The mystery of why thousands of Jane Austen’s letters were destroyed by her own sister

It is a vivid picture and all the more valuable because so few of Jane’s letters survive.

Although she was a prolific correspondent – it is estimated that she wrote thousands of letters over the course of her life – we only have 160.

Years after Jane’s death in 1817 from an unknown illness, Cassandra, to whom her sister wrote almost every day while they were apart, burned almost all of her letters.

This decision has confused and angered historians and biographers.

Jane Austen is one of the most important writers in the English language.

His six novels – funny, biting and psychologically insightful, groundbreaking in form and content – are still very popular today, as are the numerous film adaptations.

However, there is relatively little information about her beyond basic biographical information.

Was she, as was claimed, a secret radical? Lesbian?

How much more would we know about her if Cassandra, her greatest supporter in life and keeper of her flame after her death, had kept her letters?

What secrets did they contain that would make Cassandra think it would be better to burn them?

This mysterious act of destruction was explored in Miss Austen, a four-part television drama based on the critically acclaimed bestselling novel of the same name by Gill Hornby.

In it, years after Jane’s death, Cassandra (Keeley Hawes) travels to the Berkshire town of Kintbury, where the Fowles, friends of the Austen family, lived.

Cassandra supposedly comes to help Isabella Fowle (Rose Leslie), whose father is dying.

However, this house holds many bittersweet memories (in real life he lived there when Jane wrote to him about Tom Lefroy), and it has an ulterior motive.

She wants to retrieve some letters that the late Jane wrote to her friend Eliza Fowle, Isabella’s mother, fearing that they may contain details that could damage the writer’s legacy.

When she finds the correspondence, it brings back strong memories of events from years ago.

Hornby became interested in Cassandra after moving to Kintbury and learning that Miss Austen had become engaged to the son of the local church vicar.

As for why the letters were burned, Hornby told BBC Culture: “I have my own theory, as laid out in the novel, and I think it holds up.”

“But there are other, albeit more prosaic, reasons,” he continues.

“For one thing, there was a lot of talking in these letters.

“Both shared everything, including the very difficult sisters-in-law (Jane and Cassandra had six siblings). I imagine he would have said several indiscreet things about troublesome relatives, and Cassandra would have wanted to avoid future harm.”

“Plus, there would have been a lot of complaints. Jane had constant money worries; there are still a lot of mentions to prove that. So in the end, it wouldn’t necessarily show her in the best light.”

Devoney Looser is Regents Professor of English at Arizona State University and a respected authority on Jane Austen.

“A less well-thought-out theory, but one I think is likely, is that in the early 1840s Cassandra may also have closely observed how critics were being brutalized in reviews of the recently published letters of the late writer Frances Burney,” he tells the BBC.

Burney was a writer of social comedies that Austen read in her childhood and was inspired by.

“Such cruel criticism would have given Cassandra pause, considering that Jane’s letters might have received similar treatment. Had they been published then, they might have been criticized in the early Victorian press.”

“Of course, almost two centuries later, we can be sure that the opposite would ultimately have occurred: that these additional letters from Austen would be welcomed and admired. This part is particularly devastating.”

However, both Looser and Hornby defend Cassandra for her actions.

In fact, Hornby wrote Miss Austen, at least in part, with the intention of explaining her actions.

“Whatever her motivations, no matter how many biographers complain, Cassandra did the right thing. Jane was a very private person,” says Hornby.

He emphasizes that Jane Austen published anonymously throughout her life and that her identity was not widely revealed until December 1817 by her brother Henry, through the biographical note he wrote for a posthumous edition of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey.

“He wasn’t interested in fame, just writing,” Hornby continues.

“Both sisters would be horrified if they thought we knew their secrets.

“And the fact that we know so little about the author thanks to Cassandra’s Bonfire has proven to be a resounding success. This element of mysterious, quiet dignity is crucial to the success of the Jane Austen brand.”

For Looser, “Cassandra’s reputation as the greatest destroyer of Jane’s letters is not entirely fair.”

“As some researchers have recently noted, Cassandra was also the only known Austen sister to have preserved a large number of her sister’s letters.

“Still, I find it deeply disturbing that one of Jane’s letters was destroyed. Obviously they must have contained more of her trademark humor and social insights alongside everyday news and gossip.”

Jane and Cassandra, who was three years older, had a very close bond.

They were the only daughters of a Hampshire clergyman. According to her mother, “If Cassandra’s head had been cut off, Jane’s head would have been cut off too.”

They lived together most of their lives and Cassandra was the only person Jane talked to about her work.

A pencil and watercolor portrait painted by Cassandra is the only authenticated image of Jane.

The day after her death, Cassandra wrote in a letter: “She was the sun of my life, the one who illuminated all my joys, the one who soothed all my sorrows. It is as if I had lost a part of myself.”

None of them married.

In fact, the mystery of Hornby’s novel is merely the mechanism that creates a moving examination of single women’s lack of control over their own lives during this period.

They often had little or no money and relied on the charity of their relatives, which may or may not arrive.

“The oppression of women was the dominant theme of their existence,” says Hornby.

“Her life was an obstacle course and overcoming difficulties was part of her everyday life.”

“Of course we don’t see it because we live with so many options ourselves. But Austen’s novels are about the oppression of women.”

“All of his heroines except Emma are in danger at the beginning. These Bennet girls (from Pride and Prejudice) would have no money or a home after their father’s death.

“Marriage is her only plan of salvation, as Mrs. Bennet so wisely realizes. We read her as a comic creation, and of course she is played for laughs, but in reality she is the sensible one who sees the great dangers ahead.”

Andrea Gibb, who adapted Miss Austen for the big screen, says she liked the book straight away.

“It is so beautifully conceived that Austen could have written it herself.

“It has everything: intrigue, mystery, romance and love. Not just romantic love, but the lasting love that exists between sisters.”

“The female experience is at the heart of the story. Back then, women were completely economically dependent on men. Having a good marriage was both a survival mechanism and a romantic ideal.”

This year marks the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth.

In addition to Miss Austen, the BBC commissioned The Other Bennet Sister, a Pride and Prejudice spin-off drama about Mary Bennet, based on the novel by Janice Hadlow.

Netflix, for its part, is preparing an adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”.

And in a book published later this year, “Wild for Austen: A Rebellious, Subversive, and Untamed Legacy,” Looser hopes to “dispel the persistent myth that Austen was boring, primitive and boring,” she says.

Clearly, Jane Austen’s appeal shows no signs of waning.

“I think it endures because it speaks to universal concerns and sheds light on society and its inherent contradictions,” says Gibb.

“I think she has a lot to say to women today, whether they are young and idealistic or older. She is an excellent documenter of human behavior and also very funny.”

And Cassandra, we shouldn’t judge her too harshly. After all, who wants the gossipy messages we send to those closest to us to be read by everyone?

* If you would like to read the BBC Culture article in English, Click here

Subscribe here Subscribe to our new newsletter to receive a selection of our best content of the week every Friday.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download and activate the latest version.