[Grammar] without losing their XXX of life and YYY

[suprunp]

Jude thought with a feeling of sickness that though this might be true to some extent, for all that he knew, many unsophisticated girls would and did go to towns and remain there for years without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments. Others, alas, had an instinct towards artificiality in their very blood, and became adepts in counterfeiting at the first glimpse of it.
(T. Hardy: Jude the Obscure)

This is said when Jude finds out that his wife has an artificial plait, which I consider an embellishment.

I read the part in bold as follows:
without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.

Can this construction be viewed differently?
("Jude the Obscure" was just an incitement to me to ask this question, therefore when I say "viewed differently" I do not mean in this particular context, but rather in general.)

without losing their XXX of life and YYY.

1. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY
2. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their XXX of YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY
3. without losing their XXX of life and without YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY

1. without losing their simplicity of life and dignity = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their dignity.
2. without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.
3. without losing their simplicity of life and depravation* = without losing their simplicity of life and without depravation.

Are all these variants possible?

Thanks.

*Depravation
1. The action or fact of making or becoming depraved, bad, or corrupt; deterioration, degeneration, esp. moral deterioration; an instance of this.
OED

 

[bhaisahab]

Jude thought with a feeling of sickness that though this might be true to some extent, for all that he knew, many unsophisticated girls would and did go to towns and remain there for years without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments. Others, alas, had an instinct towards artificiality in their very blood, and became adepts in counterfeiting at the first glimpse of it.
(T. Hardy: Jude the Obscure)

This is said when Jude finds out that his wife has an artificial plait, which I consider an embellishment.

I read the part in bold as follows:
without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments.

Can this construction be viewed differently?
("Jude the Obscure" was just an incitement to me to ask this question, therefore when I say "viewed differently" I do not mean in this particular context, but rather in general.)

without losing their XXX of life and YYY.

1. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY No.
2. without losing their XXX of life and without losing their XXX of YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY Yes.
3. without losing their XXX of life and without YYY. = without losing their XXX of life and YYY No.

1. without losing their simplicity of life and dignity = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their dignity. No.
2. without losing their simplicity of life and embellishments = without losing their simplicity of life and without losing their simplicity of embellishments. Yes.
3. without losing their simplicity of life and depravation* = without losing their simplicity of life and without depravation. No.

Are all these variants possible?

Thanks.

Bhai.