Lady Susan

“I have been called an unkind mother, but it was the sacred impulse of maternal affection, it was the advantage of my daughter that led me on; and if that daughter were not the greatest simpleton on earth, I might have been rewarded for my exertions […] but Frederica, who was born to be the torment of my life, chose to set herself so violently against the match that I thought it better to lay aside the scheme for the present.”

In her letter to Alicia, Susan demonstrates her lack of maternal bond with her daughter, Frederica. Although Lady Susan recasts her attempt to marry Frederica off to the obnoxious Sir James as a benefit to her daughter, there is no indication that this claim fools Alicia. A marriage to Sir James might be to the material benefit of her daughter, which speaks to the fragile social positionality of women during the 18th century. Women were often required to marry not for love, but rather to determine and ensure their social status, which here is demonstrated as being inextricable from their wealth.

Frederica’s emotional wellbeing is never discussed, as feminine and interior matters hold little sway over social predilections. Susan conflates the typically interior maternal impulses with the exterior social aspirations to achieve wealth, denigrating the necessity to ensure a positive emotional attachment to one’s husband. Any resistance on her daughter’s part is viewed as interfering in her mother’s plans, complicating the familial relationship between Frederica and her mother. Because Susan has no husband and therefore no income, she must look to other ways to ensure both her own and her daughter’s continued comfort. Therefore, any indication that Susan is unfeeling towards her daughter is complicated by the simple fact that both must rely on men to survive. Susan understands this fact and leads her life and decisions by it, whereas her daughter remains blind to the true status of women with 18th century society. 

“Disposed, however, as he always is to think the best of everyone, her display of grief, and professions of regret, and general resolutions of prudence were sufficient to soften his heart and make him really confide in her sincerity. But as for myself, I am still unconvinced; and plausibly as her ladyship has now written, I cannot make up my mind, till I better understand her real meaning in coming to us.” 

Catherine writes to her mother about the gullibility of her husband. All the men in this novella are incredibly gullible and easily manipulated by the women, who are much shrewder and more rational. This is a reflection of the 18th century’s bifurcation of the interior and exterior spheres, in which society viewed women as being physically and mentally interior creatures, who dwelled primarily within the home and whose realm relied upon the emotions. The women in Austen’s novella use their supremacy over the interior spheres to manipulate the emotions and thoughts of the men around them, thereby exerting their power over the exteriority as well. Deceit and manipulations can be said to resemble feminist acts, in that they use the relegation of power to rebel against the patriarchal bifurcation of rigid gender norms. The women in this novella manipulate male characters to change their external positionality, or their social positionality, a sphere thought to be dominated by men. 

“By her behavior to Mr. Manwaring she gave jealousy and wretchedness to his wife, and by her attentions to a young man previously attached to Mr. Manwaring’s sister deprived as amiable girl of her lover. I learnt all this from Mr. Smith now in this neighborhood […] who is therefore well qualified to make the communication.” 

Reginald writes to his sister, Catherine, immediately preceding his visit to her country home. He regales Catherine with the stories he has heard of Lady Susan’s behavior, specifically her relationship with Mr. Manwaring and her plot to steal Sir James as a suitor for her own daughter. The public nature of female behavior plays prominently within the novella. The characters never call the behaviors of men into question; Reginald does not ask why Mr. Manwaring engaged in an adulterous and/or flirtatious relationship with Susan, nor why Sir James was so quick to leave his affections for Miss Manwaring in favor of Frederica. Rather, Reginald casts all the blame for the chaos in the Manwaring household squarely upon the shoulders of Lady Susan herself, rendering the men little more than pawns in her devious machinations. This indicates a patriarchal viewpoint in that it calls into question female behavior while also eliminating the possibility of guilt on the part of men.

Similarly, it also engages with the belief that female behavior and character are both public; they are available for commentary by others and subject to social rumors. In contrast, male behavior is not open to this level of public scrutiny. However, the culprits of such rumors are usually male, as another male tells Reginald this tale. The male gaze scrutinizes female behavior and character and proliferates such scrutiny, as though it is the male right. This also renders the females wholly voiceless, as Reginald does not obtain this information from a woman, but rather, only believes it from the mouth of another man.

“I was as amiable as possible on the occasion—but all in vain—she does not like me. To be sure, when we consider that I DID take some pains to prevent my brother-in-law’s marrying her, this want of cordiality is not very surprising—and yet it shows an illiberal and vindictive spirit to resent a project which influenced me six years go, and which never succeeded at last.” 

Susan describes Catherine’s dislike for her in a letter to Alicia. Susan does admit the reason behind this contempt: Previously, Susan had exerted a fair amount of energy attempting to prevent Charles from marrying Catherine. This is a valid reason for Catherine not to like Susan, despite Susan being as allegedly amiable as possible towards her. However, Susan believes that such actions on her part are so far in the past and were so completely unsuccessful that Catherine should no longer feel the desire for revenge. Susan recasts any distrust on Catherine’s part as a character flaw, assured that Catherine then wants vindication for Susan’s previous actions against her. However, Catherine’s distrust is natural, as Susan has not put in any effort into being friends with a woman whose social positionality she jeopardized. This correspondence demonstrates the complicated nature of familial affairs, in which previous actions have ramifications throughout multiple years. In the 18th century, a woman’s role was so contracted and forced into interiority that any perceived past slight would be amplified and carry consequences for future relationships, perhaps throughout the remainder of a person’s life. These ramifications are demonstrated in Catherine’s continued distrust of Lady Susan.

“She is clever and agreeable, has all that knowledge of the world which makes conversation easy, and talks very well, with a happy command of language, which is too often used, I believe, to make black appear white.” 

Catherine gives an account to Reginald of the nature of Lady Susan. The façade of Susan’s amiability surprises Catherine, who demonstrates the performative aspect of Lady Susan’s perceived positive characteristics. Others perceive Susan to be gracious and perfect in her manners because of her effect on other people. Susan uses her intelligence to be agreeable, at least externally, in a way that reminds the audience of a courtesan. Susan uses her talents to engage other people and put them at ease, although the audience knows that the tempest of her manipulations resides just below the surface. Even Catherine suspects this to be true, as she is convinced that the art of Susan’s conversations resembles nothing more than artifice which Susan uses to get her own way, as indicated by the final clause. The positive and social aspects of a female character are seen as inherently performative in nature, whereas the true nature of her character remains hidden, obfuscated by societal norms.

“It is throwing time away to be mistress of French, Italian, German; music, singing, and drawing, etc., will gain women some applause, but will not add one lover to her list. Grace and manner, after all, are of the greatest importance. I do not mean, therefore, that Frederica’s acquirements should be more than superficial, and I flatter myself that she will not remain long enough at school to understand anything thoroughly. I hope to see her the wife of Sir James within a twelvemonth.” 

Susan writes to Alicia about her thoughts concerning Frederica’s education, which she considers to be mostly unnecessary as she believes that Frederica will become Sir James’s wife. Although Susan does seek to undermine some aspects of the patriarchy, she reproduces others in her attempt to play by society’s rules. In Susan’s understanding of the world, she does not see knowledge as being important for women; rather, she casts femininity itself as performative, something that cannot stand and does not exist without men. Susan constructs a woman’s role as exclusively being subject to the male gaze. Susan does not find it necessary that Frederica attain an education and regards her daughter’s intellectual pursuits as an impediment on the path to her marriage to Sir James. Susan reiterates the patriarchal construct of femininity as a shallow façade that only serves at the pleasure of the male gaze, thereby reproducing the sexist injustice of society within her relationship with her daughter.

“When I lamented in reply the badness of her disposition, he observed that whatever might have been her errors, they were to be imputed to her neglected education and early marriage, and that she was altogether a wonderful woman.” 

Catherine writes to her mother to inform Lady De Courcy of Reginald’s increasing attachment to Lady Susan. The audience never sees Reginald’s attachment firsthand but understands how drawn he is to Susan mostly through the lamentations of his sister. Susan herself writes little on the subject, except to reassure Alicia that she has Reginald wrapped utterly around her finger. Catherine spends much time worrying about the nature of Susan and Reginald’s relationship, primarily due to the fragile social positionality of women in the 18th century. If Reginald were to marry a woman with a bad reputation, it would not only affect his own social standing but also that of his family members, especially the women in his family whose social position depends solely upon that of their male kin. As a result, Catherine shares her anxieties concerning Reginald’s future with her mother in the hopes that her mother will convince their father to intercede, as Catherine has been ineffective in this matter. 

In contrast, Susan has used the fragile social positionality of women, at least implicitly, to play the victim for any perceived social trespasses, citing a lack of education as well as an early marriage as reasons for her lack of social graces. Reginald then believes any failings to be indications of others’ failings on Susan’s behalf, as implicit within this argument remains the fact that women could not be responsible for their own marriage and intellectual upbringing. Rather, in a society in which women have no social agency, any failures on the part of their character can be considered failings on the part of their male relatives, those who are responsible for their future. Susan does not have any male relatives to contradict this point, so she can blame others for her behavior with impunity. This also demonstrates the relative freedom experienced by wealthy widows, at least in comparison to their married lives. 

“My years and increasing infirmities make me very desirous, my dear Reginald, of seeing you settled in the world. To the fortune of your wife, the goodness of my own, will make me indifferent, but her family and character must be equally unexceptionable. When your choice is so fixed as that no objection can be made to either, I can promise you a ready and cheerful consent; but it is my duty to oppose a match, which deep art only could render probably, and must in the end make wretched […] it is out of my power to prevent your inheriting the family estate.” 

In Lord De Courcy’s letter to his son, Reginald, the audience witnesses the familial affair that is marriage in late 18th century. Reginald’s autonomous decision on marrying is presented by Lord De Courcy as a decision which not only affects the future happiness of Reginald but also that of his family. In contrast to the lack of agency concerning the marriage of Frederica, Reginald has complete autonomy in the decision-making process. His father even admits that he cannot threaten to cut Reginald out of the will if he makes an untoward decision. Because his father has no say in his son’s marriage, his father must appeal to Reginald’s emotions and the plight of the family, suggesting that if Reginald were to marry Lady Susan, the entire family would suffer. This greatly differs from the female characters in the novel, who must manipulate their way into asserting any kind of agency over their own futures. The letter from Lord De Courcy demonstrates the strict dichotomy in male and female power dynamics in 18th century English society.

“In this case, as well in many others, the world has most grossly misjudged that lady, by supposing the worst, where the motives of her conduct have been doubtful. Lady Susan had heard something so materially to the disadvantage of my sister as to persuade her that the happiness of Mr. Vernon, to whom she was always much attached, would be absolutely destroyed by the marriage.” 

In Reginald’s response to his father’s letter, he demonstrates the depth to which Susan has manipulated his thoughts, turning, as his sister mentioned, black to white. Susan plays off the idea that a woman’s character is public by suggesting that the public has maligned her and put its own negative aspirations behind the motivations for her behavior. Susan similarly suggests that therein lays the reason behind her attempt to dissuade Charles from marrying Catherine several years ago, suggesting that rumors are to blame for any hostilities between herself and the Vernon family. Such a suggestion itself necessitates the important power of worlds within 18th century England. Within the landed gentry, one only had one’s reputation to distinguish oneself from other similarly wealthy people. One’s reputation was paramount to one’s social status within the hierarchical group structure.

The nature of being publicly female, then, created a society in which one’s character was solely determined by the perception of other people, so women themselves were subject to much harsher scrutiny in terms of their behavior than men. Therefore, women attempting to gain power, such as Lady Susan, use the power of words to their advantage, manipulating the spoken word to best benefit themselves. The truth is then obfuscated further by the epistolary nature of the narrative, wherein everything the characters know is received secondhand. Knowledge, therefore, is not seen as absolute but as subjective, especially where morality is concerned. 

“I have her with me as much as possible, and have taken great pains to overcome her timidity. We are very good friends, and though she never opens her lips before her mother, she talks enough when alone with me to make it clear that, if properly treated by Lady Susan, she would always appear to much greater advantage. There cannot be a more gentle, affectionate heart, or more obliging manners, when acting without restraint. Her little cousins are all very fond of her.”

Catherine writes to her mother about Frederica’s situation and the teen’s fear of her mother. Frederica’s refusal to speak in her mother’s presence and subsequent ease of speaking when her mother is not around suggests that Frederica also knows how to play her mother’s game. However, whereas her mother manipulates men into falling in love with her, Frederica manipulates the other women around her. Frederica and her mother act in the same way towards other people, easily persuading them to do their bidding by appearing in a way that best suits their interests. Catherine determines Frederica to be a good person because her children are fond of her, and Frederica appears to enjoy Catherine’s company as well. The audience sees how easily Frederica slips into the stringent gender roles of the 18th century as she willingly demonstrates her maternal bond with her younger cousins. Catherine deems Frederica to be good precisely because she adheres to prescribed gender roles. In contrast, Susan is not maternal and rebels against classic patriarchal gender roles. Catherine’s correspondence both demonstrates the importance of gender roles to 18th century society as well as the morality that correlates with adherence to such gender roles. 

“In the breakfast room we found Lady Susan and a young man of genteel appearance […] the very person, as you may remember, whom it was said she had been at pains to detach from Miss Manwaring. But the conquest, it seems was not designed for herself, or she has since transferred it to her daughter, for Sir James is now desperately in love with Frederica.” 

Catherine relates to her mother the imposition of Sir James onto the Vernon household. Sir James showed up at the country home entirely unannounced, much to the irritation of all present. However, Catherine’s retelling of the event, which precipitates the first conflict between Reginald and Susan, demonstrates the importance of memory in regard to the epistolary narrative. Because these letters span an unknown amount of time, they serve as reminders to the allegedly remarkable events within people’s lives. However, the line between memory and rumor is a thin one, especially as it relies upon secondhand knowledge. Therefore, any knowledge that pertains to the character of an individual—which, as the audience has found, the 18th century landed gentry held in the utmost regard—is rendered entirely subjective.

The ramifications of such subjectivity can be seen in the last sentence, wherein Catherine admits to the realization that Susan did not intend Sir James as a conquest of her own but as a potential suitor for her daughter. Catherine uses a unique set of words to describe this attachment, relating Susan’s manipulations of Sir James as a conquest that can be transferred. This transferability then calls into question the reality of love and affection: If the affection can be so easily moved from one source to another, one questions whether it is true affection. Both the reality of truth and the very truth of love are both called into question, at least where they concern members of this social class. 

“I am very miserable about Sir James Martin, and have no other way in the world of helping myself but by writing to you, for I am forbidden even speaking to my uncle and aunt on the subject.” 

Frederica writes to Reginald to attempt to persuade him to intercede on her behalf against Lady Susan’s obsession with marrying her off to Sir James, whom Frederica despises. Frederica’s plea demonstrates the relative helplessness of women within the 18th century, as they were constantly subjected to the whims of others. Most of the time, these would be the whims of men; however, as Frederica’s father has died, her mother has taken over that position. This is the only letter the audience receives from Frederica, a voiceless character who is mostly referenced through the voices of either Catherine or her mother, Susan.

As a character, Frederica demonstrates that a lack of agency then coincides with a relative voicelessness. Susan has forbidden her daughter from speaking to Charles and Catherine, and so Frederica turns to the only alternative she can think of: to correspond with Reginald, the only other man in her life. The audience witnesses the power of words as conveyed within the epistolary narrative. By merely writing a letter, Frederica can effectively change the trajectory of her future. However, the women within the novel are only granted the agency that the males permit them; the female characters only have authority at the discretion of the male characters. In understanding this fact of social life, it becomes much more apparent why a character like Lady Susan would take great joy in manipulating the men in her life: It is the only way society will allow her any kind of agency over her future. Frederica, whether intentionally or not, manipulates Reginald on her own behalf, a method of dealing with patriarchy she learned from her mother. 

“I concluded, of course, that she and Reginald had been quarreling, and looked with anxious curiosity for a confirmation of my belief in her face. Mistress of deceit, however, she appeared perfectly unconcerned, and, after chatting on indifferent subjects for a short time, said to me, ‘I find from Wilson that we are going to lose Mr. De Courcy […] He told us nothing of all this last night.’” 

Catherine writes to her mother, Lady De Courcy, explaining how adept Susan is at remaining calm under pressure. While Catherine asserts that this calm represents Susan’s deceitful nature, 18th century standards would have prevented the emotional airing of dirty laundry. If Susan were to act overly distraught or highly emotional, she would not be seen as possessing the grace demanded of a lady of her position. Catherine’s remark indicates a condemnation of society, which forced people to repress their emotions in favor of placidity and pleasantry. Catherine herself responds in kind, not wanting to show her emotional cards. The author indicates that it is the requisite norms of society that lead to deception, as they require the obfuscation of true emotions in favor of simple platitudes.