Last
summer, I wrote about the word “unaccountable” as JA’s code for “lesbian” in her
novels, most saliently in Elizabeth Bennet’s deeply upset reaction to Charlotte
Lucas’s marrying Mr. Collins:
“As
another unexpected bonus in terms of my own interpretation of Charlotte as
lesbian, as I was reading one of those scholarly takes on Anna Howe as lesbian,
I read, in passing, the assertion (which I then verified to my satisfaction)
that the word “unaccountable” was 18th century punning code for
“lesbian” . I immediately recalled Elizabeth’s grumbling world-weary
comments to sister Jane about Charlotte’s marriage to Mr. Collins:
“There
are few PEOPLE WHOM I REALLY LOVE, and still fewer of whom I think well. The
more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day
confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the
little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense. I
have met with two instances lately, one I will not mention; the other is
Charlotte's marriage. It is UNACCOUNTABLE! In every view it is UNACCOUNTABLE!...were
I persuaded that Charlotte had any regard for him, I should only think worse of
her understanding than I now do of her heart. My dear Jane, Mr. Collins is a
conceited, pompous, narrow-minded, silly man; you know he is, as well as I do;
and you must feel, as well as I do, that the woman who married him cannot have
a proper way of thinking. You shall not defend her, though it is Charlotte
Lucas. You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of
principle and integrity, nor endeavour to persuade yourself or me, that
selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger security for
happiness."
It’s
now obvious to me that this speech, which I already interpreted as Eliza
venting her unconscious jealousy of Charlotte---who not only married an absurd
husband, but also moved far away from Eliza--- also reflects that JA, from her
extensive readings of 18th century novels, understood that code of
“unaccountable” as “lesbian” very well indeed, and that’s why she has Eliza
exclaim that word not once but twice
about Charlotte! And I think JA also picked
up on the following passage in Vol 1, Letter 25, when Clarissa, writing to
Anna, quotes from her mother’s (i.e., Mrs. Harlowe’s) letter:
“I
charge you, let not this letter be found. Burn it. There is too much of the
mother in it, to A DAUGHTER SO UNACCOUNTABLY OBSTINATE.”
The
sexual pun works perfectly here, as it is Clarissa’s “unaccountable” and
“obstinate” lesbian love for Anna which, in part, motivates Clarissa to reject
both the loathsome Solmes AND the attractive Lovelace.”
END
QUOTE FROM MY 2015 POST
What
I didn’t mention in that post last summer was the specific, key literary source
I believe lay behind both JA and Richardson: “The
Unaccountable Wife”, one
of several inset tales in Jane Barker’s 1723 novel A Patch-work Screen for the Ladies. In it, Barker tells, in “screened”
code, a brief but
moving tale of unmentionable romantic love between a wife and her maidservant,
a relationship which survives despite enormous obstacles thrown in their path.
The wife’s husband and the rest of the straight world repeatedly try to
separate them, but the “unaccountable” wife – unaccountably in the mind of the
straight world --- shows constant love and devotion to her “only friend”---another
woman, and a woman from a lower social class to boot!
Earlier
today, when I reread my above 2015 post, I couldn’t recall whether I had searched
for “unaccountable” in JA’s peripheral fiction, as well as in her published
novels. It turned out that I hadn’t, and when I did that search this morning, what
a treasure I found! As you’ll see below, I retrieved not one but two jewels
from the Austenian deep; and, fittingly, one was from a very early stage in JA’s
writing career, and one was from the very very end, as she (literally) lay
dying, in almost the last words of fiction she composed.
“UNACCOUNTABLE
SUSPICION” IN LOVE & FREINDSHIP:
In
the madcap juvenilia Love &
Freindship (written—and misspelled--by JA when not yet 15!), JA at one
point creates a particular matrix of relationship, which she would revisit in a
much more sophisticated and complex manner in Northanger Abbey. In the
passage I quote below, we find the 55-year old epistolary protagonist Laura, recalling
and summarizing, for the purpose of educating her young female correspondent Marianne
in the ways of the world, one episode from among Laura’s several wild and crazy
youthful adventures. As you read it, just think of Laura and her close friend
Sophia as a composite model for Catherine Morland; Janetta as a source for Eleanor
Tilney, Mr. MacDonald as General Tilney, and MacDonald Hall as a proto-Northanger
Abbey:
“I
related…every other misfortune which had befallen me since
we parted. …of our [meaning, Laura and Sophia] visit to Macdonald-Hall—of the
singular service we there performed towards Janetta [Laura
and Sophia, like Friar Laurence and the Nurse in Romeo & Juliet, have just aided and abetted Janetta’s elopement
with a suitor she loves, rather than marry her father’s choice] —of her
Father’s ingratitude for it ... of his inhuman Behaviour, UNACCOUNTABLE
SUSPICIONS, and barbarous treatment of us, in obliging us to leave the House
... of our lamentations on the loss of Edward and Augustus and finally of the
melancholy Death of my beloved Companion.”
I believe
that, even at 15 (and in this regard, please recall the 16-year old JA’s X-Rated
Sharade on James I’s “pet” Robert Carr), JA meant to hint, in code, that Mr.
MacDonald suspects Laura and Sophia not just of thwarting his matrimonial
schemes for his daughter, or even of attempting to rob him (as Laura comically
describes), but of something far more “unaccountable” to a homophobic man of that
society than either elopement or theft—i.e., of Laura and Sophia being women in
love with each other, instead of with men!
And,
by the way, it’s that same “unaccountable suspicion” of lesbianism, that I
believe Val McDermid was spot-on about, in her recent novel adaptation of Northanger Abbey, as I also wrote last
year: “McDermid suggested that General
Tilney abruptly boots Catherine out of the Abbey because he wishes to put the
kibosh on a budding lesbian romance between Eleanor and Catherine. While this
plot twist has elicited snorts of scorn from many Janeites who’ve read
McDermid’s retelling, I have long believed that Jane Austen very intentionally
created a very strong erotic subtext in the relationship between Eleanor and
Catherine. So I say that McDermid was spot-on in inferring the banishment of
Catherine from the Abbey as a probable consequence of Colonel Tilney’s
discovery of same.”
So,
now that we’ve seen JA writing about “unaccountable” lesbian relationships at
15 in Love & Freindship and then again
at age 37 in Pride & Prejudice,
it should come as no surprise that this code also pops up one more time, at the
end of JA’s life four years later, as she started writing the seventh novel
that she did not live to complete.
“UNACCOUNTABLE”
DIANA PARKER IN SANDITON
The
other passage I was led to by my word search this morning was the following
torrent of words spoken by Diana Parker to young heroine Charlotte Heywood when
they first meet, in the next to last chapter of the Sanditon fragment:
“…Miss
Heywood, I astonish you. You hardly know what to make of me. I see by your
looks that you are not used to such quick measures."
The
words "UNACCOUNTABLE officiousness!—Activity run mad!" had just
passed through Charlotte's mind, but a civil answer was easy.
"I
dare say I do look surprised," said [Charlotte], "because these are
very great exertions, and I know what invalids both you and your sister are.
"Invalids
indeed. I trust there are not three people in England who have so sad a right
to that appellation! But my dear Miss Heywood, we are sent into this world to
be as extensively useful as possible, and where some degree of strength of mind
is given, it is not a feeble body which will excuse us or incline us to excuse
ourselves. The world is pretty much divided between the weak of mind and the
strong; between those who can act and those who cannot; and it is the bounden
duty of the capable to let no opportunity of being useful escape them. My
sister's complaints and mine are happily not often of a nature to threaten
existence immediately. And as long as we can exert ourselves to
be of use to others, I am convinced that the body is the better for the
refreshment the mind receives in doing its duty. While I have been travelling
with this object in view, I have been perfectly well."
The
entrance of the children ended this little panegyric on her own disposition…”
END
QUOTE FROM SANDITON MANUSCRIPT
So,
following the logic of my posts about the “unaccountable” Charlotte Lucas and
Anna Howe, I asked myself, was Charlotte’s thinking of Diana as “unaccountable”
a sly suggestion by Jane Austen, writing in March 1817 (or more than a quarter
century after she wrote Love and Friendship)
that Diana Parker---whom we as readers barely get to meet before Austen’s
fragment breaks off less than a quarter of the way through the novel---was a
closet lesbian?
As
soon as I read the above passage (not for the first time, but for the first
time with a possible lesbian subtext in mind), I immediately realized that it
was, and how….because I suddenly
connected the dots between Diana Parker’s “panegyric” on the great power, but
also the great responsibility, of the strong of mind vis a vis the weak of mind,
on the one hand, and the following passage that I practically know by heart
from my prior analysis of it:
“Beleive me, I was interested in all you
wrote, though with all the Egotism of an Invalid I write only of myself.-Your
Charity to the poor Woman I trust fails no more in effect, than I am sure it
does in exertion. What an interest it must be to you all! & how gladly sh.
I contribute more than my good wishes, were it possible!-But how you are
worried! Wherever Distress falls, you are expected to supply Comfort. Lady P. writing to you even from Paris for advice!-It
is the Influence of Strength over Weakness indeed.-GALIGAI DE CONCINI FOR EVER
& EVER.-Adeiu.- “
That excerpt
is from Letter 159, written by Jane Austen on May 22, 1817 (less than 3 months
before her death) to her dear friend (and, as I’ve long claimed, a woman JA
loved much more than a friend), Ann Sharpe. A decade earlier, Jane met Ann,
while the latter was the governess at Edward Austen Knight’s Kentish estate Godmersham,
and Ann was the donee of one of the dozen precious first editions of Emma only a year before. So she was very
special to Jane. I wrote several posts two
years ago here… http://tinyurl.com/ksww92r http://tinyurl.com/nc9hocl http://tinyurl.com/nofrqle
http://tinyurl.com/lpv95sv ….
on the theme of Jane Austen dying a proud lesbian, in which I explained how that
reference to “Galigai de Concini for ever & ever” was most of all a coded allusion,
which Ann understood, to the woman who was burnt at the stake almost exactly
four centuries earlier, purportedly for financial abuse of her fiduciary
relationship to her Medici patroness, but with the unspoken subtext of their
female friendship having been too close for public comfort – and if that sounds
like the reason why Laura and Sophia were banished from MacDonald Hall in Love & Freindship, it’s not a
coincidence! And while we’re looking at allusions, it’s also no coincidence
that Jane and Ann were in the same class mismatch as we saw in Jane Barker’s “The
Unaccountable Wife.”
CONCLUSION
So,
what is the takeaway of all this? There is much more than I can cover in this
post today, but I want to hit three points:
First,
it tells me that Jane Austen really was a few steps further down the brave path
toward bringing her non-heterosexual subtext closer to the surface of her
fiction, and I believe Diana Parker was going to be the key character carrying
the load of that subtext, along with the other character who is subversive of
male power in the Sanditon fragment,
Lady Denham – who I believe is going to be played by the lesbian cinema icon,
Charlotte Rampling, in the film adaptation of Sanditon in production.
Second,
it is a particularly good (and therefore egregious) example of how superficial and/or
misguided has been the general scholarly analysis of the relationship between Jane
Austen’s life and Jane Austen’s fiction – here we have an unmistakable and
obvious parallel between a passage in her final fiction—some of the last words
she every wrote down as an author---and one of her last letters—and yet, as far
as I can discern after diligent online search, no other Austen scholar has ever
noticed it.
Third
and last, and perhaps most significant to Janeites who love her novels but are
not that interested in her biography, it sheds very intriguing light on how Jane
Austen would have finished Sanditon
had she lived long enough. I suggest that we can infer from the above that
Diana Parker would have continued to play a role somewhat analogous to that
played by Miss Bates in Emma—i.e., right there in the thick of the action of
the story, but….because misunderstood and harshly judged by Charlotte, the
young naïve heroine, we would have had, as with Miss Bates, to piece out the
deep intrigue that really brought Diana Parker to Sanditon, under cover or
disguise of her parade of philanthropy.
Since
JA’s death, there have been several continuations of Sanditon, including most intriguingly the one by Jane Austen’s
writing niece (and psychological daughter), Anna Austen Lefroy. I will during
the coming weeks bring myself up to speed on how each of those continuations saw
the character of Diana Parker. And I am particularly curious to see how the Sanditon film will present Diana
Parker’s character. That is the interpretation that potentially will be seen by
a million eyeballs worldwide during the bicentennial of 1817, the year when JA
started, then stopped, writing Sanditon, then
wrote that love letter to Anne Sharpe, and then left this world with so many
questions unanswered.
Cheers,
ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment