In the Fezziwig postings, at times there has been an almost-obsessive focus on the exact protocal for a particular situation. Granted, Victorian high or "Gaskellian" society was much more rigidly governed by expectations than is our counterpart. I guess my question is a two-parter:
Was much allowance made for good intention (for example, the human labrador retriever: boundless energy, furiously-wagging tail, enthusiasm likely to knock one over), to cover or accept some departure from social norms? What social consequence would such a good-natured bounder face?
In your own opinions, to what degree should we emulate not only the customs of Victorian society, but the strictness with which they were applied?
Was much allowance made for good intention (for example, the human labrador retriever: boundless energy, furiously-wagging tail, enthusiasm likely to knock one over), to cover or accept some departure from social norms? What social consequence would such a good-natured bounder face?
In your own opinions, to what degree should we emulate not only the customs of Victorian society, but the strictness with which they were applied?
-
Re: Getting lost in translation?
Wed, June 29, 2005 - 9:15 PMOne of the problems we have in looking back at historical references, is that the docmentation is not written for the people in "high" society, but for the people that wanted to enter. the people that were in "knew" how to act and did not need books to tell them. they were taught from a very early age, how to act &c. the books attempt to impart on the newbe the basic knowledge, however reading is never a substute for breeding (and by breeding, I mean bring brought up to it. in reality being a gentleman is as much common sense and courtisey as anything else.
the middle classes believe that they were emulating the upper classes,based on what they saw and were told, and were much more strict about the observence of the "rules" because of course a well breed person wouldn't dream of breaking the rules (they didn't have the 11th commandment in their bibles ;-)
what do we want to emulate? I like the care free attitudes that come with the almost limit less wealth of the landed gentry of victorian england, as long as one behaved as a gentleman and obeyed the 11th commandment (thou shalt not get caught) almost anything went. a "bounder" by definition is not a gentleman.
however allowances would be made if the man in question were well connected, or was a bachelor with oodles of scratch and had a really nice title or was the heir to one.
good intentions and bounderism (to make up a word) do not go hand in hand bounders and cads typicaly do not have good intentions.
Mr. F is a product of an earlier period, much looser morally speaking Lady Jane is at the Fezziwig's because she crossed the line, between divorce, and marrying an arab, HRH is the only person in "society" that could get away with invting her to a party. to the Fezziwig's, she's family, and it's Christmas, so she is most welcome.
in fezzi's we make exceptions for bounders, cad, tarts etc. because it is theatrical, at gaskell's we can pick and choose. if someone is not play by what we think are the rules, we ignore them (the committee will still take their $20)
Don't make the mistake of confusing Gaskell's with "high society" if it were a society ball, it would either be free or be a charity event, and open by invitation only. what we have is called in the books a cinderella ball, mostly because it's over at midnight, or it's called a subscription ball, one where peole pay to attend. as a rule these are not society events. however the people that goto them would of course wear there finest evening suits and dresses.
what I want to do, is the eqivalent of the victorian manners and dance guides, something that people that are new to Fezzi's, PEERS and Gaskell's can read and get a clue to what we're doing and how to do it.
the bottom line:
Act like a Gentleman and you can't go far wrong