Board Index
Home
FAQ
Site MapQuick Index
Board Index
Home
FAQ
Site Map
Lady Sondes' Impudence
Written by Robbin
(8/19/2011 5:02 p.m.)
in consequence of the missive, Letter 67. Lady Sondes., penned by Rachel G
That Lady Russell, of steady age and character, and extremely well provided for, should have no thought of a second marriage, needs no apology to the public, which is rather apt to be unreasonably discontented when a woman does marry again, than when she does not… (P, Ch. 1) Jane mentions Lady Sondes three other times in the letters previous to 67 and two seem to have roots in the supposed discontent a widow remarrying can arouse. I think her tone is light and teasing: Lady Sondes’ match surprises, but does not offend me;--had her first marriage been of affection, or had there been a grown-up single daughter, I should not have forgiven her—but I consider everybody as having a right to marry once in their Lives for Love, if they can--& provided she will now leave off having bad head-aches & being pathetic, I can allow her, I can wish her to be happy. (Ltr. 63) I have laid Lady Sondes’ case before Martha—who does not make the least objection to it, & is particularly pleased with the name of Montresor. I do not agree with her there, but I like his rank very much--& always affix the ideas of strong sense, & highly elegant Manners, to a General. (Ltr. 63) The third mention of Lady Sondes was in Ltr. 6. Jane saw one her portraits at the residence of the lady’s father, Richard Milles: At Nackington we met Lady Sondes’ picture over the Mantlepeice in the Dining room, and the pictures of her three Children in an Antiroom… (Ltr. 6; 15, 16 September 1796) Jane speaks of the event in a style which I find charmingly whimsical—she does not just view the portrait but meets it and those of three of the lady’s children. This style, infusing inanimate objects with a kind of life of their own, is also in the novels. I can only think of one example at the moment. In Persuasion the portraits in the Musgrove’s drawing room seemed to be staring in astonishment (P, Ch. 5). Sadly this does pose a dilemma—at least for me. I can’t figure which of the two portraits Jane met that day. They were both painted before 1796. The Christies’ page with the Gainsborough portrait (1786) says “The sitter, who was 19 in that year, married the Hon. Lewis Thomas Watson the following year” but all other references have her marrying the year before in 1785. If the Gainsborough was painted before Lady Sondes’ marriage it might have resided in the dining room of Nackington but that appears pretty iffy. The Works of Art page with the Reynolds’ portrait relates it must have been commissioned by her husband “Watson or his father” and a copy was made of it and given to Mr. Milles (her father I suppose) so it may have the better odds of being the portrait Jane saw at Nackington. Does anyone know which Jane saw? (:D)
|
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.
