开云体育

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

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 will try to remember to watch this video tonight, Dorothy. I have a vague memory of seeing it before. The dancing sequences in the heritage or traditonal-faithful adaptations were often the highlight, the most exciting moment of the film. The 1995 and thereafter 1996 (albeitly briefly) made the waterscapes the most visually arousing. The recent Sanditon took off from both.

Let's think about water in Austen, through her brothers as sailors, in her novls as longing in Emma, and flowering (mixed metaphor) out in Persuasion, Sanditon. I suggest this store of imagery is more effective than the gothic. I was asked to review an article on Austen and water seen from an 18th century perspective -- it was a formof energy, a weapon of war (ships' uses), a means of transportation, for holidays, health Remember the technology behind fountains, the books of lake scapes. I have a group of articles I could share if anyone is interested. There are some in Persuasions on the use of water in the Austen films. Great Britain is an island country.

Ellen

The gloves are off. Or are they?

Having a Ball


Just in time for your holiday viewing. This very enjoyable BBC production resurfaced on Youtube a couple of years ago, and I stumbled across it again this fall – a sort of experimental reenactment of the Netherfield ball, at least in terms of dress, customs, candlelight, food, music, and of course dance. They made an effort to recreate details wherever they had information to make them historically accurate. For some areas - like the precise method of serving such a dinner - they had to wing it, so the re-enactment is in that way experimental.

If you’ve never seen the program, or even if you have, it's worth a viewing. I’d be interested to know what folks think. (I think I remember discussing it on Janeites awhile back?) I was sorry when it was withdrawn from BBC offerings and happy to learn it’s still around.

So here is my question about wearing gloves at supper. When the vid. was making the rounds among some of my friends this fall, one had a question about gloves at supper. She wrote

That was wonderful! I loved all the food details and the clothing.

I think they got one thing wrong though. Women would remove their gloves at dinner and put them in their laps under their napkins. I learned that from Downton Abbey which was pretty well researched, I think.<<


Of course, Downton Abbey was a different era, but taking the gloves off for eating makes sense, and appears as a custom in etiquette manuals later in the 19th century. Does anyone know what the Regency custom was?

And just for fun, I found a couple of references Austen made to specific foods (below), which were used in the program when designing the menu for supper.

Dorothy



Saturday [November 17, 1798].
My mother desires me to tell you that I am a very good housekeeper, which I have no reluctance in doing, because I really think it my peculiar excellence, and for this reason—I always take care to provide such things as please my own appetite, which I consider as the chief merit in housekeeping. I have had some ragout veal, and I mean to have some haricot mutton to-morrow. We are to kill a pig soon.
There is to be a ball at Basingstoke next Thursday. Our assemblies have very kindly declined ever since we laid down the carriage, so that dis-convenience and dis-inclination to go have kept pace together.
–– from Jane Austen, Her Life and Letters

Miss Bingley was engrossed by Mr. Darcy, her sister scarcely less so; and as for Mr.
Hurst, by whom Elizabeth sat, he was an indolent man, who lived only to
eat, drink, and play at cards; who, when he found her to prefer a plain
dish to a ragout, had nothing to say to her.
–– Pride and Prejudice

I more or less agree, Nancy. Where she has importance for us is as a
somewhat atypical aristocratic woman of her time.

Ellen

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:54?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

I haven't read the biography of lady Caroline Lamb s do not know which
version of her life they portray. We read Glenarvon as a group, once.It
needed a good editor.Most who managed to get through the book agreed that
it didn't succeed in making Glenarvon a bad guy. The so called heroine
was such an unlikeable character the people she disliked looked good.
Her books were not published for merit but because her name was known. I do
not know the method she chose to publish but if she paid the costs, then
all the profits were hers. She said she wrote Glenarvon in a month. I wish
I had the facility.
I have never been interested in her other books.
After the publication of Glenarvon, she was banned from Almacks -- which
made her a social outcast-- her husband separated from her-- she mixed with
writers, went to Paris -- met WEllington who tried to intercede on her
behalf ( he had more success against Napoleon than the leaders of
society Lamb had offended.) She died after she had seen Byron's cortege .
her husband never remarried. He had a couple of suits against him by
aggrieved husbands but nothing could be proven. He was Prime Minister
Melbourne when Victoria took the therone and was her favorite advisor
until she married.
In the field of literature, she should be no more than a footnote. It is
only her social prominence and her connection with Lord Byron that keep
Lady Caroline's name before the public.
Nancy

I haven't read the biography of lady Caroline Lamb s do not know which
version of her life they portray. We read Glenarvon as a group, once.It
needed a good editor.Most who managed to get through the book agreed that
it didn't succeed in making Glenarvon a bad guy. The so called heroine
was such an unlikeable character the people she disliked looked good.
Her books were not published for merit but because her name was known. I do
not know the method she chose to publish but if she paid the costs, then
all the profits were hers. She said she wrote Glenarvon in a month. I wish
I had the facility.
I have never been interested in her other books.
After the publication of Glenarvon, she was banned from Almacks -- which
made her a social outcast-- her husband separated from her-- she mixed with
writers, went to Paris -- met WEllington who tried to intercede on her
behalf ( he had more success against Napoleon than the leaders of
society Lamb had offended.) She died after she had seen Byron's cortege .
her husband never remarried. He had a couple of suits against him by
aggrieved husbands but nothing could be proven. He was Prime Minister
Melbourne when Victoria took the therone and was her favorite advisor
until she married.
In the field of literature, she should be no more than a footnote. It is
only her social prominence and her connection with Lord Byron that keep
Lady Caroline's name before the public.
Nancy

I read about half, was overwhelmed by other commitments and gave it
up, partly because it is not literary, and like other of Fraser's many
biographies of aristocratic women (one on Oliver Cromwell) I wondered
if the interpretation was subtly or just plain wrong. You do come away
with information. Thank you for telling us. Today she'd be famous
because she's famous, the equivalent of a once-daytime TV star.

The Sylph is by Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. I'm convinced of it
and so too her official standard biographer. She herself gambled
ludicrously -- and her husband -- losing astounding amounts. Hers is
only one of several novels (in the Jacobean era it was written about
in plays -- where sometimes the bully is the king) where she shows a
husband bullying a wife into having sex with the man they owe money
to. That is what is threatened in Henry Esmond. It's not a question of
debt but blackmail. Mohun knows the 4th Viscount, husband of Rachel
(her children not his) is not the heir to the 3rd Viscount but young
Henry is. So he demands Rachel go off with him and she refuses.

Thackeray had read deeply and himself came from a subset of these
people, a colonial subset. The difference is he was a moral kindly man
- like Dobbin. our Henry Esmond -- also very intellectual

NB: THis book should be of interest to those who want to know Jane
Austen's aristocratic world -- and Byron's

Ellen


On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 9:54?AM Tyler Tichelaar via groups.io
<tyler@...> wrote:

I just finished reading Antonia Fraser's biography of Lady Caroline Lamb which Ellen brought to my attention some time ago.

I did not realize or had forgotten she wrote two more novels after Glenarvon, both of which sound fascinating.

But I bring her up because some years ago we read some of Edward Bulwer-Lytton and Rosina Bulwer's works. Bulwer-Lytton was a great admirer of Lamb and wanted to be her lover but they only had a platonic friendship. It turns out she went to literary social evenings with Rosina and introduced her to Bulwer-Lytton. And so we have the woman in the stormy love affair with Lord Byron introducing the couple who would have probably the most famous stormy literary marriage of the 19th century with Bulwer-Lytton locking his wife up in an asylum and his wife threatening to throw eggs at Queen Victoria when she attended one of her plays.

The biography itself was not long - less than 200 pages. I was surprised it was so short and also to find there have been many biographies written about her. It was not overly interested in literary criticism of her novels, mostly just briefly summarizing them. I hope to read the other two novels - Ada Reis is set in South America and features a slave who makes a bargain with an evil spirit, and Graham Hamilton is a satire on the Whig society that Lamb was part of - she was niece to Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, a leading member of the Whig circle and also the possible author of the anonymous novel, The Sylph.

Tyler

Life in the navy wasn't easy but Austen's brothers were officers and not
men impressed into service.They ordered the flogging and didn't endure
them. Floggings were horrible and an image of the attitude of upper classes
to those of the lower classes. Education was an indicator of class and an
educated man managed much better in life than an uneducated one. She was
an abolitionist so knew about slavery. Her aunt was accused of a crime. Her
treatment was rather better than most accused of such a crime. Some believe
she was a kleptomaniac; others that the clerk tried to get her to pay
blackmail to keep from going to trial. Though a card of lace wasn't cheap,
the store got it back. Generally, the store owner wouldn't bother having a
person of her status arrested and sent to trial because it cost quite a bit
of money. Most shop keepers didn't have funds for such trials. They formed
associations with others to finance trials of those who appeared to be
career shoplifters. It just wasn't economical to try a woman of her status.
One can't say that such an arrest and trial was something particular to
that time and place. That is something that happens everyday someplace in
the USA.

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 5:01?PM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

Well they encountered mutinies, directly were involved with pressing,
slavery. A lot more sheer experience "in the world."

Ellen