] In sum, Easter in the year in question is around three weeks before the second week in May (about a week between Easter and the proposal, less than a fortnight between the proposal and arrival in London, and a few days in London). This wipes out 1794, in which Easter was too late, and 1812, in which it was too early: 1800 is best, though 1806 will fit at a pinch.

] Moody's and Chapman's calculations, based on the events taking place in 1811-1812, must be wrong - she has far too long a stay in London after the return from Hunsford.

Your arguments here are very strong. I had come to similar conclusions, though I had not researched different calendar years as you did so well. I should add that Chapman does see your objection, but his defense is simply that Eliz. must have stayed with the Gardiners for two or three weeks before returning home. This not only contradicts JA's statement that she was only there a few days, but also does not make sense for a variety of reasons, the most important being that it is impossible to imagine Eliz. waiting for such a long period before divulging her news about Darcy to Jane.

] There is only one external references of much use in P&P (unless a fashion guru can tell us something about ``long sleeves'').

I don't think there is any dramatic change regarding long sleeves that we can identify. In addition, we don't know, on the basis of Mrs. Bennet's comment, whether long sleeves were coming in or going out.

] The bit at the end, about ``the restoration of peace'' dismissing Wickham from the army, most plausibly refers to the Peace of Amiens, which was the only interval in the French Revolutionary/ Napoleonic war between 1792 and 1814: the treaty was signed in 1802, and war resumed the year after. However, it is possible that JA could have been referring hopefully to a future peace.

I would guess the latter. In describing Wickham's future course she seems to be talking about a period of years rather than just an interval of a year, which is all that Wickham would have had if the restoration of peace meant 1802.

] My guess as to what happened is that ``First Impressions'' was written with 1799-1800 in mind. If there were any contemporary references, JA took them all out when she revised it as P&P, thus giving it its undatable quality.

I tend to think she saw it as being of the time of publication, but was not absolutely focused on one particular calendar sequence. What Caroline says about deliberately trying to keep the reader from making a specific identification makes sense, though that might not be as important with regard to date than with regard to place.

One good clue comes in her introduction to Northanger Abbey, when she takes care to explain that she is presenting something that has become out of date with regard to manners, opinions, etc. This indicates how conscious she is of getting such details right, so in the case of P&P, which unlike NA she was able to revise, it is likely that she made those adjustments she saw as necessary to keep it up to date. Of course, it's arguable that in her revision she overlooked a few outmoded details, but I suspect if she had consciously saw the book as being of a much earlier year she would have said something as she did in NA.