" You cannot have been always at longbourn!"

" You cannot have been always at longbourn!" Okay, I know, I'm bringing up the everlasting and much pounded question from P&P. Why? Well, firstly because it's Sunday and my alternative to being on here is to mow lawns (it's a beautiful day here in the north-west of England with temperature at 24%). I decided the lawns can wait a while ( tomorrow perhaps?) as I explain the other reason for the question: I have read many versions of supposed answers that, to me are nothing but pure opinionism and wild flights of imagination because people of all ilk from traveller to poet -laureate, vagabond to University Don, seem afraid to confess."I don't know!". I'm confessing that here, although expressing views just as speculative as I suspect Darcy's were: I have read some weird and wonderful explanations, involving even weirder and more wonderful flights of fancy, and the meaning is no clearer now than it was when Pride and Prejudice first rolled ( was lifted) off the printing press back in 1813. " In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how much I disagree with such complicated huffery-puffery! " ( Sorry Mr Darcy!) Darcy says: "It is a proof of your own attachment to Hertfordshire. Any thing beyond the very neighborhood of Longbourn, I suppose, would appear far." This is a speculative ( joking) statement ( he says "I suppose" ) which, since he does not know as a fact should perhaps have a question mark? After a short exchange on distances, Darcy follows this with the pertinent question: "You cannot have a right to such very strong local attachment. You cannot have been always at Longbourn." This again is a speculative remark and also should probably have a question mark. Since the pair are comparative strangers it can be nothing else. The only person capable of knowing anything of the Bennet history is Charlotte Lucas (who would have to have been told it by her parents). Any such conversation would certainly have been relayed to Lizzy by Charlotte. Mr Collins, at twenty-five and never having met the family, would have no knowlege of such. One statement/question, seems almost to contradict the other. Firstly he claims Lizzy is a Longbourne local girl, then says that cannot be. The whole ( rather short) exchange seems strained and rather "something to say" ( which we know to be true) ,so therefore the remarks are almost off-the-cuff sourceless observations which I personally believe Jane Austen intended, rather than having any deep significant meaning. In short, two question marks could have eliminated the need for any specualtion. Austen humour, mischief or just writing style of the times? For me, the latter....but that's just my view. (-:https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121278#msg-121278Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:49:15 +0100 Phorum 5.2.22 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121329#msg-121329 Re: Englishhttps://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121329#msg-121329
Also, I know it's just a slang expression, but some people are a bit sensitive to just tossing the word Nazi around as if they're just a Language Police. After all, this being the English language, there are so many synonyms around. Thank you for being considerate!]]> Mari A. Tea RoomWed, 11 May 2016 06:59:24 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121328#msg-121328 English/Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121328#msg-121328
One, English is not a *pure* language. It may have been at one time, but Arthur was king in Camelot probably then. Since then, English has hid in the alleys and mugged other languages for words. So where other languages may have only one word for a concept, with English, hit the thesaurus for the best one. And this does not get into the topic of synonyms, because while "kill," "murder," and "execute" may be listed as synonyms, the meanings are so different, that using the wrong word in a court of law could be perjury. For example, the Commandment in the kjv "thou shall not kill" may have been correct during King Henry V, it is a lie in modern English, because "murder" (French?) is closer to the Hebrew verb.

Two, English has homonyms and brogue spellings. Homonyms are screwey because they are spell checked correct. Is it "there," over "their," or "they'res?" I live in a "hows" but in Yorkshire, I suspect I live in a "ho-use."

Three, English is probably the least tonal dependent language on the planet. The only use of tonality I know is the rising tone at the end of a question. When I tried to learn Thai, with its 5 different ways of saying "ma" that was too complicated, partially because colloguial Thai was not distinctive in the tones for tone deaf to get the differences between a horse, mother, water, or whatever, and rarely the subject matter was a help or a clue. Learning a language involve grammar and vocabulary, and if the vocabulary is a song, then complication get cubed.

Vocabulary lead to a fourth factor that may confuse English as second language. We English first are used to a slow syllable rate as we compose our sentences on the fly, picking the best synonym. English is complicated enough that complex meanings can be put into fewer syllables, and thus slower, which may be why it is the international air controller language; like French international diplomatic. Listen to a Texan. And then listen to a German whose words have many syllables and they, like Mexican speakers, have a high syllable rate that make hearing and understanding difficult. No doubt the vocabulary variations make English difficult, even if slow.

And I think syllable rate is an impediment. I read the English, most of the Spanish, and most of the French "Warnings" on a plastic bag. Because many of the words in these three languages have the same Latin roots, I can recognise enough to avoid a snake pit: Maybe. I was amused that "Warning:" in Spanish and French have the same root as "Advertisement." Advertisements try to sell me something: Warnings tell me to back off.

Here in these Jane Austen sites, we are dealing with text 200 years old, from a Georgian and Regency culture, and we have a lot of American, Australian, British, Canadian, &c. dialects. Writing styles, e.g. on speaker tags: I am a Nazi about having one speaker per paragraph or run-on. Change speakers? New paragraph. That should make it easier to convert my stories to scripts.

My speakers do not "cry" unless they are "weeping," "bawling," or a better synonym I conjure at the time. In fact, I got so gusdustipated with the "said" tag, that I omitted it until recently when I got the idea that most of the time, the speakers just "Say" something.

Well. I see by the short vertical slider that I must be about to go down a rabbit hole. Therefore, if anyone want a discourse on English, maybe that better be a new thread.]]> Rae Elaine Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 23:56:04 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121327#msg-121327 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121327#msg-121327 Jim G.M Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 22:09:31 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121324#msg-121324 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121324#msg-121324didn't want us to think Elizabeth was his primary motive in coming. And Darcy himself, when he proposes, tells Elizabeth that he's been in love with her for months. We don't know whether he knew Elizabeth would be there before he came, but that doesn't seem as important as what he did once he arrived and found her there. I think that Austen left a definite bread trail for us to follow when it came to tracking his internal struggle, moving from "no way" through "maybe" to "yes." We really have no reason to assume all these hints don't mean anything and should be ignored.]]> Suzanne O Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 19:48:21 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121323#msg-121323 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121323#msg-121323
He's flummoxed. How did she come about? Not an easy question to ask of a woman whom you hugely admire even though you still aren't sure you should.

Ultimately, I think D is trying to compliment her ("Wow, Elizabeth, you're nothing like your mother! You're welcome.") and dig for info at the same time without seeming to, but he is so guarded (from indecision and general social awkwardness) it is all coming off very strange.]]> Kent Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 19:06:37 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121322#msg-121322 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121322#msg-121322
Not doubting there is logic in your points Suzzane O, but Darcy is such a strange man that I'm not sure that even Jane Austen knew exactly what to tell us of him. Yes, he visited at Hunsford Parsonage after just arriving at Rosings, but almost five months had passed since he had last had contact with Lizzy and his alternative to visiting was to spend time with Lady Catherine and Anne, a not very scintillating prospect. He also must have been aware that the Bennets would be less than happy with Bingley's absence and his association with Lizzy would inevitably lead to questions he might rather not answer? Did Darcy even know that Lizzy was at Rosings? He may have known if Lady C had mentioned such in her communications by letter to him, but she appeared surprised, even annoyed on finding Lizzy knew him? Darcy was not the sort to indulge in servants chatter, so ...? How did he know that, in five months Lizzie may not now have become engaged? Was his early visit to the Parsonage because Mr Collins had told him that he had visitors when he lay across a puddle in the lane so their horses could ride over him? (joke) Was it feasible that after the same five month absence he had dashed there to propose to Lizzie....at his Aunt's empire? Their last meeting had hardly been a great social success when Lizzie tongue-lashed him about Wickham. Had he actually spent any time at all thinking about Lizzy's fine eyes?. He dashed in and declared passionate love and how he could no longer contain it, then reverted to type by telling Lizzy how fortunate she was that someone of his standing should step down off his golden cloud to honour her with his offer.

And so on and so forth......one very odd fellow is Mr Darcy....]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 18:20:18 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121320#msg-121320 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121320#msg-121320
I don't think that Darcy was trying to make a systematic, carefully organized argument here. I think he was distracted, trying not to show how much her presence affected him, plus he was so busy thinking about the whole marriage idea that he's not paying as much attention to the conversation as he might have been. So in a sense, his comments are disconnected and a bit random, but they reveal to the reader (though not to Elizabeth) the direction of his thoughts. They're kind of similar to the "series of odd, disconnected questions" that he kept asking during their walks--questions that, while they meant nothing to her, carry a great deal of potential significance to the reader who's in on the secret of his feelings for her.]]> Suzanne O Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 14:54:44 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121313#msg-121313 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121313#msg-121313 Agnes Beatrix Tea RoomTue, 10 May 2016 06:44:14 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121312#msg-121312 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121312#msg-121312
Jane Austen's world was obviously far different from today in many ways and she used the language of the upper-middle class level rather than street speak of maket traders etc. Heretfordshire would also have local accents and England is renown for its variety of dialects. None of this is relevant in a conversation between Darcy and Elizabeth, but they didn't write the story, Jane Austen did and we have no real clue to how she herself spoke outside of the written word. The point I'm trying to make is that any of us can comply with formal literary rules when writing, but do we do that in normal conversation? There are several examples of words in J.A's stories that would not be spelled that way today but they have been left as long as they are understanable. Whilst every attempt at authenticity has tried to be complied with, most editions have been corrected grammar wise to some degree. My own current hardback version is the Penguin edition of 1995. It contains a copy of the original title page which, gramatically speaking, is a joke. My point is mistakes can occur amongst the best.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 23:07:10 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121305#msg-121305 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121305#msg-121305I like your summation of the unspoken conversation.]]> Sarah Waldock Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 19:49:01 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121302#msg-121302 But Darcy doesn't know that about the Gardiners at that point in the novel.https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121302#msg-121302

Quote
Chapter 43
The introduction, however, was immediately made; and as she named their relationship to herself, she stole a sly look at him, to see how he bore it, and was not without the expectation of his decamping as fast as he could from such disgraceful companions. That he was surprised by the connexion was evident; he sustained it, however, with fortitude, and, so far from going away, turned back with them, and entered into conversation with Mr. Gardiner. Elizabeth could not but be pleased, could not but triumph. It was consoling that he should know she had some relations for whom there was no need to blush. She listened most attentively to all that passed between them, and gloried in every expression, every sentence of her uncle, which marked his intelligence, his taste, or his good manners.

The word "surprised" is emphasized in the novel.]]> Graciela Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 19:01:06 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121298#msg-121298 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121298#msg-121298 Peter Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 16:39:07 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121297#msg-121297 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121297#msg-121297
I think this might be quite relevant in context:

"Mr. Darcy drew his chair a little towards her, and said, "You cannot have a right to such very strong local attachment. You cannot have been always at Longbourn.". ( to make that real question he could have added "surely?" on the end, but is that an ommision from Darcy, or a deliberate "sort it out for yourselves" moment from J.A.?

Why did he move closer to Lizzy at that stage? Was he in some way encouraged by the topic? The mood was very fleeting as he soon moved away, but was he toying with proposing right there and then and didn't get the encouragement he hoped for?]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 14:07:18 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121294#msg-121294 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121294#msg-121294

Quote

"It must be very agreeable to her to be settled within so easy a distance of her own family and friends."

"An easy distance, do you call it? It is nearly fifty miles."

"And what is fifty miles of good road? Little more than half a day's journey. Yes, I call it a very easy distance."

"I should never have considered the distance as one of the advantages of the match," cried Elizabeth. "I should never have said Mrs. Collins was settled near her family."

"It is a proof of your own attachment to Hertfordshire. anything beyond the very neighbourhood of Longbourn, I suppose, would appear far."

As he spoke there was a sort of smile which Elizabeth fancied she understood; he must be supposing her to be thinking of Jane and Netherfield, and she blushed as she answered --

"I do not mean to say that a woman may not be settled too near her family. The far and the near must be relative, and depend on many varying circumstances. Where there is fortune to make the expence of travelling unimportant, distance becomes no evil. But that is not the case here. Mr. and Mrs. Collins have a comfortable income, but not such a one as will allow of frequent journeys -- and I am persuaded my friend would not call herself near her family under less than half the present distance."

Mr. Darcy drew his chair a little towards her, and said, "You cannot have a right to such very strong local attachment. You cannot have been always at Longbourn."

I quoted the entire passage to highlight more of the context. When E says Charlotte isn't near [enough] to her family, he tries to explain it away with her own attachment to her home (perhaps it's the first time he considers that if he marries her, he will take her away from her beloved home - but doesn't think it a serious impediment, so he smiles). I admit I have no idea where Elizabeth gets the idea of him referring to Jane and Netherfield but this is why she considers a woman too near to her native family (because of the embarrassing presence of the Bennets) - yet, she answers with a negative/contradicting statement, giving Darcy hope that he's right, she thinks that being far from her family would be a good thing. Elizabeth then brings up financial considerations (to steer back the conversation to the Collinses), which Darcy, given that he thinks of himself and Elizabeth, may interpret as E knowing that she herself will not have this problem since they will be rich enough to travel, as well as an affirmation that E thinks Ch does feel far removed from her family/ misses them. I think Darcy's answer (that E surely isn't so much attached to Longbourn) means 1. that he hopes/thinks E has more experience from outside Longbourn (based on her intelligence/education as others said) so she won't feel out of her element when moves away from her childhood home; and 2. that she will not wish for so much contact with her family that would necessitate frequent travels. I'm sure this is speculation, but I feel not without grounds given the many layers of potential misunderstanding between them.

On another note, however, although I am not a native English speaker, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I learned traditional English grammar it requires more than a question mark to create a question: word order needs to be changed as well. "You can't have always been at Longbourn?" is not a grammatically correct question, only modern informal speech makes it acceptable. "You can't have been always at Longbourn, can you?" or "Can you have been always at Longbourn?" are questions. So I don't think JA made a mistake of confusing question mark/period.]]> Agnes Beatrix Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 11:23:33 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121293#msg-121293 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121293#msg-121293 Jim G.M Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 11:04:08 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121291#msg-121291 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121291#msg-121291 Rae Elaine Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 00:48:22 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121290#msg-121290 This has always been my interpretation as well.(nfm)https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121290#msg-121290 Peter Tea RoomMon, 09 May 2016 00:08:40 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121289#msg-121289 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121289#msg-121289

Quote
Michelle A
If only Jane Austen were around to explain some of the things she wrote, that we as 21st century readers, just don't get!

Ah, if only indeed Michelle.

Darcy's sister, Georgiana, without parents, had been sent away to presumably extend her education and learn things about social life a brother could not teach "in the manner of elegant females" of the period . Did he possibly think Lizzie had done the same and got her intelligence and manners via a governess and masters in somewhere like London and thus she had spent time away from Longbourn? He had not been at Rosings when Lizzie informed Lady Catherine to the contrary and that fact may have come out in conversation between him and his aunt, a fact he would find hard to believe. Was he clarifying that? I know there are many views and possibilities, but I still prefer the simple solution. Alas, we'll never know for sure. Half the enjoyment however, is in trying to decide whether we are seeing things in her characters as J.A meant us to, or are we following a Fitzgeral translation of Omar Khayam and seeing it our own way? Who really knows? (-:

"Ah, Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire!
Would not we shatter it to bits-and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 22:48:27 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121287#msg-121287 Re: I read it that way too, Michelle(nfm)https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121287#msg-121287 Sarah Waldock Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 19:46:11 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121286#msg-121286 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121286#msg-121286cannot (ahem) be either condoned or denied with any certainy. Darcy was a well educated and intelligent man, of that there is little doubt, and he may have found it surprising to find another intelligent soul in a country environ if the likes of Mrs Bennet were any sort of benchmark. We know his views on the locals and also on propriety, but Lizzy wasn't alone in her manners catching his eye. He also praised Jane and Charlotte Lucas as worthy of attention. Granted, he may have been uttering an outside the box form of praise in Lizzy's direction by his remarks, but could he really expect her to denigrate her own family, friends and neighbours by agreeing with him? At that point, as his impending proposal was to illustrate, his views on lowering himself to Lizzy's level (amd thus all concerned with her) were nothing short of insulting. But then again, much depends on how the reader sees Darcy in return at that point.

In short, he could not know anything of Lizzy, but his ego told him differently. Nothing in the story indicates that the Bennets had not always lived in Longbourne and the girls had not been born and raised there.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 18:57:33 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121285#msg-121285 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121285#msg-121285you cannot be more than twenty? ", (as opposed to "are-not") is a guess question rather than a fact. There is also no reason for Jane Austen to leave anything unexplained in a story where everything is neatly tidied away even to telling us the aftermath. The Bennets are not the type of people to be involved in any deep secrets and again, Jane Austen never gave any hint of such. There are many things in the story to puzzle about, such as Bingley's history. Darcy claimed to Lizzy that Bingley had many friends, where they also Darcy's friends? During the story the pair seem to spend a fair amount of time together, but are such diverse characters that even that seems strange. Where are all the friends? Are they in London or back in the north? Bingley is said to have not long reached coming of age ( if common consensus is to be believed). To marry, both male and female required parental consent before the age of twenty one. It's all a mater for persoanl specualtion.

I agree with Rae Elaine's views on grammar and printing errors occuring and escaping editing notice, that happens even today.]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 18:28:44 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121284#msg-121284 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121284#msg-121284
Darcy assumes that Elizabeth can't possibly have gained these traits by staying with the Gardeners (not only are they in trade, but relatives of Mrs. Bennet!), and posits that she must have spent time elsewhere-- perhaps a few months every year with godparents or some gently-born branch of the Bennet family. He has built up a little fantasy in which Elizabeth feels the same as he does toward her (without bothering to talk to her very much); by making this a statement rather than a question, Austen emphasizes this as a tendency of his character, perhaps. He is still battling himself over whether or not to offer for her, and would really like to hear that she has some other connections that his family would find more acceptable.

Anyways, my two cents, for what it's worth!
-Jean]]> Jean M. Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 17:48:08 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121283#msg-121283 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121283#msg-121283
I have to disagree about the question marks. Darcy may be thinking/speculating aloud, but he isn't asking questions. He is making statements, based on his own thoughts and observations--regardless of their accuracy. I've always felt that the statement "you cannot always have been at Longbourn," was his way of suggesting that Elizabeth life experience outside of her little hamlet. I take the statement to mean he thinks of Elizabeth as having more knowledge and experiences than those of someone who has only seen/spent time in the country. He considers her his near if not equal in intelligence, so surely she "cannot always have been at Longbourn."]]> MichelleA Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 17:37:53 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121281#msg-121281 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121281#msg-121281
This one nags at me every time I read P&P. Was there a Bennet back history in Jane's mind that did not make it into print? Is the statement hanging from a bit of plot that was revised out of the text? Is Mr. Bennet a younger son, or even a cousin, who unexpectedly inherited? But the Bennet daughters must always have been at Longbourn. We know that Mr. & Mrs. Bennet expected to have a son to break the entail, and should have been setting aside income for the girls' dowries. I think it's reasonable to assume Mr. Bennet was already in possession of the estate when his daughters were born. Does Darcy just assume the family has been doing the usual London-for-the-season jaunt? To my mind "You cannot always have been at Longbourn!" implies something about the ownership of the estate. Darcy probably doesn't feel spending the season in London makes him less attached to Pemberley.

I believe everyone in Hertfordshire would know the Bennet backstory. Four and twenty families, with Mrs. Bennet and Mrs. Lucas in their number, cannot have many secrets from one another.

The lack of question marks I quite understand. When Fitzwilliam Darcy supposes aloud, he is not asking a question. He fully expects reality to meet his supposition. But even with a question mark, "You cannot have always been at Longbourn?" implies Darcy has a bit of information that we, to my great irritation, do not possess.]]> RebeccaLS Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 15:59:55 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121280#msg-121280 Re: You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121280#msg-121280
However, and seem always a "but," I see the possibility of a lot of defects going past a proofreader, assuming that was a step in the process between an author(ess) submitting a manuscript, and the book coming off the presses. A penmanship manuscript can be a bit of a bother to sort out some defects. As I have looked at late-18th and early 19th century documents, it is easy to see where a quill pen glitched, changing a period into a comma, or a multitude of other defects.

Then too, writing styles have changed from verbose, to briefer, c. about the time of the telegraph, and even briefer now, with twitter. A printed paragraph running pages long, especially with vision impairments, really get up my nose. The P&P file that I got from this site, I went through and broke up some of those long paragraphs where the subject seemed to change. Having an "eye break" help me a lot. Of course, a proper grammer nazi could cite incomplete paragraphs, but that is a more tolerable defect than wondering when come an eyebreak so I can put in a bookmark.

Editing the file also got some apparent typos corrected. It is another "cold eye" edit pass. A typo could have been done during typesetting.

Ideas? Confirmations or corrections?]]> Rae Elaine Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 15:11:46 +0100 https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121278#msg-121278 You cannot have been always at longbourn!https://www.dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,121278,121278#msg-121278
I have read some weird and wonderful explanations, involving even weirder and more wonderful flights of fancy, and the meaning is no clearer now than it was when Pride and Prejudice first rolled ( was lifted) off the printing press back in 1813. " In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how much I disagree with such complicated huffery-puffery! " ( Sorry Mr Darcy!)

Darcy says: "It is a proof of your own attachment to Hertfordshire. Any thing beyond the very neighborhood of Longbourn, I suppose, would appear far." This is a speculative ( joking) statement ( he says "I suppose" ) which, since he does not know as a fact should perhaps have a question mark?

After a short exchange on distances, Darcy follows this with the pertinent question: "You cannot have a right to such very strong local attachment. You cannot have been always at Longbourn." This again is a speculative remark and also should probably have a question mark. Since the pair are comparative strangers it can be nothing else. The only person capable of knowing anything of the Bennet history is Charlotte Lucas (who would have to have been told it by her parents). Any such conversation would certainly have been relayed to Lizzy by Charlotte. Mr Collins, at twenty-five and never having met the family, would have no knowlege of such.

One statement/question, seems almost to contradict the other. Firstly he claims Lizzy is a Longbourne local girl, then says that cannot be. The whole ( rather short) exchange seems strained and rather "something to say" ( which we know to be true) ,so therefore the remarks are almost off-the-cuff sourceless observations which I personally believe Jane Austen intended, rather than having any deep significant meaning.

In short, two question marks could have eliminated the need for any specualtion. Austen humour, mischief or just writing style of the times? For me, the latter....but that's just my view. (-:]]> Jim G.M Tea RoomSun, 08 May 2016 13:38:13 +0100