Line #25 Headscratchers/SenseAndSensibility


1	[[WMG: Did Colonel Brandon and Willoughby actually fight or something when they met in London for the first time after Brandon learned what he'd done to Eliza?]]
2	In Chapter 31, Brandon tells Elinor of how his ward Eliza (the daughter of his doomed sweetheart Eliza) disappeared and how he discovered upon finding her that she'd been seduced and abandoned by Willoughby (along with his child). When Elinor asks if he has seen Willoughby since this discovery, he replies yes, and this follows:
3	-->Elinor, startled by his manner, looked at him anxiously, saying,
4	-->"What? have you met him to--"
5	-->"I could meet him no other way. Eliza had confessed to me, though most reluctantly, the name of her lover; and when he returned to town, which was within a fortnight after myself, '''we met by appointment''', he to defend, I to punish his conduct. We returned unwounded, and the meeting, therefore, never got abroad."
6	--> Elinor sighed over the fancied necessity of this; but to a man and a soldier she presumed not to censure it.
7
8	A footnote in my edition translates "met by appointment" as "Met to fight a duel." Is Brandon, as a soldier, being figurative, or did he really beat Willoughby up for what he did to Eliza? Three cheers for him if he did, of course, don't get me wrong, but it's just the last thing I'd expect in a Jane Austen novel.
9
10	* That is what that means. Willoughby has effectively unmanned the Colonel by impregnating his ward and besmirched his honor. Brandon, being a man of honor, can not let Willoughby get away with this without dueling with him on the field of honor and, ostensibly, teaching him a lesson. Even if Brandon were to die or to lose the duel his status as an honorable man, the protector of his household would be restored. Willoughby's actions betray him as a dishonorable man, for an honorable man would never have had sex with a respectable lady [[note]] here meaning a woman of the upper or middle class; a man who had unmarried sex with a working-class woman wouldn't usually expect to see the same consequences [[/note]] he wasn't married or at least betrothed to to begin with. A duel in the Regency period would be done with pistols and generally they both aimed away. It was the act of the challenge and the meeting that made it valid rather than an actual contest for life. It's also interesting to note that the reason that Elinor is scared or startled by this is not just the implied violence which would worry a well bred lady. It's that dueling was illegal at the time. The Colonel would not have beaten up Willoughby because that's not how gentlemen settle matters of honor.
11	** Though it should also be recognised that, while dueling was illegal, it was still widely done by the gentry (even the Duke of Wellington, several years later, while he was Prime Minister, had a very public duel over what he considered a slander by an opponent.) The last time a man was tried for murder after a duel was in 1823 (in times when duelling was legal, the case would not have come to court at all); the sentence was suspended, which goes to show that the ''code duello''- at least for gentlemen- was tacitly acknowledged as valid even then. The end of dueling really came when increasing urbanisation caused men of consequence to stop carrying weapons, and the rise of the middle class- and more lawyers- turned people towards suing and associated litigation as a means of settling scores.
12	** Perhaps also worth noting that this was a point in the history of dueling where most duels were settled less "to the death" and more "to the showing up and maybe injuring the other guy a little bit". Honor would frequently be considered satisfied simply by both men showing up at the appointed time and place, putting on a decent display and either shooting the gun over the other person's head or considering the matter settled when the first person received a scratch on their arm. It was usually only the real hardcore fanatics (or the ''seriously'' pissed off) who insisted on making sure one party was dead at the end of it.
13	** It's also important to note that this is some light social satire on Austen's part. She's basically using Elinor (our beacon of common sense) to point out how silly it is that a man who's actually been through a war would want to prove a point by pretending to shoot at someone. It was dumb and illegal and "masculine", hence just the sort of societal convention that Austen liked to skewer.
14
15	[[WMG: Why exactly did Elinor fall in love with Edward in the first place?]]
16	Edward's good qualities feel like {{Informed Attribute}}s. Austen really doesn't give us a whole lot of explanation for what happens between Edward and Elinor. Do they spend a lot of time alone together, talking (like Thompson and Grant in the Ang Lee film)? Somehow, without a whole lot of description, it comes to pass that Elinor's in love and everyone is aware that Edward is returning her affections. It's just sort of odd.
17	* After Edward moved into Norland with the John Dashwoods for a few months after Elinor's father died, they spent a lot of time together and are already in love by the time the main events of the novel (the Dashwood women moving to Barton) begin. Maybe we need a Hooked Up Before equivalent of HookedUpAfterwards...
18	* He seems bland only to overly romantic Marianne who wants somebody more dashing for her beloved sister, but Elinor has simpler tastes. It isn't weird at all that an intelligent young man falls in love with an intelligent and beautiful woman when he's in her company. Who were Edward's other companions? Who were Elinor's companions? Fanny the petty bitch, jerkass Henry Dashwood and their small kid. Then grieving Mrs Dashwood, emotional and grieving Marianne and somewhat silly Margaret. It seems perfectly logical that Edward would fall for Elinor, and she would love him back if she felt that he preferred her. We know he's interested in her drawing, so we may infer they ''did'' spend a lot of time together in Norland. Moreover, I personally find Edward very sweet. For example there is the little scene when he gently teases Marianne about Willoughby and his hunting. Even Marianne "could not help smiling at the quiet archness of his manner".
19
20	[[WMG:What does Marianne's pianoforte look like?]]
21	I have it in my head that "pianoforte" is the old term for the instrument we've shortened to "piano," although they were smaller back then than the big, black grand pianos you'd find in a wealthy home today. Is the instrument Marianne plays basically just a small, brown-colored version of the instrument we know as a "piano"?
22	* Marianne's pianoforte would have a wooden frame, instead of modern steel, and the hammer mechanism would lack a number of refinements, but yes, it would be essentially the same instrument.
23
24	[[WMG:Why did Robert want to convince Lucy to leave Edward (initially)?]]
25	The third-person narrator states, "When Robert first sought her acquaintance, and privately visited her in Bartlett's Buildings, it was only with the view imputed to him by his brother. He merely meant to persuade her to give up the engagement; and as there could be nothing to overcome but the affection of both, he naturally expected that one or two interviews would settle the matter." This is no longer Edward's conjecture but the objective truth. Robert had no designs of his own on Lucy in the beginning -- that came later. So why did he want "to persuade her to give up the engagement"? Mrs. Ferrars left Robert everything when she disowned Edward purely because of his engagement to Lucy; Edward's engagement was the greatest thing that had ever happened to Robert, so why would he try to stop it? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose from talking either of them out of it.
26	* Perhaps he was genuinely trying to help his brother. He may be selfish but he might not be wanting-his-brother-to-be-disinherited selfish.
27	* I interpreted it as being out of pride. He was bragging to Elinor that he could stop their engagement immediately, then tries to do just that to prove himself. Which is why Lucy had such an easy time tricking him -- Robert was already convinced of his superiority to his brother, oh course his brother's fiancee would want to talk about him and only him!
28
29	[[WMG: Just how taboo ''would'' Edward breaking his engagement to Lucy have been at the time?]]
30	While not illegal, most of the cast (and other literature of the time) act like this was something you just ''did not do '''EVER''''' except in ''very'' exceptional circumstances... yet, Edward's family all act like he should immediately break it off with Lucy and marry Miss Morton, as if there's no obstacle stopping him, no reason why he can't, no expectation that he's bound to go through with it. They all badly ''want'' him to marry Miss Morton, but they never act like that option's off the table now, that Edward's engagement to Lucy is anything that can't be automatically discarded if he wills it.
31
32	* To break off an engagement was to leave yourself open to being sued for [[BreachOfPromiseOfMarriage Breach of Promise]]. However, to do this, the wronged woman had to be able to show that the engagement existed. While no-one else doubted that it did (as not only Lucy but Edward had confirmed this), Edward's family were probably pretty sure they could claim that the engagement wasn't legally binding, or did not exist, or that Lucy was of infirm mind ... they had the money and the position to be able to threaten this, even if they would most likely have lost the suit should it have gone as far as court.
33
34	* In addition, a promise was considered binding (so Edward's reputation rested on his keeping his word), and dastardly to the woman as it marked her as "not being good enough". If a young man did break off the betrothal, he was leaving her open to ridicule, censure, whispered rumours behind her back (did she perhaps have a history?) and pretty much likely to remain a spinster. In the day when marriage was the best a woman could hope for, this was pretty serious.
35
36	* So if Edward gave in to his family's pressure to break things off with Lucy, he would be considered a cad and a bounder at the very least. When Willoughby was writing to Marianne, everyone thought they ''must'' be engaged and thus his going off with another woman was considered a breach of promise, until Marianne confirmed that he had never actually asked the question. And thus Robert was sent to try and persuade Lucy to break the engagement, as a woman could be the instigator of the break without penalty. Of course, [[AttackBackfire what happened as a result]] stuffed things up even worse...
37
38	* Honestly, nevermind what general society would or wouldn't criticize Edward for doing. It all boils down to Edward being a decent young man who truly believed that Lucy loved him, right up until she ditched him for his brother. If he'd broken his youthful promise to marry her and left her heartbroken (as he thought) and exposed to social ridicule, he couldn't live with himself - even if it meant being free to marry Elinor instead. Edward's own kind heart kept him trapped in his stale engagement, and Lucy knew it and counted on it. His family's selfish disregard for honor is deliberately contrasted with this. They don't give two sniffs about how Lucy feels or what might happen to her if Edward discards her, any more than they cared about how the Dashwoods would support themselves. In the end, it's a delicious irony that Lucy's decision to jilt Edward for his brother sets him free without damaging his honor...while still saddling the cold, classist Ferrars with the penniless in-law they were so desperate to avoid!
39
40	[[WMG: The Ending]]
41	So Edward is disinherited because he refuses to break off his engagement to Lucy, and Robert receives the inheritance. Then Lucy jilts Edward to marry Robert instead... and the same doesn't happen to him? Edward's family were determined not to have Lucy as an in-law, so why didn't they forbid Robert from marrying her? And when he did, why didn't they disinherit him, too? Am I missing something here?
42	** This puzzled me too until a recent re-read clarified a line I'd missed before. The main reason is that Robert is the favorite son and can talk himself back into Mrs. Ferrars' good graces more easily than Edward, but there is also one line about ''how'' Mrs. Ferrars "settled everything irrevocably" on Robert: she signed over property to him. So while she could write him out of the lands and cash he would get on her death, that's not much disincentive when she has made him owner of an estate ''now''. As the legal owner of this estate (which would have gone to Edward had he followed the Ferrars' rules), Robert now has his own income from rents, crops grown from the land, etc--this is what makes him "independent", because his mother can no longer make him poor if he defies her.

Context Headscratchers / SenseAndSensibility