places in Kent adjoining each other - until we come to Thomas Brodnax, of Godmersham, who, having married, first a Gilbert, and then a Brockman, of Beachborough, died in 1602. His great-grandson William, having married the daughter of Thomas Digges, of Chilham, was knighted, either for that reason or a better, in 1664, and left a son William, who married, first a Coppin and the a May, and died in 1726.

It is thorough Thomas Brodnax, the son of this last-named William, that the Austen family became connected with Godmersham. He changed his name, doubtless for very good cause, first in 1727 in May (his mother's name), and the, in 1738, to Knight. As Thomay May Knight he ended his life, in 1781, aged eighty years, and of him Hasted, the Kentish historian, says that 'he was a gentleman whose eminent worth ought not here to pass unnoticed; whose high character for upright conduct and integrity stamped a universal confidence and authority on all he said and did, which rendered his life as honourable as it was good, and caused his death to be lamented by everyone as a public loss.'

It was Thomas May Knight's marriage with which we have now to deal, and to do so in a satisfactory manner we must turne to the genealogical tree of the Austens, who are, according to Hasted, 'a family ancient standing in Kent', and one of whom, John Austen, of Broadford, not only lied there, in 1620, but was comfortably buried in the parish church, where are - or were - hung his coat of arms in commemoration of the event. From him desvended John Austen, of Gravehurst and Broadford, who died in 1705, aged seventy-six, having had a son John and a daughter Jane by his wife Jane Atkins. The son married Elizabeth Weller, had a son William, and then died the year before his father. The daughter married Stephen Stringer, and had a daughter named Hannah.

William Austen and Hannah Stringer being thus first cousins, the former married Rebecca Hampson, and had a son George, who was Jane Austen's father; the latter married William Monk, and had a daughter Jane, who married Thomas May Knight, of Godmersham Park and Chawton House. This latter couple had one son, Thomas Knight, who married Catherine, daughter of Wadham Knatchbull, Canon and Prebendary of Durham, and, having no children, Mr.

Knight adopted Edward Austen, George Austen's second son, and, dying in 1794, left him all his property, subject to his widow's life interest.

It will be seen by the foregoing account how it was that the Austens became concerned with Godmersham, and it will also be seen that the various county histories which Mr.

Austen Leigh follows, in saying that Mr. Thomas Knight left his property to 'his cousin Edward Austen', certainly make the most of the relationship. All the two could fairly say was that their grand-grandfather and great-grandmother were brother and sister, and their grandfather and grandmother first cousins; but, according to the present ideas of the world, it is somewhat straining a point to claim the relationship of 'cousin' for the second generation after the indisputable first-cousinship. I believe, however, that, as a matter of fact, Mr.

Knight had no nearer relations than this branch of the family, and personally I have no objection to the relationship having been established and accepted in this case, since thereby Edward Austen, who was my much-respected grandfather, became possessed of large property, which enabled him, by an early marriage, to bring about that satisfactory relationship with my unworthy self. When Mr.

Knight (who was member for Kent for a short time - 1774 - during his father's lifetime), died in 1794, being then under sixty years of age, his widow, as will appear from the letters, gave up the property to Edward Austen, to whom it would otherwise have come only at her decease. She reserved a certain income for herself, retired to Canterbury, and settled down in a house known as 'White Friars', who formerly possessed it, and from whom she passed through various hands till it came by marriage into the possession of the Papillons of Acrise, from whom Mr. W. O. Hammond, of St.

Albans Court, bought it, lived there for a time, and then sold it to Mrs. Knight, who inhabited it until her death in October 1812. In November 1812 Edward Austen and his family took the name of Knight.

Mrs. Knight (nèe Catherine Knatchbull) lived in the best of therms with those who succeeded her at Godmersham. She was a very superior woman, with a good understanding and highly cultivated kind; she was my mother's godmother, and I shall add to present collection letters two of hers, me to my mother and the other of my father, Sir Edward Knatchbull, which I think are of some interest. Mrs. Knight was not only a very superior, but a very beautiful woman, if we may judge from her picture, by Romney, which now hangs in the dining-room at Chawton House, and is enough to make anyone proud of being related to her. It was, as I have said, the adoption of my maternal grandfather Edward Austen, by Mr. Knight, which enabled the former to marry; and this brings me to the connection of Jane Austen and her family with Goodnestone, which shall duly be set forth in a manner which will throw light upon many of the characters in our play. For the 'Elizabeth' to whom frequent reference is made throughout these letters, being the wife chosen by my revered grandfather, and consequently occupying the undoubted position of my maternal grandmother, was a daughter of the family Sir Brook Bridges, of Goodnestone, which family requires immediate and careful attention.

Now there are two Goodnestones in Kent (pronounced ’Gunstone’), between which let the unwary reader fall into no error. Goodnestone next Faversham’ is a different place altogether from our Goodnestone, which is next Wingham’, and is in old records written Godwinceston, 'which name', says Hasted, 'it took from Earl Godwin, one owner of it.'

Goodnestone was not the original seat of the Bridges race.

Collins tells us that 'this family has been of good antiquity in Ireland, where several of the branches thereof have now considerable estates; but the first that settled in England was John Bridges of South Littleton, in Worcestershire, who, on November 14, 1578, purchased an house and lands at Alcester, in Warrickshire. His grandson, John Bridges, was the first Bridge who possessed Goodnestone. For we find from Hasted that in the reign of Queen Anne one Sir Thos.

Engham sold it to Brook Bridges, of Grove, auditor of the imprest, who new built the mansion, and died possessed of it in 1717. 'He built,' says Collins, 'a very handsome house, and very much improved the gardens, and along the side of the walks stand the busts of the twelve Caesars, marble, larger than the life; they were brought from Rome, and cost about 6001.' His son, who was created a baronet in 1718, married, first, Margaret Marsham, daughter of Sir Robert Marsham and sister of the first Lord Romney, secondly, Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas Hales, of Bekesbourne.

It is necessary to go back as far as this, in order to show the connection and kniship of various persons to whom allustion is made in some of the Godmersham and Goodnestone letters. Sir Brook left two children by his first wife: Margaret, who married John Plumptre, Esq., of Fredville near Wingham, M. P. for Nottingham in 1750, and died without children (with which a second wife amply supplied him), and Brook, who succeeded him as a second baronet in March, 1728. This Sir Brook married Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Palmer, of Wingham (of whom more anon), but died during his shrievalty (May 23, 1733), after which a posthumous child was born to him, who is a person of great consequence to my history, as will be presently seen when I come to speak of his children. He, being the third Sir Brook, married Fanny Fowler, daughter of Christopher Fowler, Esq., of Graces, Essex, who, to judge by her picture, of which there are several copies in the family, did credit to his taste. It may be properly here remarked that through this lady's mother, Frances Mildmay, came the claim to the Fitzwalter peerage, which the fifth Sir Brook so nearly sustained before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords in later years, that no one ever quite knew how he failed to get it, any more than they understood the species of wild justice by which a peerage of the same name, but not the same peerage, was eventually given to, and died with him. The third Sir Brook and Fanny Fowler (who died March 15, 1825) had ten children, all of whom are mentioned, some of them frequently, in these letters. There were four sons, of whom William, the eldest, became the fourth baronet upon the death of his father in 1791, took the name of Brook by Act of Parliament, married Eleanor Foote, the daughter of John Foote, Esq., banker, of London, and by her (who died in 1806) had two sons, Sir Brook (who succeeded him, married his first cousin Fanny Cage, was created Lord Fitzwalter, of Woodham Walter, Sussex, in 1868, and died without issue in 1875) and George, who married Louisa, daughter of Chas.

Chaplin, Esq., M.P., of Blankney, Lincolnshire, and succeeded his brother as sixth baronet.

The fourth Sir Brook also left a daughter Eleanor, who married in 1828 the Rev. Henry Western Plumptre, third son of Mr. Plumptre, of Fredville, and a large family. But I am descending into modern times far too rapidly, having yet to deal with the seven younger children of the third Sir Brook and Fanny Fowler. The second son was Henry, who also took the name of Brook, married in 1795 Jane, daughter of Sir.

Thos. Pym Hales, and had sundry children. The other two sons were Brooke Edward and Brook John, who also married, but who do not signify to us at present. It is with the daughters that we are more concerned, for four of the six married - three of them in the same year - and to them or their children we have constant references in the letter before us. Fanny married Lewis Cage, of Milgate, the family place, 2 1/2 miles from Maidstone, and was the mother of Fanny Cage, who, as has been already mentioned, married her cousin Sir Brook, and as Lady Fitzwalter died without issue in 1874. Sophia married William Deedes, Esq., of Sandling, near Hythe, became the mother of no less than twenty children, and died in 1844. Elizabeth married Edward Austen, and had eleven children, of whom my mother was the eldest, and fifteen years later, in 1806, Harriet Mary married Rev. Geo. Moore, Rector of Canterbury, and eldest son of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, by whom she also had a numerous family. I cannot forbear interrupting my genealogical narrative here, in the hope that my lady readers will be interested in the matter which causes the interruption, inasmuch as it relates to the manners and customs of just a hundred years ago with regard to matrimonial engagements. I have the letter in which Fanny Fowler, Lady Bridges, announce the coming marriages of her three elder daughters; they were written to her husband's half-brothers (Chas. Fielding) wife, and being interesting, although very remotely connected with Jane Austen, if I may not properly insert them, as I shall venture to do, in the appendix to these volumes, what is the use of having an appendix at all? I shall certainly do so, for the benefit of all those mothers who have daughters, married or to be married, in order that they may see and appreciate the manner in which my beloved great-grandmother bore the loss (by marriage) of three daughters in one more. Besides these three and Mrs. Moore, however, she had two daughters to console her, neither of whom was married. Marianne (mentioned in the thirty-fifth letter, who was a confirmed invalid all her life, and died in 1811) and Louisa. The latter, who is mentioned in letter sixty-six as having gone with her mother to Bath in 1813, lived many years, much loved and respected by all my generation, who knew her as 'Great-Aunt Louisa', and often saw her at Godmersham and Goodnestone, at the latter of which she died in June 1856.

When Sir Brook, the third baronet, died in 1791, his widow retired to Goodnestone Farm, and lived there with these two unmarried daughters the two Miss Cages, Fanny and Sophia, who came to her after the death of their parents, the latter having died within a few months of each other.

I have now shown, as I hope with sufficient clearness, how the two Kentish places, Godmersham and Goodnestone, became connected with the life of Jane Austen; Godmersham, as the home of her brother Edward; Goodnestone, as the home of his wife Elizabeth; and, in the genealogical sketches which I have given, I have shown something of those interweaving and interwoven relationships of the eastern part of Kent which have given rise to the saying 'in Kent they are all first cousins.' But I cannot forbear saying a few more word in this place upon Kentish relationships, which will assist in explaining some other allusions in our letters, and without which I should really feel as if I had been guilty of an inexcusable omission.

My mother, who took a deep interest in all family matters, and was an infallible authority upon questions connected with county genealogy, always began her elucidation of any point relating to her mother's family with the following words: 'Once upon a time there were three Miss Palmers.' As nobody is at all likely to dispute this fact at the present day, pause to remark that the Palmers were an old Kentish family, of Wingham, and the first baronet, Sir Thomas, was raised that dignity in 1621. Of him says Hasted, 'He so constantly resided at Wingham that he is said to have kept sixty Christmases without intermission in this mansion with great hospitality.' Sir Thomas had three sons, each of whom was knighted, and from him descended the father of the three ladies whose doings I am about to commemorate.

Their names were Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne. Mary became the second wife of Daniel, seventh Earl of Winchilsea, by whom she had four daughters, of whom only one, Heneage, married, her husband being Sir George Osborn, of Chicksands Priory, Bedfordshire. Elizabeth Palmer married Edward Finch, fifth brother of the said Daniel, seventh Earl of Winchilsea, who took the name Hatton under the will of his aunt, the widow of Viscount Hatton, and died in 1771, leaving a son George. Meanwhile, the second, third, and fourth brothers lived and died, and only the second brother, William, left a son. He accomplished this by marrying twice: first, Lady Anne Douglas, who had no children; secondly, Lady Charlotte Fermor, whose son George succeeded his uncle Daniel as eighth Earl of Winchilsea, but died unmarried in 1826.

Meanwhile, George Finch-Hatton, the son of Edward, and therefore first cousin to George, the eighth Earl, had died, after having married Lady Elizabeth Mary Murray, daughter of the Earl of Mansfield, and left three children, of whom the eldest, George William, succeeded as ninth Earl of Winchilsea, in 1826. This is the 'George Hatton' several times mentioned in the letters from Godmersham.

But, in following up the Finches and Hattons, I have left Anne, the third Miss Palmer, too long alone, and must hasten back to her, with many apologies. She was the lady who, as has been already mentioned, married the second Sir Brook Bridges; but, whether the honour of the alliance, or the responsibilities of the office of High Sheriff of the county, or some other cause, brought about the catastrophe, certain it is that Sir Brook left her widow, as has already been stated, in 1733; and, in 1737, she took herself a second husband, in the person of Charles Fielding, second son of Basil, fourth Earl of Denbigh, by whom she had two sons and two daughters before her death in 1743. This lady's second son Charles was a commodore in the navy; he married Sophia Finch, sister of George Finch, eight Earl of Winchilsea, and daughter of William and Lady Charlotte Finch (née Fermor). Lady Charlotte was governess to the children of King George III.,

and her daughter, Mrs. Charles Fielding, lived with her at Windsor and St. James', so her children were brought up with the Royal Family. This will explain the various references to members of the Fielding family which will be found in Jane Austen's letters; and, though I feel rather ashamed of having inflicted upon my readers such a dull chapter of genealogy, those who care to do so will be able to identify by its aid many of the people who were her contemporaries, friends, and relations.

1 Always so spelt in her letter.

CHAPTER 2AUSTENS AND KNIGHTS

In the preceding chapter I have dealt pretty fully with the relationships which accrued to Jane Austen through the marriage of her brother Edward to Elizabeth Bridges, and her consequent connection with Godmersham and Goodnestone.

Before, however, I come to speak of her non-Kentish relations, it may be as well to specify the children of that marriage, the elder of whom are constantly mentioned in the letters. The 'Fanny' whose name occurs so often, and to whom some of the later letters are addressed, is Fanny Catherine, the eldest child of the marriage, who was born on January 23, 1793. A son may be pardoned for saying (especially when it is simply and literally true) that never was a more exemplary life passed than that of his mother. Upon October 10, 1808, just before she had completed her sixteenth year, her mother (the 'Elizabeth' of the letters) died very suddenly, leaving ten children besides herself, the youngest quite a baby. From that moment my mother took charge of the family, watched over her brothers and sisters, was her father's right hand and mainstay, and proved herself as admirable in that position as afterwards in her married life. She married my father, Sir Edward Knatchbull, as his second wife, on October 24, 1820, when she had nearly completed her twenty-eight year. Besides her, the children of my grandfather and grandmother consisted of six boys and four girl.

Edward, the eldest son, married twice, and left several children by both marriages. He lived at Chawton House during his father's lifetime, and after the latter's death, in November 1852, he spent a large sum in repairing and remodelling Godmersham, intending to live there, but never did so, sold a large portion of the property to Lord Sondes (whose Kentish estate of Lees Court was and is adjoining), and finally disposed of the rest, with the house, to Mr. Lister Kaye; and, at his death in 1878, left Chawton House and property to his eldest son by his second wife, Adela, daughter of John Portal, Esq., of Freefolk, in the county of Hants. The second son, George Thomas, is the 'ittle Dordy' of the letters, and seems to have been particular pet of Jane's. He was one of those men who are clever enough to do almost anything, but live to their lives' and very comfortably doing nothing.

The most remarkable achievement of this which I am able to record was his winning a 501. prize in the lottery in 1804, when quite a child, an event duly chronicled in her pocketbook of that year by my mother, who kept a regular journal of family events from very early childhood. Subsequently, my respected uncle was mighty at cricket, and one of the first, if not the first, who introduced the practice of 'round' bowling instead of the old-fashioned 'underhand'. He was very well informed, agreeable, a pleasant companion, and always popular with his nephews and nieces; but I know of nothing else which he did worthy of mention, except marry in 1837 as kind-hearted a woman as ever lived in the peron of Hilare, daughter of Admiral Sir Robt. Barlow, and widow of the second Lord Nelson. They had no children, and passsed a great deal of their time on the Continent. She died in 1857, and he survived her ten years, dying in August 1867.

The next brother, Henry, married his first cousin, Sophia Cage, sister of Lady Bridges, and afterwards the daughter of the Rev. E. Northey, and died in 1843. He left two children, one by each wife, and the fourth brother, William, left several also, having married three times, and held the rectory of Steventon until his death in 1873.

But as he, together with the two younger sons, Charles Bridges and Brook John (the former of whom died unmarried in October 1867, and the latter left no children, and died in 1878), were too young to be more than casually mentioned in 'At Jane's' correspondence, it is needless to give further particulars about them. All the sons of the marriage of Edward Austen and Elizabeth Bridges have passed away at the present time of writing, but two of the four younger daughters are still with us. I had written 'three', but alas! even while these pages are passing through my hands, another has been taken - namely Elizabeth, the 'Lizzie' of the letters, who married, in 1818, Edward Royd Rice, Esq., of Dane Court, near Sandwich, Kent, had a numerous family, and died in April of the present year. Those who are left are Marianne, still unmarried, and Louisa, who married Lord George Hill, as his second wife, the first having been her sister Cassandra, who died in 1842.

This record will serve to explain many allusions in the letters, but I have still to deal with the 'inimitable Jane's' kith and kin in Hampshire and further abroad. Her own immediate family consisted of five brothers and the one sister, Cassandra, some three years older than herself, to whom most of 'the letters' are adressed.

I remember 'Great-Aunt Cassandra' very well, which is not extraordinary, considering that the only died in the spring 1845, when I was nearly sixteen years old.

All through her life she was a constant visitor at her brother's house at Godmersham, and it was to this circumstance, and to the consequent separation of the sisters, that we owe most of our letters. As the penny post had not been invented in those good old times, people wrote less frequently and took more pains with their letters than is now the general habit, and we shall find several allusions to the 'franks' which could at that time (and indeed up to 1840) be given by members of Parliament, who were thus enabled to oblige their friends by saving them the heavy postage of their letters.

However, franks or no franks, it is very certain that the two sisters wrote to each other letters which may fairly be called voluminous, and my great regret is that, in presenting to the public so many of Jane's letters to Cassandra, I cannot add to their value by producing any of Cassandra's to Jane, of which the latter gives us sufficient hints to make us feel that they must have been of an amusing and interesting character. In all probability, however, when Jane Austen died in 1817, and all her papers and letters came into her sister's possession, the latter did not think her own letters worth preserving, and they accordingly destroyed.

From my recollection of 'Great-Aunt Cassandra' in her latter days she must have been a very sensible, charming, and agreeable person. Of her earlier life I cannot tell more than is told in Mr. Austen Leigh's Memoir and may be gathered from her sister's letters. If the engagement to a young clergyman, who died in the West Indies before it could be fulfilled, was to her a lasting sorrow, it was not one which interfered with her cheerful disposition and temperament, so far at least as we younger people could tell, and all my recollections of her are pleasant. The warmest affection doubtless existed between the two sisters; but indeed, so far as my experience goes of Austens and Knights, I should say that there has seldom been a family in which family affection and unity has existed in a stronger degree.

Jane Austen's eldest brother was James, the husband of the 'Mary' to whom such frequent allusions are made, who was Mary Lloyd before she married, the mother of Mr. Austen Leigh, the writer of the Memoir, and the sister of Elizabeth, who was Mrs. Fowle of Kintbury, and of Martha, who is so often mentioned, and who eventually married Sir Francis Austen, one of Jane's younger brothers, and died in 1843.

Neither she, however, nor her sister Mary was the first wife of their respective husbands. James Austen first married Anne, daughter of General Mathew, who presented him with one only daughter, before she shuffled off this mortal coil.

This daughter, however, is of some importance to our present purpose, partly because, her name being Jane Anna Elizabeth, she is the 'Anna' frequently referred to in our letters, and partly because, in November 1814, she tought fit to marry the Rev. Benjamin Lefroy, afterwards Rector of Ashe (the 'Ben' of the letters, who died in 1829), and thus give me a peg upon which to hang a few other Lefroys, and show how they come to be so often mentioned by 'At. Jane.' Mrs. B.

Lefroy had one son and six daughters, and died in 1872.

Once upon a time there was a Thomas Lefroy, of Canterbury, who married Phoebe Thomson of Kenfield (an estate not far from that cathedral city), and ha a son Anthony, who lived some time at Leghorn, married Elizabeth Langlois, and begat two sons, the one of whom was named Anthony, while the other rejoiced in the appellation of Isaac Peter George. Now, Anthony attained to the position of Lieutenant-Colonel of the 9th Dragoons, which fully justified him in marrying Anne Gardiner in 1769, and subsequently dying in 1819.

Before achieving the latter feat, however, he became father of the 'Tom Lefroy' of our letters, who was eventually known to the world as the Right Hon. Thos. Lefroy, Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and one of the ablest lawyers of his day.

Meanwhile Isaac Peter George Lefroy became Fellow of All Souls, Rector of Ashe, near Steventon, and Compton, in Surrey, husband of Anne Brydges, of Wotton, Kent (sister of Sir Egerton Brydges), and father of two sons, the younger of whom was the Benjamin who married our ' Anna,' whilst the elder was John Henry George, of Ewshott House, Farnham, who also became Eector of Ashe and Compton, married a Cottrell, and died in 1823, when his brother Benjamin succeeded him in the living of Ashe, the three presentations to which had been purchased by Mr. Langlois. He must have been immediately preceded in the rectory by Dr. Russell, the grandfather of Mary Russell Mitford, to whose family we shall also find allusions in the earlier letters. There was a great intimacy between the rectories of Ashe and Steventon, and Mrs. Lefroy was a valued friend of Jane's up to the time of her death, in 1804, which was occasioned by a fall from her horse.

After this little Lefroy interlude I must return to James Austen, who is keeping all the rest of his family waiting in the most unconscionable manner.

I have already said that his second wife was Mary Lloyd, who bare him two children, 'James Edward' and 'Caroline Mary Craven,' and died in 1843, having survived her husband twenty-four years. He only survived his sister Jane two years, and died at Steventon in December 1819. James Edward, the writer of the Memoir, married Emma, daughter of Charles Smith, Esq., of Buttons, and died in 1874, leaving a numerous family.

He took the name of Leigh in addition to that of Austen, having inherited Scarlets, in Berkshire, under the will of the widow of his maternal uncle James Leigh Perrot, * of whom more anon,' as the old chroniclers say. His widow died in 1876, and his sister Caroline, who never married, died in 1880. Of Edward Austen I have told in the account of Godmersham, so I come next to Henry, of whom his nephew, Mr. Austen Leigh, tells us that he 'had great conversational powers, and inherited from his father an eager and sanguine disposition. He was a very entertaining companion, but had perhaps less steadiness of purpose, certainly less success in life, than his brothers.' This picture is doubtless drawn with fidelity, and the facts seem to be, as far as I can discover them, that my worthy great-uncle's want of 'steadiness of purpose' was evinced by his trying various professions, one after the other, without achieving any particular success in any.

I gather from the letters before us that his sister gauged his character pretty well, and did not anticipate much success for his career. He seems to have had a hankering after a soldier's life for some time; then he went into a bank in Alton. He afterwards became Receiver-General for Oxfordshire, and also a banker in London; and, whilst he lived there, helped his sister Jane with her publishing business. In 1816 his bank broke, upon which he became a clergyman, and went out as chaplain to Berlin in 1818.

He married twice, which seems to have been the general habit of the family, his first wife being his first cousin Madame de Feuillade, nèe Eliza Hancock. Mr. Austen Leigh is mistaken in saying that his grandfather, George Austen, had only one sister. He had two, who rejoiced in the euphonious names of 'Philadelphia' and 'Leonora.'

The latter died single, the former married Mr. Hancock, and her daughter married the Comte de Feuillade, and when he had been unlucky enough to be guillotined in the French Revolution, took her cousin Henry en secondes noces, died in 1813, and left him inconsolable until 1820, when he consoled himself with Eleanor, daughter of Henry Jackson, of London, by his wife, who was one of the Papillons of Acrise. He had no children, and died in 1850 at Tunbridge Wells, having, I believe, had no preferment except the living of Steventon, which, on the death of his brother James in 1819, he held for a short time, until his nephew, William Knight, was old enough to take it a comfortable family arrangement.

I cannot leave Henry Austen without giving to my readers the only example of his 'conversational powers' with which I am acquainted, and which illustrates the dry, quaint humour which was a characteristic of some of the family. He is said to have been driving on one occasion with a relation in one of the rough country lanes near Steventon, when the pace at which the postchaise was advancing did not satisfy his eager temperament. Putting' his head out of the window, he cried out to the postillion, 'Get on, boy! get on, will you?' The 'boy' turned round in his saddle, and replied: 'I do get on, sir, where I can! ' You stupid fellow! ' was the rejoinder. 'Any fool can do that. I want you to get on where you can't!'

Of the two sailor brothers of Jane Austen Francis and Charles Mr. Austen Leigh gives a fuller history than of the others, because he thinks that 'their honourable career accounts for Jane Austen's partiality for the navy, as well as for the readiness and accuracy with which she wrote about it.'

However this may be, there can be no doubt that their career was most honourable, and that they were both of them as good examples of British sailors as could well be furnished.

I believe that both of them were much loved in their profession, as they certainly were by their relations, old and young. The 'Memoir' tells us that Francis Austen was upon one occasion spoken of as 'the officer who kneeled at church,' which reminds me of an anecdote which my mother used to tell of one admiral having whispered to the other at the commencement of Divine Service, 'Brother, what do you think it is that people mostly say into their hats when they come into church? For my part, I always say, "For what I am going to receive the Lord make me truly thankful." 'And I am not prepared to say that he could have improved on the petition. As I am upon anecdotes, let me tell one also of Sir Francis Austen, since it shall never be said that I omitted that which I have heard of him all my life as one of the things most like himself that he ever did. He was exceedingly precise, and spoke always with due deliberation, let the occasion be what it might, never having been known to hurry himself in his speech for any conceivable reason. It so fell out, then, that whilst in some foreign seas where sharks and similar unpleasant creatures abound, a friend, or sub-officer of his (I know not which), was bathing from the ship.

Presently Sir Francis called out to him in his usual tone and manner, * Mr. Pakenham, you are in danger of a shark – a shark of the blue species! You had better return to the ship.'

'Oh! Sir Francis; you are joking, are you not? ' 'Mr. Pakenham, I am not given to joking. If you do not immediately return, soon will the shark eat you.' Whereupon Pakenham, becoming alive to his danger, acted upon the advice thus deliberately given, and, says the story, saved himself by the skin of his teeth? from the shark. Another anecdote of 'Uncle Frank' occurs to me, bearing upon the exact precision which was one of his characteristics.

On one occasion he is said to have visited a well-known watchmaker, one of whose chronometers he had taken with him during an absence of five years, and which was still in excellent order. After looking carefully at it, the watchmaker remarked, with conscious pride, 'Well, Sir Francis, it seems to have varied none at all.' Very slowly, and very gravely, came the answer: 'Yes, it has varied eight seconds!'

Sir Francis lived to be nearly ninety-three, and died at his house, Portsdown Lodge, in 1865, just twenty years after his sister Cassandra had died at the same place. He also was twice married, first to Mary Gibson, of Eamsgate, who died in 1823, and then to the Martha Lloyd of our letters.

At the time of his death he was a G.C.B., and Senior Admiral of the Fleet, just before his attainment to which dignity he thus wrote to one of his nieces, in 1862: 'And now with reference to my nomination as Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom. It is an appointment held by patent under the Great Seal; and, though honourable, is certainly in my case not a lucrative office, as I am compelled, to qualify for holding it, to resign my good-service pension of 300/. a year.

The salary is, I believe, about the same, but there are very heavy fees of office to be paid, which will absorb at least one quarter of the salary.

This ought not to be so. It is a national reproach that an officer should have to pay for honours conferred on him by his sovereign, and which we may presume were fairly earned. It is true I had the opportunity of retaining the pension, and refusing the other; but who, after reaching nearly the top of the list (I have only two above me), would like to refuse so distinguished an honour?

This private little expression of discontent, from a man of a contented and happy disposition, seems so just that I could not refrain from inserting it here, but will say no more of 'Uncle Prank,' save that he had twelve children by his first wife, and that his eldest son married his first cousin, the daughter of his brother Charles, Fanny by name.

The said Charles also served with distinction, and died of cholera in 1852, in a steam sloop on the Irrawaddy, literally at the post of duty. He, too, followed the family custom of marrying twice, his first wife being Miss Fanny Palmer, of Bermuda, who had three daughters, and died young; and his second, her sister Harriet, by whom he had two boys.

He was a man of a singularly sweet temper and disposition, and I cannot help quoting from Mr. Austen Leigh the record left of him by 'one who was with him at his death.' 'Our good admiral won the hearts of all by his gentleness and kindness while he was struggling with disease, and endeavouring to do his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the British naval forces in these waters. His death was a great grief to the whole fleet.

I know that I cried bitterly when I found he was dead.'

A great many allusions to her sailor brothers will be found in Jane's letters, and in her delight at their promotion and interest in their profession, one is forcibly reminded of 'Fanny Price' and her beloved brother William, although in the latter case the intervention of an ardent lover procured for young Price that which a proper family pride induces me to believe was obtained by my great-uncles by their own merits. These, then, were the members of the family of Steventon Rectory; and between them all, as indeed may be gathered from the letters before us, the warmest affection always existed.

If proof of this were needed, it is afforded by the numerous and affectionate references to her brothers to which I have alluded, and by the sympathy for each other which crops up whenever we have an opportunity of observing it. How anxiously 1 Frank's promotion is expected; how welcome is the presence of 'our own particular little brother' Charles; how assiduous is Jane in her attendance upon Henry in his illness, and how promptly his brother Edward hurries to London when he is informed of it! All these are signs and tokens of the warmth of family feeling, the brotherly and sisterly affection, which, in the case of the Austens, certainly went to show that 'blood is thicker than water,' in some races at least; and which bound together the members of this family by bonds which time could never sever, distance never lessen, prosperity never diminish, and sorrow only tend to strengthen and cement. Besides the brothers and sisters of whom we hear so much in her letters, Jane Austen had uncles and aunts whose individuality one must get well into one's head in order to understand her allusions. I have already mentioned her father's two sisters, and her mother's brother, Mr. Leigh Perrot, who inherited from a great-uncle his additional name and a small property to justify the addition. He married a Lincolnshire Cholmeley (Jane by name – she died in 1836), and lived sometimes at Bath and sometimes at Scarlets.

Bath was also patronised by Dr. Cooper, the Incumbent of Sonning, near Reading, which was very unkind of him, because, as he married Jane Austen's aunt her mother's eldest sister, Jane Leigh he could have taken no surer means to confuse a biographer who seeks to identify the 'Uncle' and 'Aunt' to whom Jane constantly alludes in her Bath letters.

Had he foreseen the difficulty no doubt he would have lived somewhere else; but, as matters stand at present, it is just possible that (although I have made every enquiry in order to prevent it) I may occasionally have mistaken the avuncular allusions in some of the letters, in which case I beg to apologize to the wronged uncle, and am thankful to reflect that it makes no great difference to anybody.