Jane Austen discussion
This topic is about
Pride and Prejudice
The Tea Tray
>
Should Elizabeth have accepted Darcy's first proposal?
In respect (no pun intended!) of Lizzie Bennet turning down two suitors (Mr Collins and Mr Darcy first time around), I do wonder what she might have done (with either!) had the proposals taken place after Mr Bennet had died, and the family were being evicted from Longbourn and left with nothing more than (I think?) their £1,000 (each?) (At the 'going rate' of around 5% interest, a thousand pounds would have yielded about £50 a year to live on??).I wonder whether the dividing line between avarice and prudence might have shifted at all?????? If not for her own sake, but for that of her mother and sisters??? (Lizzie might also have thought that once married to Darcy, it would surely bring Bingley back into her orbit, and that it would therefore give Jane another chance to win him....)
In a way, thinking about it, the first two proposals almost 'cancel each other out'.....Mr Collins is kindly enough (he's not cruel or unfeeling after all) but he is dreadfully stupid ('Mr Collins was not a sensible man'....priceless!), whereas Mr D is of course very intelligent and well educated/cultured etc etc, but is not 'kindly'.....
As ever, the situation does beg the question as to what extent we can 'afford' our morals. (Eliza Doolittle's dustman father in Pygmalion is blunt about it to Professor Higgins - 'Morality? Can't afford it, guvnor!').
Mr. Dashwood isn't irresponsible. His money came from his first wife and it's bound up in a settlement to HER heir. All Mr. Dashwood can do is ask his son to provide for Mrs. Dashwood and the girls. John is the irresponsible one, letting his awful wife talk him out of doing what he promised. Likewise, Rev. Austen wasn't irresponsible unless you count having a large family on a small income but there wasn't any easy way to prevent pregnancy, other than the obvious. Rev. Austen only earned money from his livings and his small inheritance. With 7 children and one needing extra special care living somewhere else, he had to take in boarders to make ends meet. Cassandra Austen was engaged to a young clergyman who unfortunately died just before they were to be married. Tom Fowle left Cassandra with a small income. Jane had her chance to marry and she changed her mind so if you want to blame someone for her subsequent impoverished state, it's her own fault. When Rev. Austen died, the women were impoverished. Mrs. Austen's sister-in-law in Bath could have helped but didn't.
The Austen brothers all had families of their own and Edward's estate income was tied to his adoptive mother. Like Frank Churchill's aunt in Emma, she seemed rather capricious and tied Edward's hands. James could probably have helped more. He sounds like a prig to me and Mary was insufferable enough that even her own sister preferred not to live with her. Henry was in and out of financial difficulties and hosted his little sister in his home to help her publish her books. Frank and Charles were in the navy and their fortunes were limited to prize money at the time. (After Jane's death they both became Admirals). George had special needs and boarded out so he didn't have an income either and needed to be supported. The boys scraped together enough to help support the women. It was really Martha Lloyd who exemplifies the impoverished Georgian spinster. She had no home or fortune of her own and happily lived with the Austen women so she could have a home.
I'll need to give the opening chapter of S and S another careful read, as I recall it goes into quite a lot of detail about how the girls and their mother ended up so indigent - I seem to recall the father was planning on saving revenue out of the estate over the coming years to put a nest egg by for his eventual widow and daughters, but died too soon.That said, even in entailed estates it's quite customary for one of the properties on the estate to be set aside as a 'dower house', so it's surprising he didn't at least provide accommodation for his daughters. Would this really have been beyond his power? Entails are so 'arcane' these days, I'm not sure they are even legal any more??
I agree daughters, and usually widows too, simply had to get out of the 'big house' the moment their fathers died, and the son took over.
I definitely agree that the girl's half brother is far, far more culpable, and that amazingly written chapter in which the vile Fanny argues him out of doing anything at all for them is both masterly and horrifying!
I always wished Fanny had come to a really miserable end - perhaps she'll die of an unpleasant and painful illness, to punish her for her horrible spite.
That said again, of course, one never knows what 'bad feelings' there might have been between John Dashwood and his father, when his father chose to marry again a much younger woman, and have more children....that isn't always easy to swallow even these days! And yes, I concede that there was no way that the first wife's settlements should have been used to benefit her successor.
Haha! Eheh...No.Absolutely not. She didn't know him well enough and he had a lot of character building and rewriting to do before he would have ever been good enough for her. If she would have said yes to the man Darcy was then, she would have had a miserable (but rich) marriage. Charlotte Lucus would have said yes because her view on marriage was mercenary and only for a comfortable life. But Elizabeth refused him because her view on marriage was to marry a good man with good characters of whom she would be in love with. Darcy wasn't that man then. But she only accepts him later because he changed his character.
(I've read this over 3+ times, so I know the book in and out, and this is what I think Jane Austen is telling us.)
I'm not sure I'd call Charlotte Lucas 'mercenary'....though I think it's a fine line/moot point! I'd call her pragmatic and practical, and yes, prioritising a comfortable life (she'll be mistress of Longborn one day, if Mr C doesn't peg out before Mr Bennet) (hmm, I wonder who would inherit next, if Mr C doesn't have a son??) (I've no idea what happened to entailed estates when a male heir was lacking? Did the females finally get in with a chance???!!)Austen clearly raises the whole issue with the classic line about 'where does prudence end and avarice begin' and this informs the whole novel of course, and the choices about marriage made within it, by the various characters.
(Hmm, how many characters does that affect? There is Georgiana, very nearly being incredibly imprudent and eloping with Wickham, saved in the nick of time by Mr D. Then, of course, Lydia doing likewise, and only being saved for 'respectability'....as much as the wretched girl can ever be respectable, not that she values it or is grateful for it....it does rather beg the question of just how she would have coped if Mr D had not saved the day.....maybe she'd have learnt a bitter, bitter lesson being treated as a fallen woman etc. On the other hand, she might have become a successful courtesan?!
Had Elizabeth accepted Darcy first time around that would have been a highly emotionally imprudent marriage, though a financially prudent one.
Charlotte makes a calculated financially prudent marriage, but not an emotionally prudent one. But, that said, she doesn't do too badly considering - Mr C is not 'vicious' or debauched, or a drunkard, or unfaithful. He's also capable of being 'managed' by his wife, which we see at the rectory (Charlotte encourages him to be outdoors, out of her hair...). We must bear in mind that Charlotte is no beauty, like Jane or Lizzy, and that makes her pragmatic too - no hero is going to fall headlong in love with her and sweep her off like Prince Charming. She knows her limitations, and acts within them. She's a few years older than Lizzy, and her shelf-life is waning....she can't put off settling for a less than ideal husband, and without one at all, she will be impoverished - a Miss Bates in the making)(and a Miss Austen too, of course....)
Only Lizzy and Jane get to make marriages that are both financially and emotionally prudent. They were lucky to have 'rich, good men' fall in love with them.
It is, perhaps, the biggest difference between our generation, and that of Austen (and, indeed, just about every generation of women up to, at the best, the late 19th/early 20th C??), that we have the luxury of choice when it comes to 'marriage or poverty'.We can 'hold out for the best', and turn down 'inferior offers', because we know we can put a roof over our heads by our own efforts, etc.
We can afford not to compromise, and only our hearts are hurt, not our livelihoods.
Plus, of course, we know we can afford to risk making a mistake in the choice of man, as we can divorce them if we chose the wrong one!!!!
That freedom - to make our own money, and to terminate an unhappy marriage - is incalculably valuable to us.
It makes Lizzy's refusal of Darcy first time around incredibly brave - after all, as Mr Collins so tactlessly tells her, despite her beauty, her poor prospects means she may never receive another offer of marriage than his!
As a treat during lockdown, the BBC is showing the Colin Firth P and P all over again. Such a delight! It's aged very well, considering it's over 20 years old now. Almost perfect casting. Mr Bingley is particularly spot on I think.
Absolutely not! She was still prejudiced against him and there was things unsolved between them!
I don't disagree, but it was still very brave of her to turn him down! I wonder if she would have 'thawed' him had she accepted? Especially, say, after he'd written her the letter explaining his conduct towards Wickham. If she'd written back (not that it was the done thing for a woman to write to a man she wasn't at least engaged to!) saying she understood now, and that she was ready to make her peace with with him, would Darcy have sought her out again to re-propose?Interesting, in terms of breach of promise (which really was a legal issue in those days, and women could take a man to court for having promised to marry her and then dumped her - she could get financial compensation off him!), and, indeed, in terms of 'honourable behaviour', once Lizzie had turned down Darcy, as she had, if she then changed her mind, was he obliged to keep the offer of marriage open?? Or could he argue, sorry luv, you missed the boat - I've changed my mind now!??
The BBC showed the final instalment of the Colin Firth P and P last night - such a joy to watch!
Having watched on You Tube y/day the two versions (Firth/Rintoul) of the First Proposal Scene, back to back, it really brings home how utterly outrageous Darcy is being!And WHY does he spell it all out so brutally ('the inferiority of your connections' etc etc)? I know he says 'disguise of any kind is abhorrent to me' (one of the most 'unnecessary' utterances ever, surely, ha ha!), but what possible reason has he to spell it out to Lizzie?
Maybe it just 'poured out of him' having had to work himself up into a state to actually make the proposal?
Maybe he wanted to ram home to her just how huge a favour he was doing her by his proposal?
Or maybe (and I read this in a lit-crit book!), he does so because he subconsciously WANTS her to reject him (because he so doesn't want to actually want to marry/love her!)
Curiously, I do find Lizzie's response - not her words, but the way she just sits there while he pours all this out at her - a bit 'underplayed' by both actresses in the two versions. Personally I think she should look more shell-shocked both at the proposal and all the insults that then get hurled at her! I think she should recoil physically from him! And I think she could be a lot more vehement in her ripostes as well!
Darcy lays it all out so she knows just what a great favor he's doing her by proposing. He's being his snobbiest and rudest and doesn't realize it. He thinks she's going to fall over at his feet and accept. Remember- he's met her mercenary mother. He believes - he KNOWS that ANY woman in England would jump at the chance to have him. His bestowing his affections, such as they are, on Elizabeth is condescending, much like his aunt! Lizzy is remarkably calm even when she's roused to anger.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Having watched on You Tube y/day the two versions (Firth/Rintoul) of the First Proposal Scene, back to back, it really brings home how utterly outrageous Darcy is being!And WHY does he spell it a..."
Agreed🤩👏
QNPoohBear wrote: "Darcy lays it all out so she knows just what a great favor he's doing her by proposing. He's being his snobbiest and rudest and doesn't realize it. He thinks she's going to fall over at his feet an..."So my thoughts too 😍🙏
Thank you ClaraBelle. I don't like Darcy much up to this point and I know we wouldn't get along- we're too much alike and I'm not as nice as Elizabeth so we'd fight a lot. Darcy isn't shy and he doesn't have autism. He's a snob plain and simple and his first proposal is evidence of that. "I've overcome ALLLLL these obstacles just to ask you to marry me! Aren't you thrilled?! why aren't you jumping up and down clapping your hands in glee?" Imagine if she did accept? He'd want to control her behavior and never ever invite her family to visit. He couldn't POSSIBLY acknowledge people he doesn't like for the sake of his wife's feelings. Lizzy probably wouldn't see her family often, if at all. She would be busy with running an extensive household, raising the children and serving the poor (because she's a good person and Darcy is, for all his faults, aware of his sense of duty towards his dependents). He calls 50 miles an easy distance but it's really not. You have to travel by stages to rest the horses, travel when the roads are good, travel during daylight and full moon light, stay overnight at inns. She would probably see the Gardiners in London at least. It would be a sad life for Lizzy.
Yes, I can see the logic of what you say - that he seems to feel/believe that if he tells Lizzie to her face how much he's had to swallow (her inferior status) it will 'prove' to her just how much 'in lurve' he is with her! The very fact that he's forced himself to ignore all the obstacles ('in vain I have struggled, it will not do!' as he famously launches) is itself a measure (so he assumes!) of how deep his love is, and therefore how impressed she'll be by it!What's just struck me now, reading your post above, of the kind of life he would impose on Lizzie (the latter grovelling in gratitude that this lordly being deigned to love and marry her!), I think it also draws to mind the kind of marriage Lizzie's parents had.....Mr Bennet admits (and warns Lizzie) not to make a marriage where one partner cannot respect the other, and that would be true were Lizzie to have accepted Darcy's first proposal - Darcy makes it brutally clear how little respect he has for Lizzie, let alone her family. Mr Bennet 'married down', and lived to regret it.....Darcy would do likewise.
(Ironically, Mr Bennet only married 'half-down', in that it is only Mrs Bennet and her sister, Aunt Philips, who are 'vulgar'. Her brother Mr Gardiner is not vulgar in the least. Which sort of begs the question why such a sensible man had two 'silly sisters'! In a way, both the 'Gardiner girls', as they would have been when unmarried, were echoes of the Misses Steele in S and S - whose father was also an attorney, I think, just on the outer skirts of gentility. One suspects the Miss Gardiner who caught Mr Bennet - we never know Mr or Mrs Bennet's Christian names, do we? - would have been cock-a-hoop at the time of securing him!)
(To be fair to Mrs B, she is far more concerned than Mr B that her daughters should not end up as future Miss Bates, or herself as a future Mrs Bates of course.)
When Darcy calls 50 miles 'an easy distance' I always think of a guy owning a Ferrari calling 50 miles 'nothing at all'!!There speaks a rich man, travelling in his own latest model comfortable chaise with his own horses along the way, etc etc.
Certainly easy for him!
(I wonder if it were possible to read in travelling coaches, or would the roads have been so grim they'd have been bounced around endlessly?)
"he KNOWS that ANY woman in England would jump at the chance to have him. "Yes, and it's nice therefore that Lizzie jokes that she started to fall in love with him when she first saw Pemberley! Ouch!
QNPoohBear wrote: "Thank you ClaraBelle. I don't like Darcy much up to this point and I know we wouldn't get along- we're too much alike and I'm not as nice as Elizabeth so we'd fight a lot. Darcy isn't shy and he do..."Agree, she would have been miserable if she’d accepted his first proposal
Beth-In-UK wrote: ""he KNOWS that ANY woman in England would jump at the chance to have him. "Yes, and it's nice therefore that Lizzie jokes that she started to fall in love with him when she first saw Pemberley! O..."
😂😍
Beth-In-UK wrote: "When Darcy calls 50 miles 'an easy distance' I always think of a guy owning a Ferrari calling 50 miles 'nothing at all'!!There speaks a rich man, travelling in his own latest model comfortable ch..."
Yes!!!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Yes, and it's nice therefore that Lizzie jokes that she started to fall in love with him when she first saw Pemberley! O..."A very delicate use of exact words. Because it did indeed date from then.
Mary wrote: "Beth-In-UK wrote: "Yes, and it's nice therefore that Lizzie jokes that she started to fall in love with him when she first saw Pemberley! O..."A very delicate use of exact words. Because it did i..."
Yes i agree on both!
It's a bit of a morally ambiguous admission, isn't it? What is it exactly that she's admitting to? Is it the fact that Pemberley is obviously a very expensive property, and could only belong to a rich man (and should that have any attraction for her????!!!!). Or maybe it's because it represents all that is 'best' about the aristocracy - that they get to live in beautiful houses? (So, maybe, one might argue, that if, say, we could live in a society consisting only of aristocrats, and all the work was done by, say, robots, in terms of generating the wealth the aristocrats are spending on palatial mansions, then there is then nothing morally wrong about wanting to own/live/marry into such a grand property? ie, that the only thing 'wrong' with wanting to live at Pemberley as its mistress is that not everyone else can be that rich, and that Darcy's wealth is, inevitably, obtained by expropriating the labour of the poor, ie, his tenants, or those who work in companies he invests in etc etc etc etc). (Unlike Mansfield Park, there is absolutely no hint or indication - so far as I can recall! - that any of the Darcy wealth derives from any taint of Caribbean slavery, unlike Sir Thomas Bertram of MP who specifically journeys to, I think, Antigua, to sort out his investments and properties there. But, even without the taint of slave-generated profits, the labouring poor in the UK were, after all, very poor. But, again, we are also given to understand that Darcy is a responsible and caring landlord, so hopefully Pemberley's labouring poor are not as poor as some others in the country!)Or, perhaps, Lizzie is merely identifying Pemberley with Darcy himself, so that the two are indistinguishable, and to love Darcy (which she is not quite ready to admit yet!) is to love his home as well (which she is more minded to admit!). So, Pemberley is a proxy for Darcy??
Overall, though, I think her admission remains 'debateable' as to whether it is, or is not, a 'good' thing for her to feel?
(It remains a moral and emoitional dilemma whenever two people of significantly unequal respective wealth marry each other - the rich one will always wonder whether it was their wealth which attracted their partner to them, and the poorer one will always wonder if part of the allure of their partner was their wealth!)
I guess, thinking about it a bit more, applying a moral perspective to the issue, one might argue that Darcy is no more 'entitled' to own Pemberley (he just sat back and inherited it, he didn't make his own money by his own efforts and hard work and ingenuity etc, to buy it himself), than Lizzie is (just by marrying the owner!) (not that she will 'own' Pemberley - nor, indeed, assuming there is an entail on it - surely there would be? - does, in that sense, Darcy either. It is 'owned' by the collective oldest sons across the generations.)
I'm also pretty sure that we know Lizzie's character well enough to believe that, were Darcy to lose all his money (or be 'disinherited' as Edward Ferrars is), that she would still want to marry him.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "It's a bit of a morally ambiguous admission, isn't it? What is it exactly that she's admitting to? Is it the fact that Pemberley is obviously a very expensive property, and could only belong to a r..."She's talking AS IF it were discovering how rich he was made her "fall in love.'
In reality, her visit to Pemberley was when she first met Darcy after his abortive proposal, and he appears in a much better light. For instance, he is polite and hospitable to the relatives who, she had thought, were the reason for his not wishing to marry her, thus showing himself much less snobbish.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I'm also pretty sure that we know Lizzie's character well enough to believe that, were Darcy to lose all his money (or be 'disinherited' as Edward Ferrars is), that she would still want to marry him."Yes love that!
Mary wrote: "Beth-In-UK wrote: "It's a bit of a morally ambiguous admission, isn't it? What is it exactly that she's admitting to? Is it the fact that Pemberley is obviously a very expensive property, and could..."True😉🙌🤩❤️
Completely agree that what impressed Lizzie most at Pemberley was Darcy's complete change in attitude and behaviour towards her, and her aunt and uncle. Now he was, indeed, behaving 'in a gentlemanly like fashion' (as she had accused him of NOT having behaved in her rejection speech to him!).But I'm pretty sure that before Darcy makes his appearance (whether out of a pond or not!!!!!), and she is simply there with her aunt and uncle, and the housekeeper showing them around, she muses to herself, as if much struck for the very first time as to exactly what she turned down in turning down Darcy's insulting proposal: 'And of all of this I might have been mistress....'
It does read, I think, as if there were an element of regret in her thought.
Perhaps it's a case of 'love the house, shame about the owner!'....
The 'love the house, shame about the owner' is, somewhat scarily/forebodingly, reminiscent of the attitude of Maria Bertram in Mansfield Park, who really fancies being mistress of Sotherton (I think that's the name of the house/estate) which she could become if she married Mr Rushworth. She does indeed make such a marriage, and regrets it speedily, ruining her life by running off with her lover, Henry Crawford.Mind you, Mr Rushworth isn't a patch on Mr Darcy in the sex appeal stakes!!! Or in the brainbox stakes either.
Yes, she does muse about it, and how she could be welcoming her aunt and uncle here, but she pulls herself up very quickly by remembering that she could NOT welcome her aunt and uncle because her snob of a husband would not accept them as guests.
According to one of the annotated books I read, the comment about Pemberley means Darcy has the same idea about landscape design as Elizabeth- it's man made to enhance the natural beauty. It's not stuffy and forced the way Darcy appears to be. I believe it's supposed to be by Humphrey Repton but Jane doesn't name names until Mansfield Park.https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.co...
The comment was meant tongue in cheek though. Jane Bennet knows that.
Without checking back in the text, I think Austen has Lizzie muse along the lines of (I paraphrase!) 'never had nature and art been so sympathetically and successfully combined' , with the house and grounds being designed to complement the natural landscape and the latter to enhance the former.Again, perhaps a sideways link to Sotherton in MP, where Austen is pretty scathing about all the 'improvements' that Mr Rushworth is eager to impose, egged on by Henry Crawford promoting (I'm pretty sure!) Humphry Repton (whom he had used himself at his own estate I think?), and there are some withering remarks about cutting down centuries old oak trees to create new vistas etc.
So presumably, for Austen (reasonably enough!) there are 'good' improvements and 'bad' improvements, depending on how skilfully and sympathetically and respectfully-to-nature they are undertaken. Pemberly's enhance, Sotherton's will only destroy.
So, yes, I guess Lizzie's remark to Jane is, I concede, far more about how beautiful Pemberley is, rather than how grand - it's its aesthetic value she had wanted, not its financial one.
I've always been a bit taken aback by the assumption that Pemberley is Chatsworth (which was used in the Keira Knightley film I think as Pemberley??)Chatsworth, along with Castle Howard and Blenheim Palace (the last is the only non-royal palace in the UK!), are the 'top three' stately homes in the UK, and a level about all the others, as well as very similar in style and date ('High English Baroque' I guess, for want of a better description!) (They certainly look pretty similar apart from layout) (I'm no architectural student, but a casual glance at photos will show the similarity)
The Colin Firth TV version chose a far more suitable 'grand residence' (Lyme House, I think it was called - must go and check!) which was yes, obviously grand, but not a 'ducal home' like Chatsworth.
But then, of course, the dreadful KK film version also erred in the other extreme as well, turning Longbourn into little more than a ramshackle farm house with pigs running around and washing lines all over the place outside. Idiotic! (I appreciate I think the director was American, and so were some of the actors, like poor fatally miscast Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet - though I can understand why he fell for the temptation to play him - a hard part to turn down!, but surely all the rest of the Brits involved in the film could have hammered home the British class system?? It's fiendishly tricky for 'foreigners' to comprehend (just as it's just as difficult for Brits to figure out the subtleties of any other nation's class system - I certainly couldn't navigate my way around the historical American one, especially when it comes to 'ranking' waves of immigration (eg, it used to be the Irish who were 'bottom of the pile' then they went up a bit as newer waves arrived, such as Italians and Russians and so on, each most recent one becoming 'bottom of the pile' - but what the exact sequence was I have no idea, or how strong the prejudice was etc etc)
(As for Continental ones, for us Brits it's really confusing that there seem to be so many 'peers', as in, loads of Counts and so on, which is odd to us, but not to Continentals, as titles are shared out much more generously in aristocratic families, unlike over here, etc etc - so a 'count' may only be a younger son/grandson etc etc, and own no estates at all, only the 'courtesy' title...)
(And courtesy titles in the UK are definitely confusing, enabling sons of peers to be elected into the House of Commons, yet addressed as 'Lord' etc etc - how confusing is that?!!!!)
I like this thread that addresses the evolution of the feelings of our Lizzie upon seeing Pemberley for the first time. I have a few observations to add. Yes, of course she was a bit bowled over by the grandeur of the place, but she became aware of his ten thousand a year the night she first saw him at the assembly. So there was no surprise to be felt as to his wealth. But she was quite enamoured by several things she LEARNED about him at Pemberley. The lack of artificial contrivance to be found in the grounds and gardens makes a strong impression upon her. She is admitting to herself that 'being mistress of Pemberley might really be something' before she has ever entered the house. Darcy's taste and discernment is selecting furnishings is later remarked upon. Remember she noted they were not 'uselessly fine' as were those chosen by Lady Catherine for Rosings. This is differentiating Darcy from his aunt, who we all know has no redeeming qualities. The 'flaming character' provided by Mrs. Reynolds, the housekeeper, is also telling. Mrs. Reynolds has known Darcy far longer than Elizabeth and has had ample opportunity to witness his faults, not only due to her intimacy with the household, but also from the perspective of a servant rather than a social acquaintance. Her opinion carries a good deal of weight!Lastly, we have the unexpected meeting between Elizabeth and Darcy and this is the climax of her tour of the estate. Darcy's altered behaviour shocks her and in presenting her with his improved manners and concerted effort to show her the respect she is due, Darcy reveals his true character and the depth of his feelings for her.
Though it is technically true that her first visit to Pemberley firmly establishes her improving opinion of Darcy and removes nearly every doubt she has about the power she still holds over him, I never attributed this evolution to merely the impressiveness of the estate. Although a little wealth never hurt a man's prospects, lol!
QNPoohBear wrote: "According to one of the annotated books I read, the comment about Pemberley means Darcy has the same idea about landscape design as Elizabeth- it's man made to enhance the natural beauty. It's not ..."I have the annotated Pride and Prejudice by David M. Shapard. I think it's very good! I do not really remember what he said about Lizzie's approval of the natural beauty of the grounds, but probably something insightful. But you bring up another great point whereas I was merely reading that she is noticing the differences between the style of Pemberley and Rosings, you are reading about Darcy's (and thus Pemberley's) style conforming with her own tastes, which would naturally surprise and please her.
Mary wrote: "Yes, she does muse about it, and how she could be welcoming her aunt and uncle here, but she pulls herself up very quickly by remembering that she could NOT welcome her aunt and uncle because her s..."Yes! and I think JA actually calls her sentiments 'something like regret'. She is clearly torn. She is imagining for the first time what her life would be like as Mrs. Darcy and having not encountered Mr. Darcy yet nor seen his change in behaviour, she is reminding herself of the expected consequences of having accepted him.
Shana wrote: "I have the annotated Pride and Prejudice by David M. Shapard. I think it's very good! I do not really remember what he said about Lizzie's approval of the natural beauty of the grounds, but probably something insightful. But you bring up another great point whereas I was merely reading that she is noticing the differences between the style of Pemberley and Rosings, you are reading about Darcy's (and thus Pemberley's) style conforming with her own tastes, which would naturally surprise and please her."
If it's not in that one, I probably read it in a JASNA article somewhere.
Lizzie rejecting Darcy was an essential part in the story and it certainly gave me a lot of excitement. She also needed quite a bit of time to like him better. I think that she did the right thing in rejecting him (at first.)
I think the proposal/rejection scene helps to structure the novel neatly into two halves, and the issue of just who is 'Proud' and who is 'Prejudiced' begin to reverse over. It's also a joy to read in terms of taking Mr Darcy down a peg or two!
He was assuming a woman as poor as Lizzie Bennet would just snap him up.
She shows her grit by turning him down, even though it would have been a materially advantageous marriage.
I think her rejection helps Darcy realise she is a woman of principle (ie, she turns down a rich marriage), which of course makes him love her even more (and want to be worthy of her love, which he then proves when he saves her family from social ruin after Lydia has run off with Wickham without any sign of him marrying her.)
I honestly think that it was because of that first rejection that tested and strengthened their relationship. It was right for Lizzy to reject him during the first proposal especially because by that time, she knew him as arrogant and awful. Their relationship would have failed early on if Lizzy said yes only because of the connections and without any feeling of affection. Not to mention the first proposal was terrible and filled with insults. I can't imagine anyone accepting such proposition.
I agree Lizzie was morally right to reject Darcy - and take him down a peg or two (very satisfying!).But she does show signs of regretting it when she visits Pemberley ('And of all this I might have been mistress'')(a sentiment she humourously reprises once she and Darcy have finally got together, and he asks her when she first fell for him, and she says - I paraphrase! - 'It was when I first set eyes on Pemberley'!!!!)
It was a morally brave rejection though. She must have known, looking bleakly in to the likely future, that she might never have received so 'brilliant' an offer again, or even any offer at all.
I rather feel Austen herself present at the scene - she, too, turned down a 'well to do' proposal (initially accepting then withdrawing the next day I believe) because she did not love the man, but it must have been a difficult decision, knowing she'd rejected what really was her 'last chance' of marriage.
(I see Austen herself in Anne Eliot, too, of course, facing a lonely and dependent future. Which rather begs the question - another debate in itself really - whether, had Wentworth not reappeared on the scene when he did, would she have been tempted to marry her cousin Mr Eliot?)
In the same vein, I see Austen in Charlotte Lucas, as well, settling for Mr Collins and determined to make the best of it (as she does.)
No. She didn't love and respect him. And eventually, she grew to both love and respect him..When he changed himself, that's when she started to develop feelings for him. And in the end, she loved him for who he truly was.
Mackenzie wrote: "No. She didn't love and respect him. And eventually, she grew to both love and respect him..When he changed himself, that's when she started to develop feelings for him. And in the end, she loved h..."Agree
No, she should not have accepted the proposal. Darcy was arrogant and humiliated Lizzie with a marriage offer full of reproaches about her social position and her family — it was unacceptable. That is where Lizzie’s bravery and strong character shine: saying NO to a rich, powerful, and arrogant man."
It was very risky to reject a second wedding proposal from a second respectable man. Darcy was wealthy and she and her family certainly could have used the security. That being said, no. Both Darcy and Elizabeth needed to conquer their pride and prejudices. Until they did, a marriage would have been a disaster. They both needed to change. Darcy needed to become the true gentleman and he needed to Elizabeth to tell him off to do that. And Elizabeth needed to become a better judge of character and she needed the letter from Darcy to do that.
Jan wrote: "It was very risky to reject a second wedding proposal from a second respectable man. Darcy was wealthy and she and her family certainly could have used the security. That being said, no. Both Darcy..."Yes, I think you made a very good point about how both of them needed to grow before they could truly be together. It's beautiful to think that their love wasn’t born from idealization, but from personal growth. I especially like the idea that Elizabeth, by standing up to Darcy, helped him become a true gentleman, and at the same time, Darcy, through his letter, gave Elizabeth the chance to see beyond her first impressions. Their story is, at its heart, a journey of mutual transformation
Like most of (all) the fathers in Austen's novels he's irresponsible.(Possibly not Katherine's in Northanger Abbey, though, if you think about it, he 'trusted' that his friends would look after his daughter....but when the General ruthlessly packs her back home, and she has to travel by public stage in some distress, and great youth, she was in real danger....she could easily have ended up being kidnapped or assaulted etc etc)
But Marianne and Elinor's father is irresponsible in not providing for his second wife and daughters (I know he tries, but even so!), Fanny Price's father is utterly irresponsible, Sir Walter Eliot is even more culpable and even Mr Woodhouse, though he clear loves Emma, really should have wanted her to marry, and not dwindle into an old maid dedicating her life to looking after her valetudinarian father.
I appreciate that, as I think I've said elsewhere/already (?), all romantic heroines 'need' to have parents who 'don't look after them', because otherwise there would be no plot (!), but I do also wonder if Austen is thinking of her own father as well. Again, I know he tried to provide financially for his widow and daughters, but in the end they were dependent on their brothers' charity. Austen must surely have felt that (which was why she was so thrilled to earn money from her novels!)