Print Page


 Molland's
    Tilneys, Weasels, and All Things Jane >> The Chawton Round Table >> Message started by: Lydia on 11/13/01 at 15:39:52

Title: conflicting pictures of life
Post by: Lydia on 11/10/01 at 20:49:00

I'm reading Venetia Murray's book An Elegant Madness, a sort of social history (overview of course) of the Regency. I'm having a hard time with it, as I have with others like it, because it presents such a different view of the period than Austen does--all the dandies, rakes, unfaithful socialite wives, and endless fine parties (I wonder sometimes if they emphasize these because they're colourful or if they're faithfully representing what was true). The Romantic poets seem to come out of some other age, too; I'd always had this neat conception of the period, when all I'd read was her novels. Now I'm trying to shift about the old ideas and fit in the new. Pity there are no time machines--I could use a day or two in Regency England to see what life was really all about. I wonder if people a hundred and fifty odd years off will have the same trouble when studying early 21c. U.S. life!

Title: You should read...
Post by: Wendy_Corner on 11/11/01 at 00:34:45

...the Autobiography of Byron I read. �It's like something out of a soap opera. �It was all sleeping around and incest :worried - he was quite a character. �I forget the authors name at the moment - Bonita something, I think - I'll poke around if you're interested - it was from a few years ago - I was quite shocked at his exploits but he sure was a handsome devil and women loved him, flung themselves at him, left their husbands for him :-[ - and the whole time he was a psycho.

Title: Re: conflicting pictures of life
Post by: Lydia on 11/11/01 at 22:13:11

It sounds interesting! He is one of my favourite poets--I gush silly over the Romantics.

Title: Aristocracy vs. gentry
Post by: TheHighPriestess on 11/12/01 at 17:50:59

The difference you are seeing between Jane and the view of the aristocracy is that Jane's books were written about the world she knew, that of the landed country gentry. There are no characters in her finished novels who are peers; baronets is as high as she goes. Of course you have Darcy's uncle, the mysterious Earl of Blank, and the Dowager Viscountess Dalrymple, but they are more background characters. I get the impression that though they were all part of the genteel world, there was a great difference between the groups--sort of the difference in modern life between, say, Hollywood stars and the average middle-class person. Think of the term "middle-class morality" and you have the gentry of Jane Austen's time. The aristocracy was pretty loose. Most Regency novels (including Georgette Heyer's) concentrate on the aristocracy. Some of GH's heroes openly keep mistresses or visit prostitutes and it's no big deal. Naturally they leave the lightskirts in the dust when they meet up with their Twoo Wuv. ;)

I read that book too and liked it, but have since heard that there are a lot of inconsistencies and outright inaccuracies in it. However, for a general overview of the period I think it's okay--just don't depend on it for specifics.

Title: Re: conflicting pictures of life
Post by: Lydia on 11/13/01 at 15:39:52

Yeah, that makes sense. I've always, for as long as I can remember, wanted to put things into neat boxes, or categories, in my brain. It always ends up backfiring because life just isn't that simple. It's hard for me to sort out who formed the bulk of upperclass life/culture, the saner landed country gentry or the peers. The Hollywood types are more visual but wouldn't really make an effective basis for an understanding/portrait of our society. I just don't want to form a cliched image of a period, you know?

Molland's (http://www.mollands.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl)