took a likeness of that actor. The same difference exists in writings
between the original conceptions of Shakspeare and some other creative
geniuses, and such full-length likenesses of individual persons, 'The
Talking Gentleman' for instance, as are admirably drawn by Miss Mitford.
Jane Austen's powers, whatever may be the degree in which she possessed
them, were certainly of that higher order. She did not copy individuals,
but she invested her own creations with individuality of character. A
reviewer in the 'Quarterly' speaks of an acquaintance who, ever since the
publication of 'Pride and Prejudice,' had been called by his friends Mr.
Bennet, but the author did not know him. Her own relations never
recognised any individual in her characters; and I can call to mind
several of her acquaintance whose peculiarities were very tempting and
easy to be caricatured of whom there are no traces in her pages. She
herself, when questioned on the subject by a friend, expressed a dread of
what she called such an 'invasion of social proprieties.' She said that
she thought it quite fair to note peculiarities and weaknesses, but that
it was her desire to create, not to reproduce; 'besides,' she added, 'I
am too proud of my gentlemen to admit that they were only Mr. A. or
Colonel B.' She did not, however, suppose that her imaginary characters
were of a higher order than are to be found in nature; for she said, when
speaking of two of her great favourites, Edmund Bertram and Mr.
Knightley: 'They are very far from being what I know English gentlemen
often are.'

She certainly took a kind of parental interest in the beings whom she had
created, and did not dismiss them from her thoughts when she had finished
her last chapter. We have seen, in one of her letters, her personal
affection for Darcy and Elizabeth; and when sending a copy of 'Emma' to a
friend whose daughter had been lately born, she wrote thus: 'I trust you
will be as glad to see my "Emma," as I shall be to see your Jemima.' She