I think he broke the rules left and right and different parts of his brain recognized it and some parts didn`t. He needed Elizabeth in his life. For the rest of his life. I have always equated the Regency era of the 19th century with the 20 savages of the 20th century. Okay, assimilated may not be the right word, but both were the “wild period” of their century. So I can see that Austen`s characters were a little less concerned with decency. They also went to the countryside where life is usually a bit more relaxed. What a fascinating discussion! Abigail, you always bring a new perspective that I really appreciate. I never really thought about the relevance of the time and how the characters in YES could have breached the rules, with the exception of Marianne. When I first read S&S as a teenager in the early `70s, their behavior even seemed wild to me – I felt like I was riding the bad boy in town`s motorcycle (my parents would have killed me!). But the “misconduct” in JA`s other novels was too subtle for me to grasp, and I`ll be happy to pay attention to these clues during my biannual reading of his complete works. It was a big story – suggesting that Israel continued to flout international law to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining weapons. It is one of the oldest institutions in the country, which even we would not have dared to ignore on our hundred hectares.
Also, I wonder how many rules were simply overlooked or not strictly followed because it was tedious or tedious to follow all the time. Eventually, maybe no one would want to leave or be available to go with Elizabeth, so she left alone. If you`re reading a good book, it`s boring at best to leave the library because another person has come in or is waiting for the other person to leave. While this is inappropriate, no one really seems to care, and maybe the rules have been changed more often than we think, but saying it out loud would be outrageous. I could not afford to insult the railway directors, but I did not want to ignore many workers, mainly voters. How can one openly ignore a landmark Supreme Court decision and face no consequences? He chose the country and made Alice ignore contemporary morality, crouch in public and smoke. Republicans could trample on their own resentments and true believers. Do you think, Sir Comte, that to joke with a princess of her own country and then come back only to ignore her for it? A pardon would ignore the principle that even the president is not above the law. I loved your message and, yes, I agree that there is a lot of impropriety. I also believe that Darcy has a social disability and is shy and tense.
Lizzie is a free spirit and the only person who attracts her would be another person with a free spirit. I`ll put it another way, if Lizzie was passionate about horseback riding, she would have found a way to ride a horse. Thank you for this wonderful post, Abigail. Then he meets someone who hits him completely on his proverbial Hiney. It also disturbs its delicate balance! Elizabeth is not at all the kind of creature that attracts her. It does not play by the rules. She runs the risk of being co-opted by Wickham himself. We really don`t know what he`s thinking, but we`re interpreting.
We have his disastrous and horrible proposal that we can focus on. Some parts were quite nice. One might take his “I Fought in Vain” a little differently if he hadn`t followed it with such a complete destruction of his origins and family. He should be attracted to someone like Caroline. But where have the attitudes of this society led him now? They are fake, nasty, even predatory. He also believes Ms. Bennet`s worst, of course, for good reason. But after the completely unexpected rejection (for him) and the outright slap in the face that Elizabeth delivers, he REALLY collapses. He has nothing left to lose in terms of pride. Break more rules, write this shocking letter. And go home.
And obviously, it`s changing. We all love consistency when it is noble, but we all love change when it is so divine!!!! I guess many rules have also been twisted, especially by Jane Austen herself! I love this analogy and I totally agree that Lizzy would have found a way around – at least in private! I agree that Darcy is socially inept, and a big question is to what extent his ignorance of the rules is due to him not fully understanding them, rather than deciding that they don`t apply to him. We English once particularly ignored the small nation, which at the time played out a story that proved worth writing. While you`re still my favorite author of all time, I have to admit that I`ve read over 500 novels, short stories, and short stories from P&P. Decency or lack of decency has never bothered me. I realize that customs change over time, and generations before and after the reign had completely different standards. As for Darcy and Elizabeth, their lack of decency only adds spice and excitement. Very interesting article! I think one of the reasons Elizabeth remains a favorite heroine is that she defied the decency of time without going too far.
It reminds me of a scene in Northanger Abbey where Catherine rides with Mr. Thorpe in an open car. She hesitates to leave because she doesn`t know if it`s good or not. After getting permission from Mrs. Tous received, they left. After that, Mr. Everyone that he didn`t think it was quite right and Mrs. Allen agrees with him. Catherine gets angry and says something like, “Why did you tell me to leave if you think it`s inappropriate? I would never have left if you had told me it was inappropriate! Ms. Allen`s opinions change depending on who she talks to (I don`t remember ever having an original opinion in the novel), so I wonder if these things were inappropriate just because they were written, and to say they weren`t would have been outrageous. It could be that the rules were not clear all along. I`d go a step further – I`d say the Regency era was even more extravagant than the wild 20s, especially among barrels.
One of the reasons I avoid writing about Darcy in London most of the time is because so much behavior there was so shocking! But at the same time, there were such expectations of decency for single women. I really can`t find my way around. A fascinating idea, Abigail – she fits perfectly with everything we know of Jane herself, who behaves inappropriately, as she explained in a letter to her sister in January 1796 – a true primary source for the customs of the time. I have often wondered to what extent Elizabeth Bennet is part of Jane`s character. It was clearly very important to behave as society demanded, and I love the fact that Elizabeth and Jane bended the rules! I wonder if Jane Austen did the same thing, breaking the same rules, so she didn`t think they mattered The late 1700s and early 1800s were very different. I think it was a period of transition in terms of manners and decency, similar to how the country waited in transition for the death of the old king. The previous period was different and IS WHAT SHE GREW UP WITH (hats intentionally). What was important in the 1770s/1780s? It was a much freer time.
So maybe we should look at a couple written by an author who is 20 years younger than them in the books. Decency and its application may not have been all it should have been! Great article! I`m so glad I clarified this, because the more research I researched Regency etiquette and proper decency, the more I realized it just didn`t fit what YES had written. After a while, I wondered how anyone got engaged during this period without having to circumvent certain rules of decency. Are you ready to transform the syntax of a minefield to a stamp location – your stamp location? Forget the rules of school. Forget grammar as it was practiced in elementary school. Rest assured, you will get your grammar here, on the theory that it is better to know the rules before deciding to break them. This book will indeed show you how to avoid Red Pen`s comments, but more importantly, it will show you how to do sinful nonsense. I don`t know enough about the mores of the 1780s to comment. The double standard of the regency was that the rules of decency for single women were completely ignored, compared to a complete disregard for those rules for women of the ton once they were married. I often wonder how they managed to justify all this in their heads! And I agree that YES broke the rules – she even talks about it in her letters.
The difficult thing about the regency is that it had Victorian-era rules for single women, but otherwise without a sense of morality. (Warning in case of sexual violence) In my opinion, the real reason why women should always be escorted was not because they could be seduced, but because men in the regency could essentially rape with impunity, because the consequences for women and their families of publicly admitting rape were so devastating.