开云体育

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my post, I
also found this, which is in conformity with your and my understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among them.
In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella. On
marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband became the
legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter fortune
hunters like Wickham.”

My understanding is that that is the default for how things would turn out,
but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage contracts
they could specify otherwise.


On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:01?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance will
be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and further, if
they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will, as
husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and Donwell
Abbey 50:50 between them?

ARNIE

--

<>
Stephanie Vardavas
stephanievardavas.com
<>
Specializing
in product safety and regulatory compliance for consumer products, as well
as licensing and sports marketing, including sponsorships and endorsements.
Also supporting nonprofits and simple trademark registrations. Office hours
12n - 5 pm M-F and by appointment. Pronouns: she/her/hers

*This email may be confidential and privileged. If you have received it in
error, please respond to advise sender of the error and then delete the
email and any attachments. Thank you.*

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance will
be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and further, if
they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will, as
husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and Donwell
Abbey 50:50 between them?

ARNIE

Sorry, because he is in Trade-- owning a warehouse-- Mr. Gardiner would not
be considered gentry. The Bingleys are just slipping into gentry status
because they have money and no longer deal with trade. Many of the
bankers owned estates but that didn't make them gentry. The cits of London
had their own social circles. They sometimes mixed with gentry,
aristocracy, nobility, and even royalty at the Mansion House, but
generally kept their distance. Banker Child was so angry at hs only
daughter who married an earl that he left his money to her daughter and
arranged it so that neither the earl nor his heir could touch it.
Nancy

On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 5:26?PM Tamar Lindsay via groups.io <dicconf=
[email protected]> wrote:

Mr Gardiner owns a big business and lives in London. He is arguably a Cit.
But does he own the land and buildings his business occupies? Or rent them?
If he owns them, does that make him gentry?

Mr Gardiner owns a big business and lives in London. He is arguably a Cit.
But does he own the land and buildings his business occupies? Or rent them?
If he owns them, does that make him gentry?

P.S. re that same passage in Chapter 46:



“They were to be off as soon as possible. “But what is to be done about
Pemberley?” cried Mrs. Gardiner. “John told us Mr. Darcy was here when you
sent for us;—was it so?”

“Yes; and I told him we should not be able to keep our engagement. *That* is
all settled.”

“What is all settled?” repeated the other, as she ran into her room to
prepare. “And are they upon such terms as for her to disclose the real
truth? Oh, that I knew how it was!”

*But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to amuse her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour.*”



In rereading that sentence in its larger context, above, I suddenly
realized tonight that there is yet a third sense or meaning of “to amuse”,
which makes sense, in addition to what at first appeared to be only two
choices: “to entertain” or “to mystify”. Now I see a third possible sense,
which is actually the final variant in Samuel Johnson’s mid-18th century
dictionary definition: “ to distract”. It makes interpreting that passage
even more complicated and interesting.



Here's the third interpretation I see: Mrs. Gardiner’s frantic wish to know
whether her suspicion (that Darcy and Elizabeth were already engaged) was
“the real truth” was in vain, because, rightly, she didn’t feel comfortable
just asking Elizabeth directly, especially right then when Elizabeth was in
obvious distress about the Lydia-Wickham snafu, and its repercussions.



However, at least during the hour of hurried packing, Mrs. Gardiner finds
welcome distraction from worry about damage to the Bennet family arising
from Lydia’s disappearance with Wickham, by dwelling for an hour in the
positive fantasy of learning “the real truth”, i.e. that Elizabeth being
engaged to Darcy.



It’s not particularly logical thinking on Mrs. G’s part, but that is
Austen’s acute psychological insight on display. I.e., Mrs. Gardiner seems
to be in denial about the seriousness of the potential damage to the Bennet
family; and so her fantasy provides “amusement”, i.e., distraction and
diversion from worry.



This third meaning of “to amuse” makes it even more curious that Austen
chose this word to describe Mrs. Gardiner’s state of mind at this dramatic
moment, rather than a word with only one meaning –– especially because
Austen had used that same word "amusement" 4 chapters earlier:


“The Gardiners stayed only one night at Longbourn, and set off the next
morning with Elizabeth in pursuit of novelty and amusement. One enjoyment
was certain—that of suitableness as companions; a suitableness which
comprehended health and temper to bear inconveniences—cheerfulness to
enhance every pleasure—and affection and intelligence, which might supply
it among themselves if there were disappointments abroad.”



The main point of the trip was to “amuse” i.e., distract Elizabeth from her
sour grapes over Wickham’s abrupt switch of his romantic attentions to Miss
King, and also perhaps from her upset over having her BFF move far away not
long before.


I still wonder about Austen picking such an ambiguous word in these two
instances, when she could have made the meaning of these passages much more
immediately clear (to use her phrase from her January 1813 letter about
P&P).



ARNIE

On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 2:53?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Thank you, Carolyn, Dorothy, and Tamar for your replies, which are fine as
far as they go. However, none of you addressed what I find to be the
curious part of the passage I quoted, which was the following sentence
describing Mrs. Gardiner’s thoughts as she got ready to leave the inn:

“But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to amuse her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour.”



When you stop and think about it, what in the world would Mrs Gardiner find
amusing in the Bennet family crisis she has just learned from Elizabeth,
that had caused the cancellation of their planned re-visit to Pemberley?

To answer that question, here are some relevant data regarding word usage
in P&P, which I believe shed some light on the seeming ambiguity of the
above sentence.



First, the archaic meaning of the verb “amuse” prior to Jane Austen’s
lifetime was very much like our modern verb “bemuse”, which means “puzzle”
or “mystify”; whereas, by JA’s lifetime, and still today in 2025, “amuse”
only means “entertain”.

Some of you then might object, that the context seems to clearly rule out
Mrs. Gardiner being entertained by the family crisis, so it must be that
Austen for some reason chose to use “amuse” in this case, despite the fact
that the “mystify” meaning was already archaic in her lifetime.



But here’s the thing. There are 28 other usages of “amuse” in P&P besides
the one in question, and I can tell you (but you’re welcome to check it out
if you are skeptical of me) that it is crystal clear in every one of those
28 other usages of “amuse” that the primary meaning is “entertain”.



And, in particular among those other 28 usages there is the following one
in Chapter 42, i.e., only 4 chapters earlier, which also pertains, notably,
to the Gardiners’s trip north that ends up at Pemberley:



“The Gardiners stayed only one night at Longbourn, and *set off the next
morning with Elizabeth in pursuit of novelty and amusement.* One enjoyment
was certain—that of suitableness as companions; a suitableness which
comprehended health and temper to bear inconveniences—cheerfulness to
enhance every pleasure—and affection and intelligence, which might supply
it among themselves *if there were disappointments abroad.”*



OK, so why in the world would Austen use that identical word in Chapters 42
and 46, both referring to Mrs. Gardiner, but with two opposite meanings?
Seems very careless and confusing for no reason.



And there would especially be no reason for creating this confusion, given
that Jane Austen used another word (which is sorta homophonic with “amuse”)
to describe a state of being mystified: “amaze”.



It turns out that the word “amaze” and its variants occur 19 times in P&P,
which is a much greater frequency in P&P than in any other Austen novel. So
if Austen had meant to clearly convey to her readers that Mrs. Gardiner was
experiencing amazement as she hurried to pack her things to head back to
Longbourn, why didn’t she write that sentence this way?:



“But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to AMAZE her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour.”



And that is the question I leave you with – why would Austen do this? And,
in that regard, is it noteworthy that the passage from Chapter 42 ends with
“if there were disappointments abroad”, which curiously describes exactly
what came to pass only 4 chapters later –– i.e., the Wickham-Lydia fracas
arising at the same time as the seeming beginning of a new, positive
relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy, while at Pemberley.



Speaking of “disappointment”, it is Darcy who, while debriefing the rocky
course of their courtship with Elizabeth, recalls the abrupt end of
Elizabeth’s visit at Pemberley:



“He then told her of Georgiana’s delight in her acquaintance, and of her
DISAPPOINTMENT at its sudden interruption….”



Isn’t it doubly curious, then, that we have this second subliminal echoing
of the Ch. 42 passage – as if Mrs. Gardiner somehow foresaw all that would
occur in Ch. 46; and, moreover, that she would be “amused” by that?



贬尘尘尘….



ARNIE

Thank you, Carolyn, Dorothy, and Tamar for your replies, which are fine as
far as they go. However, none of you addressed what I find to be the
curious part of the passage I quoted, which was the following sentence
describing Mrs. Gardiner’s thoughts as she got ready to leave the inn:

“But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to amuse her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour.”



When you stop and think about it, what in the world would Mrs Gardiner find
amusing in the Bennet family crisis she has just learned from Elizabeth,
that had caused the cancellation of their planned re-visit to Pemberley?

To answer that question, here are some relevant data regarding word usage
in P&P, which I believe shed some light on the seeming ambiguity of the
above sentence.



First, the archaic meaning of the verb “amuse” prior to Jane Austen’s
lifetime was very much like our modern verb “bemuse”, which means “puzzle”
or “mystify”; whereas, by JA’s lifetime, and still today in 2025, “amuse”
only means “entertain”.

Some of you then might object, that the context seems to clearly rule out
Mrs. Gardiner being entertained by the family crisis, so it must be that
Austen for some reason chose to use “amuse” in this case, despite the fact
that the “mystify” meaning was already archaic in her lifetime.



But here’s the thing. There are 28 other usages of “amuse” in P&P besides
the one in question, and I can tell you (but you’re welcome to check it out
if you are skeptical of me) that it is crystal clear in every one of those
28 other usages of “amuse” that the primary meaning is “entertain”.



And, in particular among those other 28 usages there is the following one
in Chapter 42, i.e., only 4 chapters earlier, which also pertains, notably,
to the Gardiners’s trip north that ends up at Pemberley:



“The Gardiners stayed only one night at Longbourn, and *set off the next
morning with Elizabeth in pursuit of novelty and amusement.* One enjoyment
was certain—that of suitableness as companions; a suitableness which
comprehended health and temper to bear inconveniences—cheerfulness to
enhance every pleasure—and affection and intelligence, which might supply
it among themselves *if there were disappointments abroad.”*



OK, so why in the world would Austen use that identical word in Chapters 42
and 46, both referring to Mrs. Gardiner, but with two opposite meanings?
Seems very careless and confusing for no reason.



And there would especially be no reason for creating this confusion, given
that Jane Austen used another word (which is sorta homophonic with “amuse”)
to describe a state of being mystified: “amaze”.



It turns out that the word “amaze” and its variants occur 19 times in P&P,
which is a much greater frequency in P&P than in any other Austen novel. So
if Austen had meant to clearly convey to her readers that Mrs. Gardiner was
experiencing amazement as she hurried to pack her things to head back to
Longbourn, why didn’t she write that sentence this way?:



“But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to AMAZE her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour.”



And that is the question I leave you with – why would Austen do this? And,
in that regard, is it noteworthy that the passage from Chapter 42 ends with
“if there were disappointments abroad”, which curiously describes exactly
what came to pass only 4 chapters later –– i.e., the Wickham-Lydia fracas
arising at the same time as the seeming beginning of a new, positive
relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy, while at Pemberley.



Speaking of “disappointment”, it is Darcy who, while debriefing the rocky
course of their courtship with Elizabeth, recalls the abrupt end of
Elizabeth’s visit at Pemberley:



“He then told her of Georgiana’s delight in her acquaintance, and of her
DISAPPOINTMENT at its sudden interruption….”



Isn’t it doubly curious, then, that we have this second subliminal echoing
of the Ch. 42 passage – as if Mrs. Gardiner somehow foresaw all that would
occur in Ch. 46; and, moreover, that she would be “amused” by that?



贬尘尘尘….



ARNIE

To me, it seems clear that Mrs Gardiner is
accustomed to talking to herself aloud.
The sentence is "she cried", not "she thought".
It is followed, as Lizzy moves out of earshot,
by a followup question, "What is all settled?"
(which might or might not be intended for Lizzy)
and then as she realizes Lizzy really isn't listening,
by a spoken thought about the relationship with Darcy,
"and are they on such terms (etc)" which is definitely
not intended for Lizzy, as it is not "are you" but "are they".

The "What is all settled" could be either to Lizzy or to herself,
as Austen slides smoothly from writing Mrs G's conversation
to writing Mrs G's thoughts.

Arnie,

To add to Caroline’s excellent analysis, I’ll say that both Mr and Mrs Gardiner have been gradually becoming aware that something more than they realized is going on between Darcy and their niece. Mrs Gardiner in particular is burning with curiosity, but as ever is careful not to press Elizabeth for particulars. In their final visit to Pemberley closes with this passage:


"Mrs. Gardiner and Elizabeth talked of all that had occurred during their
visit, as they returned, except what had particularly interested them
both. The look and behaviour of everybody they had seen were discussed,
except of the person who had mostly engaged their attention. They talked
of his sister, his friends, his house, his fruit--of everything but
himself; yet Elizabeth was longing to know what Mrs. Gardiner thought of
him, and Mrs. Gardiner would have been highly gratified by her niece's
beginning the subject."



Dorothy

Hello Arnie, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘strange’. Here is how I
understand the passage:

Smart Mrs. Gardiner has noticed the special “chemistry” between Lizzy
and Darcy previously (apart from the honour of being invited to Darcy's
home) and is, of course, curious to see what their relationship will
come to. She immediately realizes what this sudden departure, and the
“real truth”, will mean for their possible love/courtship connection.
That is why she is wondering if Lizzy told Mr. Darcy why they are not
able to follow Giorgiana’s invitation (which would mean some greater
intimacy), or if she used some polite excuse (meaning their relationship
has not – yet?- proceeded towards courtship).

I think what we are looking at is a discrepancy between what Lizzy
thinks of and means, and what Mrs. Gardiner thinks what is behind the
word “that”. Lizzy does not explain it further as for her it is clear
that she means the dinner invitation. By her emphasis on “that” it is
clear that there must be something else that is *not* settled, in
contrast to the cancellation of their visit to the Darcys.

Interestingly, I noticed that my German edition makes it clearer that
Mrs. Gardiner says those sentences to herself, while in the original she
could have said it aloud, for Lizzy to hear (at least the first sentence).

Happy New Year to everyone!

Caroline

Am 03.01.2025 um 22:40 schrieb Arnie Perlstein via groups.io:

At the very end of Ch. 46 of P&P, we read the following narrative passage
right after Elizabeth reads Jane’s two letters describing the Lydia-Wickham
fracas:



“She was wild to be at home—to hear, to see, to be upon the spot to share
with Jane in the cares that must now fall wholly upon her, in a family so
deranged; a father absent, a mother incapable of exertion, and requiring
constant attendance; and though almost persuaded that nothing could be done
for Lydia, her uncle’s interference seemed of the utmost importance, and
till he entered the room the misery of her impatience was severe.

Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner had hurried back in alarm, supposing, by the
servant’s account, that their niece was taken suddenly ill; but satisfying
them instantly on that head, she eagerly communicated the cause of their
summons, reading the two letters aloud, and dwelling on the postscript of
the last with trembling energy. Though Lydia had never been a favourite
with them, Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner could not but be deeply affected.

Not Lydia only, but all were concerned in it; and after the first
exclamations of surprise and horror, Mr. Gardiner readily promised every
assistance in his power. Elizabeth, though expecting no less, thanked him
with tears of gratitude; and all three being actuated by one spirit,
everything relating to their journey was speedily settled. They were to be
off as soon as possible.”



And now comes a part I had never noticed before, which is that,
temporarily, we find ourselves in Mrs. Gardiner’s head.


With that background, does any of you notice anything strange in Mrs.
Gardiner’s reaction in the following excerpt, which immediately follows the
above:



“But what is to be done about Pemberley?” cried Mrs. Gardiner. “John told
us Mr. Darcy was here when you sent for us;—was it so?”

“Yes; and I told him we should not be able to keep our engagement. *That* is
all settled.”

“What is all settled?” repeated the other, as she ran into her room to
prepare. “And are they upon such terms as for her to disclose the real
truth? Oh, that I knew how it was!”

But wishes were vain; or, at best, could serve only to amuse her in the
hurry and confusion of the following hour. Had Elizabeth been at leisure to
be idle, she would have remained certain that all employment was impossible
to one so wretched as herself…”



ARNIE

To provide closure, anticipating Twelfth Night

A true story to start the new year with. Elinor's collar and tag,
saying "Ellie" on one side & my cell phone number on the other, came
off. I found it on the floor and put it by my bedside early in the
morning. She will come up to me and cuddle. This morning high up on
her cat tree nearby I called to her to come down, as in "Elinor,
come!" She proceeds to climb down, then I thought she spotted the
collar, and stayed put. Fiona comes over, grabs the collar with her
mouth and trots away! Then Elinor proceeds down. It felt coordinated.
I get out of bed and down the hall under a short cat tree facing my
room, I find said collar. It felt coordinated.

And for closure to the holiday cycle, Christmas Eve and the next I
watched Arnaud Desplechin's Christmas Tale (story of a family
Christmas in Roubiliac where the family house is, nearly 3 hours, from
a few days before to a few after). Last night I watched Richard
Attenborough's Shadowlands, an adaptation and modification of C. S.
Lewis's _Surprised by Joy_, featuring Anthony Hopkins, Debra Winger
and Edward Hardewicke (it has become yet more meaningful since my
stroke and ministroke).



Ellen

For me the question, What was your favorite book this year? is usually
irritatingly meaningless. Most of the time without notes I can't
remember exactly what I read in one year year as opposed to the year
before. I did have one this year, and the film adaptation didn't come
near it: this summer I reveled in Dorothy Sayers' Gaudy Night.

I have a second this year that I can remember provided very real
unexpected enjoyment this past spring: Janice Hadlow's The Other
Bennet Sister.

I concede also last year (2023) I had one, but it had been published
the year before (2022) so I was told it didn't count. Nevertheless, I
loved it for real, so for this winter have constructed a 4 week winter
course around it: John Wood Sweet's non-fiction narrative, The Sewing
Girl's Tale, a story of rape, class, and gender in 1790s NYC.

Ellen

Wishing for everyone I reach on groups.io, a peaceful meaningful holiday time

Famous 19th century poem; it is a American Civil War one. (As if I
were a game), can you spot the line that gives this away?


I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime,
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;
"There is no peace on earth," I said;
"For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men."

Posted by Ellen

My paper which involves reading a Victorian novel as a deconstruction of the long-eighteenth-century coming-out novel has just been published in a print journal. The reference is "No Name as a Generic Hybrid : The Coming-Out of Magdalen Vanstone”, pp.23–39, Wilkie Collins Journal, 4th series, Volume 1, 2024, and I can supply a PDF copy by email on request.

Although references to the secondary literature about Collins and No Name are mentioned as context, all the direct scholarly support for the argument (in the form of quotations from the secondary literature) comes from books and papers which are not merely about other authors but about other authors who were writing in a different literary period. I should be interested to know from other listmembers who have published in peer-reviewed journals how common this is among articles which involve a close reading of a single work.

Kishor Kale

My paper which involves reading a Victorian novel as a deconstruction of the long-eighteenth-century coming-out novel has just been published in a print journal. The reference is "No Name as a Generic Hybrid : The Coming-Out of Magdalen Vanstone”, pp.23–39, Wilkie Collins Journal, 4th series, Volume 1, 2024, and I can supply a PDF copy by email on request.

Although references to the secondary literature about Collins and No Name are mentioned as context, all the direct scholarly support for the argument (in the form of quotations from the secondary literature) comes from books and papers which are not merely about other authors but about other authors who were writing in a different literary period. I should be interested to know from other listmembers who have published in peer-reviewed journals how common this is among articles which involve a close reading of a single work.

Kishor Kale

Everything here people have seen (two from other years) but the final
two clips, from the cobb & Lme, Persuasion 2008, and from Sanditon,
one of the more romantic dance scenes



Ellen

Thank you for sharing this, Dorothy - I had never encountered this BBC production before, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I loved that it was shot at Chawton House, as I have been in all those rooms and could picture everything so well. It was at once meticulously researched and rather experimental, a sense of sort of knowledgeable winging it, that was great fun.
?Diana

Gloves were worn at dances. These were not the same gloves worn outside
the house or in cold weather. Ladies had to have many pairs of gloves.
The thinnest and most elevate were for dancing. They removed them to eat.
One never wore gloves when eating. Men removed outside gloves when they
entered a house but wore evening gloves while dancing. Ladies wore gloves
when ever they were outside the house and when visiting and dancing.
Dancing gloves were evening gloves and were not everyday gloves worn
outside.
Nancy


O

On Dec 15, 2024, at 08:33, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

I imagine they took their gloves off. The ostensiblypupose was to preclude human skin touching human skin direct;y, so it was directed related to dancing.

I just noticed this comment: I haven’t followed the entire thread, so pardon me if this is out of place.

I can say that gloves were, absolutely, worn in every single reconstruction of dance from the late Georgian and Victorian eras, in which I participated

FWIW, I actually did not investigate the matter for myself. It was just so assumed that I just never thought to question it.

-blake