开云体育

Beginning with Elizabeth Bennet’s stroll with Colonel Fitzwilliam, and then
continuing during Darcy’s botched first proposal, and then in his letter to
Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bennet comes to learn that Bingley has been kept in
the dark by Miss Bingley and Darcy since leaving Meryton about Jane’s
continuing interest in him, which is what brought Jane to London a few
months after he left.



Elizabeth is thus uniquely situated by Chapter 36 in her knowledge that
Bingley may still be romantically interested in Jane, and she already knew
all along that Jane was definitely still romantically interested in
Bingley. It’s an old romantic trope, the two lovers who each don’t realize
that the other is still in love with them.



I suggest that once Elizabeth has this unique knowledge (the only other
character who also knows is Darcy, but he has made it clear, arrogantly,
that he stands by his actions to keep Bingley in the dark about Jane), she
does absolutely nothing to try to somehow let each of the lovebirds know
about the other, which might cause Bingley to wake up and (as Darcy puts it
in the 1996 miniseries, “go to it”). When she does think about telling
Jane, she decides that it would only make Jane even sadder, since, so her
thinking seems to go, it would be a fool’s errand, it would not bring
Bingley back.



I advocate for Elizabeth to persuade her father to covertly seek out
Bingley in London, and inform Bingley of this crucial fact that Jane still
loves him. I am not suggesting that Elizabeth tell Jane directly, not
unless and until her father was successful.



Two counterarguments to mine come to mind:



FIRST:

Mr. Bennet is indolent, not a responsible diligent father, so even if
Elizabeth asked, he would refuse to intervene. But, given the stakes for
Jane, shouldn't Elizabeth give it a try with him anyway, what does she have
to lose? It would be for Jane’s sake, so it would be the generous thing for
Elizabeth to do. But this possibility never even occurs to Elizabeth. Also,

in Chapter 41, Elizabeth does try to get her father to stop Lydia and Kitty
from going to Brighton. But she doesn’t ask him to do something he already
did, in a different way, at the beginning of the novel, which is to go on a
secret romantic mission to Bingley!



And…. last but not least, Elizabeth doesn’t even think the thought of
asking her father, it never even occurs to her. Her mind is totally
occupied, I would suggest, with increasingly obsessive thoughts and regrets
about Darcy, so it appears there’s no room for thoughts about Jane.



Even when she is at Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, and Darcy’s being so
nice to them and to her – it never occurs to her even then that she might
ask him to reconsider about Jane and Bingley. No, that would risk him
getting angry at her, and sending her on her way home.



SECOND: I actually made up a hypothetical letter that Mr. Bennet could
arrange to have delivered to Bingley in London without being detected by
either Caroline Bingley or Darcy. The letter doesn’t threaten Bingley, it
doesn’t try to make him feel guilty, it recognizes the delicacy of the
situation, and it makes Mr. Bennet’s good intentions perfectly clear, and
gives Bingley an easy out if he is not interested, for any reason, in
restarting with Jane.



Would that be “improper” for Mr. Bennet to write such a letter? But why
would it be improper for a respectable gentleman like Mr. Bennet if he
wrote a carefully worded, non-threatening letter of information to another
gentleman, about a matter of great personal interest to both of them, and
to the woman they both share affection for – Jane? Why would that be more
improper than Mr. Bennet going over to Netherfield at the beginning of the
novel to introduce Bingley to the Bennet family and all his daughters,
which everyone thought was a great move by him.



More important, though, this got me thinking deeply about the distinction
between “propriety” and “morality”. Even if hypothetically, someone could
argue that it was not normal Regency Era decorum for Mr. Bennet to
intervene in this way, I would think that everyone would agree that this
was a very moral thing for Mr. Bennet to do. It would be a mission of
mercy, a mission of love, with pure motives and a possibility it could lead
to the righting of a very bad wrong – two people who love each other having
been separated for no good reason at all.



I don't believe Jane Austen valued propriety and protocol over true love.
Isn't such propriety what Austen ridicules strongly when Mr. Bennet reacts
to Mr. Collins’s letter:

“I must not, however, neglect the duties of my station, or refrain from
declaring my amazement, at hearing that you received the young couple into
your house as soon as they were married. It was an encouragement of vice;
and had I been the rector of Longbourn, I should very strenuously have
opposed it. You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but never
to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in your
hearing.’ That is his notion of Christian forgiveness!”



Mr. Bennet would, I conclude, find a mission to Bingley to be a mission of
charity and generosity. He would risk looking improper, out of love for his
daughter Jane.



What do you all think, about any of the above?



ARNIE

It just wasn't done to tell a man that one's daughter was in love with him.
What one could do, it see the man and tell him that after he had shown
Jane such distinction, had raised hopes in the breasts of Jane and her
family, and by his attention, deterred other gentlemen and then ask if he
was just trifling with his daughter's affections.
Bingley wasn't a cad just not a snob like Darcy.
Nancy
.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:28?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Beginning with Elizabeth Bennet’s stroll with Colonel Fitzwilliam, and then
continuing during Darcy’s botched first proposal, and then in his letter to
Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bennet comes to learn that Bingley has been kept in
the dark by Miss Bingley and Darcy since leaving Meryton about Jane’s
continuing interest in him, which is what brought Jane to London a few
months after he left.



Elizabeth is thus uniquely situated by Chapter 36 in her knowledge that
Bingley may still be romantically interested in Jane, and she already knew
all along that Jane was definitely still romantically interested in
Bingley. It’s an old romantic trope, the two lovers who each don’t realize
that the other is still in love with them.



I suggest that once Elizabeth has this unique knowledge (the only other
character who also knows is Darcy, but he has made it clear, arrogantly,
that he stands by his actions to keep Bingley in the dark about Jane), she
does absolutely nothing to try to somehow let each of the lovebirds know
about the other, which might cause Bingley to wake up and (as Darcy puts it
in the 1996 miniseries, “go to it”). When she does think about telling
Jane, she decides that it would only make Jane even sadder, since, so her
thinking seems to go, it would be a fool’s errand, it would not bring
Bingley back.



I advocate for Elizabeth to persuade her father to covertly seek out
Bingley in London, and inform Bingley of this crucial fact that Jane still
loves him. I am not suggesting that Elizabeth tell Jane directly, not
unless and until her father was successful.



Two counterarguments to mine come to mind:



FIRST:

Mr. Bennet is indolent, not a responsible diligent father, so even if
Elizabeth asked, he would refuse to intervene. But, given the stakes for
Jane, shouldn't Elizabeth give it a try with him anyway, what does she have
to lose? It would be for Jane’s sake, so it would be the generous thing for
Elizabeth to do. But this possibility never even occurs to Elizabeth. Also,

in Chapter 41, Elizabeth does try to get her father to stop Lydia and Kitty
from going to Brighton. But she doesn’t ask him to do something he already
did, in a different way, at the beginning of the novel, which is to go on a
secret romantic mission to Bingley!



And…. last but not least, Elizabeth doesn’t even think the thought of
asking her father, it never even occurs to her. Her mind is totally
occupied, I would suggest, with increasingly obsessive thoughts and regrets
about Darcy, so it appears there’s no room for thoughts about Jane.



Even when she is at Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, and Darcy’s being so
nice to them and to her – it never occurs to her even then that she might
ask him to reconsider about Jane and Bingley. No, that would risk him
getting angry at her, and sending her on her way home.



SECOND: I actually made up a hypothetical letter that Mr. Bennet could
arrange to have delivered to Bingley in London without being detected by
either Caroline Bingley or Darcy. The letter doesn’t threaten Bingley, it
doesn’t try to make him feel guilty, it recognizes the delicacy of the
situation, and it makes Mr. Bennet’s good intentions perfectly clear, and
gives Bingley an easy out if he is not interested, for any reason, in
restarting with Jane.



Would that be “improper” for Mr. Bennet to write such a letter? But why
would it be improper for a respectable gentleman like Mr. Bennet if he
wrote a carefully worded, non-threatening letter of information to another
gentleman, about a matter of great personal interest to both of them, and
to the woman they both share affection for – Jane? Why would that be more
improper than Mr. Bennet going over to Netherfield at the beginning of the
novel to introduce Bingley to the Bennet family and all his daughters,
which everyone thought was a great move by him.



More important, though, this got me thinking deeply about the distinction
between “propriety” and “morality”. Even if hypothetically, someone could
argue that it was not normal Regency Era decorum for Mr. Bennet to
intervene in this way, I would think that everyone would agree that this
was a very moral thing for Mr. Bennet to do. It would be a mission of
mercy, a mission of love, with pure motives and a possibility it could lead
to the righting of a very bad wrong – two people who love each other having
been separated for no good reason at all.



I don't believe Jane Austen valued propriety and protocol over true love.
Isn't such propriety what Austen ridicules strongly when Mr. Bennet reacts
to Mr. Collins’s letter:

“I must not, however, neglect the duties of my station, or refrain from
declaring my amazement, at hearing that you received the young couple into
your house as soon as they were married. It was an encouragement of vice;
and had I been the rector of Longbourn, I should very strenuously have
opposed it. You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but never
to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in your
hearing.’ That is his notion of Christian forgiveness!”



Mr. Bennet would, I conclude, find a mission to Bingley to be a mission of
charity and generosity. He would risk looking improper, out of love for his
daughter Jane.



What do you all think, about any of the above?



ARNIE

NANCY: "It just wasn't done to tell a man that one's daughter was in love
with him."

Just wasn't done sounds to me like empty propriety. I'm asking for a
discussion of how to balance propriety with morality. Sometimes a good
person breaks rules of decorum for a higher moral purpose - in this, for
love (his daughter's love of a good man).

NANCY: "What one could do, is see the man and tell him that after he had
shown Jane such distinction, had raised hopes in the breasts of Jane and
her family, and by his attention, deterred other gentlemen and then ask if
he was just trifling with his daughter's affections. Bingley wasn't a cad
just not a snob like Darcy."

Interesting take.

This is the letter I came up, feel free to suggest how you might word it
differently, if you agree with the concept:



Mr. Charles Bingley

London, England



My dear Mr. Bingley,



My dear sir, be not be alarmed to receive this letter from me out of the
blue, after many months since we were last in company in Meryton. Please be
assured from the start that I am, fortunately, not the bearer of any bad
news of a medical or financial nature. All the members of my family are in
good health, thankfully, and my income remains stable. I hope the same is
true of yours.



Nonetheless, the matter I am writing to you about is of a delicate,
personal, and urgent nature, and so I beg your indulgence to hear me out, I
will be as brief as possible. I write to you in the sincere belief that I
am delivering to you intelligence that may well be of the greatest
importance to you.



To begin, after what seemed to everyone in Meryton to be a very promising
beginning of a courtship by yourself of my eldest daughter Jane this past
Fall, we Bennets have been disappointed that you have since the end of
November made no attempt to contact or see her.



In particular, I personally vouch to you that Jane, despite her efforts to
put on a brave face, has never ceased over these several months to feel
great sadness over the sudden end of your connection to you.



However, I am writing to you now, because some surprising and concerning
news of a reliable nature has come to my attention very recently, to wit –
that you are very likely completely unaware that Jane was so determined to
see you again that she came to visit with her aunt and uncle Gardiner in
London in January and stayed for a period of weeks, calling at your
residence and leaving notes requesting that you be alerted to her presence
in London - until finally it was made clear to Jane that you were no longer
interested in her, but you had, in fact, set your cap at another young lady.



In that regard, let me now pause and reassure you of a critical point –
neither I nor anyone else in my family is suggesting that you are, or ever
were, obligated, by law or honor, to continue your courtship of Jane – we
all know that you were never engaged to her. Therefore, if this news I am
now delivering to you is not meaningful to you, then just say the word to
me by return message, no further explanation required on your part, and you
will never hear from me again. The last thing I wish to do to such an
agreeable young man like yourself is to make you feel guilty; or, even
worse, to feel obliged to reopen your connection to Jane solely or
primarily out of sympathy for her. No marriage based on mutual love should
be based on such a shaky foundation.



However, I write to you in real hope that your reaction to this news will
be very different than that, and that the warm affection you seemed to feel
for Jane last Fall has never waned. To wit, I am hoping that this news will
not mortify, but instead electrify, you. If so, as some might put it, “Go
to it, young man”. Your relationship with Jane was kindled when I came on a
secret welcoming embassy at Netherfield last Fall, and I sincerely hope
that my current embassy will have a similar effect.



Please take your time and give this letter, which I hope has not come as
too much of a shock to you, as much consideration you wish. I will remain
at my temporary lodgings at _________ till ______ __. One way or the other,
please honor me with your reply when you are ready. If I haven’t heard back
from you by that date, then I will assume a negative response, and return
to Longbourn, knowing that I did what any father would do for a beloved
daughter, but it was for naught.


As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.



Sincerely,



_______ Bennet, Esq.

I forgot to add my most important point about propriety vs. love.



Is there any scene in literature more thrilling than when Elizabeth stands
up to Lady Catherine’s brazen attempt to intimidate Elizabeth into giving
Darcy up? And yet, it is the entry in the dictionary, so to speak, for love
and morality trumping decorum and status. Elizabeth’s stand prompts Lady
Catherine to go back and try to harass Darcy, which is what boomerangs on
her but good – if Elizabeth had observed proper decorum, and had knuckled
under to her social superior, there would be no romantic happy ending
between her and Darcy.



So, if violating decorum for love is good thing – no, a great thing ––
there, why would it be any different if Mr. Bennet went to London to bring
a letter to Bingley like the one I wrote, and then to meet with him, if the
letter hit its mark?



I think the reason many Janeites would resist my argument in this instance,
is that it makes what Elizabeth actually did on Jane’s behalf –– which is
nothing –– look bad, like Elizabeth valued her own prospects with Darcy so
much, that she kept as silent with him about this as she was vocal to Lady
Catherine about that.



ARNIE

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 6:15?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

NANCY: "It just wasn't done to tell a man that one's daughter was in love
with him."

Just wasn't done sounds to me like empty propriety. I'm asking for a
discussion of how to balance propriety with morality. Sometimes a good
person breaks rules of decorum for a higher moral purpose - in this, for
love (his daughter's love of a good man).

NANCY: "What one could do, is see the man and tell him that after he had
shown Jane such distinction, had raised hopes in the breasts of Jane and
her family, and by his attention, deterred other gentlemen and then ask if
he was just trifling with his daughter's affections. Bingley wasn't a cad
just not a snob like Darcy."

Interesting take.

This is the letter I came up, feel free to suggest how you might word it
differently, if you agree with the concept:



Mr. Charles Bingley

London, England



My dear Mr. Bingley,



My dear sir, be not be alarmed to receive this letter from me out of the
blue, after many months since we were last in company in Meryton. Please be
assured from the start that I am, fortunately, not the bearer of any bad
news of a medical or financial nature. All the members of my family are in
good health, thankfully, and my income remains stable. I hope the same is
true of yours.



Nonetheless, the matter I am writing to you about is of a delicate,
personal, and urgent nature, and so I beg your indulgence to hear me out, I
will be as brief as possible. I write to you in the sincere belief that I
am delivering to you intelligence that may well be of the greatest
importance to you.



To begin, after what seemed to everyone in Meryton to be a very promising
beginning of a courtship by yourself of my eldest daughter Jane this past
Fall, we Bennets have been disappointed that you have since the end of
November made no attempt to contact or see her.



In particular, I personally vouch to you that Jane, despite her efforts to
put on a brave face, has never ceased over these several months to feel
great sadness over the sudden end of your connection to you.



However, I am writing to you now, because some surprising and concerning
news of a reliable nature has come to my attention very recently, to wit –
that you are very likely completely unaware that Jane was so determined to
see you again that she came to visit with her aunt and uncle Gardiner in
London in January and stayed for a period of weeks, calling at your
residence and leaving notes requesting that you be alerted to her presence
in London - until finally it was made clear to Jane that you were no longer
interested in her, but you had, in fact, set your cap at another young
lady.



In that regard, let me now pause and reassure you of a critical point –
neither I nor anyone else in my family is suggesting that you are, or ever
were, obligated, by law or honor, to continue your courtship of Jane – we
all know that you were never engaged to her. Therefore, if this news I am
now delivering to you is not meaningful to you, then just say the word to
me by return message, no further explanation required on your part, and you
will never hear from me again. The last thing I wish to do to such an
agreeable young man like yourself is to make you feel guilty; or, even
worse, to feel obliged to reopen your connection to Jane solely or
primarily out of sympathy for her. No marriage based on mutual love should
be based on such a shaky foundation.



However, I write to you in real hope that your reaction to this news will
be very different than that, and that the warm affection you seemed to feel
for Jane last Fall has never waned. To wit, I am hoping that this news will
not mortify, but instead electrify, you. If so, as some might put it, “Go
to it, young man”. Your relationship with Jane was kindled when I came on a
secret welcoming embassy at Netherfield last Fall, and I sincerely hope
that my current embassy will have a similar effect.



Please take your time and give this letter, which I hope has not come as
too much of a shock to you, as much consideration you wish. I will remain
at my temporary lodgings at _________ till ______ __. One way or the other,
please honor me with your reply when you are ready. If I haven’t heard back
from you by that date, then I will assume a negative response, and return
to Longbourn, knowing that I did what any father would do for a beloved
daughter, but it was for naught.


As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.



Sincerely,



_______ Bennet, Esq.

.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:28?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Beginning with Elizabeth Bennet’s stroll with Colonel Fitzwilliam, and

then

continuing during Darcy’s botched first proposal, and then in his

letter

to

Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bennet comes to learn that Bingley has been kept

in

the dark by Miss Bingley and Darcy since leaving Meryton about Jane’s
continuing interest in him, which is what brought Jane to London a few
months after he left.



Elizabeth is thus uniquely situated by Chapter 36 in her knowledge that
Bingley may still be romantically interested in Jane, and she already

knew

all along that Jane was definitely still romantically interested in
Bingley. It’s an old romantic trope, the two lovers who each don’t

realize

that the other is still in love with them.



I suggest that once Elizabeth has this unique knowledge (the only other
character who also knows is Darcy, but he has made it clear,

arrogantly,

that he stands by his actions to keep Bingley in the dark about Jane),

she

does absolutely nothing to try to somehow let each of the lovebirds

know

about the other, which might cause Bingley to wake up and (as Darcy

puts

it

in the 1996 miniseries, “go to it”). When she does think about telling
Jane, she decides that it would only make Jane even sadder, since, so

her

thinking seems to go, it would be a fool’s errand, it would not bring
Bingley back.



I advocate for Elizabeth to persuade her father to covertly seek out
Bingley in London, and inform Bingley of this crucial fact that Jane

still

loves him. I am not suggesting that Elizabeth tell Jane directly, not
unless and until her father was successful.



Two counterarguments to mine come to mind:



FIRST:

Mr. Bennet is indolent, not a responsible diligent father, so even if
Elizabeth asked, he would refuse to intervene. But, given the stakes

for

Jane, shouldn't Elizabeth give it a try with him anyway, what does she

have

to lose? It would be for Jane’s sake, so it would be the generous thing

for

Elizabeth to do. But this possibility never even occurs to Elizabeth.

Also,

in Chapter 41, Elizabeth does try to get her father to stop Lydia and

Kitty

from going to Brighton. But she doesn’t ask him to do something he

already

did, in a different way, at the beginning of the novel, which is to go

on a

secret romantic mission to Bingley!



And…. last but not least, Elizabeth doesn’t even think the thought of
asking her father, it never even occurs to her. Her mind is totally
occupied, I would suggest, with increasingly obsessive thoughts and

regrets

about Darcy, so it appears there’s no room for thoughts about Jane.



Even when she is at Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, and Darcy’s

being

so

nice to them and to her – it never occurs to her even then that she

might

ask him to reconsider about Jane and Bingley. No, that would risk him
getting angry at her, and sending her on her way home.



SECOND: I actually made up a hypothetical letter that Mr. Bennet could
arrange to have delivered to Bingley in London without being detected

by

either Caroline Bingley or Darcy. The letter doesn’t threaten Bingley,

it

doesn’t try to make him feel guilty, it recognizes the delicacy of the
situation, and it makes Mr. Bennet’s good intentions perfectly clear,

and

gives Bingley an easy out if he is not interested, for any reason, in
restarting with Jane.



Would that be “improper” for Mr. Bennet to write such a letter? But

why

would it be improper for a respectable gentleman like Mr. Bennet if he
wrote a carefully worded, non-threatening letter of information to

another

gentleman, about a matter of great personal interest to both of them,

and

to the woman they both share affection for – Jane? Why would that be

more

improper than Mr. Bennet going over to Netherfield at the beginning of

the

novel to introduce Bingley to the Bennet family and all his daughters,
which everyone thought was a great move by him.



More important, though, this got me thinking deeply about the

distinction

between “propriety” and “morality”. Even if hypothetically, someone

could

argue that it was not normal Regency Era decorum for Mr. Bennet to
intervene in this way, I would think that everyone would agree that

this

was a very moral thing for Mr. Bennet to do. It would be a mission of
mercy, a mission of love, with pure motives and a possibility it could

lead

to the righting of a very bad wrong – two people who love each other

having

been separated for no good reason at all.



I don't believe Jane Austen valued propriety and protocol over true

love.

Isn't such propriety what Austen ridicules strongly when Mr. Bennet

reacts

to Mr. Collins’s letter:

“I must not, however, neglect the duties of my station, or refrain from
declaring my amazement, at hearing that you received the young couple

into

your house as soon as they were married. It was an encouragement of

vice;

and had I been the rector of Longbourn, I should very strenuously have
opposed it. You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but

never

to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in

your

hearing.’ That is his notion of Christian forgiveness!”



Mr. Bennet would, I conclude, find a mission to Bingley to be a mission

of

charity and generosity. He would risk looking improper, out of love for

his

daughter Jane.



What do you all think, about any of the above?



ARNIE

How mortifying for a daughter , especially one like Jame , to have her
father tell Bingley that she was in love with him. The father could ask
his intentions and suggest that he owed his daughter more than a quick
disappearance from her life. How is it greater morality to humiliate the
daughter?

Nancy

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 9:15?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

NANCY: "It just wasn't done to tell a man that one's daughter was in love
with him."

Just wasn't done sounds to me like empty propriety. I'm asking for a
discussion of how to balance propriety with morality. Sometimes a good
person breaks rules of decorum for a higher moral purpose - in this, for
love (his daughter's love of a good man).

NANCY: "What one could do, is see the man and tell him that after he had
shown Jane such distinction, had raised hopes in the breasts of Jane and
her family, and by his attention, deterred other gentlemen and then ask if
he was just trifling with his daughter's affections. Bingley wasn't a cad
just not a snob like Darcy."

Interesting take.

This is the letter I came up, feel free to suggest how you might word it
differently, if you agree with the concept:



Mr. Charles Bingley

London, England



My dear Mr. Bingley,



My dear sir, be not be alarmed to receive this letter from me out of the
blue, after many months since we were last in company in Meryton. Please be
assured from the start that I am, fortunately, not the bearer of any bad
news of a medical or financial nature. All the members of my family are in
good health, thankfully, and my income remains stable. I hope the same is
true of yours.



Nonetheless, the matter I am writing to you about is of a delicate,
personal, and urgent nature, and so I beg your indulgence to hear me out, I
will be as brief as possible. I write to you in the sincere belief that I
am delivering to you intelligence that may well be of the greatest
importance to you.



To begin, after what seemed to everyone in Meryton to be a very promising
beginning of a courtship by yourself of my eldest daughter Jane this past
Fall, we Bennets have been disappointed that you have since the end of
November made no attempt to contact or see her.



In particular, I personally vouch to you that Jane, despite her efforts to
put on a brave face, has never ceased over these several months to feel
great sadness over the sudden end of your connection to you.



However, I am writing to you now, because some surprising and concerning
news of a reliable nature has come to my attention very recently, to wit –
that you are very likely completely unaware that Jane was so determined to
see you again that she came to visit with her aunt and uncle Gardiner in
London in January and stayed for a period of weeks, calling at your
residence and leaving notes requesting that you be alerted to her presence
in London - until finally it was made clear to Jane that you were no longer
interested in her, but you had, in fact, set your cap at another young
lady.



In that regard, let me now pause and reassure you of a critical point –
neither I nor anyone else in my family is suggesting that you are, or ever
were, obligated, by law or honor, to continue your courtship of Jane – we
all know that you were never engaged to her. Therefore, if this news I am
now delivering to you is not meaningful to you, then just say the word to
me by return message, no further explanation required on your part, and you
will never hear from me again. The last thing I wish to do to such an
agreeable young man like yourself is to make you feel guilty; or, even
worse, to feel obliged to reopen your connection to Jane solely or
primarily out of sympathy for her. No marriage based on mutual love should
be based on such a shaky foundation.



However, I write to you in real hope that your reaction to this news will
be very different than that, and that the warm affection you seemed to feel
for Jane last Fall has never waned. To wit, I am hoping that this news will
not mortify, but instead electrify, you. If so, as some might put it, “Go
to it, young man”. Your relationship with Jane was kindled when I came on a
secret welcoming embassy at Netherfield last Fall, and I sincerely hope
that my current embassy will have a similar effect.



Please take your time and give this letter, which I hope has not come as
too much of a shock to you, as much consideration you wish. I will remain
at my temporary lodgings at _________ till ______ __. One way or the other,
please honor me with your reply when you are ready. If I haven’t heard back
from you by that date, then I will assume a negative response, and return
to Longbourn, knowing that I did what any father would do for a beloved
daughter, but it was for naught.


As they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.



Sincerely,



_______ Bennet, Esq.

.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:28?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Beginning with Elizabeth Bennet’s stroll with Colonel Fitzwilliam, and

then

continuing during Darcy’s botched first proposal, and then in his

letter

to

Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bennet comes to learn that Bingley has been kept

in

the dark by Miss Bingley and Darcy since leaving Meryton about Jane’s
continuing interest in him, which is what brought Jane to London a few
months after he left.



Elizabeth is thus uniquely situated by Chapter 36 in her knowledge that
Bingley may still be romantically interested in Jane, and she already

knew

all along that Jane was definitely still romantically interested in
Bingley. It’s an old romantic trope, the two lovers who each don’t

realize

that the other is still in love with them.



I suggest that once Elizabeth has this unique knowledge (the only other
character who also knows is Darcy, but he has made it clear,

arrogantly,

that he stands by his actions to keep Bingley in the dark about Jane),

she

does absolutely nothing to try to somehow let each of the lovebirds

know

about the other, which might cause Bingley to wake up and (as Darcy

puts

it

in the 1996 miniseries, “go to it”). When she does think about telling
Jane, she decides that it would only make Jane even sadder, since, so

her

thinking seems to go, it would be a fool’s errand, it would not bring
Bingley back.



I advocate for Elizabeth to persuade her father to covertly seek out
Bingley in London, and inform Bingley of this crucial fact that Jane

still

loves him. I am not suggesting that Elizabeth tell Jane directly, not
unless and until her father was successful.



Two counterarguments to mine come to mind:



FIRST:

Mr. Bennet is indolent, not a responsible diligent father, so even if
Elizabeth asked, he would refuse to intervene. But, given the stakes

for

Jane, shouldn't Elizabeth give it a try with him anyway, what does she

have

to lose? It would be for Jane’s sake, so it would be the generous thing

for

Elizabeth to do. But this possibility never even occurs to Elizabeth.

Also,

in Chapter 41, Elizabeth does try to get her father to stop Lydia and

Kitty

from going to Brighton. But she doesn’t ask him to do something he

already

did, in a different way, at the beginning of the novel, which is to go

on a

secret romantic mission to Bingley!



And…. last but not least, Elizabeth doesn’t even think the thought of
asking her father, it never even occurs to her. Her mind is totally
occupied, I would suggest, with increasingly obsessive thoughts and

regrets

about Darcy, so it appears there’s no room for thoughts about Jane.



Even when she is at Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, and Darcy’s

being

so

nice to them and to her – it never occurs to her even then that she

might

ask him to reconsider about Jane and Bingley. No, that would risk him
getting angry at her, and sending her on her way home.



SECOND: I actually made up a hypothetical letter that Mr. Bennet could
arrange to have delivered to Bingley in London without being detected

by

either Caroline Bingley or Darcy. The letter doesn’t threaten Bingley,

it

doesn’t try to make him feel guilty, it recognizes the delicacy of the
situation, and it makes Mr. Bennet’s good intentions perfectly clear,

and

gives Bingley an easy out if he is not interested, for any reason, in
restarting with Jane.



Would that be “improper” for Mr. Bennet to write such a letter? But

why

would it be improper for a respectable gentleman like Mr. Bennet if he
wrote a carefully worded, non-threatening letter of information to

another

gentleman, about a matter of great personal interest to both of them,

and

to the woman they both share affection for – Jane? Why would that be

more

improper than Mr. Bennet going over to Netherfield at the beginning of

the

novel to introduce Bingley to the Bennet family and all his daughters,
which everyone thought was a great move by him.



More important, though, this got me thinking deeply about the

distinction

between “propriety” and “morality”. Even if hypothetically, someone

could

argue that it was not normal Regency Era decorum for Mr. Bennet to
intervene in this way, I would think that everyone would agree that

this

was a very moral thing for Mr. Bennet to do. It would be a mission of
mercy, a mission of love, with pure motives and a possibility it could

lead

to the righting of a very bad wrong – two people who love each other

having

been separated for no good reason at all.



I don't believe Jane Austen valued propriety and protocol over true

love.

Isn't such propriety what Austen ridicules strongly when Mr. Bennet

reacts

to Mr. Collins’s letter:

“I must not, however, neglect the duties of my station, or refrain from
declaring my amazement, at hearing that you received the young couple

into

your house as soon as they were married. It was an encouragement of

vice;

and had I been the rector of Longbourn, I should very strenuously have
opposed it. You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but

never

to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in

your

hearing.’ That is his notion of Christian forgiveness!”



Mr. Bennet would, I conclude, find a mission to Bingley to be a mission

of

charity and generosity. He would risk looking improper, out of love for

his

daughter Jane.



What do you all think, about any of the above?



ARNIE

Arnie, I agree with you Mr Bennet is too indolent a father to bother to write a letter on Jane’s behalf. But a more significant reason he wouldn’t take the step (or rather, that Elizabeth would not urge him to) is that, first, though Bingley was very much in love with Jane, and was convinced himself she loved him in return, **he was persuaded by Darcy to believe she did not. He trusted Darcy's judgement over his own.** Mr Darcy warned him of the impropriety of the match, but also managed to convince him, probably believed himself (though admits he may have been biased by his own wishes) that Jane simply does not return Bingley’s affections. Elizabeth more than anyone knows of their friendship and Bingley’s trust in Darcy’s judgement.

The second reason Mr Bennet would never take such a step (other than the one of custom Nancy suggests) is that he is certainly not a disinterested party – of *course* he would love to have his daughter marry a wealthy young scion! His motives would be suspect, and again, Mr Darcy’s judgement of the family’s impropriety would only be confirmed.

Dorothy