Celebrating “John“ Austen’s 250th anniversary

Asking “what if?” allows us to see more clearly the profound influence Jane Austen has had on culture, and to confront how differently her work might have been received had it been written by a man.

To understand the significance of this thought experiment, we must return to England in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It was a world of rigid social hierarchies, inherited wealth, strict codes of behaviour - and one which offered very limited roles for women. Another female voice – Virginia Woolf – sees this very clearly, reflecting on it in A Room of One’s Own, an extract from which is proposed in “Lifelines” vol II, page 375, with the title “The shame of being a female writer”. Austen herself commented on women’s social disadvantage and stated, sadly and cynically, “Single women have a dreadful propensity for being poor. Which is one very strong argument in favour of matrimony”. Austen herself never married.

In her novels the drawing room was the stage of life, the ballroom the arena where futures were decided, and the marriage market the defining measure of success for young women. In this context, Jane Austen crafted novels that elevated those very spaces into sites of drama, irony, and subtle rebellion.

Now imagine if those same novels had come from the pen of “John Austen.” Instead of an unmarried clergyman’s daughter writing in near-anonymity, we would have a gentleman author confidently presenting his works to the world. Instead of publishers marketing the books cautiously “By a Lady,” his name would have been emblazoned on every title page. Instead of reviewers questioning the value of domestic plots, critics might have hailed him from the start as a master of social comedy, a worthy heir to Fielding and Swift.

The words might have been the same. The wit, the dialogue, the unforgettable characters could have remained intact. Yet the reception - and the legacy - would have been profoundly different.

A Gentleman Novelist of the Drawing Room?

Had Austen been John instead of Jane, the drawing rooms, ballrooms, and marriage markets of Regency England might still have been the backdrop of his novels. His characters could have remained witty, flawed, and irresistibly human. Yet the way society interpreted those works would have been very different.

A man writing about women’s inner lives might have been seen as a bold innovator, a sensitive chronicler of the female spirit. Instead of being dismissed as merely domestic or “light reading,” John Austen’s novels could have been immediately elevated into the canon of serious literature.

“Imagine a male Austen publishing Pride and Prejudice in 1813,” says Dr. Eleanor Watkins, professor of English literature at Oxford. “He might have been compared with Swift or Fielding from the start, rather than only being taken seriously decades later. Jane had to wait until the 20th century for her genius to be universally recognized.”

From “A Lady” to a Literary Celebrity

We know that Jane Austen published her first novels anonymously, signed only as “By a Lady.” The reason was simple: women were not expected to write about society with authority, and their names could even damage the credibility of their work.

But John Austen? His name would have featured proudly on the title pages. Literary salons would have welcomed him, publishers would have courted him, and critics would have praised his “keen insight into the feminine sphere.”

The irony is that while Jane was forced into the shadows, John would have been ushered into the spotlight for the very same words.

The Weight of Perspective

And yet—something essential would have been missing. Jane Austen’s novels are not just stories about love and society. They are statements of perspective. When Elizabeth Bennet refuses to marry Mr Collins despite social pressure, it is not just witty drama; it is a radical affirmation of female choice. When Elinor Dashwood balances reason with emotion, it is not just good character development; it is a model of women’s resilience in a restrictive world.

Had these same ideas come from a male pen, they might have been dismissed as intellectual exercises rather than lived realities. Jane’s authenticity—her quiet rebellion—lies in the fact that she was a woman giving voice to women.

“Jane Austen’s achievement was not simply her style, but her stance,” notes literary critic Marco Bellini. “If she had been a man, the novels would still be elegant comedies of manners. But they would not carry the same force as lived testimony, as a woman insisting that female experience matters.”

Pop Culture in the Age of John Austen

Let’s take the thought experiment further. What would culture look like today if John Austen had existed? We might still have endless adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, but Elizabeth Bennet could have been remembered more as a charming heroine than as a proto-feminist figure. Mr Darcy might have been celebrated as the ultimate romantic hero, but his transformation would be seen less as a lesson in humility and more as a conventional plot twist.

The legacy of Austen in modern culture—from Bridget Jones’s Diary to Clueless—owes much to the fact that she was Jane, not John. Women today read her novels and see an early advocate for independence and agency. Without that female voice, the resonance would be diminished.

What We Would Have Lost

A world where John Austen replaced Jane Austen would have been a world with less urgency for women’s voices in literature. We might have missed the subtle, ironic critique of patriarchy delivered from within the drawing room. We might have lost one of the earliest bridges between comedy and feminism.

John Austen would have been celebrated in his time. But Jane Austen, silenced at first, has grown into something larger: an enduring icon of wit, irony, and courage. Her words remind us that literature is not only a mirror of society but a tool to reshape it.

So, on this fictional anniversary of John Austen’s birth, let us raise our glasses not to celebrate the gentleman who never existed, but the woman who did. To Jane Austen—who taught us that the quietest voices can be the sharpest, and that even in the confines of a ballroom, revolutions can be written.

Yes, let’s celebrate Jane, as countless thousands of “Janeites” will be doing this year. Perhaps you and your students would like to become more deeply involved – why not join in the Sanoma “Social Reading” project dedicated to Jane’s heroines?

Referenze iconografiche: Alamy / Imageselect / ICP, incamerastock