Literary Origins

by Don Webb

Bertil Falk replies to a lively discussion of his article about Jane Austen’s Emma.

Thanks for your comments, Don. I still think that it is a kind of a miracle that such a complicated novel as Emma was written 200 years ago. Who else did it?

Bertil

Speaking figuratively, Bertil, “miracle” certainly expresses an understandable feeling for an outstanding early work in a genre, one that appears to burst unheralded into history.

Your essay confirms what we already knew: you have the talent of a born publicist. It makes me want to rush out and borrow a copy of Emma. I’m just kidding: I’m sure there’s already a copy Around Here Somewhere. And I’d like to read it from your viewpoint as a long-time fan of the mystery story; if you’ve convinced me of anything, it’s that a “detective novel” reading might reveal a lot about Emma.

“Who else did it?” The work is undeniably remarkable for its time. And yet I don’t think it’s exactly unexpected. As you say, probably no one was writing such novels as well as Jane Austen. And yet oak trees do not grow in flowerpots: their roots run deep. And I suspect it’s the same with Emma.

After the Song of Roland was rediscovered in the 19th century, opinion became sharply divided on its literary history. The reasons were mostly ideological: “individual genius” vs. “cultural genius.” Was the epic the work of a single inspired individual possibly named “Turoldus” but about whom nothing was known? Or was the epic a compilation of a long history of legends both oral and written?

A good case could be made for “cultural genius” if only because there was — of course — more documentation. There may have been a single author, but we don’t have his rough drafts.

However, even a good thing can be driven into the ground, and the “cultural genius” approach can be taken to extremes. For example, I’ve heard the claim that Chrétien de Troyes never existed. That flies in the face of contemporary evidence. And who, then, wrote all the works attributed to him? A committee, like the once-a-millennium committees that made the Septuagint and the King James translations? Ah, no. No committee, thank you. With an original work, a committee would be all roots and no tree.

I think the consensus about Homer is instructive: the ancient poet did exist and he did draw on an extensive literary background. Whether he was blind or not is irrelevant, just as it’s irrelevant whether Jane Austen ever married or not.

The gist is, then, that neither Emma nor Chrétien’s romances, nor the early national epics were formed out of whole cloth; they have deep roots. But someone had to write them.

Now, as a follow-up, Bertil, can you write us an analysis of Emma as a “proto-detective novel”? That’s the sort of thing I dote on, and I think you’d enjoy it very much, yourself!

Don