“When a lady’s in the case: the “KNATCHural” BULL hiding in plain sight in Emma

In Janeites, Jane Fox wrote: “Judging from Austen's treatment of the relationship of Marianne Dashwood with Col Brandon, I'd guess that Austen's feelings about "poor Catherine" stemmed from her husband's being beyond the age of romance. Knightley's willingness to dance (and his ability to dance well) seems to be in the novel partly to show that he is young. Sixty would have been well into the flannel-waistcoat years. I'm not arguing against your interpretation, Arnie, just saying it's not even that simple ;-):”

Thanks for your substantive reply, Jane, and I agree that the huge age differential is surely a fraction of the sympathy behind that “poor Catherine”. But….I still think it’s the smaller fraction—i.e., Mr. Woodhouse’s “poor Miss Taylor” , “poor Mrs. Weston”, and “poor Isabella” are all about a woman getting married, and the unspecified dangers of marriage—regardless of the age of the husband! And in JA’s era, as I have argued a hundred times, the biggest danger of marriage for women of childbearing age was death in childbirth.

I also want to followup to my last post, and make one correction, and also add a very spicy addition to the allusive stew.

First I have learned by further digging that I must revise my guess as to the six attendees at the June 25, 1808 dinner at White Friars, as I will now explain. I now understand that White Friars was the small residence that Mrs. Knight moved into after she voluntarily passed Godmersham on to Edward Austen in 1797, and I see from JA’s 6/20/1808 letter the apparent specific circumstances that led up to that June 26, 1808 dinner party six days later:

“…we proceeded to the White Friars, where Mrs. K. was alone in her Drawing room, as gentle & kind & friendly as usual.—She enquired after every body, especially my Mother & yourself …This morning brought me a letter from Mrs. Knight, containing the usual Fee, & all the usual Kindness. She asks me to spend a day or two with her this week, to meet Mrs. C. Knatchbull, who with her Husband comes to the W. Friars today—& I beleive I shall go.—I have consulted Edward—& think it will be arranged for Mrs. J. A.’s going with me one morning, my staying the night, & Edward’s driving me home the next Evening.. . . .”

So, now it sounds like the six persons who would have been present at that dinner are JA, Edward Austen, Mrs. Mary Austen, Mrs. Knight, Edward Knatchbull and Harriott – and no Fanny Austen (later Knight) after all. Still, I’ve now initiated inquiries to see if I can find out when Edward Knatchbull first met Fanny, and if any mention of their interaction(s) can be found in their respective surviving diaries, etc. My sense is that the close connection of Mrs. Knight with both the Knatchbull and the Austen families would have created occasions when Fanny might have been in company with Edward Knatchbull when Fanny was still a teenager, but certainly they’d have met in 1814 -15 after Edward Knatchbull’s wife died, and while JA was writing Emma.

In that regard, I also note that JA makes some very interesting comments in Letter 98 (March 1814) about Edward Knatchbull’s younger half-brother, Wyndham Knatchbull, vis a vis Fanny. First JA, who, with Fanny, is in London visiting Henry at the time, writes:

"Young Wyndham accepts the invitation. He is such a nice, gentleman-like, unaffected sort of young man that I think he may do for Fanny.”

But then, later in the same letter, we read:

“This young Wyndham does not come after all; a very long and very civil note of excuse is arrived. It makes one moralise upon the ups and downs of this life.”

That last bit strikingly reminded me very much of another passage written by Jane Austen, which I just wrote about last week—i.e., it’s in exactly the same playful, mock-serious tone of the following excerpt from the 14 year old Jane Austen’s Love and Freindship which, I suggested, was part of her veiled allusion to the mythological Phaeton theme in two of Shakespeare’s plays:  Romeo & Juliet and Henry VIII, and also echoing her earlier parodic inversion of Hugh Blair’s sanctimonious advice about explicit authorial statements of a “moral”:

“We instantly quitted our seats and ran to the rescue of those who but a few moments before had been in so elevated a situation as a fashionably high phaeton, but who were now laid low and sprawling in the Dust. ‘What an ample subject for reflection on the uncertain Enjoyments of this World, would not that phaeton and the life of Cardinal Wolsey afford a thinking Mind!’…”

And…bringing this back to the Knatchbull subtext I see in Emma, this tidbit fits very nicely indeed.   I.e., if Mr. Knightley is, as I claim, in part based on Edward Knatchbull, and if Jane Austen already took note,  in 1814, of the recently widowed Edward Knatchbull’s strong romantic interest in the 21 year old Fanny Austen Knight, then….. isn’t it very interesting that JA, while writing Emma, explicitly referred, in one of her letters, to Wyndham Knatchbull, seeing him as a potential suitor for Fanny’s hand, a young man

(1) who must have lived in the imposing shadow of his elder half-brother, the future baronet; and

(2) who is “nice, gentleman-like” and “unaffected”; and

(3) who has promised to come to a social occasion during which he would’ve met Fanny Knight (aka “Emma Woodhouse”); and

(4) who flakes on the invitation at the last minute; and

(5) who writes “a very long and very civil note of excuse”;

(6) causing JA to make a very pointed and subtly literary comment on his having flaked.

Of course, by this list of 5 details, I am suggesting that Wyndham Knatchbull is, in JA’s allusive scheme for Emma…….the gentleman-like, never-quite-arriving Frank Churchill!

Aside from the above, I also have a bit more to add about Edward Knatchbull, Fanny’s future husband.

Edward Knatchbull was the eldest son of the 8^th baronet of the same name, and his father holds perhaps the dubious honor of having sired the most children of any man mentioned in JA’s letters—his first wife bore him two children before (apparently) dying in childbirth, then his second wife bore him seven children before (apparently) dying in childbirth, and then his much younger third wife (whose maiden name was Hawkins, by the way!) bore him eight more children and then survived him by two decades.

In my opinion, Jane Austen would have noticed such a man’s marital “career”, and not in a positive way. So, I believe she foresaw that such a man’s eldest son would follow in his father’s dubious footsteps. Mr. Woodhouse (if not the real life Edward Austen Knight) would have taken one look at Edward Knatchbull as a prospective husband for his unmarried daughter-heiress, and said “Poor Fanny!”   ;)

And, by the way, speaking of real life maiden names being slipped inobtrusively by JA into the text of Emma, do you think it’s just a coincidence that the maiden name of Wyndham Knatchbull’s mother was…..Graham, considering the following passage in Emma?:

"My dear Isabella,"—exclaimed [John K.] hastily—"pray do not concern yourself about my looks. Be satisfied with doctoring and coddling yourself and the children, and let me look as I chuse."

"I did not thoroughly understand what you were telling your brother," cried Emma, "about your friend Mr. GRAHAM’s intending to have a bailiff from Scotland, to look after his new estate. What will it answer? Will not the old prejudice be too strong?"

I.e., isn’t it more than a little curious that the second and third wives of the 8^th Baronet Edward Knatchbull were originally surnamed, respectively, Graham and Hawkins??? And please note, I had absolutely no idea of that being the case when I first came up with my theory of a veiled allusion in Emma to the Knatchbull family. It all looks even more intentional on JA’s part.

And, last but not least…..for those of you who consider all of the above what Sterne famously termed “a cock and bull story”, consider that when Mrs. Elton (nee Hawkins) very suggestively quotes from Gay’s “The Hare and Many Friends”…

"For when a lady's in the case,

        "You know all other things give place."

….as I have previously noted years ago, the hare in Gay’s sexually suggestive fable is being pursued by a pack of hounds, and finds that her so-called friends, one by one, make excuses and abandon her. And the cruelest abandonment of all is by………(KNATCH-urally) a BULL, who is distracted by his amorous attentions to “a fav’rite cow”!:

"Since ev'ry beast alive can tell
That I sincerely wish you well,
I may, without offence, pretend
To take the freedom of a friend;
Love calls me hence; a fav'rite cow
Expects me near yon barley mow;
And when a lady's in the case,
You know, all other things give place."

I.e., Knightley aka Knatchbull, ignore’s the hare’s (Jane Fairfax’s) plight, because he has his eyes set on ‘a fav’rite cow’—not Harriet, as Emma fears, but Emma herself!

Q.E.D.

Cheers,ARNIE

@JaneAustenCode on Twitter

Poor Catherine…..& Poor Mrs. Knatchbulls (past and future!)

 PART ONE:  In Janeites, I received an interesting response to my last post about Knightley’s pedophilic interest in baby Emma, and the creepiness of their eventual marriage:

"Have a look at the biography of Ariel and Will Durant. We'd be extremely censorious of that relationship, yet it seems to have worked very well. In the other direction, check out Benjamin and Mary Anne Disraeli -- although he was old enough not to be taken advantage of when they married."

I was not previously aware of either one. As was implied, the one that is far more relevant to Knightley and Emma is the Durant marriage.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Durant     ...given that Ariel was only 15 and he was 28 when they got married (and she was only 13 when they met!). And, at least from a creative point of view, it seems as if they were, for a half century, an extraordinary intellectual team working together on their monumental historical works. I also see that they wrote A Dual Autobiography in 1977--it would be interesting to read it, and see how they each described the circumstances of their courtship, and the nature of their personal relationship during their very long marriage.

That reply prompted me to clarify that I see two levels of dubiousness about Knightley's marrying Emma:

#1. The much less concerning issue is the simple age difference of the marriage, given that Knightley is nearly double Emma's age (37 to 21). There is no question that such marriages were not at all uncommon in Jane Austen's era, and for many years beyond--and as we can all see, they still happen. No one uses the word "pedophilia" to describe such marriages, if the two parties met when the younger one was already an adult.

The most interesting question for Janeites, I suggest, is whether Jane Austen herself approved of this common practice --I say, emphatically, no! She not only makes little jabs at such age-discrepant marriages in her letters (I recall, e.g., that she made a sarcastic comment in one of her letters about her good friend, one of the Bigg sisters, marrying the much older Revd. Herbert Hill), but I see the Knightley- Emma relationship as her definitive in-depth exploration of that very issue--after all, it is the only such strongly age-discrepant marriage of one of her heroines.

As with my other interpretations of the doubleness of Austen's novels, I believe that while on the surface, she seems to be giving her authorial blessing to their marriage, underneath I perceive (and i am far from alone in this view among Austen scholars) a persistent subtle drumbeat of disapproval--basically, that this marriage will not end well for Emma, as she is clearly operating from a much inferior power position in their relationship. It is only in her head that she will be an equal.

That is the greatest achievement of Emma, as i see it-- the reader is trapped inside Emma's head, and so when Emma convinces herself in the end that she always loved Knightley and he will be a great husband for her, most readers take that as Austen's blessing. Whereas, I believe, in a myriad of subtle ways, JA is inviting us to question the wisdom of Emma marrying Knightley.

and that leads directly to....

#2.. Knightley's explicitly (and unashamedly) recollecting his strong affection for Emma when she was very young, and doing so as a result of a direct and recent encounter with a female baby --- that is a FAR more serious and heinous scenario, because it suggests a strong and persistent PEDOPHILIC tendency that Knghtley has indulged over a very long period of time. The "baby" focus that I have now shown to have been present in both of the Knightley-Emma tete a tetes about his early "love" for Emma, makes the situation ten times more disturbing and bad than #1 would have been, had #1 (a la the Durant scenario) been the only element present in the novel.

And finally, I also see Knightley scheming from the very beginning of the novel to eventually manipulate Emma into marrying him:  "She always declares she will never marry, which, of course, means just nothing at all. But I have no idea that she has yet ever seen a man she cared for. It would not be a bad thing for her to be very much in love with a proper object. I should like to see Emma in love, and in some doubt of a return; it would do her good. But there is nobody hereabouts to attach her; and she goes so seldom from home."

It is more than a little chilling to read that in light of Knightley's later unashamed proclamations that he has loved Emma since she was 13-. I.e., the entire remainder of the novel can be viewed, in a cynical light, as Knightley executing a complicated game plan for putting Emma in serious doubt of a return, so as to make her "realize" that she loved Knightley all along, and to reduce to rubble her blithe assertions to Harriet that she will never marry.

PART TWO: As soon as I hit the "Send" button on my reply in Janeites, I recollected that I had two other significant observations to make about the age-discrepant relationship of Emma and Knightley, with its additional pedophilic overtones---both having to do with real life Austen family history.

First, I went back to the Letters, and found the passage I had vaguely recollected, in which Jane Austen made a veiled negative comment about the marriage of her friend Elizabeth Bigg:  Letter 60 dated 10/25/08: “Tomorrow I hope to hear from you, and tomorrow we must think of poor Catherine.” Le Faye, in her typical deliberate editorial obscurantism when she does not want her readers to recognize something dicey in JA’s comments, footnotes the above sentence thusly:  Catherine: “Bigg”.

Why is this obscurantist? Because Le Faye deliberately fails to provide an explanation of JA’s otherwise cryptic comment---why would Jane say to Cassandra that they must think of poor Catherine the next day? And how do I know that Le Faye could have explained JA’s meaning? Because Le Faye’s biographical note for Revd. Herbert Hill reveals that Catherine Bigg and Revd. Hill were married on……(surprise surprise)  the very same date as JA’s Letter 60, 10/25/08!!!  

Therefore, JA’s reference to the need to think of old friend Catherine Bigg as “poor Catherine” turns out to be a quintessential Mr. Woodhouse Moment--- JA is really calling Catherine “poor” because Catherine, at age 33, is about to marry a man aged 60. And---final brilliant touch—JA suggests they need to think of “poor” Catherine  with compassion  “tomorrow”, not “today”, because of the event that would inevitably transpire the evening of her wedding day, which would result in Catherine potentially waking up  “tomorrow” pregnant with a child conceived on her wedding night!  

So, in part, I think one of the seeds of Emma was planted the day Catherine Bigg got married to Revd. Hill. But that’s not the only age-discrepant marital scenario that plays out in Emma, that I see lurking in the shadows of JA’s letters. As my Subject Line suggests, it’s not just poor Mrs. Hill, but also the past and future Mrs. Knatchbulls!

I.e., I've believed for nearly a decade, that Emma Woodhouse was Jane Austen's very deliberate but veiled representation of her niece Fanny Knight. And I've also believed for nearly as long, that the eventual marriage of Emma and Knightley in the novel, was a totally accurate veiled prediction by Jane Austen that, despite Fanny's well-known courtship angst over her young suitors like Mssrs. Plumptre and Wilder, Fanny would eventually marry a much older squire from her father's social circle--which did in fact occur two years after Jane Austen's death, in 1820, when the 27 year old Fanny Knight married the 39 year old Edward Knatchbull.

Today I dug a little deeper, connecting more dots between fiction and reality. I wondered what sort of interactions Jane Austen might have observed between Fanny and her future husband, Edward Knatchbull, that might have found their way into Emma. I noted first that Edward Knatchbull married his first wife in 1806----when Fanny was thirteen----and proceeded to eventually send his bride to her early grave in 1814, by death in childbirth, but only after she first bore him six living children in only eight years.

So, during the year (1814-15) that JA was writing Emma, Edward Knatchbull was a very recent widower, and father of six young children, and therefore probably a regular solo visitor at Godmersham, where the 21 year old Fanny Knight, whose mother was deceased, was reigning as “mistress” of Godmersham, pampering her hypochondriac father (Edward Austen Knight)!  But that’s not all ---- Edward Knatchbull was already part of the Godmersham circle as early as 1808—i.e., two years after his first wife died—when we read the following passing comment in Letter 54 dated June 26, 1808:

“Mr. Knatchbull from Provender was at the W. Friars when we arrived, & staid dinner, which with Harriot—who came as you may suppose in a great hurry, ten minutes after the time—made our number 6—Mr. K. went away early.”

My count is that the 6 at dinner consisted of Jane Austen, Edward Knatchbull, JA’s brother Edward, JA’s niece Fanny, Harriott Bridges Moore, and probably also nephew Edward Knight, Jr.  Presumably Edward Knatchbull had lived all his life at either Mersham Hatch or Provender, his family’s two ancestral Kentish estates both located not far from Godmersham. Therefore, he was also surely a friend of Edward Austen, at least as early as 1798, when Fanny was only 5, and Edward (still going only by Austen) took possession of Godmersham.  Sure sounds similar to the cast of characters at Hartfield and Donwell Abbey, even down to a flighty young woman named Harriot.

I’d give anything to have been a fly on the wall of that dinner party!  I imagine Edward Knatchbull, age 27, already the married father of two babies, out for the evening while his wife is at home, and Fanny Austen, age 15, engaged in a great deal of conversation with him in that intimate small gathering. And I especially imagine Jane Austen, the observer, watching them, very carefully but very inobtrusively, and taking mental notes. What subtle sparks did she see flying between the married father of two babies and the blossoming debutante with a snob’s interest in that noble heir’s future title?

Then, six years later, in 1814, when Jane hears of the sudden death of Edward Knatchbull’s first wife, and considers him and his brood of a half dozen young children, she connects the dots back to that 1808 soiree, and realizes that Fanny and Edward Knatchbull (who will become Sir Edward when he succeeds his father as baronet in 1819) might one day become M and N---and so, perhaps, was conceived in the mind of a genius the marriage  of Emma and Knightley!

Cheers, ARNIE

@JaneAustenCode on Twitter

Pygmalion’s pedophilic progeny: Mr. Knightley, Henry Higgins, Gaston Lachaille & Humbert Humbert

In early January 2015, Diane Reynolds and I had a conversation in Janeites and Austen-L regarding the thinly veiled, creepily pedophilic subtext of the interactions between Emma and Mr. Knightley relating to their large age differential (21 vs. 37):

Diane: “The chapter opens with Emma deciding to make it up to Mr. Knightley and doing so by greeting him as he visits with her niece (and his niece), baby Emma, in her arms, a bit of artifice that Emma uses to disarm him. Again, atmospherics come into play--the text never says that the current baby Emma reminds Mr. Knightley of the baby Emma he remembers from when he was 16--the baby Emma who is now the grown up Emma holding a baby Emma--but clearly the implication--or background note--is all over the passage. And Emma works very hard to be a peacemaker, to smooth over differences for the family Christmas. The baby gambit works. …”

Me: “As usual, Diane, your attention gravitates to the most significant aspects of each chapter which lead off the page into shadowy realms. In this case, you rightly pick up on what I see as the latent pedophilia in which Chapter 12 is drenched, as I will now explain….it’s Knightley’s disturbingly fond free associations from holding a baby girl in his arms to remembering holding the infant version of his now 21 year old sister in law in his then 16 year old arms. The universal response should be “EEEWWWW!”  The creepiness factor is off the charts. It was a memorable moment at the 2011 JASNA AGM in Ft. Worth when Andrew Davies drew a collective gasp from 800 attendees at his plenary address by daring to suggest that Knightley’s interest in Emma is very disturbing.”

Diane: “He is holding baby Emma when he agrees with the adult Emma. "Yes ... I was sixteen years old when you were born."  How can the baby Emma he is holding not be jogging this memory -- and awareness -- of their age difference? How can he not be thinking of adult Emma in her babyhood? Emma tries to reduce the difference Mr, K perceives by noting that she is now 21, implying they are both now adults, which they are. But Mr. K won't give it up: "I have still the advantage of you by 16 years experience" and then he says patronizingly, pointing directly to his male privilege, "and by not being a pretty young woman and a spoiled child." If Emma looks to establish some equality with him as an adult--and she IS an adult—he insists on characterizing her as a child. Mr. K then turns to address baby

Emma directly, asking her to tell her aunt to set  "a better example than renewing old grievances."

Me: Indeed, Jane Austen is showing us, without saying it out loud, that the age difference is what really turns Knightley on --- he’s like one of the pedophiles on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit who loses interest in his victim unless he can keep seeing her as very young. We see Knightley in this scene charmed by Emma from angry thwarted petulance to smiling joviality—we see a side of him we’d rather not. This whole creepy theme will be revisited, in spades, when Emma and Mrs. Weston chortle over baby Anna Weston near the end of the novel. But enough about Knightley---I say the chapter is drenched in pedophilia, because the far greater portion of Chapter 12 is then given over to Mr. Woodhouse’s disturbingly strong feelings about having some alone time with daughter Isabella.  We see that Knightley and Mr. Woodhouse have an awful (all puns intended) lot in common when it comes to their attentions to much young females--- in their own families, no less….”

Today, I want to add several additional insights regarding the passages in which Emma “saucily” engages with Knightley about his fixation on her when she was young. (For ease of reference, at the end of this post, I’ve presented both of those excerpts, with the many specific references that Knightley makes to Emma’s age shown in ALL CAPS, to show that Knightley collected and treasured these memories the same way Harriet collected and treasured Mr. Elton’s used bandages! And I’ve also included an excerpt from the tete a tete between Knightley and Mrs. Weston in Chapter 5 which is part of that pedophilic aura of the novel, in that Knightley fondly reminisces about the prepubescent Emma there as well.

First and foremost, in response to those who might claim that Knightley’s fixation on the young Emma was not meant by Jane Austen to disturb, but was simply a reflection of JA’s comfortable acquiescence in the patriarchal mores of her time --- during which marriages of men to much younger women were common --- consider what prompts BOTH of those two conversations between Knightley and Emma, separated by 41 chapters and six months of action in the novel:

Emma is holding baby Emma (her niece) in her arms in the first passage; and

Emma and Knightley are discussing baby Anna Weston in the latter one, presumably right after a visit to Randalls by Emma and Mr. Knightley.

So in both cases, we see Knightley’s romantic imagination being very specifically triggered by the sight (and touch) of a female baby. EEEWWW!!!!! This subtle textual clue removes any doubt that Jane Austen intended her attentive readers to notice this connection, and to recognize that Emma has somehow (and surely not in a good way) learned a long time ago that the way to Knightley’s heart is through his interest (obsession) with young girls. And when we add to that creepiness the even greater creepiness of Mr. Woodhouse and his focus on young women around him---looks like we stumbled into a particularly disturbing episode of SVU!!

Second, returning to Andrew Davies’s brilliant insight into the pedophilic subtext of Mr. Knightley, I want you all to know that he not only discussed it in passing at that JASNA AGM, he also addressed it in more length in his witty, scholarly 1996 article in The Telegraph, the relevant text of which I have also added at the end of this post for your ready reference. And…best of all, Davies also embodied his insight in his film version of Emma, when we hear the following dialog at the romantic climax, when Knightley finds Emma in the garden at Hartfield after his return from London, and decides to take the plunge and tell Emma that he loves her. Davies added the following two lines of dialog:

Knightley: “I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old.”

Emma: “Do you like me as well now as you did then?"

[Knightley moves in for their first kiss]

So, to that loud chorus who complain that Davies sexes Jane Austen up on his own initiative, the above shows that Davies is as much insightful scholar as creative storyteller, and he grounded that dialog on very firm textual footing indeed! It foregrounds Jane Austen’s actual background.

Third, writing this post caused me to connect the dots between several related strands of research I’ve been doing over the past several years on JA’s pedophilic subtexts, including two in particular:

Back in 2011, I looked at the apparent allusion to Emma in Gigi (both in Colette’s original novel, and in the 1958 musical film adaptation)—an allusion which Amy Heckerling was the first to cleverly and brilliantly tag in Clueless (1993), when the music from Gigi is played at the precise moment when Josh first notices his stepsister Cher as a beautiful, desirable woman, when she appears dressed to kill coming down the stairs of their home. Gaston Lachaille and his “charming” uncle do seem to me to be modern French versions of Mr. Knightley and Mr. Woodhouse, and the older family members who are grooming Gigi for Gaston are interesting takes on Miss Bates and Mrs. Weston; and

I have been posting regularly during the past few years about the many sides of the pedophilia subtext of Mansfield Park, which I eventually recognized as a key allusive source for Nabokov in Lolita.

It all makes me realize that Nabokov surely had Mansfield Park, Emma, Pygmalion, and perhaps also Gigi, on his scholarly mind when he created Humbert Humbert and Lolita.

And finally, that brings me to Ground Zero of this particular thread ----Alan Jay Lerner, the lyricist and librettist who collaborated with Frederick Loewe on My Fair Lady (of course, adapted from Shaw’s Pygmalion), also, as everyone knows, had equally great success with Gigi. That might just have coincidence, that Lerner and Loewe’s two biggest successes were both about older men lording it over a younger woman in a disturbing way. But the kicker that puts Lerner in the Hall of Shame in terms of promulgation (peddling) of pedophilia into the zeitgeist as an acceptable, even desirable, lifestyle, is that after Loewe retired, Lerner went through a series of unsuccessful musicals, and one of them was (what else?) called Lolita, My Love. 

As Cher from Clueless would have chimed in -- EWWWW!!!!

Cheers, ARNIE

@JaneAustenCode on Twitter

RELEVANT PASSAGES RE KNIGHTLEY’S PEDOPHILIC FIXATION ON EMMA:

Chapter 12: She hoped they might now become friends again. She thought it was time to make up. Making-up indeed would not do. She certainly had not been in the wrong, and he would never own that he had. Concession must be out of the question; but it was time to appear to forget that they had ever quarrelled; and she hoped it might rather assist the restoration of friendship, that when he came into the room she had one of the children with her—the youngest, a nice little girl about eight months old, who was now making her first visit to Hartfield, and very happy to be danced about in her aunt's arms. It did assist; for though he began with grave looks and short questions, he was soon led on to talk of them all in the usual way, and to take the child out of her arms with all the unceremoniousness of perfect amity. Emma felt they were friends again; and the conviction giving her at first great satisfaction, and then a little sauciness, she could not help saying, as he was admiring the baby,  "What a comfort it is, that we think alike about our nephews and nieces. As to men and women, our opinions are sometimes very different; but with regard to these children, I observe we never disagree."

"If you were as much guided by nature in your estimate of men and women, and as little under the power of fancy and whim in your dealings with them, as you are where these children are concerned, we might always think alike."

"To be sure—our discordancies must always arise from my being in the wrong."

"Yes," said he, smiling—"and reason good. I was SIXTEEN YEARS OLD WHEN YOU WERE BORN."

"A material difference then," she replied—"and no doubt you were much my superior in judgment at that period of our lives; but does not the lapse of one-and-twenty years bring our understandings a good deal nearer?"

"Yes—a good deal nearer."

"But still, not near enough to give me a chance of being right, if we think differently."

"I have still the advantage of you by SIXTEEN YEARS' EXPERIENCE, and by not being a pretty young woman and a spoiled child. Come, my dear Emma, let us be friends, and say no more about it. Tell your aunt, little Emma, that she ought to set you a better example than to be renewing old grievances, and that if she were not wrong before, she is now."

"That's true," she cried—"very true. Little Emma, grow up a better woman than your aunt. Be infinitely cleverer and not half so conceited. Now, Mr. Knightley, a word or two more, and I have done. As far as good intentions went, we were both right, and I must say that no effects on my side of the argument have yet proved wrong. I only want to know that Mr. Martin is not very, very bitterly disappointed."

"A man cannot be more so," was his short, full answer.

"Ah!—Indeed I am very sorry.—Come, shake hands with me."

Chapter 53: I do not believe I did you any good. The good was all to myself, by making you an object of the tenderest affection to me. I could not think about you so much without doating on you, faults and all; and by dint of fancying so many errors, have been IN LOVE WITH YOU EVER SINCE YOU WERE THIRTEEN AT LEAST."

"I am sure you were of use to me," cried Emma. "I was very often influenced rightly by you—oftener than I would own at the time. I am very sure you did me good. And if poor little Anna Weston is to be spoiled, it will be the greatest humanity in you to do as much for her as you have done for me, except FALLING IN LOVE WITH HER WHEN SHE IS THIRTEEN."

"How often, WHEN YOU WERE A GIRL, have you said to me, with one of your saucy looks—'Mr. Knightley, I am going to do so-and-so; papa says I may, or I have Miss Taylor's leave'—something which, you knew, I did not approve. In such cases my interference was giving you two bad feelings instead of one."

"What an amiable creature I was!—No wonder you should hold my speeches in such affectionate remembrance."

"'Mr. Knightley.'—You always called me, 'Mr. Knightley;' and, from habit, it has not so very formal a sound.—And yet it is formal. I want you to call me something else, but I do not know what."

"I remember once calling you 'George,' in one of my amiable fits, ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO. I did it because I thought it would offend you; but, as you made no objection, I never did it again."

"And cannot you call me 'George' now?"

"Impossible!—I never can call you any thing but 'Mr. Knightley.' I will not promise even to equal the elegant terseness of Mrs. Elton, by calling you Mr. K.—But I will promise," she added presently, laughing and blushing—"I will promise to call you once by your Christian name. I do not say when, but perhaps you may guess where;—in the building in which N. takes M. for better, for worse."

Also, see Chapter 5, Knightley’s tete a tete with Mrs. Weston, and ask yourself whether the memory that Knightley “feelingly” desires to forget, about Emma omitting to do any thing Mrs. Weston wished, might just have something to do with Mr. Knightley’s desires for the very young Emma:

[Knightley] "Emma has been meaning to read more EVER SINCE SHE WAS TWELVE YEARS OLD. I have seen a great many lists of her drawing-up at various times of books that she meant to read regularly through—and very good lists they were—very well chosen, and very neatly arranged—sometimes alphabetically, and sometimes by some other rule. The list SHE DREW UP WHEN ONLY FOURTEEN--I remember thinking it did her judgment so much credit, that I preserved it some time; and I dare say she may have made out a very good list now. But I have done with expecting any course of steady reading from Emma. She will never submit to any thing requiring industry and patience, and a subjection of the fancy to the understanding. Where Miss Taylor failed to stimulate, I may safely affirm that Harriet Smith will do nothing.—You never could persuade her to read half so much as you wished.—You know you could not."

"I dare say," replied Mrs. Weston, smiling, "that I thought so then;—but since we have parted, I can never remember Emma's omitting to do any thing I wished."

"There is hardly any desiring to refresh such a memory as that,"—said Mr. Knightley, feelingly; and for a moment or two he had done. "But I," he soon added, "who have had no such charm thrown over my senses, must still see, hear, and remember. Emma is spoiled by being the cleverest of her family. At ten years old, she had the misfortune of being able to answer questions which puzzled her sister at seventeen. She was always quick and assured: Isabella slow and diffident. And EVER SINCE SHE WAS TWELVE, Emma has been mistress of the house and of you all. In her mother she lost the only person able to cope with her. She inherits her mother's talents, and must have been under subjection to her."

…."I either depend more upon Emma's good sense than you do, or am more anxious for her present comfort; for I cannot lament the acquaintance. How well she looked last night!"

"Oh! you would rather talk of her person than her mind, would you? Very well; I shall not attempt to deny Emma's being pretty."

"Pretty! say beautiful rather. Can you imagine any thing nearer perfect beauty than Emma altogether—face and figure?"

"I do not know what I could imagine, but I confess that I have seldom seen a face or figure more pleasing to me than hers. But I am a partial old friend."

"Such an eye!—the true hazle eye—and so brilliant! regular features, open countenance, with a complexion! oh! what a bloom of full health, and such a pretty height and size; such a firm and upright figure! There is health, not merely in her bloom, but in her air, her head, her glance. One hears sometimes of a child being 'the picture of health;' now, Emma always gives me the idea of being the complete picture of grown-up health. She is loveliness itself. Mr. Knightley, is not she?"

"I have not a fault to find with her person," he replied. "I think her all you describe. I love to look at her; and I will add this praise, that I do not think her personally vain. Considering how very handsome she is, she appears to be little occupied with it; her vanity lies another way. Mrs. Weston, I am not to be talked out of my dislike of Harriet Smith, or my dread of its doing them both harm."

EXCERPT FROM ANDREW DAVIES’S 1996 ARTICLE

“Among all the flawed inhabitants of Highbury and its environs, Mr Knightley stands alone as the very embodiment of the ideal English gentleman. I have yet to find a critic prepared to hazard a question-mark about this most Austenian of Austen heroes so let's raise one or two here. Mr Knightley is "seven or eight-and-thirty", Emma is 20. He is an "old family friend". He probably held her in his arms when she was a baby. He's played a lot of different roles through her childhood and adolescence: much older brother, sort-of-uncle, stern but loving tutor and substitute father, since Mr Woodhouse is so inadequate in that role. And then in Chapter 53, he tells her that he has been in love with her since she was 13. Hmm. We'd certainly see that as an inappropriate attachment these days. The guy has practically powdered her bottom, for God's sake.

Well, at least he waited till she was 20 before proposing a full sexual relationship. But why did it have to be Emma? I know people didn't get about much in those days (Emma's never been to the seaside) but Mr Knightley must have met some eligible women. Is Knightley a bit of a Humbert Humbert, or what? To put it at its kindest he looks a bit slothful in the mate-hunting department. There is of course the material consideration: Knightley has land but not much cash, and Woodhouse has cash but not much land. In fact, Knightley owns most of the county, apart from the Hartfield estate. Is it mean of me to imagine Knightley as having spent many hours pondering the map of the area and thinking how much more satisfying it would be if that awkward corner of land were subsumed into the Donwell estate? And Mr Woodhouse's thousands would have a very beneficial effect on the cash flow.

But these are base thoughts, and I shall desist from them. Knightley is one of Austen's most attractive heroes: strong, decisive, intelligent, outspoken, unsnobbish - and he's sensitive to other people's feelings, sussing out the Jane / Frank situation long before anyone else does. He is also an exemplary English gentleman.”