The JASNA AGM recently closed its workshops to online viewing. It was held virtually in early October. One workshop that resonated with me was Professor Theresa Kenney’s discussion of Reginald De Courcy as the hero in Lady Susan, an epistolary novel written by Jane Austen in 1794-95, when she was 19 to 20 years of age. I had the pleasure of viewing some pages of the manuscript during the exhibit about Jane Austen’s Life and Legacy in 2009 at The Morgan Library in New York. It was the first time that I saw Jane’s handwriting on a page close up and I felt as thrilled as a teenage groupie seeing her heart throb idol in person. As soon as I returned home I read the novel.
Seven years later, two friends and I saw “Love and Friendship,” in which Kate Beckinsale played the conniving Lady Susan Vernon. Needless to say, after viewing Professor Kenney’s AGM presentation, I rewatched the film and was struck by its faithfulness to Austen’s novella. It helped that the script took advantage of entire swaths of Austen’s dialogue in letters written by the main characters.
Introduction:
Professor Kenney in a talk entitled “Abjuring All Future Attachments: Concluding Lady Susan” spoke about the youthful Austen’s experimentation with Reginald as the hero. His status is not at first obvious. We know about him largely through the strong women swirling around his life and who write about him: his sister, Catherine Vernon; his mother, Lady De Courcy; Catherine’s widowed sister-in-law, Lady Susan Vernon; and Lady S’s confidant, Mrs. Alicia Johnson. These main characters reveal much about themselves as they write their true opinions of others behind their backs against the polite, entirely false conversation they engage in when speaking in person.
Deceptions and manipulations abound:
The central character is beautiful, mature Lady Susan, the daughter of a peer, widow of Vernon (no first name), who must find refuge after her dalliance with the very much married Mr. Mainwaring, in whose house she was a guest. And so Lady S appeals to the only available persons left to her, the reluctant Catherine Vernon, whose marriage she attempted to block to her brother-in-law, Charles Vernon. Catherine is no fool and has taken Lady S’s measure:
“…if I had not known how much she has always disliked me for marrying Mr. Vernon, and that we had never met before, I should have imagined her an attached friend…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 Vernon to Reginald De Courcy. Letter, VI
Reginald De Courcy, Catherine’s brother, having heard no good news about the beautiful widow, and influenced by his sister and mother, is disposed to dislike her, that is until he meets her and she wraps him around her little finger.
And so the fun begins, Austen style:
According to Prof. Kenney, Reginald’s character is more akin to Marianne Dashwood, Edmund Bertram, Harriet Smith, and Edward Ferrars, who fall violently in love with the wrong person and then miraculously recover a short time later to find a love worthy of them. Kenney termed this phenomenon “shifting affections.” Young Reginald is easily influenced in falling in love with the wrong person. At twenty-three he is quite young and still malleable, a fact not lost on the opportunistic Lady Susan or on his mother and sister, who are alarmed. Catherine writes to her mother, Lady De Courcy:
My dear Mother,—You must not expect Reginald back again for some time. He desires me to tell you that the present open weather induces him to accept Mr. Vernon’s invitation to prolong his stay in Sussex, that they may have some hunting together. He means to send for his horses immediately, and it is impossible to say when you may see him in Kent. I will not disguise my sentiments on this change from you, my dear mother, though I think you had better not communicate them to my father, whose excessive anxiety about Reginald would subject him to an alarm which might seriously affect his health and spirits. Lady Susan has certainly contrived, in the space of a fortnight, to make my brother like her. … I am, indeed, provoked at the artifice of this unprincipled woman; what stronger proof of her dangerous abilities can be given than this perversion of Reginald’s judgment, which when he entered the house was so decidedly against her! – Letter VIII
In the next letter, we gain a good sense of Alicia Johnson, Lady Susan’s confidant and partner in the devious plans intended to ensnare her unsuspecting victim.
My dearest Friend,—I congratulate you on Mr. De Courcy’s arrival, and I advise you by all means to marry him; his father’s estate is, we know, considerable, and I believe certainly entailed. Sir Reginald is very infirm, and not likely to stand in your way long. I hear the young man well spoken of; and though no one can really deserve you, my dearest Susan, Mr. De Courcy may be worth having. – Mrs. Johnson to Lady S, Letter IX
This novella is filled with strong women. Two who will move heaven and earth to protect brother and son, and two who behave like a pair of rats intent on devouring the last piece of cheese in an alley. Interestingly, we only hear directly from Reginald in three letters. For much of the novel we see him only through the words and opinions of others, but some of those words are revealing. When his father sends him a letter of alarm due to Lady S’s increasing influence over him, Reginald tries to soothe him.
The father emplores him in Letter XII:
“I hope, my dear Reginald, that you will be superior to such as allow nothing for a father’s anxiety, and think themselves privileged to refuse him their confidence and slight his advice. You must be sensible that as an only son, and the representative of an ancient family, your conduct in life is most interesting to your connections; and in the very important concern of marriage especially, there is everything at stake—your own happiness, that of your parents, and the credit of your name.”
To which Reginald answers:
”My dear Sir,—I have this moment received your letter, which has given me more astonishment than I ever felt before. I am to thank my sister, I suppose, for having represented me in such a light as to injure me in your opinion, and give you all this alarm…I entreat you, my dear father, to quiet your mind, and no longer harbour a suspicion which cannot be more injurious to your own peace than to our understandings. I can have no other view in remaining with Lady Susan, than to enjoy for a short time (as you have yourself expressed it) the conversation of a woman of high intellectual powers.”
He goes on in a quite lengthy letter to blame his sister’s prejudice for not forgiving Lady S in opposing her marriage to Charles, and is convinced that the world has injured the Lady by questioning her motives, etc. etc. Yet Austen gives this hero short shrift in the narrative. We know very little about his thoughts and reasons for his actions, including being manipulated by Lady S. into feeling bitter towards Frederica, her young daughter, and thinking the girl worthless, even when it becomes clear that she “brightens” in Reginald’s presence.
In other words, Lady S has completely ensnared her sincere young man. He is as gullible with Lady S as Harriet Smith is with Emma, and just as changeable. This shifting of affection and lack of self-knowledge, as Prof. Kenney terms it, defines these characters, who are vastly different from Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy or Anne Elliot and her Captain Wentworth.
To be fair, Lady S does see some of Reginald’s good qualities (besides his inheritance). She writes to Alicia Johnson:
“Reginald is never easy unless we are by ourselves, and when the weather is tolerable, we pace the shrubbery for hours together. I like him on the whole very well; he is clever and has a good deal to say, but he is sometimes impertinent and troublesome.”
She also understands her sister-in-law, Catherine, very well: “[Frederica] is in high favour with her aunt altogether, because she is so little like myself, of course.”
The Spell:
The letters ping pong back and forth, with Lady S only baring her true motives to her like-minded friend, Alicia. Mrs. Johnson’s husband, Mr. Johnson, has forbidden her to consort with Lady S, whom he has banned from his house, but Lady S still has Reginald, who is now set on marrying her.
Interestingly, Reginald is the hero in this tale, a weak one to be sure. His main redeeming quality is that when he learns of Lady S’s dalliance with Mr. Mainwaring his blinders fall off. We hear from him twice more and can feel his wrath in two scathing, but youthfully passionate letters:
“…I write only to bid you farewell, the spell is removed; I see you as you are. Since we parted yesterday, I have received from indisputable authority such a history of you as must bring the most mortifying conviction of the imposition I have been under, and the absolute necessity of an immediate and eternal separation from you…”
and later:
“Why would you write to me? Why do you require particulars? But, since it must be so, I am obliged to declare that all the accounts of your misconduct during the life, and since the death of Mr. Vernon, which had reached me, in common with the world in general, and gained my entire belief before I saw you, but which you, by the exertion of your perverted abilities, had made me resolved to disallow, have been unanswerably proved to me; nay more, I am assured that a connection, of which I had never before entertained a thought, has for some time existed, and still continues to exist, between you and the man whose family you robbed of its peace…”

Screen shot of Love and Friendship, with all females delighted at the results of Reginald’s and Frederica’s marriage.
The Spell is Removed: Young Reggie grows up!
A few more plot strings remain to be tied. Lady S is an execrable mother. She bullies Frederica and presses her to marry Sir Charles Martin, a dimwit, albeit a rich one. Frederica resists, raising her mother’s ire. Catherine, who loves the girl and pities her situation, takes her in. Lady S, it is obvious, loves no one but herself. She has, in the words of Prof. Kenney, “no time for romantic nonsense.” Her motherly instincts are for show only, and after a few months of separation her letters and attentions to her daughter peter out.
Reginald leaves to lick his wounds, but his mother and sister are always looking out for him, as well as Frederica. The author writes in her conclusion, “Frederica was therefore fixed in the family of her uncle and aunt till such time as Reginald De Courcy could be talked, flattered, and finessed into an affection for her.” And, so, Austen demonstrates that Reginald, a hero with the same weak qualities as a Mr. Bingley or Edward Ferrars, is managed by the real power in the family – the women, although, he has in his favor the quality of realizing his deficiencies and, more importantly, he has a heart.
De Courcy and Frederica marry. And so I ask you fair reader: Who had the happier union? Reginald or Lady S?
Conclusion
Inquiring reader, I hope I have persuaded you to read or reread Lady Susan, a novella that surprised me on the first and second reading. I didn’t think that I would like reading a book that consisted of letters, but was so enthralled with the story that I read it in one sitting.
Just think. Jane Austen wrote this novella during a creative spurt in her early life. In 1794-95, she wrote Lady Susan and in 1795 she wrote Elinor and Marianne, the epistolary version of Sense and Sensibility. In 1796, she began writing First Impressions, the precursor to Pride and Prejudice. What a fertile period for a budding author! And what creativity! At 19, 20, and 21 years of age she laid the groundwork for two great novels and one experimental foray into the many complexities of what makes a hero. While, like Mr. Darcy, Reginald has great wealth, which, according to Prof. Kenney gives him alpha status, he is a bit of a wuss, masterfully controlled like a puppet by female relatives. In the end, Lady S is hoist by her own manipulative petard. She has no recourse but to marry Sir Charles Martin to maintain face and a fortune. Uggh. What a fitting ending.
Austen’s three novels, written in such a short time, laid much of the foundation for her greatness. She would rework them over the years, with only one, Lady Susan, published posthumously. After a lifetime of reading her works, including her Juvenilia, I remain in awe of her immense talent.
Resources:
Lady Susan, Jane Austen, Project Gutenberg Online Book
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/946/946-h/946-h.htm
Lady Susan, Jane Austen, Librivox Audio
https://archive.org/details/lady_susan_0811_librivox
“Love and Friendship,” Amazon Prime movie
Lady Susan: List of Characters: Austenprose
Excellent summary and comments. I am going to be lazy, and instead of rereading Lady Susan, I’ll rewatch the delightful Love and Friendship, which is among my favorite Austen adaptations. Austen had so much insight into people’s characters and personalities. As you note, her having this perception at 19 is quite unusual. Lady Susan should get an award for Worst Mother, although Fredericka is probably lucky to have escaped her influence during her banishment to school.
Another equally horrible mother from fiction is Molly Gibson’s stepmother in Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell. Horrible people who impose on the good and innocent make for good drama; that Austen turns it into comedy is such a relief to the reader.
Leslie, Thanks for stopping by. I did not like the film the first time I saw it, although, since watching Cold Comfort Farm and 1996’s Emma, I have been a Kate Beckinsale fan. Having reread the novella, which taught me that an epistolary novel can be exciting, I decided to give Love and Friendship another try–and loved it. Then I heard Prof. Kenney’s lecture, and it struck me how creative and fearless young Austen was to create a young hero who was largely absent in the first person and who was malleable to the manipulation of the scheming women in his life, albeit two were only thinking to save him.
Young Jane was exploring and feeling her way, and creating her own path as an author, thereby laying the groundwork for later greatness. As for awful mothers–I’ve personally witnessed several abhorrent ones (not mine, who was an angel) who, through manipulation, ruined their children for life, including a good friend of mine who never recovered. Lady Susan as depicted by Jane was no stranger to my observations. I hope that as Lady S ages, her exterior will turn as ugly as her interior being. I am thinking of Mrs. Grant from Mansfield Park, who I always imagined to look like the wicked witch of the east in the Wizard of Oz. :).
I’m a Cold Comfort fan also, and laughed at the delightful Flora Poste’s youthful ambition to write a novel as good as P&P. Both the movie and novel are wonderful.
I am not sure of Lady Susan’s aging unflatteringly, though, despite the justice of that. There are certain people who always find kind and honorable people to parasitize, and LS has that knack. If she hadn’t found a wealthy and foolish man, she might have had her social comeuppance. She has such an amazing ability to flatter and manipulate, I thought her main tragedy was not being a man. With her ruthlessness and charm, she would have been a great soldier/diplomat.
Sometimes I imagine fictional characters thrown together. Can you imagine the backbiting and putdowns if Mrs. Grant, Lady Susan, Mrs. Gibson (Wives and Daughters), Fanny Dashwood, Mrs. Elton, etc. were all at a card party? A social gathering can absorb one psychopath, but a whole roomful? In an Agatha Christie mystery, of course, there would be a murder, and lots of suspects.
Thanks for giving us your wonderful and enlightening blog, Vic.
Well, we know that Kate Beckinsale at 51 is still drop dead gorgeous, so she might be Lady Susan’s avatar in terms of aging beautifully. That card party would be a nightmare and one of the best scenes in a Rowlandson or Gilray cartoon or in another undiscovered Austen novella.
You make an excellent point in thinking that Lady Susan’s main tragedy was in not being a man, which is why her skills in back room manipulating were so successful. I am old enough to recall how my grandmother and great aunts, who had no jobs, owned no property, and enjoyed very little legal standing, still ruled the roost and got their menfolk to do what they wanted done. They also lived one or two decades longer than their spouses! Young Jane must have observed many such situations!
Nice chatting with you!
Thank you Vic – that is a lovely analysis of a book I enjoyed and found very funny. I like the way that Jane Austen, even very early in her career, gives her villain an amusing and realistic comeuppance, rather than a melodramatic one. Lady Susan doesn’t get the man she wants, and loses control of her daughter, but she still ends up in a rich and respectable marriage, which a woman like her will no doubt make the best of. I found the movie insipid and disappointing, apart from Kate Beckinsale’s excellent performance, but I agree that it stayed true to the spirit of the book, in that it did not try to soften Lady Susan.
Hello Polly, I agree. Young Jane was genius enough to provide a realistic ending for Lady S. Sir James Martin must have felt like a lodestone around her neck, but I am sure she found delightful ways to tolerate her marriage, including spending his money while fooling around with her lovers. Jane’s youthful writing in the Juvenilia was, as described by Robert Rodi at the AGM conference, akin to Monty Python humor–just out of this world crazy and hilarious!
Was Jane Austen’s Elinor and Marianne ever published?
Hello, Mary, It WAS!! In writing this novel through letters, Austen was influenced by Samuel Richardson (Pamela, 1740), Frances Burney (Evelina, 1778), and other novelists of her age. We might have forgotten, but Dracula by Bram Stoker (1897) was written in letters, as was Carrie by Stephen King and The Color Purple by Alice Walker.
By the time Austen completed her first draft of Elinor and Marianne, the vogue for epistolary novels was waning. The Austen women finally found their home in Chawton Cottage in 1809, Austen reworked Elinor and Marianne into Sense and Sensibility, which was published in 1811. She rewrote First Impressions and entitled it as Pride and Prejudice in 1813. Mansfield Park and Emma followed in 1814 and 1815. Persuasion and Northanger Abbey were published after her death in 1817. Lady Susan, written in 1794-95, was published in 1871 by her nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh.
Thank you for asking this question. Vic
Yes, I already knew that Elinor and Marianne had been reworked into Sense and Sensibility. (Sorry I didn’t make that clear.) What I was really asking was whether her original version was still in existence, and if so, was it ever published or digitized and therefore accessible for comparison with Sense and Sensibility. (I love epistolary novels.)
Thank you for your blog post which has inspired me with a desire to reread Lady Susan. And I’m glad to hear that Love & Friendship is currently available on Amazon as I have just gotten a free trial subscription. I thought it was a delightful adaptation and would enjoy seeing it again.
It’s been quite a long time since I read Lady Susan. I borrowed the movie on DVD from the library–it wasn’t widely available at my local theaters at the time–I wasn’t crazy about it.
I would be open to reading again and watching again.
denise
Hi Denise, I felt the same as you did when I first watched Love and Friendship. After Professor Kenney’s lecture at the AGM, I reread Lady Susan and re-watched the film. Because of the points raised in the lecture, I saw both in a different light. While this novella does not rank among Austen’s best efforts, it is an interesting stepping stone in her development as an author and experimentation. :)
Thanks for this — I love Lady Susan, such a sparkling, fascinating work…actually adapted it as a screenplay, it was under option when Love and Friendship was made. My take on the story was quite different but I did very much enjoy Love and Friendship, even though it did take the wind out my adaptation’s sails. Suppose there’s always the possibility of another gust in the future….
Interesting. Was your adaptation a Georgian period piece or a modern adaptation like Clueless?
Totally period â though Lady Susan is rather modern in some ways, I think.
Lady Susan is timeless, as there have always been amoral, machiavellian, charming people of both sexes. She reminds me a lot of Becky Sharp of Vanity Fair, although Becky never reaches the heights that Lady Susan does, and Becky has a back story (drunkard, gambling, impecunious, artist father) where her character traits make sense, while we’re not informed why Lady Susan is morally incomplete.
Neither heroine is redeemed in either novel, which is intriguing.
Dear Madam S,
(I’ve always wanted to write this as a salutation!) It occurred to me as I cobbled this post together that a focus on Lady S as a bad mother would be totally warranted, so I am curious to know about your script. Like you, I’ve experienced someone else beating me to the punch in a proposal supported by a publisher, but eventually rejected for being too close to another soon to be released publication. Good luck in finding a home for your script! Austen fans are always looking for good adaptations.
So pleased I could make your Madam S dream come true! V nice indeed to be addressed so elegantly. As for my script, it definitely doesn’t position Reginald as a hero of any stripe — that’s a very surprising reading to me. Like so many (not all) adapters, feel like my adaptation channels Jane Austen’s true intent (of course only a psychic can know for sure). Basically I see this epistolary novel as the crossover between the wild appetitive world-as-will heroines of the juvenile writings, and the sobered-up vision of later novels where love and compromise, reason and passion, are always in tension.