开云体育

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 https://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/2024/12/16/a-christmas-blog-jane-austens-birthday-mrs-scrooge-a-2nd-poem-rehearsal-ball-18th-waters-complexly-considered/ Ellen

The gloves are off. Or are they? Having a Ball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21cNaGc9XDQ 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 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

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 >

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 https://www.salon.com/2024/12/06/cat-adoption-adopt-dont-shop/ 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 affairs.” 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

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

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? ARNIE

IMansfield Pafk is not titled after a main character (like Emma) nor a character trait (P+P, S+S). It is named after a place (like Northanger Abbey). It would be possible to consider MP as a study of the t hree estates: metaphorically man's field but in civilization, a park, not a forest. Even the forest seen is artificial. It's a story of three sisters whose marriages reflect three levels of society - the one who ran off and married down for love (the seaman), and seems content, the one who married up (we don't know for certain that it was for money and property but that seems likely), and the one who married Propriety (the churchman). The nominal heroine and her two cousins are another set of three - one runs off to marry for love, one marries for money and then tries for love, and Fanny who is all propriety and marries the churchman.

Emma and Fanny Price are two characters that can rouse those discussing them to violence/ As most of our discussions about them have been and are online the violence is verbal and not physical. Why do they generate such heat? Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who say they love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies and TV shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life. Those who have read all of her books quite often sate that they hate either Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both. hates a character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't Elizabeth Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story.

Confession: I have never read a complete edition of Austen’s letters. One reason for this is that it seems difficult to obtain an affordable edition – even a quick glance online now shows a dazzling variety of editions and prices, some of which are hundreds of dollars. Is there a cheap, unexpurgated, unabridged edition available that others can recommend? Dorothy Nancy wrote: I think every one should read Austen's letters. I like Chapman's edition. He has several compilations after the letters that add interest. Other's like the Deidre Lefaye edition. The letters allow one to make one's own opinion of Austen's life, attitudes, opinions.

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of Jane Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at least remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because Austen mentioned them in a letter or her books.

How revealing that you connect most closely with Fanny Price than any other literary figure. When I say Elinor Dashwood is my favorite of Austen’s heroines, she is also among the literary figures I feel closer to than any other.i know I don’t like recent & fashionable books or like them less than older ones because most of the time I can’t identify with their contemporary heroine.. I often bond with historical fiction heroines, so Catherine Fraser as played by Catriona Balfe, Harriet Vane in Sayers’ books and as played by Harriet Walter, in Trollope Madame Max. Authors Margaret Foster, Margaret Atwood, Claire Tomalin. Ellen > On Nov 7, 2024, at 1:08 PM, Nancy Mayer via groups.io <regencyresearcher@...> wrote: > > ?I do not connect with any author and probably feel closer to Fanny Price > than to any other literary figure. Of course, when I was younger I wanted > some of the adventures of the heroines. My first dream of fictional > characters was to have 3 sets of twins like the Bobbsey twins. When my > first child was born, I gave thanks that I didn't have twins. > I like Emily Dickinson as a poet. > > Nancy > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:08 AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody= >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is very interesting to me, even a subject close to my heart, for >> why have I spent my life among books. I have to say I can't think of >> any one author where I'm at home; I feel kindred spirits with a woman >> writer now and again or imagined woman character, but there are too >> many real differences. >> > > > > >

This is very interesting to me, even a subject close to my heart, for why have I spent my life among books. I have to say I can't think of any one author where I'm at home; I feel kindred spirits with a woman writer now and again or imagined woman character, but there are too many real differences. Woolf says, what country, when she is a woman. Yes women have not been regarded as part of the body politic; they are to connect through men and their families, but I've known lots of women who will assert a country, or tribal, or religious or place identity. If I used to have the latter (NYC), it's gone with time and change. No woman until the 20th century could live a life like mine; then this is a possibility. I share real attitudes with a very few, otherwise it's like women in an imagined past, analogous. I have no idea who my ancestors were; the furthest I go back is grandparents and a couple of great-grand. Immigrants in my parents' generation assimilated; Jews were exterminated Nonetheless I do bond and, as Matthew Arnold said of many European people of the later 19th century, literature replaces religion; you belong to and with worlds of readers and writers. Now some more closely resemble in what personally counts for me or they do or say something which I know dismisses or despises such as I. So there's where I begin to get antagonistic towards Hawthorne, and why I'm a feminist reader (reading against the grain or for the subtext. There is no recognizable woman character for me in Lampedusa; they are recognizable in Trollope but oh so different, or caricature, condescending. I bond with Austen's heroines, with Catriona Balfe as Clare, Angharad Rees as Demelza. The woman poet herself :) Janeites bond with an imagined Jane :) It's far more than meeting friends, but more lightly it is often that too. But I know these are worlds of words Ellen On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 10:03 AM Tyler Tichelaar via groups.io <tyler@...> wrote: > > I agree that Trollope is more likeable than Hawthorne. I feel I would have really liked Trollope, despite his foxhunting. I think he is an author whose best part of himself is displayed in his novels, despite his other faults. > > But Hawthorne I feel is a kindred spirit since I have a lot of that Puritan background that he has. His ancestor hung witches, and my ancestors were among the hung. His ancestors came over on the same ship as mine to found the Massachusetts Bay colony. He was obsessed with the past and spent time in libraries and government buildings digging up old records rather than living in the present, and I have often done the same, and his characters repeatedly try to break from the past that wants to possess them. I feel like I like Trollope but I am Hawthorne. I identify with him more than any other author though I do find several other authors more enjoyable to read, but with Hawthorne, I feel like I'm home, dysfunctional as home may be. >