开云体育

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

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

Ellen

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 4:23?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Interesting concept as it really , off hand, doesn't seem as though her
male relatives had a great deal of discouragement, or abysmal poverty. Her
father's family were orphaned early and were poor. He received a
university education and a profession. His sister had to go out to India
to find a husband.
Austen's immediate family weren't destitute. yes when Mr. Austen died the
woman had to be careful with other money. However, that was sort of like
the problem with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Dashwood. The fathers could have and
should have set aside money over the years, but didn't.
Nancy


On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 11:50?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

This is the book Diana's reading group has chosen for this month. I
finally found an inexpensive copy. It's written in a popular style.
The method or idea is to tell Austen's life in such a way as wherever
possible bring in all the abysmal poverty, profound inequality, and
where various social, political economic structures kept down all
sorts of people Austen, but more her male family members encountered a
lot.

So it's not a misread or misappropriation of documentable events,
people, conditions at the time

Ellen

The description of the book on Amazon
Jane was aware of the evils of society, of the problems faced by women
whether single or married. Underneath the entertaining story lines are much
darker aspects of Regency and Georgian life. Staying single resulted in
serious problems for young women; there were very few alternatives open to
them, while marriage itself resulted in other risks. The threats of poverty
or becoming a victim of crime were also an issue. Indeed, Jane’s aunt spent
months in prison and faced the threat of transportation for theft. Other
problems society faced included those posed by opium addiction, poor
medical standards, and a lack of property leaving young men and women
struggling to survive. Many sought solutions in India, leading to the
creation of ‘fishing fleets’ with girls sent to marry total unknowns.
Meanwhile, the issues of slavery brought more problems, and social disorder
was rife.

Jane Austen created classic stories that have endured the test of time,
reflecting society in all its aspects, faults, values both good and bad.
This is Jane Austen as you have never seen her before.

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 4:30?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

If Youngman's book focuses on unfairness to men, then it is missing the
boat by a country mile from what Jane Austen's focus was, which was
unfairness to women.

ARNIE

Their behavior is absurd. To me they seemed embodiments of what
Shakespeare meant when he said people with petty authority are the
worst tyrants. It was bigotry disguised as concern for the cats.

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 4:53?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

The questions asked sounded more like the couple were trying to foster or
adopt a child than a cat. No one ever asked us questions when we went to a
shelter for a cat or dog except as to whether or not we had children under
six years of age. They refused to let us have a dog or cat if a child was
under six. As we then had a new born and a five year old, my husband
found a collie for sale in the newspaper ad. He came home with a dog, a
cat, and a bag of peaches. The dog loved the five year old.
Nancy
Nancy

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 10:38?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

Aren't they a dime a dozen anywhere? Not exactly, in the US since the
pandemic. This is just about cats; I would not be surprised if
situation similar for dog adoption



One of the anecdotes depicts an experience our family had. I thought
people here might find this of interest

Ellen

The questions asked sounded more like the couple were trying to foster or
adopt a child than a cat. No one ever asked us questions when we went to a
shelter for a cat or dog except as to whether or not we had children under
six years of age. They refused to let us have a dog or cat if a child was
under six. As we then had a new born and a five year old, my husband
found a collie for sale in the newspaper ad. He came home with a dog, a
cat, and a bag of peaches. The dog loved the five year old.
Nancy
Nancy

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 10:38?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

Aren't they a dime a dozen anywhere? Not exactly, in the US since the
pandemic. This is just about cats; I would not be surprised if
situation similar for dog adoption



One of the anecdotes depicts an experience our family had. I thought
people here might find this of interest

Ellen

If Youngman's book focuses on unfairness to men, then it is missing the
boat by a country mile from what Jane Austen's focus was, which was
unfairness to women.

ARNIE

On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 1:23?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io <regencyresearcher=
[email protected]> wrote:

Interesting concept as it really , off hand, doesn't seem as though her
male relatives had a great deal of discouragement, or abysmal poverty. Her
father's family were orphaned early and were poor. He received a
university education and a profession. His sister had to go out to India
to find a husband.
Austen's immediate family weren't destitute. yes when Mr. Austen died the
woman had to be careful with other money. However, that was sort of like
the problem with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Dashwood. The fathers could have and
should have set aside money over the years, but didn't.
Nancy


On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 11:50?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

This is the book Diana's reading group has chosen for this month. I
finally found an inexpensive copy. It's written in a popular style.
The method or idea is to tell Austen's life in such a way as wherever
possible bring in all the abysmal poverty, profound inequality, and
where various social, political economic structures kept down all
sorts of people Austen, but more her male family members encountered a
lot.

So it's not a misread or misappropriation of documentable events,
people, conditions at the time

Ellen

Interesting concept as it really , off hand, doesn't seem as though her
male relatives had a great deal of discouragement, or abysmal poverty. Her
father's family were orphaned early and were poor. He received a
university education and a profession. His sister had to go out to India
to find a husband.
Austen's immediate family weren't destitute. yes when Mr. Austen died the
woman had to be careful with other money. However, that was sort of like
the problem with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Dashwood. The fathers could have and
should have set aside money over the years, but didn't.
Nancy


On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 11:50?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

This is the book Diana's reading group has chosen for this month. I
finally found an inexpensive copy. It's written in a popular style.
The method or idea is to tell Austen's life in such a way as wherever
possible bring in all the abysmal poverty, profound inequality, and
where various social, political economic structures kept down all
sorts of people Austen, but more her male family members encountered a
lot.

So it's not a misread or misappropriation of documentable events,
people, conditions at the time

Ellen

This is the book Diana's reading group has chosen for this month. I
finally found an inexpensive copy. It's written in a popular style.
The method or idea is to tell Austen's life in such a way as wherever
possible bring in all the abysmal poverty, profound inequality, and
where various social, political economic structures kept down all
sorts of people Austen, but more her male family members encountered a
lot.

So it's not a misread or misappropriation of documentable events,
people, conditions at the time

Ellen

Aren't they a dime a dozen anywhere? Not exactly, in the US since the
pandemic. This is just about cats; I would not be surprised if
situation similar for dog adoption



One of the anecdotes depicts an experience our family had. I thought
people here might find this of interest

Ellen

DIANA: “Arnie asks: Can someone help me locate the famous line when the
narrator says that Elizabeth becomes careful about making fun of Darcy???

It is at the bottom of Chapter 58: Elizabeth longed to observe that Mr.
Bingley had been a most delightful friend -- so easily guided, that his
worth was invaluable; but she checked herself. She remembered that he had
yet to learn to be laught at, and it was rather too early to begin.”



Thank you, Diana, I was also directed to that passage by another helpful
friend. Don’t you find that passage curious, vis a vis our discussion,
that right before Elizabeth makes that speech to Darcy, she has stopped
herself from jabbing him, because she recognizes that he is still liable to
narcissistic injury when his character flaws (or bad actions) are pointed
out to him, especially in a satirical way?



DIANA: “And Arnie asks, Don't you think that Elizabeth, in rewriting the
history of their courtship, has unwittingly begun to fit, to a tee, her own
descriptors for the other women who Darcy was beset by?:
Well, no I don't. Elizabeth will never be like the other women because
first she is unique, and secondly situationally she is the one Darcy has
got, and who has got him, and they are completely happy with that state of
补蹿蹿补颈谤蝉.”



You beg the question, when you assert she is unique, because I would argue
it is even more plausible that she believes herself to be unique, a
“studier of character” (as Bingley satirically jabbed at her way back in
the Netherfield salon), but she is not so unique. She judges Charlotte for
being mercenary, and yet, we then get lots of pointed hints (just ask Sir
Walter Scott, with his memorable one-liner about that, tucked away in his
famous review of *Emma*) that suggest that, unwittingly, she is just as
mercenary as Charlotte. It's all about the point of view of the narrative
voice - I say you get two different novels, depending on whether you treat
the narrator as mostly objective or mostly subjective.



DIANA: “And by Chapter 60, when her spirits are rising to playfulness
again, she judges that he is now fully ready to be taught to be "laught"
at, and she indulges herself joyfully, making fun, with her usual means of
witty exaggeration, of both their previous misunderstandings, proclivities
and absurdities.”



Again, that is totally ambiguous -your interpretation is plausible, but
mine is equally plausible. As you know, I believe this is another in that
same category of ambiguities which she joked about (via her paraphrase of
Scott’s Marmion) in the famous letter to Cassandra, and we are called upon
to use our “ingenuity” to parse out all the possibilities.



DIANA: When she says he has always been noble and just, she is referring to
how she finally learned that he is a fine and amiable person under his
"disguise" - and her phraseology, "in spite of the pains you took to
disguise yourself," is tongue in cheek, an Elizabeth piece of wit.”



And yet again, you illustrate Austen’s pervasive mastery of ambiguity. Is
it tongue in cheek, or not? I’d wager that the vast majority of readers of
P&P have taken that line at face value, as genuine praise of Darcy’s
nobility and justness. But I readily grant you that it is plausible to read
it as ironic (and another Janeite claimed much the same in another
discussion group recently).



I’d say that Elizabeth tells herself that her spirits have risen again, but
it’s a sad shadow of the genuine barbed Beatrice-like satire she hurled at
Darcy during the first half of the novel. It’s abject flattery disguised as
wit.



DIANA: “She attributes his past bad humour and sullenness to his boredom
and annoyance with all the flatterers. It took time for Darcy to realize
that in this backwater of ill manners she was not one of them, but a
rarity. They have now arrived at a happy understanding of it all, and in
his eyes she can never be anything but somebody rare and special. Not a
Miss Bingley.”



But he was the rudest person in the room during the first half of the
novel, most of all when Elizabeth dared to turn down his first proposal.



DIANA: “And she forgives his earlier loutishness, because she has learned
his real fineness (and also enjoys his most agreeable and flattering love
of her!). If her approval of him now, and the praises she lavishes, sound
like Miss Bingley-like flattery to you, well, they are not. They're as
special and heartfelt as their love, and Lizzy will be laughing at him, and
Mr. Darcy enjoying it, for the rest of their lives.”



And I say that there are two plausible readings – one as you have
eloquently put it, and one that is the opposite – and I say Jane Austen
wrote both of those versions, because (as Margaret Atwood put it) in the
real world a man like Darcy reforms and repents after being told off by a
woman, out of love for that women, very very very rarely indeed – Jane
Austen was surely aware of that.



ARNIE

Arnie asks:? Can someone help me locate the famous line?when the narrator says that Elizabeth becomes careful about making fun of?Darcy???
?It is at the bottom of Chapter 58:??Elizabeth longed to observe that Mr. Bingley had been a most delightful friend -- so easily guided, that his worth was invaluable; but she checked herself. She remembered that he had yet to learn to be laught at, and it was rather too early to begin.?And Arnie asks,?Don't you think that Elizabeth, in rewriting the history of their?courtship, has unwittingly begun to fit, to a tee, her own descriptors for?the other women who Darcy was beset by?:
?Well, no I don't. Elizabeth will never be like the other women because first she is unique, and secondly situationally she is the one Darcy has got, and who has got him, and they are completely happy with that state of affairs. And by Chapter 60, when her spirits are rising to playfulness again, she judges that he is now fully ready to be taught to be "laught" at, and she indulges herself joyfully, making fun, with her usual means of witty exaggeration, of both their previous misunderstandings, proclivities and absurdities. When she says he has always been noble and just, she is referring to how she finally learned that he is a fine and amiable person under his "disguise" - and her phraseology, "in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself," is tongue in cheek, an Elizabeth piece of wit. She attributes his past bad humour and sullenness to his boredom and annoyance with all the flatterers. It took time for Darcy to realize that in this backwater of ill manners?she?was not one of them, but a rarity. They have now arrived at a happy understanding of it all, and in his eyes she can never be anything but somebody rare and special. Not a Miss Bingley. And she forgives his earlier loutishness, because she has learned his real fineness (and also enjoys his most agreeable and flattering love of her!).? If her approval of him now, and the praises she lavishes, sound like Miss Bingley-like flattery to you, well, they are not. They're as special and heartfelt as their love, and Lizzy will be laughing at him, and Mr. Darcy enjoying it, for the rest of their lives.??Diana

Nancy,



But that wasn't a disguise by Darcy, that was exactly who Darcy was - an
arrogant, narcissistic, aloof snob!



As Elizabeth herself accurately satirized him:



“I am perfectly convinced by it that Mr. Darcy has no defect. He owns it
himself without disguise.”



Don't you think that Elizabeth, in rewriting the history of their
courtship, has unwittingly begun to fit, to a tee, her own descriptors for
the other women who Darcy was beset by?:



"deference", "officious attention", "always speaking, and looking, and
thinking for [Darcy's] approbation alone", "persons who so assiduously
courted [Darcy]".



That's exactly what Elizabeth is doing in this speech. She deludes herself
into thinking she is different, when actually she WAS different, but now
has become just like the rest of them!



And maybe there’s one more “tell” in her speech – she has become another
one of those assiduous female wooers of Darcy, because Darcy is "noble" -
"noble" not in the sense of “very moral and good” but in unwittingly
referring to his aristocratic lineage – and note how that fits perfectly
with the "joke" Elizabeth told Jane (only one chapter earlier, so it was
fresh in her mind!) about when Elizabeth first fell in love with Darcy,
i.e., about seeing Darcy's estate at Pemberley. We see now that Elizabeth,
in joking about when she fell in love with Darcy, flips the subject when
she sees him, and asks him the same question – we are meant to connect
these dots!!!



In short, the only disguise going on in that speech is Elizabeth’s
disguise, in her desperate attempt to disguise the sharp-tongued, deflater
of bloated male egos whom she was 45 chapters earlier, but which she has
stuffed down out of sight, so as not to rub Darcy the wrong way by making
fun of him – in that regard, can someone help me locate the famous line
when the narrator says that Elizabeth becomes careful about making fun of
Darcy???



ARNIE


On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 12:41?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

To look arrogant and toplofty.judgemental, biased.
To be fair to Darcy, he was a wealthy bachelor and probably had women
falling at his feet when ever he stepped away from his own fireside. He put
up with Caroline and the Hursts because he enjoyed Bingley's company. They
couldn't follow him to his own house. At this time( when we first meet him)
he is a guest of Bingley, He is probably already tired of Caroline but
can't snub his host's sister too much.
Nancy

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 3:04?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:
I just noticed something yesterday for the first time after countless
readings and considerations of the following memorable speech by
Elizabeth to Darcy in Chapter 60, which the narrator characterizes as the
result of “Elizabeth’s spirits soon rising to playfulness again” (a
characterization which, if you think about it, may equally plausibly
reflect the assessment by the author, or by Elizabeth herself, or both):
“…The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious
attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking,
and looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused and
interested you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really
amiable you would have hated me for it: but in spite of the pains you took
to disguise yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your
heart you thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you.
There—I have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all
things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure you
know no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in
love.” What I hadn’t noticed before, as far as I can recall, is this line:
“in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings
were always noble and just”
What do any of you understand Elizabeth to mean by Darcy’s “disguise”?

ARNIE

To look arrogant and toplofty.judgemental, biased.
To be fair to Darcy, he was a wealthy bachelor and probably had women
falling at his feet when ever he stepped away from his own fireside. He
put up with Caroline and the Hursts because he enjoyed Bingley's company.
They couldn't follow him to his own house. At this time( when we first meet
hi) he is a guest of Bingley, He is probably already tired of Caroline but
can't snub his host's sister too much.
Nancy

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 3:04?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

I just noticed something yesterday for the first time after countless
readings and considerations of the following memorable speech by Elizabeth
to Darcy in Chapter 60, which the narrator characterizes as the result of
“Elizabeth’s spirits soon rising to playfulness again” (a characterization
which, if you think about it, may equally plausibly reflect the assessment
by the author, or by Elizabeth herself, or both):



“…The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious
attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and
looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused and interested
you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable you
would have hated me for it: but in spite of the pains you took to disguise
yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart you
thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There—I
have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things
considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure you know
no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.”



What I hadn’t noticed before, as far as I can recall, is this line:



“in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were
always noble and just”



What do any of you understand Elizabeth to mean by Darcy’s “disguise”?



ARNIE

I just noticed something yesterday for the first time after countless
readings and considerations of the following memorable speech by Elizabeth
to Darcy in Chapter 60, which the narrator characterizes as the result of
“Elizabeth’s spirits soon rising to playfulness again” (a characterization
which, if you think about it, may equally plausibly reflect the assessment
by the author, or by Elizabeth herself, or both):



“…The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of deference, of officious
attention. You were disgusted with the women who were always speaking, and
looking, and thinking for your approbation alone. I roused and interested
you, because I was so unlike them. Had you not been really amiable you
would have hated me for it: but in spite of the pains you took to disguise
yourself, your feelings were always noble and just; and in your heart you
thoroughly despised the persons who so assiduously courted you. There—I
have saved you the trouble of accounting for it; and really, all things
considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure you know
no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.”



What I hadn’t noticed before, as far as I can recall, is this line:



“in spite of the pains you took to disguise yourself, your feelings were
always noble and just”



What do any of you understand Elizabeth to mean by Darcy’s “disguise”?



ARNIE

I think it is also a way of indicating very mixed emotions. Mr. Bennet is not only angry,
I think he feels betrayed - one of his daughters didn't tattle on her sister. Keeping the
secret is, to him, a disregarding of his authority. He may even be feeling hurt. He may
think that he deserved their support for having trusted them not to disgrace the family.

Austen's opinion can be seen at the end of the novel, when Elizabeth takes Kitty in hand
and re-educates her, with presumably an acceptable marriage in Kitty's future.

Dorothy

Thanks for your cogent reply

I can tell you that I’ve now discussed this very question in two other Austen venues, and what has emerged is even more ambiguity

Turns out you can plausibly read this passage, and a follow up passage in the next chapter when Kitty is briefly cross examined about her possible complicity in Lydia’s scheme, as showing Kitty to either be the object of Mr Bennet’s punitive fury or Lydia’s “useful” idiot,
Or various shades of meaning in between.

It’s ambiguous as to who is angry at whom, and whose confidence is referred to.

All completely deliberate on Austen’s part.

Arnie

Arnie, I think your first reading is more on the mark.

Yes, Jane’s statement is passive voice, but I’ve always interpreted that in part as Jane’s nicey nice way of saying that pretty much everyone in the family is really frustrated and ticked off with Kitty for not having spilled the beans – tho, “as it was a matter of confidence…” she immediately also excused her conduct.

Thus, “Kitty has anger” directed at her from, basically, her whole family for having kept the dangerous secret.

By the way, isn’t the confidence in question merely that Lydia fancies Mr Wickham? I don’t think the plan, and thus the knowledge, of the “elopement” could have been formed until just before desperation forced its execution. Ant the express that followed their departure would have preceded any letter that might have reached Kitty about the actual running away.

Dorothy


Arnie wrote:
After Lydia runs off with Wickham, Jane writes to Elizabeth, in part, as
follows:

“and as to my father, I never in my life saw him so affected. Poor Kitty
has anger for having concealed their attachment; but as it was a matter of
confidence, one cannot wonder.”

To my 20-21st century ears, this seems an odd, awkward passive voice way of
saying that Mr. Bennet was angry at Kitty – is it that Jane is reluctant to
just come out and say that Papa is really pissed at Kitty, or was this an
archaic way of saying this?

Oh yes Nancy, of course, thank you for pointing to another reading!

I see now that this is another one of those deliberately ambiguous bits of narration that JA winked at in her “dull elves” quotation to Cassandra -

It reads perfectly plausibly either as

Mr Bennet’s anger at Kitty for keeping Lydia’s confidence in Lydia’s scheme to run off with Wickham

or

Kitty being angry at Lydia for not having told Kitty test Kitty would be left “holding the bag”, so to speak - Kitty probably thought she’d be taken along on an unspecified adventure with Lydia and Wickham, and then they’d all go back to Meryton

- that makes the last narrative comment very ironic, i.e., from Lydia’s point of view Kitty was on a need to know basis, and Kitty might not have cooperated if she had understood the full plan. Pretty cold of Lydia in that event.

Arnie