Genres
Publication
Algonquin Books (1993), 60 pages
Description
The author of one of the greatest romance novels of all time, Pride and Prejudice, takes her readers on a satiric tour through England's history, mercilessly exploiting the comedic potential of human foibles within British royalty. Part of Jane Austen's Juvenilia of the 1790s, The History of England was written during the author's teenage years. Filled with puns and parodies, the history begins with the reign of Henry IV and concludes with the death of Charles I more than two centuries later. Originally intending it for circulation and performance among family and friends, Jane also commissioned her sister Cassandra to draw illustrations to complement her signature wit and humor. This volume includes an informative introduction providing background context, along with extensive editorial commentary. Austen fans and history buffs are sure to delight in this history written by "a partial, prejudiced, and ignorant historian."… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member SockMonkeyGirl
Ah, Jane, even as a young person you had such talent. Her sarcasm is much more obvious than later in life. Very fun for anyone who likes English history (and have a sense of humor) or Jane Austen.
LibraryThing member AbigailAdams26
This delightful bit of juvenilia, written when Jane Austen was sixteen years old, is a hilarious and highly individual history of the English monarchy, from 1399 to 1649. Described by its author as being written "By a partial, prejudiced & ignorant Historian (Note: There will be very few Dates in
A facsimile of the original manuscript, with illustrations by Austen's sister, Cassandra, Jane Austen's The History of England, contains a host of amusing snippets about the various monarchs, from Henry VI, whom the author disliked for being a Lancastrian, to Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she felt was much maligned.
Truthfully, there isn't much to this little book, although it will certainly provide any Jane Austen aficionado with an hour's enjoyment. I myself value it for its evidence of Austen's boisterous high spirits - something that is sometimes lacking in her more sedate, adult literature.
Show More
this History)," this book more than lives up to its billing!A facsimile of the original manuscript, with illustrations by Austen's sister, Cassandra, Jane Austen's The History of England, contains a host of amusing snippets about the various monarchs, from Henry VI, whom the author disliked for being a Lancastrian, to Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she felt was much maligned.
Truthfully, there isn't much to this little book, although it will certainly provide any Jane Austen aficionado with an hour's enjoyment. I myself value it for its evidence of Austen's boisterous high spirits - something that is sometimes lacking in her more sedate, adult literature.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DanCook
A stunning tour-de-force by the young Austen. The sophisticated voicing used to convey the tongue-in-cheek humour of her later works is laid bare here, with the young historian's admission that she will only give a fair hearing to those monarchs she feels deserve it. Read this if you want to learn
Show More
the stories of the English Monarchs in a brief and amusing way. Also, if you want a way-in to to the sophistication of her novels, this is a great primer for the wicked humour that is voiced in such an urbane way in her adult works. Show Less
LibraryThing member Bookmarque
This was wonderful. “By a partial, prejudiced and ignorant Historian. (Note: there will be very few Dates in this History”). I noticed by having a facsimile of the original manuscript how many capitals are strewn in and about the text. Things we don’t capitalize anymore. Interesting
Show More
handwriting – copperplate indeed. Cassandra had her own fun with the portraits. Probably more true to life than the official ones. Show Less
LibraryThing member adpaton
THIS book’s title is misleading: it is not a collaborative history written by two doyens of 19th-century English literature, but rather the entire text of The History of England from the Reign of Henry I to IV, to the Death of Charles I by Jane Austen, and an excerpt from Charles Dickens ’s A
Austen’s work, written when she was only 16, comprised a mere 20 pages, while Dickens ’s was far more substantial.
Hers was intended as an amusing satire but Dickens ’s work, although much of it seems tongue in cheek to the modern reader, was taken seriously enough to be a setwork for British schools until well into the 20th century.
How survivors of today’s dry-as-dust history syllabus must envy children who learned of the past by means of Dickens ’s fast-paced, gossipy and partisan prose!
In his introduction, David Starkey encourages us to read the histories as works of literature, pointing out how Dickens was true to the sentiments he expressed in his novels, and Austen developed themes here that she was later to master. “Austen’s opinionated frivolousness had a point. More than whimsy, her History of England is a satire on the style of history writing and pedagogy to which young girls of her class and station were routinely subjected,” Starkey says. “Austen’s implicit objection was to the vapidity of history education.”
In complete contrast, Dickens wrote a male-centred history bristling with dates, and with the names of the main characters capitalised. Despite using the standard and predictable tools of the sort of history book against which Austen had rebelled, his use of language, his irony, humanity, use of evocative detail and sardonic wit make his writing a pleasure.
“Throughout the book he shows himself wholly intolerant of the follies and arrogance of many of England’s rulers, at whose feet he lays much of the blame for the copious ‘turmoil and bloodshed’ of his nation’s history,” Starkey says.
After completing the entirely admirable and informative introduction, it is fascinating to examine the varied opinions of the two authors at face value, as might a schoolchild.
Austen condemns Elizabeth I as “wicked”, largely because she ordered the death of Mary Queen of Scots. Dickens judges her as “vain and jealous … a hard swearer and a coarse talker. She was clever, but cunning and deceitful.”
But while they may broadly agree on the subject of the so-called Virgin Queen, Mary Queen of Scots is another matter entirely.
Described as “amiable … this bewitching princess” and “entirely innocent” by Austen, Dickens argues that although she was “captivating”, she was also “deceitful … artful and treacherous”, and he had no doubt whatsoever that she was involved in plots to overthrow Elizabeth.
Strangely enough, given the levels of anti-Catholicism that persisted in England well into the 20th century, both writers were generally sympathetic to the Church of Rome, and respected Mary’s devotion to her religion. “Could you Reader have believed it possible that some hardened & zealous Protestants have even abused her for that Steadfastness in the Catholic Religion that reflected on her so much credit?” Austen asks plaintively.
In a milder vein, Dickens observes: “In their Protestant zeal, (they) made some very unnecessary speeches to her; to which she replied that she died in the Catholic religion, and they need not trouble themselves about that matter.”
Of James I, the teenaged Austen admits: “I cannot help liking him”, while the best Dickens can come up with is that “he was ugly, awkward, and shuffling both in mind and person”.
That might not seem very complimentary, but compared with the other things Dickens has to say about “his Sowship”, it is high praise indeed.
His loathing for James was such that he was almost sympathetic towards Guy Fawkes and the others involved in the Gunpowder Plot to assassinate King James I, although Austen comments sadly: “I am necessitated to say that in this reign the Roman Catholics of England did not behave like Gentlemen to the Protestants.”
The last monarch both writers examine is Charles I, whom they agree was “amiable”.
Dickens offers a far more detailed and informative account of Charles’s dispute with parliament, the civil war, and his execution. “With all my sorrow for him, I cannot agree with him that he died ‘the martyr of the people’; for the people had been martyrs to him, and to his ideas of a King’s rights, long before,” Dickens writes.
Austen dismisses “the disturbances, Distresses, & Civil Wars” in a single paragraph, and ends her history with the breath-taking candour of youth: “The Recital of any Events … is uninteresting to me; my principal reason for under taking the History of England being to prove the innocence of the Queen of Scotland, which I flatter myself with having effectively done, and to abuse Elizabeth, tho’ I am rather fearful of having fallen short in the latter part of my Scheme.”
Do not rely on these authors for a definitive account of the history of England . This is no textbook — it has been published for the enjoyment of fans of these two quintessentially British authors.
Austen and Dickens are refreshingly unselfconscious, witty without being deliberately clever or precious, non-PC, but never cheeky, and they are a true delight to read.
Show More
Child’s History of England . Austen’s work, written when she was only 16, comprised a mere 20 pages, while Dickens ’s was far more substantial.
Hers was intended as an amusing satire but Dickens ’s work, although much of it seems tongue in cheek to the modern reader, was taken seriously enough to be a setwork for British schools until well into the 20th century.
How survivors of today’s dry-as-dust history syllabus must envy children who learned of the past by means of Dickens ’s fast-paced, gossipy and partisan prose!
In his introduction, David Starkey encourages us to read the histories as works of literature, pointing out how Dickens was true to the sentiments he expressed in his novels, and Austen developed themes here that she was later to master. “Austen’s opinionated frivolousness had a point. More than whimsy, her History of England is a satire on the style of history writing and pedagogy to which young girls of her class and station were routinely subjected,” Starkey says. “Austen’s implicit objection was to the vapidity of history education.”
In complete contrast, Dickens wrote a male-centred history bristling with dates, and with the names of the main characters capitalised. Despite using the standard and predictable tools of the sort of history book against which Austen had rebelled, his use of language, his irony, humanity, use of evocative detail and sardonic wit make his writing a pleasure.
“Throughout the book he shows himself wholly intolerant of the follies and arrogance of many of England’s rulers, at whose feet he lays much of the blame for the copious ‘turmoil and bloodshed’ of his nation’s history,” Starkey says.
After completing the entirely admirable and informative introduction, it is fascinating to examine the varied opinions of the two authors at face value, as might a schoolchild.
Austen condemns Elizabeth I as “wicked”, largely because she ordered the death of Mary Queen of Scots. Dickens judges her as “vain and jealous … a hard swearer and a coarse talker. She was clever, but cunning and deceitful.”
But while they may broadly agree on the subject of the so-called Virgin Queen, Mary Queen of Scots is another matter entirely.
Described as “amiable … this bewitching princess” and “entirely innocent” by Austen, Dickens argues that although she was “captivating”, she was also “deceitful … artful and treacherous”, and he had no doubt whatsoever that she was involved in plots to overthrow Elizabeth.
Strangely enough, given the levels of anti-Catholicism that persisted in England well into the 20th century, both writers were generally sympathetic to the Church of Rome, and respected Mary’s devotion to her religion. “Could you Reader have believed it possible that some hardened & zealous Protestants have even abused her for that Steadfastness in the Catholic Religion that reflected on her so much credit?” Austen asks plaintively.
In a milder vein, Dickens observes: “In their Protestant zeal, (they) made some very unnecessary speeches to her; to which she replied that she died in the Catholic religion, and they need not trouble themselves about that matter.”
Of James I, the teenaged Austen admits: “I cannot help liking him”, while the best Dickens can come up with is that “he was ugly, awkward, and shuffling both in mind and person”.
That might not seem very complimentary, but compared with the other things Dickens has to say about “his Sowship”, it is high praise indeed.
His loathing for James was such that he was almost sympathetic towards Guy Fawkes and the others involved in the Gunpowder Plot to assassinate King James I, although Austen comments sadly: “I am necessitated to say that in this reign the Roman Catholics of England did not behave like Gentlemen to the Protestants.”
The last monarch both writers examine is Charles I, whom they agree was “amiable”.
Dickens offers a far more detailed and informative account of Charles’s dispute with parliament, the civil war, and his execution. “With all my sorrow for him, I cannot agree with him that he died ‘the martyr of the people’; for the people had been martyrs to him, and to his ideas of a King’s rights, long before,” Dickens writes.
Austen dismisses “the disturbances, Distresses, & Civil Wars” in a single paragraph, and ends her history with the breath-taking candour of youth: “The Recital of any Events … is uninteresting to me; my principal reason for under taking the History of England being to prove the innocence of the Queen of Scotland, which I flatter myself with having effectively done, and to abuse Elizabeth, tho’ I am rather fearful of having fallen short in the latter part of my Scheme.”
Do not rely on these authors for a definitive account of the history of England . This is no textbook — it has been published for the enjoyment of fans of these two quintessentially British authors.
Austen and Dickens are refreshingly unselfconscious, witty without being deliberately clever or precious, non-PC, but never cheeky, and they are a true delight to read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thornton37814
Written at age sixteen to entertain her family, Jane Austen provides a rather unorthodox account of England's rulers from Henry IV to Charles I. The edition I read contained facsimiles of her handwritten work plus a transcription of it and illustrations by her sister Cassandra. It also contained an
Show More
introduction written by A. S. Byatt and a note on the text by Deirdre Le Faye. I found Jane's writing quite legible and could read it nearly as fast as the transcription. Show Less
LibraryThing member fuzzi
An amusing short history of recent kings of England by a highly opinionated young Jane Austen. One can see a glimpse of future writings in the ramblings displayed in this volume. Recommended for lovers of this author, and the curious.
LibraryThing member cbl_tn
In one of her early works, Austen offers short biographical sketches of the English monarchs from Henry IV to Charles I. These are not objective sketches. Indeed, Austen warns readers that the work is written by “a partial, prejudiced, and ignorant historian.” She concludes that “my principal
Show More
reason for undertaking the History of England being to Prove the innocence of the Queen of Scotland, which I flatter myself to having effectually done, and to abuse Elizabeth, tho’ I am rather fearful of having fallen short in the latter part of my scheme.” The author reveals herself as a Yorkist with a partiality for the Roman Catholic religion. Readers with any familiarity with English history will learn more about Austen than they will about England’s kings and queens. Show Less
LibraryThing member wanderlustlover
I don't love reading histories as much as I used to, but this was a hilarious read. It's so opinionated and pointed and done in the way only Jane could, thumbing her nose and complimenting in the same breath of truly gorgeous words.
ISBN
1565120558 / 9781565120556