`to console for'

[HenHanna]

Hello, all.
What is the meaning of "console for" in the following
whatever may be the evils resulting from a too
susceptible heart, nothing can be hoped from an
insensible one; that, on the other hand, is all
vice -- vice, of which the deformity is not softened, or
the effect consoled for, by any semblance or possibility
of good.
I have looked in several dictionaries, yet none listed a
meaning compatible an indirect object introduced via `for'.

In the passage "consoled for" means to be mitigated or
lessened in severity.
Here, the author is contrasting an overly sensitive heart
with a completely unfeeling one. They argue that while a sensitive heart
might lead to suffering, an unfeeling heart represents pure vice. This
vice is worse because its negative effects cannot be softened or made
less severe by any possibility of good.

In simpler terms, the author suggests that while someone who
feels too much might experience pain, someone who feels nothing at all
embodies pure evil. This evil cannot be redeemed or lessened by any
potential for good deeds.

[Anton Shepelev]

What is the meaning of "console for" in the following
whatever may be the evils resulting from a too
susceptible heart, nothing can be hoped from an
insensible one; that, on the other hand, is all
vice -- vice, of which the deformity is not softened,
or the effect consoled for, by any semblance or
possibility of good.
I have looked in several dictionaries, yet none listed a
meaning compatible an indirect object introcuduced via
`for'.

In the passage "consoled for" means to be mitigated or
lessened in severity.

Thank you. Does the preposition `for` act upon `deformity`?
If not, upon which noun does it act?

Here, the author is contrasting an overly sensitive heart
with a completely unfeeling one. They argue that while a
sensitive heart might lead to suffering, an unfeeling
heart represents pure vice. This vice is worse because its
negative effects cannot be softened or made less severe by
any possibility of good.
In simpler terms, the author suggests that while someone
who feels too much might experience pain, someone who
feels nothing at all embodies pure evil. This evil cannot
be redeemed or lessened by any potential for good deeds.

This is a good explanation, but why did you call Ann
Radcliffe `they`? I think only an LLM would do so. Will
you claim that you have mended your Usenet manner: started
to use normal formatting and proper capitalisation?