|
Persuasions #15, 1993 Pages 57-62
The Rise and Fall of the House of Elliot EILEEN SUTHERLAND North Vancouver, BC I do
not write for such dull elves As
have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves – Letters,
No. 761 Jane Austen was referring to Pride and Prejudice when she
paraphrased this couplet from Marmion, but Persuasion gives even
better examples of the careful attention and concentration that she expected
from her readers. The first two or
three paragraphs of the novel are full of subtle hints about the Elliot family,
mixed in with the biographical details.
Skimming over this opening section, a reader would miss much information
that Jane Austen is offering. The novel opens like a piece of theatre: the
curtains part and reveal the library at Kellynch Hall – dark panelled walls,
heavy brocaded drapes (rather faded), rich patterned carpet (getting a little
threadbare), and Sir Walter sitting at the big oak library table, turning the
pages of his “favourite volume” – an enormous tome, much like one of those
massive family Bibles, bound in worn dark leather, and with thin, crisp,
fragile pages. But was it such a large impressive volume? Jane Austen ends her description with the
words, “forming altogether two handsome duodecimo pages.” Duodecimo means “twelve” or “one
twelfth,” and one twelfth of anything cannot be very big. Shakespeare was first printed in folios,
Jane Austen herself detested “great stupid thick quarto volumes” (Letters,
No. 78)2 and preferred a “neat octavo,” but what exactly did
these printer’s terms mean? They are
almost obsolete words now, used only by antique book dealers and
collectors. They were descriptive terms
for the size of books. It was not an
exact measurement – they depended on the size of the original sheet of paper,
and this could vary by several inches, but usually was about 19" by
25". If such a sheet of paper is folded in half,
making two leaves (or four printed pages) it is a folio. Folded in half again to make four leaves, it
is a quarto; in half again, an octavo. Now it gets a little more complicated because there are several
ways to get twelve leaves – in half, in half again, and then in thirds; or in
half, in thirds, and then in half again, for example. The actual size and shape will be a little different in each case,
but they are all called duodecimos, and would be about 7½" or
8" tall, about the size of a paperback when it was still called a
“pocketbook” because it was of a size to fit into a pocket or purse. This descriptive word “duodecimo” referred only
to the number of leaves from one folded sheet of paper, not to the number of
sheets used, or how thick the book would be.
One could have a thin delicate duodecimo of a few dozen leaves of
poetry, or a thick chunky volume of several hundred pages: both were duodecimos. So we must revise the picture – Sir Walter was
not turning over the pages of a massive dignified volume, but leafing through a
thick stubby little book. Jane Austen’s
readers would have known just what the Baronetage looked like, and would in many
cases have had their own copies. What was a Baronetage? Go back one step – what was a baronet? Kings and queens are magnificent, exalted
beings, but in one sense they are exactly the same as us lesser mortals – they
are always in need of money. Here we need to resort briefly to history: the
first Stuart kings of England were James VI of Scotland who became James I of
England, and his son Charles I. Then
came a period of civil war and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, when
Charles I was beheaded and the Stuarts were forced into exile. After the Restoration in 1660 came Charles
II, son of Charles I, and then his brother James II. Perennially short of money, James I created a
“new Dignitie between Barons and Knights” in 1611, and sold the honour for £1,000
to anyone who had £1,000 per year in landed estates, and whose paternal
grandfather had borne arms. It
conferred the title of “Sir” (and “Lady”) and took precedence over knights but
ranked below the sons of barons. [See
“Forms of Address and Titles in Jane Austen,” Joan Austen-Leigh, Persuasion,
No. 12, 1990.]3 To encourage
applications, the heirs apparent of baronets were knighted on coming of age, a
right revoked in 1827. (Mr. Elliot was
“heir presumptive” – as long as Sir Walter Elliot lived, he might have a son,
who would be his “heir apparent.”) The
title of baronet was hereditary, but was not considered part of the peerage
(duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron). Persuasion begins in 1814. What was the Baronetage
at that time? Webster’s Dictionary
of Proper Names lists [immediately after “De Bourgh, Lady Catherine”]: “Debrett
common abbreviation for Debrett’s Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and
Companionage ( 1802) and two other derivatory annuals …” John Debrett’s reputation was originally based
on his publication of Parliamentary Debates towards the end of the
eighteenth century. He entered into
partnership with John Almon, who had compiled the New Peerage in three
volumes, first published in 1769. On
Almon’s retirement in 1781, Debrett took over the business, and in the
following years published various editions of aristocratic family names and
histories. The “book of books” mentioned in Persuasion
is almost certainly The Baronetage of England with a List of Extinct
Baronets, 1800 (1st edition) [Sir Walter would have the first edition] by
John Debrett, London, 1808 (2 vols).
Half title Debrett’s Baronetage.”
The catalogue of the British Museum describes the first edition as
duodecimo, in two volumes, with more than 500 pages per volume. What was Sir Walter’s “favourite volume”? After the names of the immediate family,
there followed: …
the history and rise of the ancient and respectable family, in the usual terms:
how it had been first settled in Cheshire; how mentioned in Dugdale – serving
the office of High Sheriff, representing a borough in three successive
parliaments, exertions of loyalty, and dignity of baronet, in the first year of
Charles II, with all the Marys and Elizabeths they had married … (Persuasion,
p. 3) It is easy to slide over this paragraph and get
on with the story, but Jane Austen has “loaded” these few sentences with
information we need if we are to appreciate fully the family history which has
formed the character of Sir Walter Elliot, and also of his daughter Anne. …
first settled in Cheshire … Why Cheshire? Many Norman French families
settled in Cheshire at the time of the Conquest – a strong presence was
necessary in the West to hold back the raiding Welsh. Two of these families were closely connected to Jane Austen. Jane Austen’s mother’s family were Leighs, of
Cheshire. Several were knighted, one
was created a baron. One was High
Sheriff of Gloucestershire, one was Lord Mayor of London. They were strong royalists before and after
Cromwell’s time. Leigh wealth was
merged with Perrot wealth. Mr. and Mrs.
James Leigh Perrot, Jane Austen’s uncle and aunt, were in a position of status
and power with reference to the widowed Mrs. Austen and her daughters, living
on a small pension augmented by donations from her sons. In a similar situation was Mrs. Lybbe
Powys. Mrs. Austen’s sister Jane had
married the Rev. Edward Cooper, and had a son Edward and a daughter Jane. The young Edward married Caroline, daughter
of Mr. and Mrs. Lybbe Powys. The
Austens visited the Coopers at Edward’s parsonages at Harpsden and Hamstall
Ridware in Staffordshire, Mr. and Mrs. Lybbe Powys spent their winters in Bath
(in the winter of 1805-06, just around the corner from the Austens), and were
on good social terms with the Leigh Perrots.
Jane Austen had ample opportunity to know Mrs. Lybbe Powys well. As in the case of the Leigh Perrots, Lybbe
money merged with Powys money. Mrs.
Lybbe Powys led a socially active life, toured extensively in England, and
wrote bright, lively journals of her travels.
She exudes confidence, self-satisfaction and freedom to do as she
likes. In her family background in
Cheshire was a “mention in Dugdale” and a High Sheriff. Generally Jane Austen seemed contented and
satisfied with her lot in life. Occasional
references in her letters, however, suggest an underlying sense of resentment
and humiliation at the restraints imposed by poverty and by being so often a
helpless single woman. Much of the Leigh Perrot and Lybbe Powys
history is implied in the Elliot background.
In Persuasion, Jane Austen may be striking back in the only way
she could, by setting the origins of her foolish spendthrift baronet, whose
family fortunes have been dissipated and wasted, in the same county as the
wealthy connections who made her feel “a poor relation.” …
how mentioned in Dugdale … Honours of rank and the right to bear a coat of
arms were rigidly controlled by heralds.
(In Mediaeval times, heralds carried messages to the commanders of
opposing armies. Later they proclaimed
and conducted tournaments, announcing each of the combatants: they thus had to
be familiar with the crests and coats of arms of all the nobles. By the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries,
heralds were required to carry out periodic inspections of proofs of the right
to bear a coat of arms. They became the
acknowledged authority on “heraldry.”) One of the resulting documents from the
inspections was the Cheshire Visitation Pedigrees of 1663, based on the
visitation of that county by Sir William Dugdale, whose title was Garter
principal king-of-arms. William Dugdale (1605-1686) was the son of a
lawyer and bursar at St. John’s College, Oxford. He developed a love of antiquarian lore, and luckily found
wealthy patrons who financed his studies and research. Appointed herald in 1638, he compiled
histories of the antiquities of the northern counties, and lists and
descriptions of monasteries and secular estates. Dugdale’s works were considered archaeological and topographical
masterpieces, noted for their general accuracy and references to authorities. During the Inter-regnum of Cromwell, Dugdale’s
estates were confiscated and he received little or no financial
compensation. At the time of the
Restoration, however, he resumed his duties as a herald, rising through the
ranks with such intriguing titles as Pursuivant extraordinary, Blanch Lyon,
Rouge Croix, Norroy, and finally Garter king-of-arms, at which time
he was knighted. In 1662, Dugdale was commissioned to make a
visitation of his province which included the county of Cheshire, “to reform
and correct all arms unlawfully borne or assumed.” It is this Visitation Report which Jane Austen assumes
would have contained the history of the Elliot family origins: wealthy and
powerful enough at this period to be “mentioned in Dugdale.” …
serving the office of High Sheriff … Elliot is a Scottish name. The early members of the family may have
come south at the time James I became king of England, and settled in
Cheshire. There they established themselves,
acquired wealth, consolidated their position in local society, and looked for
sources of prestige and power. The office of Sheriff is the oldest continuous
secular office in England (in 1992 its “millennium” was celebrated), dating
from Anglo-Saxon times. In these
earliest centuries the sheriff, an official of the king, had the power to
arrest, raise armies, preside over courts, deal with traitors, and collect
taxes and levies. With so much power,
many were dishonest and unscrupulous, and generally greatly feared and
hated. But gradually these powers were
taken away from the sheriffs and given to other official or judiciary bodies. By the time an early Elliot became High
Sheriff, it was his duty to set the dates and oversee all elections, order the
arrest of any persons disturbing the peace, apprehend any traitors, assassins
or other felons, be responsible for prisons and prisoners, choose juries for
civil and criminal cases, escort and entertain judges at the Assize Courts, and
collect taxes and revenues (and account for the money). He was liable to heavy fines for misconduct
or failure in his responsibilities. The
office paid little and the expenses were high.
But the honour of being selected was still great – the Elliots were
moving into administrative positions and entering into elite society. …
representing a borough in three successive parliaments … Membership in the House of Commons was an
important indication of wealth and prestige.
Those elected were often connected with a powerful political figure, but
they were also usually people of authority and prominence in local
administration, who had faithfully carried out several less prestigious
offices. The Elliots were in a good
position to take this next step up. But note that this early Elliot does not
represent a “shire” – the rural entity, but a “borough” or town. The representatives of cities and towns in
the Commons at this period were mostly merchants of wealth and substance, not
landed gentry. It is thus highly likely
that the Elliot wealth was derived not from landed estates but from TRADE! Besides its prestige, election to Parliament
might bring a man to the direct notice of the king or his influential
ministers, and result in various favours such as valuable gifts, grants of land
or the award of profitable offices of the Crown. Election to “three successive parliaments” shows the stability of
the Elliots’ rise to power. …
exertions of loyalty … Loyalty to the Stuart kings of this period
often involved battles, loss of estates, fines, exile or even death. There is nothing in Debrett’s history of the
Elliot family, or Sir Walter’s own conversation and attitude, to suggest any
military valour on the part of his forebears.
On the contrary, if he had had a valiant hero of the Royalist armies in his
background, he certainly would have made reference to such an important
connection. When the navy was condemned
for “bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction,” the army –
whose commissions were sold to wealthy men with no reference to seniority or
service – could have been offered as a contrast (Persuasion, p. 19). There are other ways of expressing loyalty,
however. In the battles to regain his
throne, Charles II needed money – to pay his soldiers, to obtain provisions, to
compensate his followers who had lost their estates, and to propitiate those
whose loyalty might be wavering between Parliament and Crown. A wealthy Elliot, out of a good business sense
as well as feelings of loyalty to the royalist cause, would be ready and even
eager to offer a “loan” to the king – a loan which both parties knew would
never be called in. Such an “exertion
of loyalty” would be a very good investment indeed. …
and dignity of baronet, in the first year of Charles II. Maintaining an administration while he was in
exile, fighting a war against Cromwell’s forces on land and sea, and trying to
raise revenue to restore the finances of the devastated country left Charles II
with a bankrupted treasury. At the same
time something had to be done to reward those who had been loyal to his father
and to himself. Most of these devoted
followers had lost their estates, confiscated by the Cromwellian regime and
given to anti-royalists. By the time of the Restoration, much of this
land had changed hands, perhaps several times.
Charles could not risk antagonizing the new owners by evicting them from
estates they had acquired in good faith.
And there was no money to compensate their losses financially. It was an insoluble problem. Charles could give some gifts and pensions,
and award some offices, but for the most part his hands were tied. One thing Charles could do, and did. It cost nothing to bestow a title: he
created knights, baronets and peers from among those whose loyalty had been
most evident. Elliot was an obvious
choice, and the family now reached its peak of social prestige and status. Perhaps it was at this time that a marriage
was arranged with the heiress of Kellynch Hall in Somerset. …
all the Marys and Elizabeths they had married … Many families have favourite names, chosen time
after time, through the years. But the
“Marys and Elizabeths” here are not daughters and grand-daughters named by
choice for an honoured forebear. These
are the young ladies of various lineages brought into the Elliot family by
marriage, generation after generation. “Mary” and “Elizabeth” are Biblical names,
popular and in use for hundreds of years.
They are common, ordinary, usual names.
Here is Jane Austen’s hint at the downward slide, the degeneration of
the Elliot family. Here are men without
initiative or imagination, men who all married the same safe ordinary,
nondescript wives, men who never brought “new blood” into the family, men of no
curiosity, no ambition, no breadth of vision.
Gone is the driving force of the earlier generations, striving,
creating, leading. The Elliot family rose from ambitious,
energetic, patriotic beginnings, and fell again in the depths of uselessness,
idleness and decay. Only Anne – who was not one of the
“Marys and Elizabeths” – strikes out on her own, with vigor, courage and
determination, marrying one of the “coming” men of England, and beginning a new
family based on integrity, ambition and personal endeavour, like her distant
forebears. Don’t be a “dull elf” – read Jane Austen with
the care and thoughtfulness that she expected of you. NOTES References are to The Novels of Jane Austen ed. R. W. Chapman,
3rd ed. (London: Oxford University
Press, 1934), and Jane Austen’s Letters to her Sister Cassandra and Others,
ed. R. W. Chapman (London: Oxford University Press, 1952). 1 P. 298. 2 P. 304. 3 P. 35. |
