The riot that wasn't

Immediately after the discussion of history, we have an entertaining misunderstanding in which Catherine Morland is discussing fiction and Miss Tilney takes her to be discussing fact. Miss Tilney imagines that the truly terrible, meaning hair raising, novel to come out of London that Catherine is discussing is actually real social unrest taking place in that city—a riot in fact..

The first thing we need to remind ourselves of when reading the misunderstanding about "something very shocking" that will come out of London is that riots were not unheard of at the time. The Gordon Riots and the Spa Fields riots were both serious events and Miss Tilney, with a brother in the military, would be quite right to worry about such a thing.

Henry takes Catherine's side here, although he could just as easily have gone the other way. His possible motives for doing so aren't hard to guess. It perhaps does not matter because the lesson seems clear either way: these two women were talking right past one another. They were using the same words to mean very different things.

Except that Henry can tell what both mean.

Language

Before we get back to history, a moment on the great niceness controversey:

The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

Thus did Miss Tilney reprove her brother's mockery of Catherine's language. Whose side is Austen on? Whose side should we be on? It's a friendly little dispute—we don't have to get worked up about it. Brothers and sisters tease each other this way all the time.

The Johnson Miss Tilney refers to is, of course, Sam; and Blair is Hugh Blair. Blair is not so respected now. He has two strikes against him in modern eyes: he wrongly certified the Ossian poems as legitimate and he connected the effective use of rhetoric with social improvement (we would say social climbing).

He was much admired at the time, however, and he was a leading latitudinarian, just like Austen's father. Austen also consistently links effective speaking with social and even moral stature. I'm inclined to agree. No one has to agree with me.

What I think does matter is this. The discussion will now turn to history. Is the point Austen makes here about the value of history or about the value of learning to use language effectively?

History (2)

The discussion of history is book-ended by Catherine's praise of Radcliffe. Henry, providing evidence for those who think Austen is mercilessly mocking Radcliffe, teases Catherine about the language she uses in her praise:

But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

But just lines before this Henry has said he is a huge fan of Radcliffe and that was confirmed by his sister so we have no reason to doubt his admiration for the great Gothic novelist. What he is picking on Catherine about is her use of language. Should we agree with him? Here is how the discussion plays out

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise. Come, Miss Morland, let us leave him to meditate over our faults in the utmost propriety of diction, while we praise Udolpho in whatever terms we like best.

History in Northanger Abbey (1)

At some point soon I'm going to get to the crucial central chapter (Bk 2, Chapter one in this case).

There are two questions from the first half to deal with first though. The first is the extended discussion of history between Catherine, Miss Tilney and Henry Tilney in Chpater 14 of bk one.

It begins with a discussion of Radcliffe and Catherine's remark that Henry probably doesn't read novels. He asks her why she would think this and she replies:

"Because they are not clever enough for you—gentlemen read better books."

This is not just some fancy of Catherine's. Women read far more novels than men did, as is still the case. And just as the novel market today was criticized for being a lot of crap, so to the market of Austen's day. Sexists of the time argued that the trash was a consequence of the supposedly undiscriminating taste of women.

Nowadays, Sir Walter Scott is not read nearly as much as he was then but he was credited with making the novel respectable in much the same way that Christy Mathewson is often credited with making baseball respectable.

Scott wrote novels that men wanted to read. He knew that Austen was the better novelist but no one else did. His was the name to conjure with. And what Scott did was to introduce history to the novel. The moral pressure to put big important details, such as history, in novels was very real and Austen was determined to resist it. What does she make of history here?