The
other day, I read the following very interesting Austenian discussion at an
academic blog:
Jane
Austen and imply and infer (by
Ingrid Tieken):
K.C. Phillipps, in his book Jane
Austen’s English (1970), identified a usage problem in Jane Austen’s
language: “The one usage to which the purist might object is INFER in the sense
of ‘imply’, though the OED has several instances of this:
“…an
alacrity and cheerfulness which seemed to INFER that she could taste no greater
delight. (S&S).” Analysing Jane Austen’s language for my forthcoming book
on the language of her letters, I learnt that her usage should never be
underestimated, so I wonder if she did this deliberately. Any views on this?”
END
QUOTE
As
those who read my posts regularly already know, I could not agree more with
Tieken (a distinguished Dutch scholar of “sociohistorical linguistics”) in her final assertion
that JA’s “usage should never been underestimated”-and, indeed, as I will show
below, Tieken’s acute intuition as to JA’s “erroneous” usage of “infer” was
spot-on that JA “did this deliberately”!
Turns out, upon close examination, JA really did want her readers to (1) notice
the error, (2) wonder why it might have been planted in Chapter 23, and then (3)
realize that this “error” actually was a giant, subliminal, and diabolically
clever clue pointing to the word puzzle at the heart of S&S!
Before
reading further, can you guess what it is?
Hint:
It’s something a word puzzle I have written about many times.
Scroll
down for my answer whenever you wish….
……..scroll
down…
……..scroll
down…
……..scroll
down…
……..scroll
down…
In a
nutshell, my explanation for the textual crux detected by Tieken in Ch. 23 of
S&S is that Jane Austen deliberately used the erroneous “inFER” in that
passage instead of the correct “imply”, so as to draw the attention of
a very sharp reader (like Phillipps in 1970) to that passage, which was all
about Lucy Steele, and to plant a
subliminal clue, via the syllable “FER” to Lucy’s future married name, Lucy FERrars,
which, as I have been asserting since 2005, is a word puzzle for “LUCIFER”!:
Think
I’m reaching too far this time? Well, read on and see how this example fits
perfectly into the matrix of subliminal allusion to “Lucifer” which I last
summarized in the above-linked August 2013 blog post of mine.
First,
here is the full context in Ch. 23, chez
Middleton, which shows that it really is all about Lucy:
“They
all rose up in preparation for a round game.
“I am
glad," said Lady Middleton to Lucy, "you are not going to finish poor
little Annamaria's basket this evening; for I am sure it must hurt your eyes to
work filigree by candlelight. And we will make the dear little love some amends
for her disappointment to-morrow, and then I hope she will not much mind
it."
This
hint was enough, Lucy recollected herself instantly and replied, "Indeed
you are very much mistaken, Lady Middleton; I am only waiting to know whether
you can make your party without me, or I should have been at my filigree
already. I would not disappoint the little angel for all the world: and if you
want me at the card-table now, I am resolved to finish the basket after
supper."
"You
are very good, I hope it won't hurt your eyes—will you ring the bell for some
working candles? My poor little girl would be sadly disappointed, I know, if
the basket was not finished tomorrow, for though I told her it certainly would
not, I am sure she depends upon having it done."
Lucy
directly drew her work table near her and reseated herself with an alacrity and
cheerfulness which seemed to INFER that she could taste no greater delight than
in making a filigree basket for a spoilt child.” END QUOTE
I did
some quick word searching in JA’s novels, and determined that Jane Austen used “imply”
correctly on over a dozen occasions, and, similarly, that she used “infer”
correctly on over a dozen occasions, including a few examples of each in
S&S itself. The single solitary exception was the erroneous usage
identified by Phillipps in 1970.
This
overwhelming pattern of correct grammatical usage makes it very improbable that
Jane Austen made a grammatical error. So the only possibility other than
intentional error would be an error of proofreading, in which the printer erred
in transcribing JA’s manuscript, and then she failed to detect the error.
Here’s
why I am convinced it was intentional and thematic.
Check
out the following textual snippets from the very end of Chapter 22, and then in Chapter 23 prior to the above
passage with the error:
“Marianne,
who had never much toleration for any thing like impertinence, vulgarity, INFERIORITY
of parts, or even difference of taste from herself, was at this time
particularly ill-disposed, from the state of her spirits, to be pleased with
the Miss Steeles, or to encourage their advances…
…Could
he ever be tolerably happy with Lucy Steele; could he, were his affection for
herself out of the question, with his integrity, his delicacy, and
well-informed mind, be satisfied with a wife like her—illiterate, artful, and
selfish?
The
youthful infatuation of nineteen would naturally blind him to every thing but
her beauty and good nature; but the four succeeding years—years, which if
rationally spent, give such improvement to the understanding, must have opened
his eyes to her defects of education, while the same period of time, spent on
her side in INFERIOR society and more frivolous pursuits, had perhaps robbed
her of that simplicity which might once have given an interesting character to
her beauty.
If in
the supposition of his seeking to marry herself, his difficulties from his
mother had seemed great, how much greater were they now likely to be, when the
object of his engagement was undoubtedly INFERIOR in connections, and probably INFERIOR
in fortune to herself. These difficulties, indeed, with a heart so alienated
from Lucy, might not press very hard upon his patience; but melancholy was the
state of the person by whom the expectation of family opposition and
unkindness, could be felt as a relief!
… Lucy
directly drew her work table near her and reseated herself with an alacrity and
cheerfulness which seemed to infer that she could taste no greater delight than
in making a filigree basket for a spoilt child. Lucy directly drew her work
table near her and reseated herself with an alacrity and cheerfulness which
seemed to INFER that she could taste no greater delight than in making a
filigree basket for a spoilt child.
… And
so well was she able to answer her own expectations, that when she joined them
at dinner only two hours after she had first sufFERed the extinction of all her
dearest hopes, no one would have supposed from the appearance of the sisters,
that Elinor was mourning in secret over obstacles which must divide her for
ever from the object of her love, and that Marianne was internally dwelling on
the perfections of a man, of whose whole heart she felt thoroughly possessed,
and whom she expected to see in every carriage which drove near their house….Much
as she had sufFERed from her first conversation with Lucy on the subject, she
soon felt an earnest wish of renewing it; and this for more reasons than one.
My
ALL CAPS references in the above passages make clear, I hope, that Jane Austen has
gone out of her way to use the phoneme “fer” numerous times in a short textual
interval leading up to the erroneous use of
“infer”—four references to Lucy’s being “inferior” and two references to
Elinor’s “suffering” at Lucy’s hands. The subliminal message, I suggest, is
that Lucy is going to be a “Ferrars” sometime soon. And what better place in
the entire novel for JA to present this clue to Lucy’s future married name than
right after Lucy has chosen, with Luciferian cunning, to inform Elinor about
Lucy’s secret engagement to Elinor’s beloved Edward FERrars!
And,
best of all, this error fits perfectly with JA’s having Lucy speak in extremely
ungrammatical English! It is Lucy’s apparent poor command of English, born of a
lack of education, which makes Elinor feel so intellectually superior to Lucy,
and so mystified by Edward’s attraction to Lucy. Guess where the definitive
narrative discussion of this point is located—in the very same passage I quoted
above, which discusses Lucy’s “inferiority”!!
And so
I suggest further to you that just as Harriet Smith plays dumb with Emma, and speaks
ungrammatically as a key technique for triggering a snobbish elitist response
from Emma, so too does Lucy Steele play dumb, and use poor grammar as a
Luciferian misdirection and disguise. And, one more layer---the misdirecting wordgames
played by Jane Austen are mirroring Lucy’s misdirections in courtship strategy,
wheels within wheels within wheels!
In
short, then, I hope I’ve convinced you of the wisdom of drawing the inference
that Jane Austen intentionally misused “infer” to subliminally reveal her own “Luciferian”
nature and strategic manipulation of the arc of the novel!
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode
on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment