Jane Austen’s profound writings in her time have captured the interest and appreciation of modern readers. She writes of “the true, the good and the beautiful”, without being prudish about moral realities. Her classics are perceived to have subliminal Christian implications that may touch the core of readers’ emotions and consciences without them being aware of it. Such belief is easily overlooked due to her subtle style and is often an undermining factor in the content of her stories. C.C. Barfoot describes Austen as a writer who “stresses the value of traditional religious sources of moral strength” (Barfoot 7). Jane Austen never directly approaches Christianity or any religion in particular in her novels. Her works do not come off in a manner to which Gospels and Biblical accounts are related, rather, the story itself entails the hint of Christian implications which under careful scrutiny will be able to discern, or even, disprove. The dissertation has the Christian ethics in Austen’s novels as an assumption in his works. But more so, it will evaluate and analyze whether such exist in the novels she has written over the years.
Genuine religious awareness in any human being, or in any work of fiction created by a religious person who has an appreciable amount of talent and skill, such as Jane Austen is far too complex in its nature and variable in its expression to be confined only to clearly labeled religious themes or events (such as a Graham Greene novel). Where, then, does one begin when attempting to discover if a literary work is religious or not? As a starting point, the definition the Oxford English Dictionary gives for “religious” provides useful guidelines for an exploration of a possible spiritual dimension in an evidently secular literary work: “Imbued with religion; exhibiting the spiritual or practical effects of religion; pious, godly, god-fearing, devout.” Only one of the terms in this definition, “god-fearing,” seems not to apply to Austen’s work. The reason for this concerns not theology, but artistic decorum: the domestic comedy does not generate the kind of plot situations in which a character’s fear of (or love for) her Creator can easily achieve overt direct, powerful expression. However, if one arguing for the spiritual significance of Austen’s novels is able to show that the development of Austen’s plots, themes, and characters is related to Austen’s religious beliefs and standards, he or she would have demonstrated that in a very important sense these novels are indeed “imbued with religion,” and that they exhibit “the spiritual and practical effects of religion.”
But there is one point that needs to be cleared before careful scrutiny of the topic mentioned. The assumption of the dissertation holds the idea that there is something more than relating stories in Austen’s writing. In the previous paragraph, the term “religion/religious” is often referred to as the subject under evaluation of the dissertation. But at this point, the term itself holds a general idea of what we are trying to reach. Specifically, we are assuming that Christian ethics, most probably in the form of Anglican beliefs, are evident in the works of Austen.
There will come a point in which the two terms the general “religion” and the specific “Christian ethic” will overlap their context to explain the goal of this study. One reason for this is that religion, as a general category seems to reflect a basic starting point of discussion. In this category, we may explore the pieces of evidence shown in Austen novels that relate to this subject. On the specific, however, the term “Christian ethic” will determine the scope to which proofs will be revealed. Evidences of terms or analysis or any evidence of any Christian ethic belief in the novels will create the truth to what we are trying to study. But first, we must be able to discern the ideas that generate the assumption that Austen’s novels are of Christian ethics. As a first step, we analyze the term of religious implications in the works of Austen.
In order to understand how Austen may have applied religion to her novels, one must have a better understanding of Austen’s views on religion. According to Chapman (453), Austen wrote three prayers. A selection from the first reflects on the possibility of religious implications in Austen’s novels:
“Give us grace Almighty Father, so to pray, as to deserve to be heard, to address Thee with our hearts, as with our lips. Thou art everywhere present; from Thee, no secret can be hidden. May the knowledge of this, teach us to fix our thoughts on Thee, with reverence and devotion that we pray not in vain.”
“Look with mercy on the sins we have this day committed and in mercy make us feel them deeply, that our repentance may be sincere, and our resolution steadfast of endeavoring against the commission of such in future. Teach us to understand the sinfulness of our own hearts, and bring to our knowledge every fault of temper and every evil habit in which we have indulged to the discomfort of our fellow creatures, and the danger of our own souls.”
While the above lines can provide no proof of any spiritual dimension in the novels, the intense and comprehensive relationship of the prayers to the events of ordinary, everyday life—the area of the central concern of the novels—we can make it a convenient place to begin a religious exploration of Jane Austen’s fictional world. We can only guess from this first evidence about the specific religion that Austen may be using. But in terms of the specific religion, of course, there is little to be found in the novels. Stuart M. Tave gives the most probable reason for this:
“Of the three duties, to God, to one’s neighbors, to oneself, specified in the Book of Common Prayer and innumerable sermons and moral essays, the duty to God would not be for Jane Austen the proper subject of the novelist; but the other duties are, and they become gravely important, not as they might be to a later nineteenth-century novelist, because they are substitutes for religion but because they are daily expressions of it in common life.” (112-113).
As evidence for this view Tave quotes Archbishop Secker (whose 1769 Lectures on the Catechism of the Church of England was, according to Tave, known to Jane Austen). Secker explains that the “common Duties of common Life…make for the greatest Part of what our Maker expects of us” (113). This direct connection between religious belief and everyday life is even more strongly expressed by Bishop Thomas Sherlock, whose sermons Jane Austen, writing to her niece Anna in September of 1814, said that she preferred to “almost any.” Most probably, Austen meant that almost any duty of everyday living must relate or have a direct connection with the two great commandments of Jesus. Discussing the implications to the two central commandments of Jesus in Matthew 22:37: (1): Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc.; (2) Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself—Bishop Sherlock writes:
“…No man, who thinks himself bound to love and obey God, can think himself at liberty to hurt or oppress those whom God has taken under his care and protection…For this reason, the love of God is called the first and great commandment; and for this reason, it never can be inconsistent with the love of our neighbor, which is the second. In all cases, therefore, where your duty to your neighbor is plain and clear, depend upon it your duty to God concurs with it. All scruples to the contrary are wicked, perhaps wicked hypocrisy; for it is the greatest indignity to God to use His name, and pretend His honor, to cover the injuries you are doing to His creatures, and your own brethren.” (116)
When it was mentioned at the onset that of all the definitions, only the term god-fearing does not apply to the works of Jane Austen, perhaps, it was spoken too rashly and too soon. The phrase towards the end of the first prayer “and to the danger of our own soul” is already an indication of Austen’s fear of God and what He keeps in store for sinners. In the beginning, when these hints were discovered, we assumed that indeed Austen, as an individual believe in religious ideas and beliefs. But in terms of her novels, the first correct assumption would probably that she did not deliberately try to insert religious implications in her novel, but as fictional, as it is, she sees her characters and the setting in which they live, as ordinary agents of moral characters.
After enabling our thoughts to dwell in the idea of religious implications in the novel, we deduct our ideas into discovering what could possibly be the main area in religion that our assumption takes us. If there are such pieces of evidence that exist, what are the proofs to which we can attribute those ideas, and how are they related in the novels Austen has written? Furthermore, we go beyond the proofs and examine what could possibly be the goal to which the ideas are related. To this, we analyze one of Austen’s greatest novels of all times, Mansfield Park, which in accordance with our assumption, holds the most accurate evidences of a specific religious implication of the author, Christian ethics.
Her novel, Mansfield Park is a complex tale of character and sensibility with its theme of marriage and social class. The colorful characters undergo many moral dilemmas that evoke ambivalent feelings. Edmund causes Fanny some discomfort when he courts Mary Crawford and pushes Fanny to marry Henry Crawford. However, by the end of the novel, Edmund realizes who Fanny truly loves and then proposes to her. Thus, these characters all strive for self-knowledge, demonstrated by the fact that these characters change for the better when they realize they have made mistakes. By attempting to improve themselves these characters are, in Austen’s view, living their religion through their everyday encounters.
As mentioned in the previous discussions on religious implications in her works, the characters involve personalities that govern in a way define how religion is practice. This generates the assumption that the characters entail the sense of moral obligations governed by their faith and beliefs. Without pinpointing the exact religion, we are convinced that the characters exemplify Christian ethics being practiced or aspired for. While Austen never specifically refers to Christian ethics when dealing with the transitions of the above-mentioned characters, there are examples in some of the more negative experiences of minor characters that do not learn from their mistakes. Take, for example, the actions of Maria and Julia Bertram. These sisters are perfect examples of characters that do not strive for self-knowledge and therefore never learn from their mistakes. The Bertram sisters do not react to mistakes as educational experiences through which they can improve themselves; instead, they build on mistakes by making more mistakes. Through this example, we see that considering their characters in normal life, they do not exemplify the Christian ethics or practice that people strive for. This, in turn, creates the contrast of Christian ethics as a practice.
For example, Julia mistakenly believes she may have a chance with Henry Crawford, although Henry shows more of an interest in Maria. However, instead of learning from her mistake and controlling her impulsive attraction toward men, Julia impulsively runs off with Yates. Maria fares even worse. She marries Mr. Rushworth, obviously a mistake because she does not love him. Instead of dealing with her mistake and attempting to prevent herself from making more, Maria runs off with Henry.
What causes this inability to discover their self-knowledge through their experiences with everyday life? Austen sums it up perfectly when her narrator of Mansfield Park says: [Maria and Julia] had been instructed theoretically in their religion, but never required to bring it into daily practice. Hence the ability to apply Christian ethics to everyday life in order to gain self-knowledge is central to a character’s ability to achieve fulfillment and gain respect from the narrator as well as the reader.
Another Christian ethics aspect in Jane Austen’s novels that proves this assumption is the Christian belief that people have a choice between good and evil, or the belief in free will. The paradox of free will and the difficulty of making the right decision are described memorably by Al Pacino in the movie Devil’s Advocate:
“God? Well, I tell ya, let me tell ya something about God. God likes to watch. Think about it. He gives man instinct. He gives you this extraordinary gift and then what does he do? I swear, for his amusement, his own private cosmic gag reel, he sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look—but don’t touch. Touch—but don’t taste. Taste—but don’t swallow…He’s an absentee landlord!”
Several of Austen’s characters have the opportunity to decide whether they should do the right thing or the wrong thing. Very often, the wrong thing is the more appealing action for them, and the action they eventually decide to take. The ability to discern what is right from wrong, the good and the bad, the truth from lies, is governed by the moral ethics of being a Christian. This enables men to create a life that is morally upright in what religion truly defines, to do deeds on earth that makes man closer to God. These Christian ethics are right and essentially moral to experience a life that is enriched in beliefs and ideas that are appealing to any religion and any circumstances presented in the reality of mankind.
For example, in Mansfield Park, Maria Bertram finds herself in a situation in which she must choose between good and evil: she can either stay with her foolish husband, Mr. Rushworth, which would be the more proper thing to do; or she can run off with the charming Henry Crawford, which would be the disrespectful thing to do. Here, the Christian belief of free will, or the ability to choose between right and wrong, applies to Austen’s work. All these characters opt for the more “evil” action, and because each of these characters was given the opportunity to do well, it is easier to condemn their evil actions. Sometimes characters are “happy” as a result of these actions, but in the context of Jane Austen’s fiction, to be happy is not necessarily to be fulfilled as a human being; any more than being unhappy necessarily means a person is unfulfilled. This view of performing the more “evil” action is applicable to Christians’ everyday lives as well. Sometimes, those who do evil things achieve the end result of happiness, but this does not necessarily mean that they are viewed as good people or good Christians.
Maria Bertram is depicted in Austen’s novel as a woman of moralist persona. (Butler 1975) Marilyn Butler examined her character through the following passage in the novel. ‘Being now in her twenty-first year, Maria Bertram was beginning to think matrimony a duty; and as marriage with Mr. Rushworth would give her the enjoyment of a larger income than her father’s, as well as ensure her the house in town, which was now a prime object, it became, by the same rule of moral obligation, her duty to marry Mr. Rushworth if she could’ (pp. 38-9). In the passage, it becomes clear how Maria is depicted as a woman who has no regard whatsoever for the passion and fulfillment of the marriage life. But she regarded marriage as a duty to which the woman should perform with the benefits of indulges and money that her husband could offer.
With this, Austen presented another side to the truth in her novel by including characters that depict moral attribution and ethics. The one being is the heroine Fanny who disagrees tremendously in personality with the Bertram girls. As Butler states, “Jane Austen illustrates her ideological disagreement with Maria Edgeworth, Caroline Percy of Patronage, like Belinda, Leonora, and other Edgeworth model characters, is essentially rationalist. Fanny Price is a Christian.”(Butler 1975) Through these contrasting characters, the personality different individual Austen is trying to present a show in her novels. More so is that she had presented her readers with different personalities that depict human behavior. The example of Fanny as the heroin who criticizes the Bertram sisters by mentioning their lack of humility and self-knowledge is a reflection, of we can say, a clue to Fanny’s Christian background. Fanny was clearly depicted as a character, a heroine with moral righteous background possessing the attribute of humility. Butler mentions this saying:
“Fanny’s sense as a Christian of her own frailty, her liability to error, and her need of guidance outside herself, is the opposite of the Bertram girls’ complacent self-sufficiency. For Jane Austen ‘vanity’, the characteristic of the fashionables, is a quality with a distinctly theological coloring. It means both an unduly high opinion of oneself, and a pursuit of worldly goals, ‘vanities’. Such an error arises from an inability to place oneself in a larger moral universe, a context in which the self, and the self’s short-term gratifications, become insignificant.” (Butler 1975)
The character of Mary Crawford adds to the clues also. Her virtue as a woman with disregard of the noble and the moral values are replaced with the need for material possessions and the influence of her social realm. Butler’s analysis, mentions that the three characters of Mary, Edmund, and Fanny are basically in contrast with each other. While Mary presents a character that is unaware of the social aspects of religion, including duty and morals, Edmund and Fanny regard the two meanings of religion as interdependent, bearing one’s context with the other. Both characters understood the moral ethic of reality in one’s self and the reality outside the self as bearing equal importance.
The characters of Austen in the novel have consistently shown what Christian ethics are and what its examples are. Many of the characters have internal conflicts to live up to the Christian ethics we consider are of moral standards. The assumption that Christian ethics are being revered by Austen in her novels becomes evident without being straightforward in mentioning that the characters’ actions are upholding Christian ethics.
According to the assumption of Jane Austen’s Anglican beliefs, we come to explore the manners of what makes a good Christian. Do we see this aspect displayed in her novels? According to Joseph M. Duffy, Jr.: “Anglican religion focused on old eighteenth-century religion, more human than divine, imparting a confidence in a universe run on as rational principles as the best for human lives” (86-87).
In several of her novels, Austen demonstrates her belief that rationality is the best path by giving her most respectable characters the gift of rationality, and her least respectable characters a lack of rationality. In Mansfield Park, the readers are provided with an irrational character, Maria Bertram, whose disrespectful actions never change. Thus, in Austen’s characters, as in her religion and also with her Christian ethics theme, rationality is associated with respect and right, while irrationality is associated with disrespect and wrong.
Austen’s novels and her continuous showing of characters that struggles to be moral and rational do confirm the idea that she underlies ideas of the Anglican beliefs within her characters and the situations they experience. Again, the thought may not be deliberately expressed in a manner to which the Anglican beliefs are manifested, but nonetheless, they become evident in careful scrutiny of the characters and their attitudes in living.
Another item besides rationality that would make someone a “good Christian” in Austen’s view would be whether or not that individual follows the ideal of Christian love. However, one must remember that religious motives in a real person, or in a fictional character that embodies some of the complexity of an actual human being, are never expressed in a pure, simple manner. Other motives, both desirable and undesirable, are always mixed in with the religious ones. It is impossible to lay down what Christian love signifies in concrete situations. However, if the important issue of what exactly Christian love is or should be between particular people in specific situations is not a clear one, neither must it be regarded as hopelessly confused. In the Christian context, love and charity (the latter with its connotations both of goodwill toward others and the willingness to give practical help to those who need it) are closely related. A good example of the near-interchangeability of the two terms occurs in a recent revision of the King James Bible in which the thirteen verses of 1 Corinthians 13, all the familiar references to “charity” have been changed to “love” (Copleston 10).
A good example that clears up the confusing concept of Christian love occurred in a later period than Jane Austen’s but had an undeniably Christian context. St. Therese of Lisieux, although a highly successful nun, remained a human being with human limitations. When confronted by a nun whom she had difficulty liking, she did her best to find reasons to love the sister:
“There’s one sister in the community who has the knack of rubbing me the wrong way at every turn; her tricks of manner, her tricks of speech, her character, just strike me as unlovable. But, then, she’s a holy religious; God must love her dearly; so I wasn’t going to let this natural antipathy get the better of me. I reminded myself that charity isn’t a matter of fine sentiments; it means doing things. So I determined to treat this sister as if she were the person I loved best in the world.” (Knox 268)
Thus Therese’s interpretation of Christian love and charity as not “a matter of fine sentiments,” but “doing something,” can be understood in human terms, as well as in Jane Austen’s characters. This is how specific Christian ethics and Anglican beliefs dimension exists in Jane Austen’s fiction: confused, impure, mingled with other kinds and levels of consciousness—exactly as it exists in our lives. Religious motives are meaningfully present, but not in the pure state.
If one is to look at Christian ethics in Jane Austen’s novels, one must also examine the characterizations of her clergymen. Dom Nicholas Seymour, an Anglican Benedictine monk, did a wonderfully interesting job of examining Austen’s clergymen in relation to the Anglican religion. He mentions the idea of Christian charity as it applies to Austen and her clergymen:
“I venture, very nervously, to suggest that Jane Austen creates her clergymen with realism, with imagination, and with charity. They are realistic enough to be immediately recognizable as human beings, satisfying in their humanity: they are the products of a lively fancy which needs to fit them into the overall scheme of the imagined world of the novels in which they appear, and in no other; and they are also, I believe, seen by “the authoress” with what some have called ironic detachment, some have called delighted amusement, and what I call “charity.” This may sound daring: it is not meant to be. From my own religious standpoint, Jane Austen, a great creative artist, is imitating God: in writing a novel, she is making a world and creating men and women to live in that world. She regards her creations as basically good: they are, on the whole, amusing, and the novels end, largely, happily: follies and vices are not over-severely punished.”
Most readers agree that Edmund, although an extremely boring character, is a good man who is capable of performing his duty as a clergyman. He seems to possess all of the good, moral qualities that one would want to see in a man dedicating his life to religion:
“This I find charitable on Jane Austen’s part: there is nothing here of the curious attitude, still prevalent in parish life today, which unfairly places the clergyman on a (rather shaky) pedestal because he is a clergyman—and criticizes him very sharply for being human as well…It would seem that Jane Austen’s clergymen fit into the overall moral world of her novels as men first and clergymen, second…They are, largely speaking, socially presentable members of a well-defined social group…I feel that her clergymen are in her moral universe as moral beings—that is, capable of growth of decay: they are products (as she often says of her creations) of their experiences—witness her frequent link between a lack of early education and a later lack of social poise—and their clerical life is part of what they are.” (2-3)
Jane Austen, through her portrayals of various clergymen, does not present clergymen as either generally “good” people or generally “flawed” people. As Seymour claims, Austen allows room for her clergymen to be human. Their morality or immorality lies not in the fact that they are clergymen, but in the various aspects of their personalities. By presenting her clergymen in this way, Austen stands by the idea of the direct connection between religious belief and everyday life. In everyday life, there are moral and immoral clergymen, just like there are moral and immoral humans. Furthermore, merely because Austen presents a few immoral clergymen does not mean that she is insulting her religion. It is important to remember that one can separate a clergyman or a priest from his religion. For example, Catholics often discuss horror stories about immoral priests, but this does not mean that these Catholics are insulting their religion. Instead, they are attacking the immoral people who put on a religious guise, which is exactly what Austen is doing by presenting an immoral clergyman. This analogy also entails the idea mentioned beforehand, that Austen maintains Christian ethics as a way to live a rational life, knowing what is right from wrong. Exemplified by the clergymen, she enables the characters to become “real” and be human as to living a life that is experienced by anybody and everyone. She becomes consistent in showing that any human being, has the idea of Christian ethics and how to live it; that her characters personify these actions of what to her readers will be able to comprehend as their own struggles and experience to become good Christians.
Admittedly, certain aspects of Austen’s novels that imply Christian ethics and Anglican beliefs also appear in other novels: the strive for self-improvement in everyday life, the choice between good and evil, and charity. Whether novels that also explore these factors are religious or not would take a whole other student and a whole other paper to examine. I myself am convinced that only Jane Austen the author will be able to tell us whether her intention is to publish novels that are religious in character per se. But, her efforts were generally geared towards exemplifying how each one of us lives, constantly struggling to do what is right, what is good, not because we are confined to just a specific religious belief, but in general is trying to live the Christian way. In Austen’s case, critics know she was, in fact, Anglican and did, in fact, relate these above-mentioned beliefs with her religion.
Why doesn’t Austen specifically point out religion in her novels? Austen’s Anglican tradition would have made her very wary of specifically pointing to an action or an emotion and directly attributing it to the influence or inspiration of God. The audacity of such attributions would indicate, to a well-regulated Anglican mind, the presence of “enthusiasm,” or religious fanaticism. In addition, such direct interference by God into our lives to govern our actions might easily be considered an interference with free will, which Anglicans, along with other mainstream Christians, have always been held to be of central importance. The following quote from one of Laurence Sterne’s sermons makes this clear:
“That the influence and assistance of God’s spirit in a way imperceptible to us, does enable us to render Him an acceptable service, we learn from Scripture–In what particular manner this is effected, so that the act shall still be imputed ours–the Scripture says not: we know only the account is so, but as for any sensible demonstrations of its workings to be felt as such within us—the word of God is utterly silent; nor can that silence be supplied by any experience.—We have none; unless you call the false pretenses to it such—suggested by an enthusiastic or distempered fancy. As expressly as we are told and pray for the inspiration of God’s spirit,—there are no boundaries fixed, nor can any be ever marked to distinguish them from the efforts and determinations of our own reason; and as firmly as most Christians believe the effects of them upon their hearts, I may venture to affirm, that since the promises were made, there never was a Christian of a cool head and sound judgment, that, in any instance of a change of life, would presume to say, which part of his reformation was owing to divine help,—or which to the operations of his own mind; or who, upon looking back, would pretend to strike the line, and say, here it was that my own reflections ended, and at this point, the suggestions of the spirit of God began to take place.” (371)
Having to distinguish the religious implications or influence of Austen in her works may also be perceived as a limitation to what she can express and create. We can thus be able to state that Jane Austen, the gifted author that she was, has her goal of enriching her characters of ethics and moral obligations that entails following whatever kind of religion one is entitled to. Having Christian ethics as the most probable theme in her novels, she exemplifies her style of writing to touch the hearts, minds, and souls of her readers without being governed by any specific and restricted religious beliefs and systems.
The subtleness of religious interpretation in Austen’s works could also stem from Austen’s own subtle style. There is also the possibility that Austen, a religious woman, consciously or subconsciously slipped in religious messages in her novels. However, each reader’s total response to Austen’s novels, and to the extent which the reader believes those novels reflect, symbolize, and demonstrate religion, will, of course, determine the degree to which the reader will agree or disagree with the conclusion that the novels of Jane are religious. Stuart Tave quotes Archbishop Whatelys’ 1821 essay which claims Austen is “evidently a Christian writer whose art and artistry ensure that her religion is not at all obtrusive.” (Tave 112)
Jane Austen as a writer exemplifies how human being in real life exists. Characters she presents are of both sides; the ones with disregard for morality, and the one who knows the meaning and value of humility and self-knowledge. The novels indeed signify religious implications, more clearly and specifically Christian ethics that presents an individual who has the capacity to own his/her moral obligations more than any other superficial ideals and possessions. We have proven this in discovering the clues, from Austen’s belief in God to her character’s manifestations of belief and upholding Christian ethics, to the contrast by which several characters present themselves as otherwise. Austen was also very consistent with this theme of Christian ethics and pursues the clarification of this matter in the story she portrays in her novels. Lastly, Austen need not clear her manifestations of a religion that she is trying to emanate, instead, her novels show their character through the author’s depictions of a persona with Christian ethics.
Works Cited
Barfoot, C.C. The Thread of Connection. Amsterdam: Rodopi Press, 1982.
Butler, M. Jane Austen and the War of Ideas. Oxford, 1975.
Chapman, R. W., ed. Jane Austen, Minor Works. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Copleston, F. C. Aquinas. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955.
Devil’s Advocate. Dir. Taylor Hackford. With Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. Regency, 1997.
Duffy, Joseph M. Moral Integrity and Moral Anarchy in Mansfield Park. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Fleishman, Avrom. A Reading of Mansfield Park: An Essay in Critical Synthesis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967.
Knox, Ronald, ed. Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux. New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1958.
Seymour, Dom Nicholas. Jane Austen’s Clergymen. Address to Jane Austen Society. 1993. Web.
Sherlock, Thomas, D. D. Several Discourses Preached at the Temple Church. Edinburgh: Alexander Donaldson, 1774.
Tave, Stuart M. Some Words of Jane Austen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.