My apologies for not posting sooner. I'm making up for it by posting something that is probably too long.
Regency-era England holds a strong fascination for modern
readers, including me. Whenever I open a novel written by Jane Austen, I can be
sure of getting a peek into a culture vastly different from my own. I might
share the same native language as characters like Emma Woodhouse and Elizabeth
Bennet, but it seems as if cultural similarities stop there.
One of the main ways I arrive at this sense of estrangement
is the code of manners followed by characters in the book. Austen’s writing
style clearly indicates that she assumed her readers were familiar with the
social expectations that governed the manners and interactions of her
characters.
There are few detailed explanations of why certain
characters are admired or chastised for certain expressions. Every once in a
while, the reader will get a freebie from Austen about the inappropriateness of
a comment (“I might as well inquire why with so evident a design of offending
and insulting me you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will,
against your reason, even against your character” – Pride and Prejudice). However, these
miniature explanations, revealed only in character dialogue, are few and far
between.
It takes a while to become accustomed to this alien
mode of existence. But, I have to admit, there are days when I wish we still lived in a
society where people followed a detailed and rigid code of etiquette. Most
Americans and residents of the “it’s all about me” culture probably chafe at
this suggestion, but I can pick out some perks to having a well-defined system
of manners.
Perk #1: Manners promote society-building values
It seems to me that at some level, every code of behavior
buys into two basic ideas:
interactions
with others matter and
there is a
proper way of conducting those interactions.
I think most people would agree that these two assumptions
are correct, and on some level, I believe most people try to live out these
ideas. Most try to be kind to others – or at least not rude. However, in a society
that appears ever more fractured and, at times, hostile, these vaguely-guided
attempts at civility are not likely to make social encounters any smoother.
Regency-era etiquette provided a framework in which even the
most distant acquaintances could treat each other with civility, at least as
far as the Austen novels reveal. There were proper and improper ways to act,
and proper and improper times during which to act offended.
Perk #2: Manners allow one to interact politely with
EVERYONE
What would happen if Lizzy Bennet and her family desired to
speak to a certain rich young bachelor, but had never met him before? They
could turn to the Lucas family for an introduction to the eligible Mr. Bingley.
What if Lizzy met Miss Bingley as a fellow guest in a party,
but suspected the woman had dissuade her brother Mr. Bingley from pursuing the admirable
Jane Bennet? Even though the two had grounds to dislike each other, they could
still interact civilly and prevent the ruination of a social event.
From these two situations in Pride and Prejudice, one sees that etiquette applies as well to
strangers as to acquaintances – even acquaintances who might not be on the best
of terms.
Whether an interaction plays out between bosom friends,
distant relations, friends of friends, or sweethearts, there was a way to
mingle with them and mingle POLITELY.
I think it is much harder to play off awkward situations in
today’s world, which is sadly lacking in detailed codes of manners, than it was
in Jane Austen’s time. Good manners might not have removed the discomfort of a
given meeting, but it might have prevented an interaction from going completely
downhill.
Perk #3: There were rules to playing the game of love
All of Austen’s novels focus on a heroine finding love, so
the manners displayed in the books deal in large part with how courtships
unfold.
The characters of Austen’s books recognized the necessity of
guarding against unwise interactions. Though not strictly considered good or
bad manners, there were proper ways for young women and men to get to know each
other. The results of pursuing relationships in a socially atypical way had it
consequences.
One such example may be observed in Sense and Sensibility, in which Marianne is crushed by the
knowledge that Mr. Willoughby has engaged himself to another woman. When
Marianne’s sister Elinor probes her on the subject, she finds that Marianne’s relationship
with the man has been complicated by the fact that there was a lack of typical
expressions and understandings.
"Much
as you suffer now, think of what you would have suffered if the discovery of
his character had been delayed to a later period—if your engagement had been
carried on for months and months, as it might have been,k before he chose to
put an end to it. Every additional day of unhappy confidence, on your side,
would have made the blow more dreadful."
"Engagement!"
cried Marianne, “there has been no engagement.”
"No
engagement?"
"No,
he is not so unworthy as you believe him. He has broken no faith with me."
"But
he told you that he loved you?"
"Yes—no—never
absolutely. It was every day implied, but never professedly declared. Sometimes
I thought it had been—but it never was." (pp.171-2)
Marianne’s actions had led her sister to assume that she and
Willoughby had been engaged. However, by disregarding social norms for courtships
and refusing to confide in her family, Marianne ended up with a case of severe
heartbreak.
Such misadventures have lessons to teach to those
who are trying to find their own loves today. The over-sharer, the
noncommittal man, and the matchmaker - to name just a few - might learn quite a bit from
the failings of Austen’s characters.
Perk #4: There WERE rules, and they were generally known
One of the nice aspects of having a detailed set of rules
was that there WAS a set of rules. If a person found himself or herself in
unusual circumstances, there were likely rules pertaining to that specific
situation. I can only conclude there must have been fewer instances of “I’m
going to say this and I hope it’s the right thing…” in Regency England.
Going along with that is that fact that everyone seemed to
know these rules. This impression comes strictly from reading Austen’s novels,
so I know I’m sharing a very limited view…but it does seem like everyone in her
works knows what’s going on when it comes to manners.
Perk #5: People were able to appreciate good manners
Ever heard the saying “it takes one to know one”? That can
be said of manners. Austen’s characters were able to acknowledge
the fact that some people have good manners. On the flip side, this also
unfortunately led to a lot of gossipy judgment behind closed doors.
We lack an appreciation for good manners today since it’s
difficult to tell what exactly they are supposed to look like. We know that
good handshakes are important…but what else do we know and recognize?
Manners are a big deal since they are instrumental in making
impressions. Want people to like you? Nowadays, have a firm handshake, say
please and thank you, and don’t hog the conversation. Back in the day, if you
were a dude, you had to follow all of the rules of etiquette, including dancing
with young ladies when you go to a ball.
Speaking of which…
Perk #6: Men were expected to dance
It was considered bad manners for a man to attend a ball and
not dance with anyone in the event that gentlemen are scarce and more than one
young lady was lacking a partner (cough cough Mr. Darcy).
I wish this were still the case today. Too often, I and my friends
attend dances and hardly ever get asked to take a turn on the dance floor with
a gent. Can’t we at least establish an expectation that if people are going to
attend a dance or go to a dance hall, they should be willing to dance?
