MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W156643536 · doi:10.1353/srm.2011.0002

Lady Susan: Jane Austen’s Machiavellian Moment

2011· article· en· W156643536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Mulvihill

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Romanticism · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingNovellaPleasureMoresPhilosophyArt historyLiteraturePsychoanalysisHistoryArtPoliticsLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

JAMES MULVIHILL Lady Susan:Jane Austen’s Machiavellian Moment “Sooth, flatter, and alarm.” —William Gerard Hamilton, Parliamentary Logic (1808) S FEMALE PROTAGONISTS GO, VICTORIA DE LOREDANI OF CHARLOTTE Dacre’s over-the-top gothic thriller Zofloya (1806) must be among the most outrageously reprehensible. Virtually no boundary is left uncrossed by her: kidnapping, torture, murder—nothing is off limits. So horrible, in­ deed, is “the horrible Victoria” that in the introduction to her recent Broadview edition of Dacre’s novel Adriana Craciun remarks that “No heroine ofRadcliffe or Austen could exult, as Victoria does in Zofloya, that ‘there is certainly a pleasure ... in the infliction of prolonged torment.’”1 None perhaps but Lady Susan, titular heroine of a remarkable little episto­ lary novella Jane Austen wrote probably sometime during the mid 1790s and then left unpublished. In a letter written to her friend Mrs. Alicia Johnson, Lady Susan has this to say about prospective husband Reginald De Courcy: “There is exquisite pleasure in subduing an insolent spirit, in making a person pre-determined to dislike, acknowledge one’s superior­ ity.”2 To be sure, Lady Susan’s actions never cross the line into criminality, though she wistfully hopes for the deaths (by natural causes) of two elderly male characters.3 Yet she is an unsettling figure nonetheless, not only trans­ gressing social mores but doing so with shocking aplomb. She has no shame! By the novel’s end, even after all she has wrought, she can still greet her hostess at Churchill, Mrs. Vernon, “with such an easy and cheerful af­ fection as made her almost turn from her with horror” (101). Where does this moral equanimity originate? Does it proceed from amorality or from an immorality so refined as to resemble amorality in its t. Charlotte Dacre, Zofloya; or, the Moor: A Romance of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Adriana Craciun (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1997), 248, 249. 2. Jane Austen, Lady Susan, The Watsons and Sanditon, ed. Margaret Drabble (Toronto: Penguin, 2003), 52. Subsequent citations to Lady Susan appear parenthetically in the text. 3. Namely, Mrs. Johnson’s older, wealthy husband and Reginald De Courcy’s father Sir Reginald. SiR, 50 (Winter 2011) 619 620 JAMES MULVIHILL utter insouciance? Dacre’s Victoria de Loredani, after all, is a bit of a beast, more often than not unable to contain her bottomless rage and wreaking violence on all and sundry. If Lady Susan is a beast, she is a beast of an­ other stripe. Her monstrousness derives in no small part from her very attractiveness—her social grace, her wit, even the disarming candor with which she confides her treacherous designs to her confidant (and enabler) Mrs. Johnson. This is the rub for all those encountering her, including the horrified and bemused Mrs. Vernon, her most formidable adversary. Need­ less to say, critical opinion has also fallen prey to Lady Susan’s undeniable fascination even while attempting to contain the dissonant qualities of this fascination in sources, analogues, archetypes, even psychiatric profiles.4 She is, in Marilyn Butler’s words, “a cruising shark in her social goldfish pond.”5 Barbara Horwitz describes her as an “anti-heroine” and the work in which she appears an “anti-conduct book.”6 She is a psychopath or at least a sociopath, according to Beatrice Anderson, “Self-seeking, selfindulging , without a speck of compassion for others, and no hint of a con­ science.”7 All true perhaps, but what of the intrepid nature underlying all this? Readers tend to relate to Lady Susan on as many levels as there are charac­ ters in the narrative—which is to say, those characters to whom she writes letters or in whose letters she is descnbed, for better or worse. Not only do we overhear stratagems being plotted and see these stratagems put into ac­ tion, but we witness their ultimate failure and the exposure of their cun­ ning agent. What may surprise us, however, is the equanimity with which Lady Susan accepts her undoing at the end. “I never was more at ease, or better satisfied with myself and everything about me, than at the present hour,” she tells Mrs. Johnson (98). Here, surely, is an...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in RomanticismSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207