The commotion began in August when Castle reviewed Deirdre Le Faye's new edition of "Jane Austen's Letters" for the London Review of Books. The review suggested--but never explicitly stated--that Austen may have had an "unconscious, homoerotic" attraction to her sister, Cassandra. The review ran with the sensational headline, "Was Jane Austen Gay?"
It was enough to send literary London into an orgy of defensiveness. The Jane Austen Society called Castle an 18th century know-nothing (in fact, 18th century historical fiction is Castle's specialty). "Newsnight," England's version of "Nightline," put Castle on TV with two Austen scholars. And the Daily Telegraph of London admonished Castle with the headline, "It Wasn't Incest, It Was Sisterly Love."
"The whole thing has been blown out of proportion," said an exasperated Castle. "What I was trying to do was examine female-to-female relationships."
Apart from the homosexual content, Castle's review seems to be the first time anyone has linked Austen with a libido or erotic imagination of any kind. Until now, the reclusive writer has been endowed with all the sexual pizazz of a beloved maiden aunt. "She's the quintessential spinster," said Castle. "She's like Emily Dickinson. She never married, so she's considered completely asexual."
In truth, little is known about Austen's private life, a factor that makes her blank canvas upon which to apply almost any literary, social or cultural theory. What is known is that neither Jane nor Cassandra ever married, that both were devoted to each other and that they lived together and shared a bed until Austen's death at 42.
At the time, there was nothing unusual in this relationship, a factor Castle recognizes. "What I'm trying to get across is that the normal female existence in the 18th century was homoerotic. Even married women were segregated, spending most of their time around women. It was common for there to be powerful emotional ties between people of the same sex."
The fracas has certainly left Castle weary. "It's horrible for me to think people hate me because I said this about Jane Austen. It's also horrible to think that the mere suggestion that someone like Jane Austen might have had homoerotic desires is viewed as just an appalling slur."
Not that she repents her words. "I read what I read in those letters," she said. "I wouldn't have written anything different."
Part of the problem, she believes, is that 20th century-ites have a limited view of love. "We have such a crude language for talking about these things. There are many kinds of love that our language doesn't recognize. In Austen's time, they didn't have the word 'lesbian.' They didn't have that label for those feelings."
At this point, Castle has no plans to take on any more icons of English life. Not Shakespeare, not the queen, not Ralph Fiennes, not tea with milk. "Definitely not tea," said Castle. "That's sacred."
--Diane Sussman
Back up to the Table of Contents Page