Rakes: tall, thin object with which to sweep up leaves & cuttings
Posted by Leanne S on May 11, 1998 at 14:17:42:
In response to I think so!, written by Marsha on May 10, 1998 at 17:03:30
] ] Running into debt, gambling heavily (Wickham),
] Gambling was quite a passion at the time. Such notable men as Beau Brummel (the leade of fashion) or before him, Charles James Fox, the leading opposition polititian of the day (neither of them a rake) lost entire fortunes at play.
Agree here -- but then I don't think one would be called a rake for merely gambling. Beau Brummell certainly wasn't known as a rake. To be a rake, you generally have to have your wicked way with women and get away with it. Like Byron for instance, or the Prince Regent himself.
] seducing a young woman, leaving her pregnant and not caring for your child, (Willoughby),
] Ahh, but I think they had a consentual love affair, not a seduction. And
That may answer for Willoughby. But the woman is still ruined by the affair, consensual or no. And in general terms, that would make the man a rake, particularly if it becomes known.
]
] commiting adultery (Crawford),
] It was still very common (though not as widespread as in Georgian times), for a wife and a husband each to have a lover. The society didn't pay much attention to it and it was not concidered a big deal in most cases.
If this then, was the case -- why did Jane Austen make such a brouhaha about it? It may have been common for lovers to be had, but I believe it was equally as common to be *very* discreet. Although, there's a case or two that I read on the Life & Times board that most definitely weren't!
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
