Few aspects of Austen’s life have attracted more attention or speculation than her romantic interests. A string of names has been associated with Austen: Edward Taylor, Tom Lefroy, Edward Bridges, Harris Bigg-Wither, and William Seymour, to name but a few. Numerous articles have assessed Austen’s would-be suitors, and entire books have been written on the subject.1 No one is more enigmatic than the unknown suitor of Austen’s seaside romance. He is supposed to have met Austen at a coastal resort in the southwest of England in the early years of the nineteenth century. The sources relating to him are uncertain as, with the passing of time, multiple versions of the story were handed down from Austen’s nephew, nieces, and great-nieces—the ultimate traditionary source being Cassandra Austen, who only spoke of him many years after her sister’s death. The written accounts date from more than forty years after Jane Austen’s death. The versions vary, often in highly significant details, leaving us with a mass of inconsistent and frequently contradictory statements regarding the time, location, profession, and conduct of Austen’s mysterious suitor. So nebulous are the accounts that some biographers have even questioned whether the unknown suitor ever existed (Nokes [245]; Tomalin [181]; Butler).
Despite the conflicting accounts that have come down to us, the surviving evidence does support the notion that such a man did indeed exist. The various sources have been reviewed in the biographical literature on Austen, but unfortunately these assessments have often introduced further confusion rather than providing any clarity. This article provides a fresh assessment by identifying the various accounts, where they came from, and what, if anything, can confidently be derived from them about Austen’s unknown suitor.
R. W. Chapman, one of the earliest to review the evidence, stated in Jane Austen: Facts and Problems, “The evidence is so full of obscurities and contradictions that it cannot fairly be summarized, but must be presented in full” (63). This method is the approach I will also take. There are nine significant source accounts that need to be reviewed in turn. Each source will be quoted below and assigned an ID for ease of reference. A summary of the sources can be found in Appendix 3. The first source is from Austen’s nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798–1874), hereafter referred to as JEAL. The next three are from his sister Caroline Austen (1805–1880); two are from their cousin, Catherine Hubback (1818–1877), daughter of Frank Austen; and three are from Fanny Caroline Lefroy (1820–1885), daughter of Anna Lefroy, and so Austen’s great-niece, hereafter referred to as FCL. There is a possible tenth text from Caroline Austen, to which we will return. These sources span two generations after Austen’s own, but the original and seemingly sole source of information on the suitor is Austen’s sister, Cassandra—although she herself left behind no surviving written account.
We will begin with the first published account of the suitor, which appeared in 1871 in the second edition of James Edward Austen-Leigh’s A Memoir of Jane Austen.
JEAL1—James Edward Austen-Leigh
There is, however, one passage of romance in her history with which I am imperfectly acquainted, and to which I am unable to assign name, or date, or place, though I have it on sufficient authority. Many years after her death, some circumstances induced her sister Cassandra to break through her habitual reticence, and to speak of it. She said that, while staying at some seaside place, they became acquainted with a gentleman, whose charm of person, mind, and manners was such that Cassandra thought him worthy to possess and likely to win her sister’s love. When they parted, he expressed his intention of soon seeing them again; and Cassandra felt no doubt as to his motives. But they never again met. Within a short time they heard of his sudden death. I believe that, if Jane ever loved, it was this unnamed gentleman; but the acquaintance had been short, and I am unable to say whether her feelings were of such a nature as to affect her happiness. (29)
In the notes to her edition of JEAL’s Memoir, Kathryn Sutherland describes this passage as one of the “significant revisions to the text of the Memoir made between Ed. 1 and Ed. 2” (211). The passage refers to Harris Bigg-Wither’s proposal to Austen in December 1802 as well as the unknown suitor. Sutherland states, “The second episode, the seaside romance, is possibly earlier, and refers to a chance meeting when JA was on holiday in Sidmouth, Devon, in the summer of 1801; again it is from Caroline Austen’s account” (212).2 What follows is a quotation of a letter from Caroline to JEAL, which is provided in full in the appendix to the text (188). This letter is from a collection described by Sutherland as “a file of correspondence between Henry Hake of the National Portrait Gallery and the Austen scholar R. W. Chapman, 1932–1948.”
Sutherland remarks on the possible difference between the original letters from Caroline and what Chapman was able to share with Hake.
This [file] includes a set of typed sheets, sent by Chapman to Hake, comprising copies of letters made by Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh of correspondence addressed to JEAL around the time of the preparation and publication of the Memoir. . . . JEAL’s album containing the originals of these letters is now lost or destroyed. . . . It is not possible to determine whether errors or idiosyncratic features of orthography and punctuation are original to the lost manuscripts or were introduced at the typing stage. (264)
Consequently, we must approach the text of Caroline’s letter with caution as we cannot be certain it accurately reflects what she wrote.3 The text of the letter follows. Hereafter it will be referred to as CMCA1:
CMCA1—Caroline Austen
During the few years my Grandfather lived at Bath, he went in the summer with his wife and daughters to some sea-side. They were in Devonshire, & in Wales—& in Devonshire an acquaintance was made with some very charming man—I never heard Aunt Cass. speak of anyone else with such admiration—she had no doubt that a mutual attachment was in progress between him and her sister. They parted—but he made it plain that he should seek them out again—& shortly afterwards he died!—My Aunt told me this in the late years of her own life—& it was quite new to me then—but all this, being nameless and dateless, cannot I know serve any purpose of your’s—and it brings no contradiction to your theory that she ^Aunt Jane^ never had any attachment that overclouded her happiness, for long. This had not gone far enough, to leave misery behind. (188)
This letter is the first of three, or possibly four, accounts regarding the unknown suitor from Caroline. As with all accounts, the dating is critical, and as we will see with the other accounts, we often cannot be certain on this point. The transcript simply has “Wednesday Evg” as a date, and the year is tentatively identified in square brackets as 1869 with a question mark. No specific explanation is provided for this dating, but Chapman did state that the correspondence in JEAL’s volume was “written in or about 1869” (168). Furthermore, he quotes this letter, describing it as “a letter written to her brother at the time of the compilation of the Memoir” (66). Deirdre Le Faye suggests a date of 1868 or 1869 preceded by a question mark (Family Record 319 n110). If Caroline’s letter was the source or trigger for JEAL’s revisions in the 1871 second edition, however, a later date, such as 1870 or maybe even 1871, could be posited.4 It is also worth noting that CMCA2 also appears to date from 1870, so perhaps the two letters were written at the same time. Ultimately, either set of dates is possible, but if so, this calls into question Le Faye’s subsequent assertion that CMCA1 is the first mention of the seaside romance (Family Record 277), although this notion remains a distinct possibility, as we shall see.
The second statement from Caroline will be referred to hereafter as CMCA2 and appears in a letter to her niece Emma Austen-Leigh (1831–1902), JEAL’s eldest daughter, who was known as Amy. The letter has been quoted many times in the literature on Austen, but it seems that the best authority we have for the text is Joan Austen-Leigh’s 1986 “New Light Thrown on JA’s Refusal of Harris Bigg-Wither,” published in Persuasions.5 The date provided in Austen-Leigh’s article is 17 June, with the year 1870 in brackets. There is no explanation for this dating, nor is a source given for the letter. It seems likely that Joan Austen-Leigh herself owned it, but its current location is unknown.6 As with CMCA1, the lack of the original manuscript means we cannot be sure of either the text or date of the letter, and we must therefore tread cautiously. In this letter Caroline refers to both Harris Bigg-Wither and the unknown suitor.
CMCA2—Caroline Austen
I do not know the date of the Seaside gentleman—Mr. Blackall I suppose was his name—on Mr. Hubback's authority—but I should imagine it to have been later—It was from Bath that they made the summer excursions which brought him to their acquaintance—Probably they did not begin their wandering the first summer—1801 & in August 1802 it is entered that “Mr & Mrs & Charles Austen came [to Steventon] from Wales”—I know they once went to Barmouth—& it was not there that they found him—I cannot say for certain—only my belief is, that his life or death had nothing to do with the Manydown story— (35)
We can immediately see that there are at least three significant differences between this account and CMCA1. First, the suitor is tentatively identified as “Mr. Blackall,” which will sound odd to anyone familiar with Austen biography, who will recall that Samuel Blackall (1771–1842), a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, visited Steventon during the Christmas of 1797 and made for something of an awkward, and indeed unsuccessful, suitor (Le Faye, Family Record 106–07). We will return to this misidentification as we will encounter it again in subsequent sources.
Second, Caroline refers to “Mr. Hubback’s authority.” This person is, presumably, John Hubback, husband of her cousin Catherine, but he would seem an odd source of information. He married Catherine in 1842, but he subsequently had a breakdown in 1848 from which he never recovered (Le Faye, Chronology 669). Given that Mrs. Hubback herself is a source of information on the unknown suitor, it seems more likely that Caroline was referring to Catherine and that “Mr.” is a transcription error. Third, Caroline suggests that the encounter took place after 1802, a statement at odds with the more cautious “nameless and dateless” in CMCA1
The third letter from Caroline, identified hereafter as CMCA3, is taken from Fanny Catherine Lefroy’s “Family History” manuscript, in a passage where FCL writes of the unknown suitor. The date of composition for the “Family History” is unclear. In her edition of the Letters Le Faye suggests the late 1870s (546); however, she also states 1880–1885 (472). The latter dates coincide with the notes in the Memoir (207) and with the catalogue of the Hampshire Record Office. This passage has two sections: the first is written by FCL, to be discussed later as FCL1 alongside her other contributions below; the second section (CMCA3) is a transcript of a letter from Caroline.
CMCA3—Caroline Austen
Extract of a letter from our dear Aunt Caroline to Mary Leigh I have no doubt that Aunt Jane was beloved of several in the course of her life and was herself very capable of loving. I wish I could give you more dates as to Mr Blackall, all that I know is this. At Newtown Aunt Cassandra was staying with us when we made the acquaintance of a certain Mr Henry Edridge of the Engineers he was very pleasing and very good-looking. My aunt was much struck with him, and I was struck by her commendations as she rarely admired anyone. Afterwards she spoke of him as of one so unusually gifted with all that was agreeable and said he had reminded her strongly of a gentleman whom they had met one summer when they were by the sea (I think she said in Devonshire) who had seemed greatly attracted by my Aunt Jane. That when they parted (I imagined he was a visitor also, but the family might have lived near) he was urgent to know where they would be the next summer implying or perhaps saying that he should be there also wherever it might be. I can only say, the impression left on Aunt Cassandra’s mind was that he had fallen in love with Aunt Jane. Soon afterwards they heard of his death. I am sure she thought him worthy of her sister from the way she recalled his memory and also that she did not doubt either that he would have been a successful suitor. Frog Firle 1870.7
The date given here is significant in that 1870 is the same year given in CMCA2, and it is also a possible date of CMCA1. Just before quoting part of this letter, the authors of the 1913 Life and Letters state that “shortly after its publication [i.e., the Memoir] his sister, Caroline Austen, was induced to put down in writing the facts as she knew them” (89), which supports a date of 1870. It could be that either the composition or publication of the Memoir triggered these three letters from Caroline, although, as we can see, her position is not consistent. I have not been able to identify Mary Leigh, the recipient of this letter. She was presumably of Mrs. Austen’s side of the family, but none of the known Mary Leighs would fit this period.8 It could be a transcription error on FCL’s part. For this reason, I have been unable to identify the current location of this letter, if it survives, or if FCL even had sight of it.
Setting these points aside, what is significant about this letter is that Caroline here mentions the story of Henry Edridge of the Royal Engineers, who reminded Cassandra of the unknown suitor. CMCA3 is the only source which mentions Edridge. Caroline is uncertain about the date but this time she thinks Cassandra mentioned Devonshire, a significant fact, as we shall see. Also, in CMCA1 the suitor simply wanted to “seek them out again” whereas this time he was “urgent to know where they would be the next summer.” Claire Tomalin points out that “this is hardly the approach of an ardent lover” (181), but it could be that the suitor was testing the waters and delicately angling for an invitation from either Austen or her family to renew the acquaintance sooner. CMCA3 appears to be unique in this respect, with most other accounts mentioning an earlier intended meeting.
This letter is highly significant in that it has appeared in at least four important secondary texts, though not always in the above form: Chapman’s Jane Austen: Facts and Problems (1948), Constance Hill’s Jane Austen: Her Homes and Her Friends (1902), William and Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh’s Jane Austen: Her Life and Letters (1913), and Deirdre Le Faye’s revision of Life and Letters, Jane Austen: A Family Record (2004). Chapman and Hill also quote FCL1, so we will return to them, although it is worth noticing that Hill appears to be the first to have published this account.9 Two important points about the 1913 Life and Letters must be noted. The first is that the Austen-Leighs quote only part of CMCA3: the first few lines are missing, and the quotation begins with “All that I know is this.” The Austen-Leighs refer to Constance Hill’s quoting this passage and pick up on the erroneous naming of the suitor as Blackall, adding that the mistake was not Caroline’s, as she referred to the suitor as “nameless and dateless” (89 n1). As we have seen above, however, although CMCA1 uses the words “nameless and dateless,” the opening lines of CMCA3 do indeed refer to Mr. Blackall, as Constance Hill noted (236). The Austen-Leighs omit this section of the text. The second point to note is that the text provided in the 1913 Life and Letters contains a number of departures from CMCA3. For example, in CMCA3 Caroline does not assert that Edridge’s early death acted as the trigger for Cassandra’s recounting to her the story of the unknown suitor, but the Life and Letters states, “Mr. H. E. also died of a sudden illness soon after we had seen him at Newtown, and I suppose it was that coincidence of early death that led my aunt to speak of him—the unknown—at all” (90). Similarly, Caroline’s statement that “I think she said in Devonshire” is followed in the Life and Letters by “I don’t think she named the place, and I am sure she did not say Lyme, for that I should have remembered” (90)—words not in CMCA3.
These departures are carried over in Deirdre Le Faye’s Family Record. This fact is unsurprising given that the Family Record is a revision of the Life and Letters. Le Faye states in an endnote that there are three sources for this passage: an undated letter from Caroline to JEAL at the Hampshire Record Office (23M93/86/3); Chapman’s Facts and Problems (65–66); and FCL’s “Family History,” with abbreviations and alterations (Family Record 305 n53). The first source is highly significant as it would mean that, in addition to CMCA3, the 1870 letter quoted by FCL from Caroline to Mary Leigh, there is an additional undated letter from Caroline to JEAL on the subject of the unknown suitor that could explain these variances. To my knowledge, I have not seen such a letter referenced elsewhere, and it would be a fourth letter from Caroline on the subject to add to the three discussed above.10
Le Faye records CMCA2 in her Chronology under 17 June 1870 but then adds, “Probably soon after, CMCA writes again, summarizing CEA’s comments on the unknown admirer’s resemblance to Mr. Edridge [see June and November 1828]” (689). Le Faye does not identify the recipient of this letter but JEAL is presumably intended, given that the sources are the Family Record (143) and the Hampshire Record Office 23M93/86/3, letters sent to JEAL. In the Chronology’s entries for June and November 1828, the same finding number is quoted and a letter from Caroline to JEAL on the suitor is referred to (634 [12 June 1828]; 636–37 [7 November]).11 The finding number covers a large collection of letters at the Hampshire Record Office sent to JEAL, but only twelve are from Caroline and only four are post-1870. None of the twelve letters appears to refer to the unknown suitor.12 It is possible that a letter has gone missing, but more likely the letter did not exist, and there is some sort of confusion. When CMCA3 is quoted in the Family Record (143), it is prefaced by the statement, “In 1870 Caroline wrote out the account, for her brother’s use in preparing the second edition of his Memoir.” This statement does not tally with the reference to an undated letter to JEAL as mentioned in the end note, although, as we have seen, Caroline’s letter to Mary Leigh is indeed dated 1870 by FCL.
It would seem, then, that not only has the letter to Mary Leigh which FCL quoted gone missing (CMCA3), so has that sent to JEAL, referred to by Le Faye in the Family Record—if indeed either of these existed. None of Caroline’s letters about the unknown suitor seem to have survived, or, if any has, its current location is unknown. This point has significant implications for how confident we can be as to the integrity of the texts we do have.
As we have seen above, there are significant shifts in the three accounts from Caroline that we do have, such as her naming Mr. Blackall as the suitor. A partial explanation for this misidentification might be found in the texts from Catherine Hubback, referred to hereafter as CH1 and CH2.13 Mrs. Hubback wrote two letters to JEAL, typescripts of which are also in the archives of the National Portrait Gallery, and which have been included in the appendix of the Memoir (191–92). Note, however, that the transcript describes the letter as “Copy of part of a letter from Catherine Hubback to JEAL.”
CH1—Catherine Hubback
March 1st. 1870.
My dear Edward
. . . I gathered from the letters that it was in a momentary fit of self-delusion that she ^Aunt Jane^ accepted Mr. Withers proposal, and that when it was all settled eventually, and the negative decisively given she was much relieved—I think the affair vexed her a good deal—but I am sure she had no attachment to him. If ever she was in love it was with Dr. Blackall (I think that was the name) whom they met at some watering place, shortly before they settled at Chawton—There is no doubt she admired him extremely, and perhaps regretted parting, but she always said her books were her children, and supplied her sufficient interest for happiness; and some of her letters, triumphing over the married women of her acquaintance, & rejoicing in her own freedom from care were most amusing.
CH2—Catherine Hubback
March 14th. 1870.
. . . I do not think Dr. Blackall died until long afterwards. If I do not mistake there were two brothers, one of whom was called Mr. Edwd. B—& I never heard of what became of him—The other, the Dr.—Aunt Cassandra met with again long afterwards when she made an excursion to the Wye in company with Uncle Charles, two of his daughters & my sister Cassandra—My cousin Cassie Austen the only survivor of that party could I have no doubt tell where and how they met him—I only remember that my Aunt found him stout, red-faced and middle-aged—very different from their youthful hero—It must have been in “32”—or there-abouts, and I believe he died soon afterwards. . . .14
CH1 and CH2 are significant in that these two letters have precise dates, although we should again bear in mind that they are transcripts whose originals are lost. The dates provided fall directly after the publication of the first edition of the Memoir in December 1869. CH1 from 1 March refers to Blackall by name; if it postdates CMCA1 but predates CMCA2 and CMCA3, it could explain Caroline’s statement in CMCA2 that the name Blackall is on “Mr Hubback’s authority,” the “Mr” perhaps being a transcription error, as noted above. A significant aspect of CH2 is the statement that, unlike in previous accounts, Blackall did not die but lived on, and Cassandra encountered him many years later in around 1832. CH2 seems to be the sole witness for this journey, and Mrs. Hubback’s source seems to be her sister, Cassandra Eliza, who was among the party. Perhaps this encounter was the trigger for Cassandra Austen to tell her nieces of Blackall’s unsuccessful wooing in 1797, which was subsequently confused by them with the story of the unknown suitor (Memoir 266 n191).
This confusion was perpetuated in the next generation by FCL, who was the author of the last three sources that we will examine. The first of these has been mentioned above in connection with CMCA3, as it precedes it in FCL’s “Family History.” It shall be referred to hereafter as FCL1:
FCL1—Fanny Caroline Lefroy
The Austens with their two daughters were once at Teignmouth the date of that visit was not later than 1802 but besides this they were once travelling in Devonshire moving about from place to place and I think that tour was before they left Steventon in 1801 perhaps as early as 1798 or 9. It was whilst they were so travelling according to Aunt Cassandra’s account that they somehow made acquaintance with a gentleman of the name of Blackall. He and Aunt Jane mutually attracted each other and such were his charms that even Aunt Cassandra thought him worthy of her sister. They parted on the understanding that he was to come to Steventon but instead I know not how long after came a letter from his brother to say that he was dead. There is no record of Jane’s affliction, but I think the attachment must have been very deep. Aunt Cassandra herself had so warm a regard for him that some years after her sister’s death and when she herself was an elderly woman, she took a good deal of trouble to find out and see again his brother.15
Before considering this passage, it is worth noting two points. First, Chapman quotes this passage in Facts and Problems before quoting CMCA3 (64–65). This arrangement makes sense in that it mirrors the organization in the “Family History”—i.e., in the manuscript FCL1 appears followed by CMCA3. Chapman, however, does not state that the source is FCL and the “Family History,” and he prefaces FCL1 with the statement “Her daughter, Mrs. Bellas wrote down the following story.” This reference to Mrs. Bellas would appear to be a mistake: although there is indeed a Bellas Manuscript, which Chapman notes (169), this particular passage does not appear in it. Second, although Le Faye quotes CMCA3, she does not quote this passage (Family Record 143), nor is it quoted in the 1913 Life and Letters (89).
As noted above, the “Family History” is thought to date from the late 1870s or 1880–1885, so FCL1 is separated from Jane Austen by two generations. We begin to see inconsistencies and errors embedding themselves in the narrative. As Catherine Hubback and Caroline Austen did before her, FCL names Blackall and even goes as far as to predate the encounter to before the move to Bath in 1801. We have now drifted far from Caroline’s original “nameless and dateless” description. FCL seems to be unique in claiming that the encounter was around 1798–99. Although that date is unlikely, she seems at this point to have been convinced as she subsequently reiterates her claim:
It may be thought that if the Austens desired change of air and sea breezes they would more naturally have sought them on the coast of Hampshire than on that of Devonshire. But Steventon stood almost on the Great Western Road and the London and Exeter coaches stops I believe daily at Dean gate within a mile of the house so that it was far easier to them to go west than to go south, as in the latter case they would have had some miles to drive along a very bad rough road.
Nonetheless, FCL is alone in making this claim, and the bulk of the evidence supports a later date. (FCL, however, changed her view on this point, as we will see when we examine FCL3.) She also asserts confidence in the depth of the relationship. In opposition to JEAL’s guarded “I am unable to say whether her feelings were of such a nature as to affect her happiness” and CMCA1’s “This had not gone far enough, to leave misery behind,” FCL expresses conviction: “There is no record of Jane’s affliction, but I think the attachment must have been very deep.” In another divergence, while CH2 stated that “Aunt Cassandra met with [the suitor] again long afterwards when she made an excursion to the Wye,” in FCL1 the suitor dies and “Aunt Cassandra herself had so warm a regard for him that some years after her sister’s death and when she herself was an elderly woman, she took a good deal of trouble to find out and see again his brother.”
FCL returned to the question of the suitor in an article published in Temple Bar in 1883 titled “Is It Just?” This article (FCL2) contains a long though highly fictionalized account of the suitor:
FCL2—Fanny Caroline Lefroy
Of the romance of her life, owing to the care with which her sister destroyed all record of it, and to the silence in which she buried it, we know very little, and a precise date cannot be fixed; but from some memoranda recently come to light it is almost certain that it happened between the years 1797 and 1800.16 The later date would make Jane five-and-twenty. Cassandra was two years older, and already engaged to a young clergyman, who had gone out to the West Indies as chaplain to the forces.
The village of Steventon lies about half a mile from the great western road from London to Exeter, and about six from Basingstoke. Just where the lane turned off from the turnpike there stood a small public-house, where the coaches stopped before mounting the next hill to water their horses and to pick up parcels and letters, and, occasionally, passengers. Here it was, no doubt, one summer's morning that Mr. and Mrs. Austen and their daughters set off on their memorable tour into South Devon. They moved from place to place, halting at each a short time; but there is no record of where they went. It was in one of these halts that they made the acquaintance of two brothers, one of whom was a doctor and the other a clergyman. The latter fell in love with Jane Austen, as others had vainly done before. But he was so charming that he won her heart—and not only so, but such were his gifts of person and manner that even Cassandra, highly as she rated her sister, allowed he was worthy of her; and when in after-years she once spoke of him, did so as something quite exceptionally captivating and excellent. How the acquaintance was made we do not know. It might have been that Mrs. Austen, whose health was not good at this time, needed medical advice and called in the doctor, and the acquaintance with one brother led naturally to that of the other. But this is only conjecture. The clergyman was himself only a visitor in the place, as were they. However the introduction was effected, they could not have been long together. A week, or a fortnight at most, had seen the beginning and the end of the acquaintance. But brevity as to time does not always prove that the regard is only slight and fleeting. Two people staying in the same house for three or four days may have as much intercourse and come to know each other as well, or better, than they would have done in as many years if living half a dozen miles apart. And thus a few long summer days spent together in sight-seeing or in admiring the same lovely views, and the daily meetings, which a very little exertion on the gentleman's side must have been able to secure, might have given time not only for love to arise, but to have struck its roots deeply into the heart. Jane Austen so delighted in beautiful scenery that she thought it would form one of the joys of Heaven. Was it because it was in her mind associated with this sweetest summer of her life?
When the day came for their moving on, the gentleman asked for permission to join them again at some farther point of their travels, and the permission was given. What time elapsed we do not know, but when they reached the place at which they were to meet, they received a letter from his brother announcing his death. No tidings of previous illness could have reached them to soften the shock. The hard pitiless fact is all we know. Of her suffering no word has reached us, but we do know that her sister so cherished his memory that many years afterwards, when an elderly woman, she took a good deal of trouble only to see again the brother of the man who had been so dear to Jane—surely proof enough of how dear he had been to her, and how mourned! Two facts also point to the same conclusion. Jane Austen never married, though she was solicited to do so, and from 1798 until 1810 there fell on her a strange, long silence. She wrote nothing for twelve years. Somewhere in 1804 she began “The Watsons,” but her father died early in 1805, and it was never finished. Nearly at the same time as this grievous blow fell on her, a similar sorrow fell also on her sister. The young clergyman to whom she was engaged died of yellow fever in the West Indies. He had been one of her father’s pupils, and she must therefore have known him from childhood and the attachment have been the growth of many years; but scarcely more is known of this story than the other.
United in the closest and tenderest affection, Cassandra’s sorrow could have been scarcely less to Jane than her own, or Jane’s to Cassandra. To each other their griefs were confided, and to each other alone.
Is it not much more probable that this double affliction was the cause of Jane Austen’s long silence, than that she who had been writing ever since she was sixteen, or indeed ever since she could hold a pen, should have lost both power and inclination because a single publisher had rejected “Pride and Prejudice”?
What is worth noting here is that FCL asserts a date range of 1797–1800, which is unlikely, as noted above. The location of the encounter is specified as “South Devon,” to which we will return, and mention is made of the suitor’s being a clergyman. This passage would appear to be the first time the suitor’s profession is mentioned, and it is unclear where FCL derived this information from. The duration of the encounter is also first specified as being “[a] week, or a fortnight at most.”
This rambling account should be contrasted with FCL’s third utterance on the suitor, found in a copy of Lord Brabourne’s Letters of Jane Austen (1884), which FCL annotated shortly before her death in January 1885 (Chronology 697). There has been some confusion over these notes, as it had been thought that they were made by FCL’s sister Louisa Bellas (1824–1910), who inherited the volumes after FCL’s death. For this reason, the notes have been called the Bellas Notes (although not to be confused with the Bellas Manuscript, mentioned above). They are more correctly known as the Lefroy Notes (Austen, Letters 472), although Edith Lank, an owner of the volumes, stated in her 2008 “List of Annotations in the Bellas Copy of Lord Brabourne’s Letters of Jane Austen” that although FCL made most of the annotations, some were indeed by Louisa Bellas. The same article publishes the annotations, including FCL’s comment interleaved between pages 278–79 of the first volume, hereafter referred to as FCL3:
FCL3—Fanny Caroline Lefroy
In the summer of 1801 the father & mother & daughters made a tour in Devonshire. They went to Teignmouth Starcross Sidmouth etc etc. I believe it was at the last named place they made acquaintance with a young clergyman then visiting his brother who was one of the doctors of in the Town. He & Jane fell in love with each other & when the Austens left he asked to be allowed to join them again farther on in their tour & the permission was given. But instead of his arriving as expected, they received a letter from his brother announcing his death. In Aunt Cassandra’s memory he lived as one of the most charming people persons she had ever known worthy even in her eyes of Aunt Jane.
This concise account appears to be FCL’s final comment on the unknown suitor. It is significant that FCL’s dating has now shifted to the Bath period (1801), and Sidmouth, in South Devon, is specifically mentioned. The suitor is again a clergyman, but this time is described as “young.” No reference is made to Cassandra’s subsequently meeting his brother. FCL’s comment was copied out by her sister Louisa Bellas and inserted in a note to her cousin Cholmeley Austen-Leigh, JEAL’s eldest son. This note is in the front of FCL’s “Family History,” and we will return to it shortly.
These nine passages, which span approximately fifteen years from 1868–69 to 1885, contain what little we know about the suitor. Almost all of what has been written in the twentieth century derives from one or more of these texts. Although there are some commonalities, one important aspect requires detailed consideration before we can make a final assessment and review: the various locations where the Austens spent their summers while living in Bath during Mr. Austen’s lifetime, from 1801–1804. It is to this topic that we will now turn.
The nine texts generally agree that Austen’s encounter occurred by the seaside—no surprise given that such locations were becoming increasingly popular, especially as places where young people could meet.17 Shortly after learning of her parents’ intention to leave Steventon, Austen wrote, “there is something interesting in the bustle of going away, & the prospect of spending future summers by the Sea or in Wales is very delightful” (3–5 January 1801). Austen chronicled this social phenomenon in her own novels: in Emma Frank and Jane meet at Weymouth; in Persuasion Anne encounters Mr. Elliot in Lyme. A fuller treatment would no doubt have followed in Sanditon.
As Le Faye notes in her chronologies in the Cambridge edition of Austen’s works, the period during Austen’s residence in Bath prior to her father’s death is the most likely fit for her encounter with the unknown suitor (e.g., Sense and Sensibility xvii–xviii). The various locations that the family visited in southwest England during this period are well known, but the evidence can often be circumstantial at best. There is also an unfortunate gap in Austen’s letters from May 1801 to 14 September 1804, so in a number of cases we are forced to draw inferences. What follows is a summary of the available evidence.
Le Faye’s Chronology states that the Austens toured Devonshire from midsummer 1801, probably visiting Sidmouth and Colyton (260), Sidmouth being on the coast and about ten miles from Colyton. The evidence comes from two of Austen’s letters. The earlier (8–9 November 1800) states that Richard Buller, a former pupil of the Rev. Mr. Austen and now vicar of Colyton, “is very pressing in his invitation to us all to come & see him at Colyton, & my father is very much inclined to go there next Summer.” The latter (8–9 January 1801) simply reports that “Sidmouth is now talked of as our Summer abode.” In addition, a letter from Eliza de Feuillide, dated 29 October 1801, mentions “our Uncle & Aunt Austen and their daughters having spent the summer in Devonshire” (Family Record 135–36).
Under the heading of midsummer 1802, Le Faye’s Chronology states that Austen, presumably with her sister and parents, went to Dawlish and Teignmouth, both on the coast in Devon and within about four miles of each other, at some time (273). The sole evidence for Dawlish, however, seems to be Austen’s letter to her niece Anna of 10–18 August 1814: “I am not sensible of any Blunders about Dawlish. The Library was particularly pitiful & wretched 12 years ago, & not likely to have anybody’s publication.” We can infer that Austen is speaking from direct experience, although it is possible she was repeating what someone else had told her. Austen’s letter of 8–9 November 1800, quoted earlier, also has an elusive reference to “the Dawlish scheme.” A visit to Teignmouth in 1802 appears in FCL’s previously referenced article “Is It Just?” (282), although it is worth mentioning that FCL also stated in another article, “Hunting for Snarkes at Lyme Regis” (1879), that the family visited Teignmouth “either just before or after” September 1804 (394), which makes the date of a Teignmouth visit (or visits) less clear. The family is also supposed to have visited Wales in 1802, stopping at Tenby and Barmouth (Chronology 273). These towns are on the coast, but it is worth remembering that CMCA2 refers to the trip to Wales before categorically stating, “it was not there that they found him.”
The period between 1803 and 1805 is more nebulous, and it is harder to pin down Austen’s exact whereabouts. Egerton Brydges appears to have been in Ramsgate in 1803, as he claims in his Autobiography to have last seen Austen there (2: 41). He may have been there during a summer holiday although he does not indicate the time of year; the Chronology places his testimony in September (287). As Ramsgate is in Kent, it is less likely that the encounter was there. Austen is thought to have been in Lyme Regis in the autumn of 1803 (Chronology 289), although the sole witness for this placement is her letter of 7–9 October 1808, in which she recalls a fire that occurred in Lyme Regis in November 1803 (Family Record 141). Austen’s holiday locations during 1803 and 1804 are unclear. Tomalin writes that the Austens “may have been at Charmouth in the summer of 1803” (178) but provides no source; Le Faye states, “Either this year [i.e., 1804] or previously they certainly also visited Charmouth, Up Lyme and Pinny [Pinhay].” Le Faye’s evidence, however, seems merely to be that “the beautiful summer scenery of these places made such an impression on Jane that she described it in Persuasion with greater fullness and enthusiasm than she ever displayed when sketching in the topography of her other novels” (Family Record 142–43). Austen writes a letter from Lyme Regis dated 14 September 1804.18 In a letter of 8–11 April 1805 she mentions another possible summer tour:
One thing more Henry mentions which deserves your hearing; he offers to meet us on the Sea-coast if the plan, of which Edward gave him some hint, takes place. Will not this be making the Execution of such a plan, more desirable & delightful than Ever.—He talks of the Rambles we took together last Summer with pleasing affection.
This letter suggests that another seaside visit was planned for 1805, but it appears that Austen spent most of the summer at Godmersham before moving on to spend the autumn in Worthing, a seaside town in West Sussex, about ten miles from Brighton. It is unclear when Austen left, but she may have remained in Worthing over Christmas (Family Record 149–51).
To summarize the above, here is a tentative digest of the possible holiday locations with dates:
Date Location
1801 Sidmouth
1801 Colyton
1802 Dawlish
1802 Teignmouth
1802 Tenby
1802 Barmouth
1803 Ramsgate
1803 Lyme Regis
1803 Charmouth
1804 Lyme Regis
1804 Charmouth
1804 Up Lyme
1804 Pinhay
Map of the county of Devonshire, by John Cary (1793). Internet Archive.
(Click here to see a larger version.)
Detail of Devonshire coast, by John Cary (1794).
David Rumsey Map Collection, David Rumsey Map Center, Stanford Libraries.
(Click here to see a larger version.)
The detail of the Devonshire coast above includes (from right to left) Charmouth, Lyme Regis, Uplyme (Uplime), Pinhay, and Colyton (Coliton), inland, to the west of Uplyme. Sidmouth is on the left-hand (western) side. Dawlish and Teignmouth are slightly farther west, beyond Sidmouth. Austen knew this part of England well (Jones). In Sense and Sensibility, when Colonel Brandon makes his hurried journey to London, he notes that he will go to London post from Honiton, a market town to the northwest of Lyme Regis. Honiton is also a destination for Willoughby (SS 77, 367). Dawlish is mentioned repeatedly in Sense and Sensibility (285, 408, 414, 427), and Lyme features heavily in Persuasion.
It is worth noting that of the nine texts reviewed above, four refer to Devonshire by name, one specifically referencing Sidmouth. It should also be remembered that in Le Faye’s rendering of CMCA3 Caroline states, “I think [Cassandra Austen] said in Devonshire; I don’t think she named the place, and I am sure she did not say Lyme, for that I should have remembered” (Family Record 143, emphasis added). Caroline similarly rules out Wales as a possible location, as noted above (see CMCA2). In the case of Sidmouth, perhaps uniquely, we have a statement from Austen herself that it was intended to be their summer location for a specific year, 1801. The Austen-Leighs’ Life and Letters also appears to support Sidmouth in its Chronology, although providing no specific reason for the assertion: “1801 May, Family move from Steventon to Bath. Visit to Sidmouth. Possible date of Jane’s romance in the west of England” (xiv).19 Fanny Caroline Lefroy also specifically refers to Sidmouth in the summer of 1801 in FCL3, as noted above, and Austen mentions it in Persuasion: “‘a Mr. Elliot; a gentleman of large fortune,—came in last night from Sidmouth’” (114).
When we assess the above nine texts, we can derive the following details. These details, of course, are not certain, but given the surviving information, they seem the most likely or probable set of circumstances. At some point, then, between 1801–1804, when Austen was between twenty-five and twenty-eight years old, perhaps in the summer of 1801, she encountered a man of unknown profession, although he may have been a clergyman. If he was a young man, he might even have been a bit younger than Austen. This encounter happened somewhere in the southwest of England, most likely on the Devonshire coast, perhaps at Sidmouth. They formed an acquaintance, and he met with even Cassandra’s approval. He expressed a wish to see Austen again but died not long after. Open to questions and alternative possibilities, these meagre details might well be all we can say about Austen’s unknown suitor.
Before concluding, it is worth mentioning two subsequent additions to the story of the unknown suitor that have added to the confusion. The first is recounted by Brian Southam in “Jane Austen: A Broken Romance?” (464–65). Southam refers to a curious account of the unknown suitor by Sir Francis Doyle (1810–1888), poet and civil servant, which appeared in his Reminiscences and Opinions of Sir Francis Hastings Doyle (1886):
Sir Francis Hastings Doyle:
And this brings me to my main reason for touching upon Miss Austen at all, since as an authoress she needs no help or recommendation from anyone. If you draw your inference from what she has written, you would suppose she had never been out of England, but so far from this being the case, unless my informant made a most unaccountable blunder, the one romance belonging to her brief career, the one event which darkened, and possibly shortened her life, took place after the peace of 1802, and took place in Switzerland. A friend of mine, Miss Ursula Mayow, being on a visit at a country house in the Austen district, was taken to an afternoon party by her friends. Whilst there, some of the guests began to talk of Mrs. Gaskell’s “Cranford,” then just published, and a voice was heard in the distance saying this: “Yes, I like it very much; it reminds me of my Aunt Jane.” To Miss Mayow, a devoted Austenite, there could be no doubt who was meant by “my Aunt Jane,” and accordingly she went as soon as she could and introduced herself to the speaker. This was the story told her, and if it be true, why Mr. Austen Leigh and Lord Brabourne say nothing, and apparently knew nothing about it, I cannot explain. Mr. Austen, accompanied by his two daughters, Cassandra and Jane, took advantage of the long delayed peace to undertake a foreign tour. Whilst in Switzerland they fell in with a young naval officer, the Captain Wentworth we may assume, afterwards delineated with such tenderness and skill in the novel of “Persuasion,” a novel not given to the world till after her death. This course of true love ran perfectly smooth, and but for the cruelty of fate, Jane Austen’s career would probably have been altogether a different one, happier perhaps for herself, if less important to the world. But before the arrangements for this marriage were taken in hand, so at least in their blindness Jane and her lover imagined, a momentary separation was agreed upon between them. Mr. Austen and his daughters settled for themselves, that whilst their friend enjoyed himself in climbing mountains, and threading difficult passes, they would jog on to Chamouni, and wait quietly there till he rejoined them. This was done, but they did not find him on their arrival, nor did any tidings of his whereabouts reach them. Anxiety passed into alarm, and alarm into sickening terror; then at last, just as the Austens were about to return home, full of the gloomiest apprehensions, the fatal message they had been expecting came to them from a remote mountain village. Jane’s lover had over-walked and over-tasked himself. After a short illness he died of brain fever, but he had just managed, before his senses left him, to prepare a message for the Austens to tell them of his coming end. They returned to England, and according to the narrator, “Aunt Jane” resumed her ordinary life as the rector’s daughter, never recurring to her adventures abroad. (355–57)
This surprising account—which removes the encounter from the southwest of England to Switzerland, makes the unknown suitor a naval officer who became the prototype for Captain Wentworth, and has that suitor die a dramatic death due to brain fever—seems highly suspect. Moreover, no other surviving source mentions George Austen and his two daughters travelling to Switzerland during the brief window of the Peace of Amiens, a significant undertaking.
A significant comment on Doyle’s story occurs in the manuscript of FCL’s “Family History,” which was passed on by Louisa Bellas to her cousin Cholmeley Austen-Leigh, JEAL’s eldest son; it contains a letter from Louisa at the beginning dated 20 December 1886. This letter notes that Louisa has copied FCL3 for Cholmeley and adds, “Probably however, nothing any body can say would convince Sir F Doyle that the romance did not take place in Switzerland.” Sir Francis’s tale is a curious one and difficult to credit. In the twentieth century, Constance Pilgrim confidently asserted the identity of the unknown suitor to be none other than Captain John Wordsworth (1772–1805), younger brother of the poet, publishing an entire book, Dear Jane (1971), to support the claim. This version has been discredited by, among others, Carl Ketcham, editor of John Wordsworth’s letters.20 More recently, Andrew Norman’s Jane Austen: An Unrequited Love (2009) claims that the unknown suitor really was Samuel Blackall and that there was some kind of rivalry between Jane and Cassandra. These are not the only works on the subject from the twentieth century, but with them we will conclude our survey.21
The identity and details surrounding the unknown suitor have tantalized generations of Austen’s admirers. Both are almost certainly irretrievably lost now, and questions as to the suitor’s identity and the circumstances of his encountering Austen only lead to more, equally unanswerable queries. How serious was the possible relationship? How did its sudden end affect her? Did anyone else apart from Cassandra know of it? Did it have an impact on Austen’s writing? Was it the reason for her acceptance and subsequent rejection of Harris Bigg-Wither in 1802? Were there any other sources that contained further information on the unknown suitor? These questions, and many others like them, cannot be answered.
Perhaps one of the key questions is why these various additions and accretions to the account built up in the first place. Why weren’t the details provided by Cassandra, scanty though they may have been, simply preserved and handed down? The prosaic explanation is that humans are almost always incapable of passing on information in this way, as we see with the children’s game “telephone,” but there is a more complex possibility. Although Caroline Austen provided three of the source texts, she was born in 1805, that is, after the events in question had occurred. As we move through the sources, we meet nieces and great-nieces like Catherine Hubback and Fanny Caroline Lefroy. Both were born after Austen’s death, Hubback in 1818 and Fanny Caroline in 1820. Hubback followed her aunt as a novelist, even producing a completion of The Watsons in 1850, whereas Lefroy became known as the family historian. Yet everything they knew of Austen would have been derived at second hand. Perhaps these additions to the story represent a dissatisfaction and frustration on the part of the later generation with the bare facts they received, a longing to flesh out Austen’s life, to add detail and color to a grainy and monochrome image. This touching up of the historical record muddies the waters for those of us who follow, but perhaps it stems from a wish with which many a latter-day admirer of Austen can sympathize.
APPENDIX 1—HENRY EDRIDGE
Little has been recorded of Henry Edridge, the man who triggered Cassandra’s recollection of the unknown suitor, decades after Austen’s encounter with him. Caroline Austen tells us that he was of the Royal Engineers and “was very pleasing and very good-looking” but no more (CMCA3). Constance Pilgrim’s Dear Jane contains what she claims is not only a portrait of an officer of the Royal Engineers (c.1812–1819) but of Edridge himself—although the evidence to support this claim is questionable (Pilgrim, facing 16, 172). JEAL’s diary from May 1828 records various meetings with Edridge, usually for dinner. Le Faye’s Chronology states that Cassandra met Edridge in June 1828, but the source for this date seems to be Caroline’s missing letter to JEAL (633–34).
A search on Ancestry.com suggests that Edridge was born on 9 February 1798 at Bobbingworth, Essex. His father was Charles Lucas Edridge (c.1764–1826), a clergyman and chaplain to George III. In 1793, he married Joanna (1770/1–1829), daughter of Alderman Cadell of Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury. Joanna’s brother, and therefore Edridge’s uncle, was Thomas Cadell the younger (1773–1836), and on the elder Cadell’s retirement in 1793, his son succeeded him in the family business (Dille). It was his firm that rejected George Austen’s offer in 1797 of a novel by his daughter.
Edridge died on Thursday, 6 November 1828; his death was reported in Berrows Worcester Journal on 13 November. The notice states that he was “employed in this vicinity conducting a branch of the Ordnance Survey, being one of the scientific duties belonging to his corps, for which his talents eminently qualified him.” Although Edridge’s death appears to have been sudden, his will was made on 3 April 1828, so perhaps he was aware of some condition.22 The will mentions an illegitimate daughter, Elizabeth, born on 16 September 1826, for whom he makes provision, as well as any children Elizabeth may subsequently have but, curiously, only if they are legitimate. Presumably Cassandra was unaware of his daughter, and no doubt her estimate of Edridge would have altered if she had been. It is possible that if Cassandra had known more of Edridge, she might perhaps have never mentioned the unknown suitor to Caroline at all.23
APPENDIX 2—CAROLINE AUSTEN'S MISSING LETTER
As noted above, the Hampshire Record Office holds a large collection of letters sent to JEAL at various stages of his life (23M93/86/3). Twelve are from Caroline Austen, and four are post-1870, but none appears to refer to the unknown suitor. Of Caroline’s twelve letters, one is written jointly with her mother, Mary Lloyd (23M93/86/3/66 – 20 May 1839), and another jointly with her father, James Austen (23M93/86/3/123 – 6 May 1819). The remaining ten letters are written to JEAL by Caroline alone. The online catalogue for the Hampshire Record Office provides a great deal of information. There are detailed entries for each of the letters and a summary. The detailed entries cover twelve letters, as expected. The summary states, however, that there is one joint letter from Mary Lloyd and Caroline Austen from 1839 to JEAL and twelve letters from Caroline to JEAL (this number includes the joint letter by Caroline Austen and James Austen), one of these twelve being undated. This total of thirteen, one more than expected, suggests that the thirteenth undated letter is a likely candidate for the letter referenced by Le Faye. On examining the letters in person, however, I found only twelve; the archivist informed me that the reference to an additional undated letter on the catalogue was a mistake. Below are further details of the twelve letters present:
APPENDIX 3—SUMMARY OF SOURCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. John Avery Jones for kindly reading and commenting on an early draft of this article. I would also like to thank the following for their advice and assistance: Mick Bright, Jo Strong, Deb Barnum, Liz Cooper, Ron Dunning, Stephanie Emo, Hazel Jones, Dov Lank, Caroline Mackenzie, Sophie Reynolds, the staff at the Heinz Archive and Library in London, and the staff at the Hampshire Record Office in Winchester.
NOTES
1See, for example, Norman and Hawkridge.
2Caroline does not actually provide these specifics in any of her three accounts, but we find them in the statements of Fanny Caroline Lefroy, specifically FCL3.
3Sutherland’s appendix omits a number of letters from the file. I have examined the file in the Heinz Archive and Library at the National Portrait Gallery, however, and none of the omitted letters is relevant to this enquiry.
4JEAL was working on the second edition as early as 16 November 1870 (Chronology 689–90), if not before, and agreed to go to press “at once” on 16 February 1871. He was correcting proofs on 8 May 1871, and the book appeared in June (691).
5Deirdre Le Faye’s Chronology, for example, refers to this article as the source for the letter on 17 June 1870 (689).
6I have made enquiries of a number of institutions and private individuals in an attempt to find the current location of the letter but without success. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has any information about its current whereabouts. The Hampshire Record Office has a note in Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh’s hand dated 29 March 1910 that transcribes the portion of this letter relating to Harris Bigg-Wither (23M93/97/4/70). The date of the letter is also transcribed as 17 June [1870]. Presumably, the letter, or a copy of it, subsequently ended up with Joan Austen-Leigh.
723M93/85/2 (unpaginated). No attempt has been made to preserve the punctuation of the original.
8I am grateful to Ron Dunning for assistance on this point.
9Chapman refers to Henry Edridge as “Henry Eldridge” (65).
10CMCA1 is of course addressed to JEAL, but, as we have seen, it is a separate letter.
11There is, however, an inconsistency in the dates. In the June entry the date of Caroline’s letter to JEAL is given as 1870, whereas in the November entry we find “? June 1870.” Note also that a date of 1870 or June 1870 is at variance to the reference to an “undated letter.”
12See Appendix 2 for further detail on Caroline’s missing letter.
13Catherine Hubback also wrote a four-page document “Notes for Family History,” in the possession of Jane Austen’s House Museum (Chronology 725). Through the kindness of Sophie Reynolds at the Museum, I have read through these notes, but they contain nothing about the unknown suitor. Deirdre Le Faye published a transcription of this document but with the title “Catherine Hubback’s Memoir of Francis Austen” in the Jane Austen Society Report for 2009 (121–28).
16It is unclear what memoranda FCL is referring to here.
17For further information about the rise of coastal resorts and the Austen family’s various holidays by the sea, see Southam’s Persuasions essays in 2010 and 2011.
18For further background on Lyme, see Le Faye (“Lyme Regis”).
19As noted above, the notes in JEAL’s Memoir also suggest an encounter in Sidmouth in the summer of 1801 (212), although it is not clear what the source for the suggestion is.
20See Pilgrim’s 1987 Persuasions article and Ketcham’s 1989 response in the same journal.
21The News Letter of the Jane Austen Society mentions a seemingly unpublished play by Winifred Gérin (1901–1981), biographer of the Brontës, on the unknown suitor (“Diary 2018”; “Diary 2018–2019”). Unfortunately, my attempts to view the manuscript were unsuccessful.
23I am grateful to Chris Sams, Enquiries Volunteer at the Royal Engineers Museum, for his attempts to discover more on Edridge.
