Editing Jane Austen (section)

===Contemporaneous responses===
[[File:New-Monthly-Magazine-1816-25-p66-novels-inc-Austen-Emma-detail.jpg|thumb|upright=1.14|In 1816 the editors of ''[[The New Monthly Magazine]]'' noted ''[[Emma (novel)|Emma]]''{{'}}s publication, but chose not to review it.{{Cref2|K}}]]
As Austen's works were published anonymously, they brought her little personal renown. They were fashionable among opinion-makers, but were rarely reviewed.<ref name="Honan 1987, 289–290"/> Most of the reviews were short and on balance favourable, although superficial and cautious,<ref>Fergus (2014), 10; Honan (1987), 287–289, 316–317, 372–373.</ref><ref name=SouthamVol1p1>Southam (1968), 1.</ref> most often focused on the moral lessons of the novels.<ref>Waldron (2005), 83–91.</ref>

[[Walter Scott]], a leading novelist of the day, anonymously wrote a review of ''Emma'' in 1815, using it to defend the then-disreputable genre of the novel and praising Austen's realism, "the art of copying from nature as she really exists in the common walks of life, and presenting to the reader, instead of the splendid scenes from an imaginary world, a correct and striking representation of that which is daily taking place around him".<ref>Scott (1968), 58; Waldron (2005), 86; Duffy (1986), 94–96.</ref> The other important early review was attributed to [[Richard Whately]] in 1821. However, Whately denied having authored the review, which drew favourable comparisons between Austen and such acknowledged greats as [[Homer]] and [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]], and praised the dramatic qualities of her narrative. Scott and Whately set the tone for almost all subsequent 19th-century Austen criticism.<ref>Waldron (2005), 89–90; Duffy (1986), 97; Watt (1963), 4–5.</ref>