Jane Austen discussion

I've done a blog on whether or not Elizabeth should have accepted Darcy's first proposal:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

I would have linked to it earlier, but have been suffering from browser blues, making everything more difficult. Anyway, enjoy, and if you're interested, post your thoughts here or there.

I say she should not have; because for one, she had not yet discovered she loved him-and a marriage without love would be wrong. To marry him just for his money and the help he could give her sister socially, would be selfish and a completely unhappy-ending for the characters-albeit she could suddenly realize she loves him, and he realize how awful he has been treating everyone-but that is too slim a chance,( and not a good one to take), to marry someone on.
And two, he had not the right attitude yet, nor had she. They both had growing to do, before they were both worthy of the other.:)

No, due to the fact that she really believed that he was pompous and arrogant, and responsible for breaking up the love match between her sister Jane and Bingley.

No, because of the opinions she had of him at the time. She would have been unhappy with the marriage and I think Darcy would be unhappy with the marriage too. He would have seen Elizabeth's unhappiness and he would become unhappy with the marriage as well. Even though Elizabeth may have come to love Darcy in the end, I don't think they would had the true happiness they had after Elizabeth accepted his second proposal.

she shouldn't have accepted but also she shouldn't have treated him that bad and she shouldn't have judged him before listening from him - or it wouldn't have been named pride and prejudice this way ;) -

No because it's fiction and there would be no plot. Also because why do we love Mr. Darcy? Not because he's a rude snob but because his love for Elizabeth allows him to see himself as he is and he changes. He charges for her and that is why women love Mr. Darcy. She should not have accepted a proposal from a man she couldn't respect (Collins) or a man who always looked down on her and made her feel inferior. Pre-proposal Darcy would have made her know she should be grateful for the honor of marrying him. He would have not allowed her family to visit, probably encourage her to distance herself from them (Lydia anyway) and I think she would have been dreadfully unhappy.

Darcy is really rude to/about Elizabeth only twice. First, when he refused to dance with her because she was only tolerable. That was something she was not meant to overhear, and who among us has never said something we did not mean for others to overhear? Besides, he obviously changed his mind on this point. Second, when he proposes, he expounds on the inferiority of her family connections.

The rest of the time he is correct. Or silent. And I actually think Darcy is a little shy, or at least reserved, because he is not accustomed to being in love.

I don't think the point about whether she should or shouldn't have accepted him is arguable - she would not be Elizabeth Bennet if she had accepted him! I will, however, argue with you about him being shy, because I really don't think he is. On the contrary, he thinks himself better than his company, and won't talk because of it. He doesn't put himself out to be pleasant to others, partly because he doesn't know how, and partly because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to do so. But I challenge you to find me a shy person who would so readily go up to their crush and ask her to dance in a room where nobody else is dancing. He has no problem of speaking or doing whatever he pleases, when he thinks the person is worth his effort :)

Actually, Darcy's asking her if she would care to dance a reel at Netherfield is one bit of Jane Austen that I find inconsistent with his character in general. Certainly he is drawn to her but is rather shy in her presence. At Rosings and Hunsford Parsonage, he barely speaks to her, even though his cousin says Darcy is usually far more talkative. His silence happens even when they are alone together, during her walks at Rosings.

Perhaps our understanding of what shy means varies. He is silent, yes, but that does not mean that he is afraid of other people, nervous or timid of them, which is what shy means, doesn't it? In fact, it is stated in the book again and again, by the narrator and Mr Darcy himself, that he thinks himself above his company, and meanly of others. And he does speak to her both in Rosings and previously in Netherfield! He is not talkative, but then he doesn't know her very well, and, as said before, he doesn't talk much to people he doesn't know. Nor is he used to putting himself out to be interesting to other people. He is not used to having to be pleasing socially, so he doesn't do it. So no, I really don't think he is shy. And I don't think Jane Austen, who spent so many years polishing her most cherished novel, would have put any action inconsistent with Mr Darcy's character into her story. That would just be plain odd.

ᏒIᎪlᎥstᎥc wrote: "I think Darcy may be introverted but he's also not used to putting himself out there. People come to Darcy, not vice versa. I don't think he's shy, he's just not very outgoing."

Yes! :)

Susan wrote: "Georgiana is shy, it may well be a family trait. [...] But Darcy is almost 30 and a man of position and authority. There is little chance he would just come out and say he's shy and I dont think he is shy when moving in his own circles, but I think when in a strange place amongst strange people his defenses go up and he distances himself, using his reserve, dignity and pride as a shield. He cares more about protecting himself than risking offending strangers. "

That is an interesting way of looking at how he is described in the book, and a valid interpretation, I think, though I will still disagree. I know people who are shy and people who are introverted, and yes, there is some overlap, but it is perfectly possible for a person to simply not be interested in speaking to others, and to therefore not do so. Darcy has added reason to feel that way about the majority of the people he meets, especially in Hertfordshire: he thinks he is better then all of them, and in some respects he certainly is. Of course, a true gentleman would never show this in so marked a manner as he does, and that is the problem Elizabeth has with his behaviour. But I will say again, that a shy person would find it extremely difficult to approach the object of his affections and ask her to dance and take her rejection with nothing more than a smile and an easy acceptance. He has no reluctance to speak with her, approach her, ask her to dance and even flirt with her, when it pleases him. He does not blush, stammer or hesitate. The only reluctance he shows in courting her is on the basis of her background and the perceived injury he would be doing to his dignity by aligning himself with her family. He is proud, a strong case can be made for an introverted type character, but no, not shy.

I don't think Darcy is shy and I don't think he truly loves Elizabeth at the time of his first proposal. He doesn't know her very well - he assumes she'll jump at the chance to marry him like Caroline and other women he knows. He doesn't understand her or her family. When he talks of "easy distance" think how far that is for Charlotte and how much farther it would be for Elizabeth. Sure Darcy must have a comfortable carriage and would let Elizabeth use it to visit her family but it has such a condescending air. You can go home in my fancy carriage and see your inferior family but since they are so much below me and don't have their own carriage, they can't come here - thank goodness.

I think he does change. He grows as a person and learns to respect and appreciate Elizabeth. He does appear a shy at the end when he's embarrassed and Elizabeth is embarrassed because of what he did for Lydia.

I think that at the time of Darcy's first proposal he would make his embarrassment of her inferior relations known and not go out of his way to invite them to Pemberley. At the time of his second proposal, he realizes that he too has embarrassing relatives (Lady Catherine!) and that he wants Elizabeth's happiness above all things, even if it means giving her up forever.

I don't think he's naturally shy though. Reticent, reserved, proud and a bit haughty. As Elizabeth points out, she could play the piano well if she practiced. She's really telling Darcy that he could make himself agreeable if he practices. He doesn't bother because he doesn't normally have to. People come to him because of who he is. He's kind enough to his employees - noblesse oblige and he's probably the same with his tenants but he doesn't want anything to do with the locals at Meryton, not even Sir Lucas, who admittedly is embarrassing, but he means well and I can see Bingley acting the same way when he's older. I wish Jane Austen had told us more about Darcy and Bingley's friendship and how they came to be friends.

Absolutely, Susan! If he did not love her, and if he was truly eaten up with pride and self-consequence, he would a) never have fallen for Lizzy to begin with and b) never have thought her reproofs worthy of his attention. Yet he does listen to her, he respects her opinion so much he takes himself to task, and endeavours to do as she told him. That's a lot of love right there.

I agree with you that he loves her, but that he proves his worthiness of her by first showing the true goodness of his character, and by secondly showing himself willing, if not entirely capable, of changing those aspects of it, which are bad.

I disagree, there is a strong difference between someone who is shy, and wants to speak but can't because of fear of ridicule or low sense of self-worth, whichever may be the case, and someone who is introverted, and thus prefers not to be among many strange people all at once, and finds it tiring and demanding to be cheerful and interested in others. There is a vast difference between the two. Naturally, nobody is ever always shy and always introverted, but as far as all the behaviour we are given to witness from Darcy goes, I can't see any behaviour of his that indicates he is in the least afraid of other people, or that he worries about how he is perceived. He does, however, show a strong dislike of being thrust into situation where he has to meet many new people, and won't speak unless he has determined that his conversation partner is intelligent and worthy of his attention. So, he will talk to Elizabeth readily, because he does see her worth, but he will repulse Mrs Bennet or Mrs Long, or Sir William Lucas, because he thinks too highly of himself to condescend to make himself agreeable to them. Contrast this with Bingley's behaviour - he will readily speak to anybody, and tries to be nice to whomever he meets. He is outgoing, extroverted, perhaps, and not the least bit proud. And compare this to Georgiana Darcy, who really is shy, and therefore won't speak for fear that she may be heard.

Emily, your contrast of shy vs introvert is true in my case and I agree with it as applied to Darcy.

I am an introvert in that I prefer to be alone and often chose to forgo many social occasions/invitations due to love of my own company. However, when with people I am quite talkative, whether at work, or chatting up someone at the bus stop.

Susan wrote: "Hi I think you are missing my point."

I don't think I am missing your point the way you phrased it in the previous post. You said:

Susan wrote: "So I honestly think whether we label Darcy shy, introverted, reserved or stand offish doesnt matter much. Ultimately he behaves as he does in Derbyshire because of pride and a sense of no longer being certain of how others will treat him. Also a person can overcome shyness or reserve if they have a strong enough motivation."

I do think it matters whether he is shy or introverted, because they are two different things. I understand your point, which is that his behaviour and its source are similar to that of a shy persons (behaviour: silence, source: self-preservation), but I don't think that the source is the same. I don't think he is trying to protect his dignity or fears losing his face. That is the sort of anxious behaviour we have no evidence of. He is, on the contrary, very certain of himself. He is so certain of himself that he proposes to a woman he has no actual evidence of having attracted to himself. He assumes he has, because he is such a man. He is astonished when she refuses him. Later, in the second part of the book, he is more anxious to please, and less cocky about the whole business, to be sure, but that is only because she has already rejected him and humbled him. So he is humbled. Not shy. Again, two different things. He doesn't act that way in the second part because he fears for his dignity (or at least not primarily), he is more cautious because he is embarrassed, as is only natural in the circumstances, and because he is waiting for a sign from her that he may try again. The sign comes in the form of a raging Lady C, and he is back again to make his second proposal.

Ultimately, you are claiming the roots of his behaviour to the same spot: fear of people, and he is not afraid of people, not in the least. That is the difference between introverts and shy people. That is the point I was making.

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Emily, your contrast of shy vs introvert is true in my case and I agree with it as applied to Darcy.

I am an introvert in that I prefer to be alone and often chose to forgo many social occasions/i..."

Yes, my husband is the same! It's a pain to get him to agree to come to a party full of people he won't know, but once there he makes himself comfortable enough, and is quite happy once he found the right people to talk to.

I think we have to remember another aspect of Darcy's situation: he is wealthy. This means he could easily be the target of the unscrupulous. In fact, his sister already was. Experiences like this would naturally make him more reserved and guarded than he would be otherwise.

All of your comments about Darcy's temperament remind me that of all Austen's characters, I think he's the most understandable to me. Just like Darcy, I'm not shy whatsoever, and I don't suffer fools gladly, either. I've always had a hard time not just putting people out of my life when they've been a major disappointment, too. Luckily, I haven't had too many Wickhams in my life.

Alas, however, our monetary lives are not similar...

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "I've done a blog on whether or not Elizabeth should have accepted Darcy's first proposal:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
..."

No. it is a highly insulting proposal, no woman of spirit could possibly find it tolerable. besides, Elizabeth's refusal is good for Darcy, it makes him behave better.

She had every right to refuse him the first time, and if I was in her shoes I would have done the same. Although in a way, I understand why he said the things he did because no one had yet told him that it was rude of him to do. Elizabeth was helping his grow by turning him down. If she had accepted him the first time, he may not have turned out the way Austen wrote him at the end of the novel.

She did good. Made him want her that much more. However, it could've backfired and she could've lost him forever, particularly if he was/were? (never get those right lol) too much the gentleman and took the hint right off the bat.

Tina wrote: "She did good. Made him want her that much more. However, it could've backfired and she could've lost him forever, particularly if he was/were? (never get those right lol) too much the gentleman and..."

At the time of her refusal though she didn't want him. She wasn't doing something calculated, her response to him was sincere.

Susan wrote: He loved her, but dare I say he was not worthy of her? He was a good man, a loving brother and kind master as well as a loyal friend.

Elizabeth should not have accepted the proposal. Yes, he may have turned out to have the personality traits described by Susan (I think he did) but he had other characteristics that were featured: Pride, curtness, aloofness, silence, rudeness and stubbornness. None of the former were evident by the time of the first proposal; all of the latter were on display.

That's a really good point about the personality traits Elizabeth had observed in Darcy at the time of his first proposal. He certainly came off snobbish/arrogant as he listed the reasons he shouldn't want to marry her.
Perhaps her refusal was what made him vulnerable enough to show his better traits. It was the "new" side of Darcy that truly won Elizabeth's heart.

Just got around to reading this discussion. I think there is the structural reason Elizabeth refuses - the novel requires it, and it gives the reader (and Elizabeth) the opportunity to see another side of Darcy's character, how he behaves as a brother, how he is regarded by his staff and how far he is willing to go to pursue Lydia and Wickham.
The fact that she does not accept Darcy's first proposal positions her in contrast to Charlotte. Both of them understand that money is necessary - it is "the only honorable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune" and Lizzy agrees with her aunt that Wickham's lack of fortune would make a match imprudent. However, Elizabeth doesn't agree with Charlotte's opinion that happiness in marriage is a matter of chance and that even compatible natures will "grow sufficiently unlike" in the course of a marriage. Of course, Elizabeth has seen the downside of an incompatible match (her parents) - and so while she doesn't dismiss the importance of having something to live on, she isn't willing to settle for only money, and she does see the advantages of a compatible match in the Gardiners.
If she had accepted his first proposal, you have to believe that two of her main objections to him - that he cheated Wickham out of the situation old Mr. Darcy had promised, and that he deliberately divided Jane and Bingley - would have been resolved. A marriage between Lizzy and Darcy would have provided more opportunities for his best friend and her favorite sister to be together, and it would have been inevitable that Lizzy would have learned the truth about Wickham. Also, it's likely Wickham would have hesitated to run off with Mr. Darcy's sister-in-law. In fact, the absence of a Lydia/Wickham elopement would probably be the only alternative outcome had Elizabeth accepted Darcy's first proposal.

I say no; the both of them still needed to work out issues, plus have some time to understand their feelings.

I totally agree with you J. plus accepting the first proposal would have have created major flaws in Elizabeth character. It would have basically be her saying "yeah i still believe you did all those awful things, but who cares your rich!!" Had she accepted the first time around i doubt she would have be the beloved heroine she is today. Also, i see the fact that Mr. Darcy is shy coming up a lot in this thread, and while i agree that he is shy and that it took a lot for him to propose to her, to me it has nothing to do with weather or not Elizabeth should have accepted him.

Louise wrote: "Tina wrote: "She did good. Made him want her that much more. However, it could've backfired and she could've lost him forever, particularly if he was/were? (never get those right lol) too much the ..."

True that, Louise. In the end, it all worked out. :-)

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "I've done a blog on whether or not Elizabeth should have accepted Darcy's first proposal:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
..."

I agree. She was right to refuse him.

At that point in the book she knows exactly what she's looking for in a life partner - and JA hints at what it is by having her refuse Mr. Collins. Nothing Collins says sways her the least bit, meaning that her inducements are on the 'romantic', personality side of things. Her father enforces my view on this by saying later that he would not have her in a partnership where she couldn't respect the other. Obviously this is from personal experience, and, as discerning as she is, Elizabeth likely picked up on this years ago and is also looking for a partner she can respect.

Mr. Darcy is none of those things. She doesn't respect him, she doesn't like him, and she can barely stand talking to him without making fun of him. She knows what kind of a marriage that would make for, and she won't have it.

No. It probably felt wrong at first but as we see, it turned out just fine. ;-)

Should Lizzie have accepted Darcy's first proposal?

No! She hadn't yet seen Pemberly!!! :) :) :)

More seriously (!), I agree Lizzie would have been morally wrong to accept Darcy first time around, since she believed him to have deliberately parted her sister from the man she loved, plus harmed the 'innocent' (!) Wickham.

That said, had she not gone to Derbyshire with her aunt and uncle, but gone, as originally planned, to the Lake District, she might never have seen Darcy again. OK, the only chance she might have had would have been had she gone to visit Charlotte another time, and Darcy might have been there by chance as well. Otherwise she and he would not have crossed paths ever again.

On the other hand, once she has read Darcy's letter, explaining about Wickham and Georgiana, I guess she could have realised she had misjudged him in that, at least, and invited him to tell her more? And then revised her decision?

I agree with the comments that point out that Darcy never has a problem with Lizzie, only with her vulgar family.

And that it is definitely a proof of his love for her (when he does truly fall in love with her, rather than 'in lust' which is really what is driving his first proposal!), that he overcomes his very understandable revulsion to her family (because they ARE vulgar!) in order to marry her.

However, just how 'good' Darcy's judgement is, even though he is right about her vulgar family, is questionable. I've always found it bizarre that he puts up with Bingley's ghastly sisters, who are, in their own way, also vulgar at the opposite end of the spectrum, being so snobbish about 'trade', for example (Sir William Lucas, whom they laugh at for having 'kept a very good shop'!), when their own fortune is derived from trade.

As for the other sister's boorish husband, Darcy couldn't possibly have felt anything other than contempt for him!

When you are already endowed with vulgar associates, it's understandable that you don't want to add to their number.

There is a right time for everything. And for Lizzie and Mr Darcy, their right time was not the first proposal.

Maria wrote: "I totally agree with you J. plus accepting the first proposal would have have created major flaws in Elizabeth character. It would have basically be her saying "yeah i still believe you did all tho..."

I’ve never thought of him as shy. Haughty and stuck up yes, shy no.

I think perhaps 'reserved' is a better description of Darcy's manner in public.

I suspect too, that his general experience as a young man inheriting a large and prestigious estate, at a very young age (ideally, his father should have lived another twenty years or so, so that he could 'oversee' his son, and Darcy would have married and set up his nursery well before inheriting), plus a huge fortune (millionaire by our standards, easily!), would have made him very wary of being too 'easily intimate' with 'everyone'.

I think he was wary of 'toad-eaters' constantly making up to him (and women, of course, beelining him!), and that made him behave in a 'chilly' manner towards the general hoi polloi (ie, even within 'genteel' society).

It's revealing, in a way, that whereas Lizzie is very keen to point out to Lady that 'he is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter' that therefore she is Darcy's 'equal', that Darcy himself does not think that (Lady C obviously doesn't!), because he does not treat her family as his equals.

But, on the other hand, are they not his equals because Mrs Bennet's father was only an attorney, and her brother Gardiner 'in trade' in London.....or is it because of Mrs B and Lydia being so vulgar (I don't think Kitty is 'inherently' vulgar, as in, I'm sure once she starts visiting Pemberley, and seeing how Georgiana behaves, she will improve massively!)(ditto, I would like to see poor Mary palling up with poor crushed Anne de Burgh - I feel they are kindred spirits).

Certainly, I think Darcy demonstrates in the end that it is not 'social status' that determines his attitude towards someone, but their behaviour, as he is perfectly civil and amiable to the well-behaved, intelligent Mr and Mrs Gardiner.

Mr. Darcy never suspected Elizabeth to refuse him. Once she did refuse him, though he obviously felt rejected, he began to respect her all the more. This was part of the wake up call he needed as the incentive to change. When she refused him, it also allowed her to be introspective and it allowed her to see him and other perspectives in a different light.

If she had accepted him then and there, they wouldn’t have the respect and fortitude to secure their happiness, though I would hope a future event would have woken them up.

Both needed this honesty to grow in their own accords.

"Both needed this honesty to grow in their own accords."

Yes, indeed. Darcy needed to lose his 'pride' and Lizzie her 'prejudice'!

From a novelistic point of view, Lizzie's rejection was essential, as how could the story have continued otherwise? (Interesting challenge maybe?!)

From a 'realistic' point of view, ie, what a 'real' Lizzie might have done is less obvious. In 'real' life it would have taken a lot of moral fortitude to turn him down, having no expectation that any offer of marriage might ever be made to her again, and knowing how poor she would be once her father had died.

Just what kind of marriage they would have had had she accepted Darcy, though, is tricky to call. I think she'd have 'softened' Darcy in the end, but it would have taken probably another crisis (similar to the one instigated by Lydia's elopement) to bring out the best in him?

I would assume that once married, or perhaps even while engaged, Darcy would have explained to her why he loathed Wickham.

On the 'realistic' point of view still, I think one of the problems with any kind of updating of P and P (eg, even the Bollywood Bride and Prejudice), is that modern times just can't capture the penury to which Lizzie would have been reduced once her father had died.

She really would have had just about zero opportunity to ever regain the kind of affluence she enjoys as her father's daughter still owning Longbourn.

Her turning down Darcy at his first proposal shows huge moral courage, which can't be recaptured in updates.

I believe Austen herself made a similar decision in her lifetime, turning down a 'wealthy' proposal because she couldn't stomach marrying the man, even to be free of her chronic, penny pinching genteel poverty.

Of course, one way Lizzie Bennett could have made a living for herself would have been as a novelist!!!!! I'm sure she'd have written wonderfully witty novels! She could have partnered with Jane who would have written die-away 'soppy' novels with perfect heroes and heroines.

Perhaps, too, had Mr B died, and Mr Collins taken over, and widowed Mrs B would probably have thrown herself upon her brother, Mr Gardiner, possibly Lizzie could have gone to live in London, learnt about 'trade' and perhaps used her talents to become a female entrepreneur! (Rare though they doubtless were at the time ). (This assumes Jane hadn't married Bingley, as otherwise I'm sure she'd have gone to live with them.)

Jane Austen did not make a living writing novels. She got some money. Supporting yourself as an author has never been easy, except for statistical flukes.

Mary wrote: "Jane Austen did not make a living writing novels. She got some money. Supporting yourself as an author has never been easy, except for statistical flukes."

and she was a spinster, no family money or husband's money to help out AND novels were a new genre and still looked at as suspect. Jane may have made more money if she hadn't sold the copyright to P&P but probably not much more. Mansfield Park and Emma didn't sell well. Jane made enough money for things she wanted but not enough to be independent.

Had she lived longer, she might well have started to earn more. She was certainly thrilled to make any money at all. This was downplayed after her death by her family in Victorian times as it was considered 'ungenteel' (!) of any 'lady' to actually WANT to make money!!!!

I would still hold that writing was one of the very, very few ways open to middle class women to make any money at all. Trade was still 'dodgy' and female entrepreneurs pretty thin on the ground. Even thinner than solvent authors!

I agree it must be tough, even now (perhaps even more now!) to make any kind of living out of writing fiction. The market must be fearsome, and fickle, and with so much 'free' online content these days getting someone to pay to read it is a challenge even for massive players like global newspapers etc.

But then, making 'easy money' has never been easy at all!!!!

(As for marrying for money, I read once a very 'true' comment - 'You can marry for money all right, but you'll spend the rest of your life earning it')(I knew of a woman who did just that, she married an 'old' man, waiting for him to die so she could clean up - but he took another thirty years to die and her youth was gone, and so was his money. Sobering lesson!) (on the other hand, I know of someone whose wealthy father married a woman his daughter's age, who promptly cleaned him out of everything, especially after dementia had set in, and his children got nothing at all - she left all HIS money to HER previous children!)

Yes, Lizzie HAD to refuse him, or there really wouldn't have been a novel at all, and we'd have seen Lizzie as venal (or besotted!) and Darcy would have remained stuck up etc etc.

Interesting comparison with Mr Collins's blithely conceited disbelief that Lizzie could have rejected him!!!! I hadn't spotted that one before.

Had she accepted his first proposal, the end of the book would have been very different and not so delightful. More importantly, how could we have admired her so much as we do? And how could we have seen the better side of Darcy? It would have greatly stunted the character development that makes the denouement of the book so brilliant and so richly satisfying.

There's many a book that would have suffered artistically if the characters had done what was right, just, and prudent. In this one, however, they are in agreement.

Yes, what if Anne Elliot had refused to be 'persuaded' by Lady Russell and run off with penniless Lieut Wentworth eight years earlier?!!!

Would she have come a cropper, like Fanny's mother in Mansfield Park who, says Austen, 'married to disoblige her family'? Or would they have been poor but happy, like the Harvilles? Or even poor-at-first, but then Wentworth's go-getting abilities have procured him the same promotion and prize money he got anyway? (And was Fanny's father always going to be a dead loss, anyway whoever he married?)

The end of Persuasions does have Wentworth saying to Anne that, had he returned to her in a year or two, both with some promotion and prize money under his belt, and, most importantly, Anne's regret at having turned him down, would she have accepted him, and she gives an unequivocal 'yes!' to him.

I think the issue does highlight the extreme and critical importance of marriage in all Austen novels (and, by reflection, in life at that time, when divorce was all but impossible, and certainly hugely disastrous for women)(Think Lady Holland, who, though she did finally get to marry Lord Holland in real life, remained a social outcast from 'polite society'....ie, however many literary men she could lure to Holland House, the likes of the Almack patronesses would never accept her back into 'society')

(And, too, isn't Georgette Heyer's Venetia's mother divorceed? I have a dim memory her husband divorced her - for crim con with the man she ran off with! - so she was able to marry her lover before Venetia's father died???) (but of course she remained 'scandalous' even though remarried....)

Time and again throughout all Austen's novels we see example after example of marriages that were huge, huge mistakes for both parties. Lizzie Bennet will have seen every day of her life the disaster and disappointment that her parents' marriage has been, for both of them (Obviously Mr Bennet regrets having a stupid wife, and Mrs Bennet regrets marrying a man whose death will turn her into a pauper unless she gets rich sons-in-laws!)

I don't think Lizzie could possibly risk making such a 'bad' marriage as her parents, by giving in to any 'avaricious' (or even 'lustful'!) desire to have Mr D on the terms he first sets out for her.

I feel it's hard for our generation to fully appreciate just how terrifyingly important marriage was, and the decision as to who to marry, and who not to, when divorce was not a realistic option.

The point is that Lizzy can't marry without respect and she doesn't respect Darcy to begin with any more than she respects Mr. Collins. The Bennets have an unequal marriage without respect and Lizzy is well aware of it. She knows how miserable her father is and even he doesn't want her to marry unless she has a healthy respect for her partner. ("awe" is the term he uses). Lizzy has to get to know Darcy for the good man he is and not that rat turd who insulted and humiliated her, ruined Wickham's life and the happiness of a most beloved sister.

Jane couldn't make her character do what she refused to do herself.