JANE AUSTEN on the Sales, Money, & Profits of her Novels-Publication History of Jane Austen’s Novels

[@DrOctaviaCox]

If you like the work I do, then you can support it here: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N Thank you very much indeed for watching my channel.

[@claratakken3671]

Thank you for your wonderful lectures, I enjoy them immensely. I want to thank you with my donation. Clara

[@silviavalen1402]

Dear Dr. Cox. Discovered your channel just now (Mar 2023). I simply adore it. Your series in Jane Austin’s book are my favorite as I’ve read her novels over and over again, alway discovering gems and I’m so happy you’d point out many more.

[@KierTheScrivener]

The same thing happened to Lucy Maud Montgomery where she wrote how American papers wrote about her as a provincial demure woman from an ancient Canadian Island, and her response was 'I am frankly in literature to make a living out of it.'

[@doctorbarnes]

As a retired teacher I appreciate your careful preparation and clear diction. Your lectures make reading Austin’s works much more enjoyable. I suggest a lecture on what constitutes “gentleman-like behavior” in the Regency. It appears to be a very important mark of male status to both men and women in Austin’s writing. It apparently means something more than merely being civil and courteous. Colonel Fitz-William describes Bingley as “a pleasant gentleman-like man.” Mr. Gardiner is described as “a sensible, gentlemanlike man.” After Emma Woodhouse puts down farmer Robert Martin as “clownish,” a “mortified” Harriet replies: “"To be sure…he is not so genteel as real gentlemen." Elizabeth puts down Darcy in the proposal scene: “had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.” That was quite a stinging insult because Darcy later says those words “have tortured me.”

[@kevinrussell1144]

I could be wrong, but Fitz WAS a gentleman and considered himself one, whereas Mr. Gardiner was a tradesman and Bingley only the son of a tradesman, so they could only be gentleman-like, not the real thing. I take this is a subtle but not-so-well-meant reference to snobbish behavoir, perhaps even reflecting JA's musings on the taboo subject of class. What would George Elliot say about such goings on?

[@bomaracev]

I can't imagine Austen NOT thinking about money, as it was a constant concern in her family, novels, and entire society!

[@jonahtwhale1779]

Yet so few of her female characters took any effort to be obtain an income - other than being parasitic on a man. Of course the men were expected to earn a sufficient income to attract her attentions, even at the risk of his life!

[@robinhunt6778]

I can't think of a better way to spend an hour: sitting with my cup of tea and crocheting while listening to Dr. Cox talk about Jane Austen! A fascinating look at Miss Austen.

[@crystilmurch5659]

This was a fantastic look into Jane Austen's thoughts and priorities. I am not at all shocked at what she expresses. In all of her novels there is a thinly veiled (when it is bothered being veiled at all) disgust with women's inability to support themselves or function in the world without the support, guidance, chaperoning and even control of the men in their lives. The dependent situation of women is clearly one of her biggest issues with the world in which she found herself obliged to live. I love the fiery spirit she exhibits in these letters. It is also an interesting look into the values and opinions of society in the regency period. The fact that life was driven by money but that it was taboo to speak openly of it parallels many of our more modern experiences. It is a common thing for money to be treated as a dirty secret when there is great wealth disparity. Simply put, those who have wealth tend to make the social rules and one of those rules is do not discuss money because then those who have it may actually have to feel responsible for the plight of those in their sphere who do not have enough. This was brilliant and I thank you for taking the time to put together such an insightful video.

[@tymanung6382]

Many or all prohibitions vs. women earning own money seemed to be limited to women of numerical minority gentry class. Women in capitalist,.artisan, farmer & worker classes obviously were always involved in earning money.

[@crystilmurch5659]

@@tymanung6382 Yes and no. Often even working class women at the time (until later in the 18th century, really) needed to have a man serve as a go-between in business matters. A 14 year old son was sometimes taken more seriously than a farmer's widow.

[@catrionahall8435]

It has always seemed so unjust that so many people have profited from her work yet she profited so little. She gave us so much and lived such a precarious life herself.

[@amybee40]

There's the phrase "starving artist" for a reason.

[@baylorsailor]

Part of it had to do with her sex unfortunately. Part of it had to do with her lack in knowledge about marketing strategies. She was taken advantage of by the men who published her stories. There were no laws to protect her in that instance.

[@jonahtwhale1779]

Interesting that you believe the law should have protected her. Why couldn't she protect herself e.g. challenge the offender to a duel or take a legal case against them etc. Why do modern women expect others to protect them e.g. governments, employers police etc?

[@catrionahall8435]

@@jonahtwhale1779 it has to do with the incumbent power holders not being prepared to share power. Females of my mother’s generation learned to be manipulative to equalise the system, that diminished all genders and all genders lost out.

[@--enyo--]

@@jonahtwhale1779You come off as a troll, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. 1) Duels were illegal. As you should know if you had any knowledge of the literature or history of the period 2) Lawyers and lawsuits are expensive. It is doubtful she could afford it 3) Both of the above could have had negative impacts on her reputation, which was very important at the time. If she gets a reputation for suing publishers then who will publish her work? It could also put off readers. As an additional note, it’s truely weird you seem to think that we shouldn’t have laws to protect people.

[@Happyheretic2308]

The purchasing / library tension reminds me of the scene in Dorothy L Sayers’ “Busman’s Honeymoon”, when the ghastly Helen deigns to say that she will make a note of the title of Harriet Vane’s new novel so that she can find it at the library, to which Harriet responds gravely that this is very kind, but that she will have half-a-dozen free author’s copies delivered and would Helen like one of those? The scene is narrated by Harriet’s soon-to-be mother-in-law, the Dowager Duchess of Denver, in her diary, and she (the Duchess) is delighted at Harriet’s wit and spark at this snub from Helen.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Ha! - great comparison.

[@dorothywillis1]

I made this connection too!

[@kaferine]

As a fellow creative with published work I completely identify with Jane Austen's feelings about selling the copyright of P&P. I've sold the rights to my work for a flat fee before and it's a little unpleasant to see it make a ton of sales that I get no cut of. This video made her feel like an actual, real person to me which is so rare with historical figures. Thank you!

[@LadyQuotes]

It hurts me that she sold the copyright to Pride and Prejudice

[@Sara-lk2yr]

Indeed... It is so unfair...😖

[@hanng1242]

Yes, but her calculation wasn't irrational, nor was she cheated by Egerton. Her letter about the print run of Sense and Sensibility being sold out is dated June 1813, so it took 20 months to sell out, and she earned £140 from it (I am assuming this is profit, not gross revenue). Her letter about selling the rights to Pride and Prejudice for £110 was dated November of 1812. Modelling, for the sake of easier math and lack of actual monthly sales figures, a linear sales rate (as well as the fiction of realized income from sales as they occurred rather than periodically), by the time Austen wrote the letter about P&P, she would have made £91 from S&S. Note also that this isn't print-on-demand. All the costs for the print run would have had to been incurred first, so her realized gain would have been less than this unless initial sales were high and trickled off as time went on. Inasmuch as Egerton proposed a second edition in 1813, I suspect the opposite to be the case - slower initial sales that picked up towards the end as word of mouth about the book in literary circles increased interest in it. At the time she sold P&P, Austen had only the single data point of S&S, and based upon that, it was entirely reasonable to believe that £110 in an immediate lump sum with no risk was a good trade-off for a potential £180 over the course of perhaps two years in which she would bear the upfront costs of the publication and the consequent financial loss if it did not sell. Egerton appears to me to have engaged Austen in a standard arms-length commercial transaction and offered her pretty standard terms - just as he would have done for a man. It is entirely possible that the lump sum payment for the copyright might even had been Austen's idea and only acceptable to Egerton because S&S sold, giving Austen the bargaining power to propose such terms and expect them to be considered at all. Perhaps Egerton, being in the publishing business, had a better finger on the pulse of literary set and suspected that Pride and Prejudice would be a runaway hit, such that he could have believed that Austen might be better served by continuing to use the commission model. However, the publisher is not the author's agent, and he has no fiduciary duty towards her. He seemed to have had no problem returning to the commission model for Austen's future novels, and Austen seems to have had no problem employing him as her publisher for them.

[@margo3367]

Her family believed in her, which was huge. Her father took her to her first publisher; and Henry took over where her father left off. The entire family was ahead of their time.

[@Sara-lk2yr]

I think they only smelled the money they needed.

[@mckayleepugmire9947]

Austin's family out to preserve her reputation: Oh, she was perfectly humble and not at all concerned with money. Austin: I'm in debt to my brother, very proud of my brain baby, and enjoy financial independence. Buy my book.

[@maryyexley1434]

I consider Jane Austen one of the foremost authors of the English language. It grieves me to think of her poverty during her lifetime when we now know the massive success she is as an author. I don’t fault her at all for being concerned with the finances and profits of her books and life in general. I wish she had had the freedom that women now have to make their own way in the world. She was clearly a force to be reckoned with!

[@luisez.5888]

I very much enjoyed this episode. At first, I did not think it possible to listen to this subject for almost an hour, but I admit I was wrong, it was very interesting and I really enjoyed every minute of it, thank you. In my view, Jane Austen was absolutely sensible about selling and about money - money means independence, at her time as well as now.

[@KierTheScrivener]

The same thing happened to Lucy Maud Montgomery where she wrote how American papers wrote about her as a provincial demure woman from an ancient Canadian Island, and the paraphrase of her response is 'that woman bears no resemblance to me. I am in writing to make a living'

[@marciaw745]

In direct contradiction to Henry's and nephew James Edwards' biographical sketches, Jane Austen's letters reveal that not only was she interested in the money she was making and hoped to make, she also was not averse to being known as the author of books for sale, especially in her comment that she hoped their friends and acquaintances who knew about her books would feel obligated to buy them. I remember a slyly satirical comment she made in another letter: "I write only for fame, and without any view to pecuniary emolument." Of course she was even then writing for "pecuniary emolument" and fame could only help!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

She also says of publishing MP, and the 'secret' of her identity as an author, in a letter to Frank: "the truth is that the Secret has spread so far as to be scarcely the Shadow of a secret now - & that I believe whenever the 3d appears, I shall not even attempt to tell Lies about it. - I shall rather try to make all the Money than all the Mystery I can of it" (25 September 1813).

[@kellyoconnor5684]

Excellent--thank you so much for this! I was reminded of Fanny's awe-struck delight in being "a chooser of books", and your details give so much more context to Regency life.

[@pooshkahnla6074]

I think the information you've pulled out of her letters makes her more real to me as a person and as a writer...she becomes more earthy in a way and certainly more relatable.

[@dorothywillis1]

I always thought Henry and Edward were repeating what they had heard Jane Austen say in casual family gatherings, while in letters to Cassandra and to Frank, who always struct me as the most practical of her brothers, she talks money.

[@marycrawford1594]

Very gifted and intelligent people can usually (always?) do more than one thing well. Jane Austen was clearly good at figures, I have read that she was the one who handled the finances for the household of four women, which included both her mother and her older sister, so she had both the liking for dealing with money and the head for it. That in no way makes her less of an artist, Shakespeare after all died a wealthy man, he too understood money and investments. So though I am sure when she picked up her pen Jane Austen hoped to make money, I suspect she also wanted to be recognised as a writer of note. But if she had been solely interested in making as much money as possible, wouldn't she have simply repeated the success of Pride and Prejudice and written another similar novel? Other, later novelists, have found a winning formula and managed to make a fortune repeating it over and over (no disrespect intended to Ian Flemming, for example, or Agatha Christie to name but two.) In fact it was left to an endless flock of lesser authors to repeat the plot of Pride and Prejudice throughout the twentieth century, from Georgette Heyer to the whole Regency Romance genre. Austen was too fine an artist to want to do that. It would have bored her. Great artists always move on and break new ground. It amazes me that someone who had just finished writing Pride and Prejudice could sit down and write Mansfield Park, in rather the same way that the playwright who wrote As You Like It could later create King Lear. You have to be driven to do that, and be a genius of course. Regarding the evident wish of Jane's brother and nephew to exonerate her from any wish at all to do anything as vulgar and unladylike as wanting money, there are two things at play. Firstly, it would have brought shame on the family to imply in any way that their female relatives were short of money, and secondly, they were reflecting the fashionable view of how a woman should think and behave at that time. I am old enough to remember a time when in England money was a taboo subject for conversation. Austen's complete non-aversion to mentioning money in her novels is yet another reason why even after more than two hundred years they seem surprisingly modern.

[@sarasamaletdin4574]

Agatha Christie did have plenty of different novels, although some have similarities it’s more because she wrote a huge amount of them. And they are in similar genre and writing style, but so are Austen’s novels.

[@valerievasquez8225]

Thank you for sharing this side of Jane Austen with your audience. How honest and genuine of Austen to be so frank about earning money from the sale of her novels at a time when it was not socially acceptable to care about money. It is amazing to me that her novels earned just 600 £ in her lifetime given how beloved she and he work are today.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Does it make you think differently of 'Jane Austen the Artist’ to know that she was concerned about the sales and profits of her writing?

[@Happyheretic2308]

She was always a shrewd woman! Apart from selling the copyright for P&P 😊

[@sueannevangalen5186]

No, I don't think differently of Jane Austen the artist because she wanted to make money on her work. Speaking as someone who self-published a novel, I think it's only natural to want to earn money doing what I love. Wanting one's novel to do well is definitely a mixed bag of hoping to bring enjoyment to one's readership and hoping to make enough profit to live on. I enjoyed hearing about this part of her life because it shows that Jane Austen was just as human as the next author.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

At least she didn't make that mistake again (re P&P's copyright)!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

In a sense the peculiar notion is that anyone would choose to be a genteel amateur (who is not already independently wealthy).

[@mahafarid1]

No, I don't think any differently of 'Austen the Artist' - or if anything I feel so much more respect and understanding for her as a writer. In valuing money, she was channeling Virginia Woolf ahead of her time; the notion that money (financial independence) is crucial for a woman to be able to write, to live a life of her own with some minute autonomy.

[@alicecarroll2007]

Fascinating! If only Jane could know of the popularity of her works today!

[@orsonbear9627]

I am not surprised that Jane Austen was so financially clued-up: my favourite artist of the time is JMW Turner and he really knew how to profit from his talents

[@ashbee350]

Super interesting to read about the financial aspects of her work. It's never mentioned really how involved she was in the business side of her writing except as a parenthetical remark about how little she earned in her lifetime.

[@ceciliamcintosh4273]

I can't stop thinking the whole business was so unjust. two hundred years later all around the world we are enjoying, discussing, studying, filming, etc., her books...she made a lot of money, but not for herself or her family.

[@SUZABQ]

this was very interesting looking at the financial and social perspective at the time.

[@robinem3107]

I love listening to you while running! Thank you for your content!!

[@amybee40]

I have a closet full of my own unsold poetry books. The struggle is real!

[@californiak2891]

Thank you for the deep dive on this topic, one I've wondered about for some time. Would love to have been a fly on the wall for conversations between Jane and her brother re: publishing options. 😉

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Me too! Given that JA talks about relieving Henry of the "trouble" of organising the publication of P&P, I imagine the negotiations for S&S must have been rather convoluted and time-consuming.

[@ildefonsaimpala2]

Very fascinating, but I am not surprised. From the beginning pages of any of the books we learn how money is of overall importance and always talked about behind closed doors

[@julietpennclark8588]

Another brilliant gorgeously interesting video Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge

[@bakedandsalty9234]

This was a great video, and I love the live chat via the premiere. Thank you!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

It's my pleasure - I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

[@Gazelle1583]

More please. It is really interesting learning the process of the publishing and book making of this author and era.

[@delhatton]

Fascinating, as always. Jane is still relevant today, as opposed to a many/most of her contemporaries. Does anybody still read Scott? Did she ever talk about or speculate about her literary legacy?

[@kevinrussell-jp6om]

I thoroughly enjoyed this video and entirely agree with your reading of Jane's attitudes toward publication and remuneration for her work. Doc, you should write a new biography of JA. You'd have much to say, and Austen fans would be eager to buy your book and read it.

[@noominenne7782]

Thank you! As always, informative and well-researched!

[@rmarkread3750]

Learning about Jane Austen’s involvement in, and concern for, the financial realities in the publication of her novels certainly does affect my views of her as an artist. I am gratified and thrilled. I am sure that many of my fellow subscribers know that to go from being considered a “talented amateur” to a “professional” is most gratifying and a not too far in the back of one’s mind. It seems to me that there is a disingenuousness, if not outright duplicity, throughout Jane Austen’s novels: a character’s apparent “disinterest” in money matters (characters' incomes, inheritances, marriage settlements, and so on) is presented as a virtue, while an almost desperate interest (in some cases avarice) in the same is practiced by the whole of society. For me, this is always noticeable, sometimes amusing and sometimes irritating. Finding out that in real life Jane Austen was also thus engaged fleshes her out and increases my admiration. This woman had a life! The thing that really bothers me in all this is the denial of artistic ambition and desire for an audience’s responses by Jane Austen’s early biographers. I have heard that Jane Austen at one time entertained a guest by reading the first sixteen chapters of “Pride and Prejudice” without acknowledging herself as the author, a sure way to receive the unbiased feedback denied to her by a (prejudiced?) circle of friends and family. The drive to touch the hearts and minds of strangers fires all artists. No one, not even Emily Dickinson, can stand to work in a vacuum for very long. All in all, I find the attempts to remove Jane Austen from all the “vulgar” realities of getting her work out to a discriminating, money-paying audience is a large part of what is summed up in that sad, weak word, “authoress.”

[@agospei]

Thank you so much for this video. I've been wondering about this for years.

[@parkecustismackubin1577]

Outstanding analysis! I love to watch them over and over. thank you!!

[@alexandrabrannon8748]

You look fantastic! Love the hair cut and necklace. And it’s fun to be able to see out your windows while you talk. ❤️

[@joyoung2483]

Thank you! This was both informative and interesting!

[@pollyparrot9447]

Thank you very much Dr Cox for another interesting talk. If Jane Austen could be made aware of the billion dollar industry her work and life story have become I wonder if she would be gratified or rolling in her grave.

[@JulianA-ui8cz]

Fascinating… thank you for sharing your deep knowledge

[@mychannel-bl2rw]

Loved the dialogue about JA’s focus on the $$ side of her writings.

[@DianeNeubauer]

This was fascinating, and I had heard only a little of it before watching! I knew that Jane Austen was happy for the profits, but not further details. Speaking of her putting money in support of the author of Camilla, I sent a little contribution to your channel. Thank you for your fascinating and engaging videos.

[@Amcsae]

This was fascinating!

[@Purricia162]

As always, fascinating, thoughtful and amusing.

[@gracetaylor7351]

I really enjoy listening to this and I liked this video to learn about the money side of her books not just her being an author which you don’t hear a lot about with author back in her day a lot .I just find really interesting to hear about.🙂

[@bethanyperry5337]

Fascinating thank you once again for this unexpected glimpse into my favorite author. Who agrees with me that Cassandra has robbed us all of so many rich details of a complicated woman? (albeit at JA’s direction)

[@AM-tk2pk]

It really makes you wonder what was in those letters, doesn't it?

[@kaferine]

It's so sad we don't get to read those letters! The ones we do have can get pretty spicy, however, e.g. “Mrs. Hall, of Sherborne, was brought to bed yesterday of a dead child, some weeks before she expected, owing to a fright. I suppose she happened unawares to look at her husband.” - Jane Austen in a letter to her sister, Cassandra, on October 27, 1798 My guess is whatever letters were destroyed mentioned real people in a very negative light.

[@silviazaclis7626]

I wonder if there are papers and documents hidden im some attic of a castle or old abbey that can be found anytime now.

[@paulaschroen3954]

.

[@silviavalen1402]

Thanks!

[@piedwagtailrameau]

Absolutely fascinating presentation 😍😍

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Thank you.

[@AD-hs2bq]

Interesting and thank you for thinking of presenting this.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

I'm glad you found it interesting, A D.

[@orchid8062]

Knowing this makes me admire here more.

[@annika5893]

I feel kind of sad for Austen. I realize that if she hadn't lived in the time she lived, she might not have come to the fame she has had in retrospect. These days it's comparatively easy to publish one's own works, of course the difficulty comes whether you manage to succeed or not. If Jane Austen had managed to write best sellers in this time and age, she would be a millionaire like J.K. Rowling instead of having to live off of £25 per year from the profits of her published works. But I admire her so much for taking an active part in her earnings, making decisions, learning from those decisions, as much as she could.

[@naomiskilling1093]

I mean, if I was an author, I'd probably be obsessively following the sales of my works too. I mean, apart from reviews in papers, she had no other real gauge of how well or badly her novels were being recieved. Plus, again, it was money she earned from her own hard work and diligence so it probably meant a lot to her when the rest of her finances were being controlled by other people on her behalf.

[@Happyheretic2308]

Isn't the publishing business in the Regency and Georgian period utterly fascinating?!

[@melissashiels7838]

What (in general) was the fee for a subscription to a circulating library, and how much did they charge for renting books? Has research been done into that?

[@gwynwellliver4489]

I has always be frustrating to me that one of the most acclaimed authors ever was not able to support not only herself, but her family, when those who could have afforded a little more refused to do so. It would have been humiliating to be a woman of limited means who was expected to live in a genteel manner one could barely afford. Austen wrote what she knew!

[@edithengel2284]

Her brothers all helped Jane, Cassandra, and their mother. Edward Knight, the wealthiest of them, made sure they were taken care of. He might have done more if he hadn't a quiverful of sons and daughters to provide for, lost ]money in the failure of his brother Henry's bank, and been involved in an expensive lawsuit. But I agree that, even so, money troubles must have been worrisome for Jane and her household of unattached ladies.

[@freedpeeb]

It must have been so exhilerating for Jane to make her very own money by her own skill, to contribute to her own and her household's upkeep. As an intelligent woman she surely must have secretly loved the fact that while the men in her family were perhaps wealthier, it was not altogether through their own initiative that they had money. She, as it were, conjured the money out of her brain.

[@andreinaemi]

Hello! I always love your videos. I just finished Emma and was left with questions about Mr. Knightley. I didn't quite understand his social status and role. Anything on that? Thank you!

[@edithengel2284]

He's like a smaller scale version of Mr. Darcy. I can't remember if we are told his income, but he manages his handsome estate, Donwell Abbey, and its farm. He is of equal social class to Emma, but Emma's father is wealthier than he is.

[@andreinaemi]

@@edithengel2284 Thank you!

[@SarahElisabethJoyal]

Recently I was looking back on your old "defense of the novel" video, and of how many writers promoted their own novels at the expense of novels generally. And seeing the economic reality of the publishing market of the times, I'm wondering how much of that was a genuine "other novels are immoral and corrupting but this one won't damage your mind" as opposed to how much of it was just a cover for "books are expensive, please spend your 15 shillings on THIS novel as opposed to the ones that I won't make money from".

[@tessat338]

I only wish that she had lived long enough to enjoy profits equal to our enjoyment of her novels. I wish she could have had the problems of dealing with affluence.

[@harpo345]

Yes. It's not clear what she died of, but it's a good bet it would be considered a trivial ailment today. Just imagine if she had lived just five years longer - two or three new works of genius!

[@richardyates7280]

She could have lived in the style of Mr Darcy!

[@pattif8353]

@Dr Octavia Cox: I recently discovered your marvelous lectures here, and have become a monthly supporter. I discovered you here because I enrolled in your Jane Austen short course, and also the Shakespeare, and thought perhaps you had given a lecture sometime that had been recorded. Little did I know! I'm looking so forward to the courses, and to catching up with all of these lectures. Regarding JA's pecuniary interests, like others, I'm not the least bit surprised. Nearly all writers want to see their name in print, to be read, and to sell. (Emily Dickinson was unusual, I think.) One only needs to attend a writer's conference to find proof of that, and I doubt human nature has changed that much. Henry's rather, shall we say, disingenuous description of his sister as being uninterested in the worldly realms of both publication and profit rang hollow to me when I first heard you read it. It struck me frankly as PR spin. Given what you went on to tell us, I cannot help but wonder if, indeed, it wasn't that and more. The more being that it reflected better on him. First, because it made his sister sound pure, humble, modest and wholly untouched by worldly motives. I can well imagine such a gloss would only help sales. Second, because it made *him* sound better, as a brother and a provider. It's always fascinating to compare a persona with an actual person, isn't it?

[@katehurstfamilyhistory]

Just a thought that came to me when reading your summary of how Henry wanted to present his sister to the world - could it also link into her family background? Jane Austen was a clergyman's daughter - perhaps the surviving family also wanted to play down any hint that a female raised in that sort of environment might be interested as something as "vulgar" as earning money? If the world perceived their sister as even slightly materialistic, and - as you say - her readers might also get the impression that he and the other Austen brothers didn't give their mother and sisters adequate financial support, that would reflect very badly on the males in the family - people might think Jane was writing because she needed the money. (It could have looked very bad for her brother Edward, who was adopted by a wealthy relative and, as I understand, had quite a comfortable life.)

[@pattif8353]

@@katehurstfamilyhistory Oh, yes, I think that's all part of it. The contemporary world of PR and crafting an image, a persona, for a celebrity has a long history.

[@ant7936]

Excellent lecture, thanks. Yes, money is unimportant, vulgar, unmentionable - if you have it! But I didn't meet a wealthy person yet who doesn't scheme to get more (look at our greedy politicians with their second income and share dealings in dubious businesses). I think most artists are driven to produce, but when they receive their first commission, the prospect of income is very tempting and some people will focus on that rather than quality of product. All of Austen's books are actually about money; every young woman is looking for a young, rich man "in want of a wife" because it was a meal ticket for life then. Interesting to see primitive ideas of marketing, sales and profit. BTW, aspiring artists; never sell your copyright! If a businessman wants it, it's because he sees the future profits!

[@TVandManga]

So interesting!

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

I think: good on her for trying to get some cash out of her books, even the (failed) chance she took on Mansfield Park. Making the leap from amateur is a big deal. Also, I feel shallow for noticing after such an interesting analysis, but that's a really pretty necklace you're wearing today.

[@jolieonetoo]

Austen is such an intelligent and precise observer of society that it cannot be a surprise that she took an interest in the financial aspect of publishing her work. In the live chat, I made reference to the editing of her manuscripts. I did this because I had recently been "stung" by the criticism of Austen as a writer as a result of Professor Sutherland's comparison of manuscript and published text. Is there much alteration, I wonder? Her brother was quoted as saying that her spelling and grammar was lacking and that she had no idea of creating paragraphs. It was also reported that her dialogue ran together so that it was impossible to tell who was speaking. This cut me to the quick and I went to Google to try to resolve the issue for myself, but I remain unsure of what to think. I was hoping that you may have resolved this matter for yourself, Octavia.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Reviewing the published version of the text of P&P when it first came out, Austen wrote to Cassandra of some errors: "Typical errors - & a "said he" or a "said she" would sometimes make the Dialogue more immediately clear" (29 Jan 1813) "The greatest blunder in the Printing that I have met with is in Page 220 - Vol. 3. where two speeches are made into one. - There might as well have been no suppers at Longbourn, but I suppose it was the remains of Mrs Bennet's old Meryton habits. -" (4 Feb 1813)

[@nibbleniks2320]

I wonder if Henry downplayed Jane's attempt to earn money because it reflected poorly on her brothers? If her immediate family was in want, and it was then the responsibility of the many brothers to support, what does that say about their own capacity? Also, given the level of sales, hers in comparison to the others you mention was a trifle. What is 400 pounds when someone else made 30,000? The excuse being she never needed to earn money. Never intended. I am reading Roger Sales' book, "Jane Austen and Representations of Regency England" and it all fits. Henry made excuses for low sales, her nephew, (and Fanny's harsh comment on vulgarity of the aunts) worked to make them perfect Victorian ladies. A persistent question of mine is why didn't Cassandra marry? I don't buy the "love in the deep" thing. All but Edward (who could afford to keep a mistress--don't know if he did but it wouldn't be unusual) buried wives and married another in short order. But why wouldn't Cassandra even consider it? It would reduce the burden on her father and brothers in time. We read she was kind and attractive with even a little cache of money from dead Fowle that might serve as a dowry. Thank you for taking the time to produce these programs.

[@Ritercrazy]

Very much like this video.

[@alliswell44596]

Was soooo interesting.... I wonder how other female writers of her time made 10 times as much as she made? ... How was that possible? Were they not as pressured by their publishers? Were they wayyyyyy more popular that Jane A.? In any case, the video was extremely insightful 👍🙂. All videos which reveal more of "real life" are exciting!

[@Khatoon170]

How are you doing dr octavia thank you for wonderful literature channel we appreciate your great efforts as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level improve our English language as well and literature lovers too as always iam gathering main points about topics you mentioned briefly here it’s actually Jane Austen mostly depended on pocket money from her parents she earned nothing until she turned 36 years old. In the past 200 years ago seals it’s has sold 20 million copies worldwide out of the print the truth universally acknowledged that novel pride and prejudice 140pounds Jane Austen she earned from sale of novel sense and sensibility. Houses of Jane Austen house museum large in 17 th century house in center of village Chawton owned by Jane Austen memorial trust since 1947 and two houses Chawton house Jane Austen separately run charities. Her brother inherited Austen estate Edward knight 111 in 1852 ( Edward great great grand son ) inherited in year 1932 . Unfortunately Jane Austen never married she born in 1775 died in 1816 At age 41 years old her illness was Addison disease stay safe blessed good luck to you your family friends

[@literaryebooks]

What Jane Austen did, is what we in America call self-publishing today🇺🇸🇬🇧.

[@ayhrielvisante1386]

I wonder if the commentary from her brother and nephew was written with a PR view, spinning Ms Austen’s public image to one more acceptable, at that time, to those with incomes that afforded book purchases?

[@harpo345]

Undoubtedly so.

[@feelswriter]

It looks like the British copyright on Sense & Sensibility expired 1825, and the rest 28 years after they were published. So the interest of her nephew would presumably be less motived by money...

[@harpo345]

@@feelswriter So copyright on Sense and Sensibility lasted 14 years and for the others 28 years. How so?

[@DrOctaviaCox]

I very much think so, Ayhriel.

[@feelswriter]

@@harpo345 In the Wikipedia Article "Statute of Anne" subsection "Aftermath" topic "Expansion and Repeal: The length of copyright was also altered; the Copyright Act 1814 set a copyright term of either 28 years, or the natural life of the author if this was longer.

[@charissabihl1731]

If any Americans are curious, £1 in 1813 = £73 in 2022. £73 = $89.

[@claratakken3671]

That was very interesting information. It is wonderful to see Jane Austen as a person. I think her own economic dealing give depth to characters like Charlotte Lucas. Obviously Austen knew what she was talking about in describing Charlotte's financial considerations in marrying. At the university of Leiden I heard a lecture by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Oostade on Austen's "will". As far as I can remember the will was not an official one. In the will Austen left her royalties to Cassandra, if I remember correctly. Do you know more about the subject?

[@AngelaRichter65]

As a published writer myself, I would have been surprised if the prevailing mythos surrounding Jane Austen had been true. I have always agreed with her concerning her books. They are the children, sprung, fully formed, from our brains. When we publish, sending them out into the world, we know they will be judged harshly by some and praised by others. Most writers I know look at the business side to determine where to head storywise, especially if they are into serial novels concerning the same people. You need to know when to quit. I've seen many writers do this before they burned out a beloved character. others have a definite arc and the story ends where they have predetermined it will Ilona Andrews is the best example of that with her Kate Daniels series. They are the ultimate maters of writing in the first person voice. Their introduction of new material into the story is without doubt the best I've seen. They decided to self-publish and make their own story decisions and have done remarkably well, as well as being much more prolific than before when a publisher held them back for "marketing" strategy. When your bottom line depends on giving the readers what they want, you will pay for more attention to the sales figures than any bean counter at any publishing house.

[@Edera7795]

I love your necklace

[@baylorsailor]

I always look up the equivalency of money from different periods compared to today. £50 around 1811 would have been worth about £5,200 today.

[@tracey5324]

I often wonder how many women of the time period with access to the right class were more in charge of a house's finances than their family/historical sources will claim. If the men of a family were indifferent and a woman good with numbers, it wouldn't be hard for them to write letters on behalf of their brothers/husbands- or just tell the accountants to do what she says while keeping it confidential. Theres also no reference to Jane's brother negotiating the figures or printing particulars- just her own asessment of the costs and worth. Even for pride and predjudice she doesnt mention her family in the negotiations, only her opinions and the editor's which seems like her brother was only there to hold the credit card and sign the papers.

[@charlesiragui2473]

Her novels betray an incisive understanding of financial affairs so it would have been odd had she been so detached from worldly concerns with regard to her novels. Also, we know that she had effectively become a burden on her brothers by the time she began publishing, which her scrupulous personality must have disliked.

[@jackbrennan3468]

It makes perfect sense to me considering the views and attitudes of her female characters. The bonnets and balls version of Austen misjudges her.

[@rusted_ursa]

But, Dr. Cox, money _wasn't_ neccessary! Don't you know that one witty quip has so many nutrients that it may keep a family of four for a month? Why else would Jane Austen be such a master of the clapback?

[@rusted_ursa]

Reaching the part about being "much above caring about money," it's disappointing (though not surprising) to remember that that which the Poor are obliged to think and care about is always considered vulgar to the more privileged.

[@hilarymoonmurphy]

I always hated that Austen's male relatives felt that they had to make their aunt more genteel and proper than she actually was; they perpetuated a myth that women cannot possibly be interested in money -- a myth dashed by the very first chapters of Jane's first published work Sense & Sensibility!

[@Khatoon170]

Last part of my research Jane Austen her six complete novels are North anger, abbey , sense and sensibility, pride and prejudice, Mansfield park, emma and persuasion. The most famous novel of Jane Austen is pride and prejudice. Jane Austen popularity was modest largely because her works were published anonymously.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

JA was reasonably popular in her own time. All three of her first works sold out their first editions. Sadly, she didn't have a very long career (1811-1817) and so didn't have time to establish a reputation (which writers such as Maria Edgeworth and Fanny Burney did).

[@ianblair8626]

Hi Dr. Cox, i really enjoy your work and I have been thinking that your videos would be better in the format of a podcast.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Thank you Ian. I'm glad you enjoy my videos. When you say, it in the format of a podcast, do you mean in audio only?

[@dsr8223]

FWIW, I probably would not listen to audio only.

[@KatieRae_AmidCrisis]

@@DrOctaviaCox Please keep the videos coming - they're splendid. I enjoy your presenting style, appreciate the on-screen quotations, and am fond of the backdrop of your charming arched windows, and the changing seasons glimpsed outside.

[@Scribblore]

I've seen some youtubers make audio versions of their videos available as podcasts and since the images are seldom necessary to understanding these videos I sometimes listen while doing other things. Having both options could be handy since podcasts can be downloaded and listened to while travelling more easily, but if it's only one or the other, I prefer the video.

[@elisabethbuckley5725]

Although I like the images in the KZbin videos, the podcast would have the advantage of no annoying interruptions from adverts, which really grate on me.

[@crivsmum4820]

so Jane's works have outlived her favourite and more financially sccessful female authors of her period ... are they as worth reading as Jane's, are they still available?

[@karinka5658]

It's kinda sad, how p&p is handled. On one hand, it's totally understandable, that austen wasn't as interested in its success, as she has had no work furthermore... But still, it is sad she cared so little about this child

[@terriv2176]

So who earned the money on reprints after her death and for how long ? They’re still reprinting it - does anyone profit beyond the printers?

[@feelswriter]

They've been in the public domain for a very long time.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Cassandra was JA's executrix and beneficiary. Cassandra received (a few years after JA's death) £784 & 11 shillings from Murray (for final sales of MP and Emma, and the posthumous edition of Northanger Abbey and Persuasion). In 1832, she sold the five remaining copyrights to Richard Bentley for £210.

[@feelswriter]

Very definitive! Thank you.

[@terriv2176]

@@DrOctaviaCox thank you - Cassandra lived “well” then. however, in the big picture, the Austin family lost out long term by selling the copyright. But I guess that was the nature of publishing at that time.

[@harpo345]

Interesting that she seemed to have had no interest in the success of P&P. The popularity of that book would at certainly lead to increased sales of the other. Perhaps she was kicking herself for selling the rights and didn't want to think about how successful it was.

[@L1623VP]

Ms. Cox's judgement against Austen's brother, Henry, and her nephew, for saying Jane only wrote for the joy of it (and not profit) in their biographies of her seems off base. It seems to me they weren't trying to make her sound like a weak woman with no business savvy, but in turn trying to protect her reputation and public image. By Cox's own admission much later in the video, it was simply uncouth to talk about money openly, even for men, as one of the elder Austen's even referred to it as "pewter" instead of money or cash. Can you imagine how vulgar it would have been seen in society and the damage it would have done to Jane's image and legacy if either of those men in the 19th century had referred to her as a profit-seeking woman of business? It would have created quite the scandal, not just for themselves, but posthumously for Jane, as well. They were protecting Jane in describing her as such in their biographies of her, especially since they knew the opposite was true. Consider the context of the times!

[@TanyaItkin]

It feels very out of character for the person who wrote P&P and S&S to be unconcerned with the practical realities of publishing her novels, especially since she was never as well-off as to be dismissive of income.

[@ShopSmallUS]

Jane Austin was always explicit on money in her novels, so why not also in real life?

[@--enyo--]

We think we have new ideas, but it turns out Patreon or kickstarters were back then as well. 🤣

[@jonahtwhale1779]

Why didn't she go to a female book publisher a female book printer, or a female book distributor? If she had had to wait for these things to be available, would we ever have heard about her? Guess she was lucky men had made these opportunities available to her and others!

[@jonahtwhale1779]

You are forgetting about debtors prison! And the impact on subsequent life choices! As You quote the goose tradition was about having sufficient money to pay your debts. The significance of This is that jail was the destination of men who could not p ay their debts! Of course this does not really matter because gentklewomen, like Austin, were immune to these considerations - just one of the male privileges of Couverture, that women later objected to!