I agree,Originally Posted by olichka
and I would not be surprised that such arragements are still going on, even today.
I agree,
and I would not be surprised that such arragements are still going on, even today.
That's true, even today arrangements such as this one can still happen because single women without families are still not that much respected.
I wanted to add in my previous post that Charlotte's satisfaction with her lot and fulfillment in life will probably increase, once she acquires a family ( and in her case, I think she should get at least 6 kids ! ). This way she can create her own world and a new sphere of influence and activity, as well as be emotionally satisfied from the involvement in her children's lives. Mr. Collins can become even more " forgot " !!!
So even if her marriage does have a salient aspect-- being a form of prostitution--it's still workable. Realistically, what other options did a woman of her social and economic position in the early 19th century have ? Would being a poor old maid with no occupation or position in life better ?
It's only to Jane Austen, a high-minded, prudish woman who would make no compromises ( and I'm sure she wasn't the only woman at that time who had similar ideas ) that this type of marriage was completely unacceptable. But then she did have her writing.
Last edited by olichka; 02-24-2007 at 02:46 PM.
I agree.
Charlotte's marriage wasn't begun on the best footing,
but there's no reason why after time, and the comfort of familiarity,
she and Mr. Collins can't have a reasonably good marriage.
My original point was that in my opinion Charlotte's marriage
wasn't the worst in the book;
I think being married to a gambling, lazy, mooching, lying,
womanizing pig (who doesn't love me)- as Lydia is- is much worse.
I totally agree here. Lydia's marriage was better than Charlotte's only at the beginning, based as it was on attraction, admiration and passion. However, Charlotte's will improve with time (particularly since Charlotte is making a lot of effort ) and will provide a respectability and a stable environment both for herself and her children. I dread to see how Lydia and Wickham's children will turn out !!!
Also, whatever Mr. Collins' faults, he's not a pervert, nor does he appear to be passionate, so that even though Charlotte is not attracted to him, at least he won't be making many demands on her, nor will she be debased in the bedroom. So that even in this aspect, her marriage is not something to dread. I actually wouldn't say that it can be classified so extremely as " prostitution ".
Last edited by olichka; 02-24-2007 at 05:21 PM.
if you consider the circumstances of women in her position at the time prostitution is much too harsh a description of her marriage. Lydia definitely made the worst selection of husbands and therefore life situations and she is incredibly lucky that Darcy in his affection for Elizabeth assisted them so much.
Based on the descriptions of people's improvements from their "society" and spouses Mr. Collins can be improved to a reasonable extent with some effort.
This would be especially true is lizzie could be prevailed upon to have darcy speak to him. chances of this are small but here is what i mean:
suppose that Mr. Collins were removed from the influence of Lady Cartherine. In the normal course of events under a patron such as Mr. Darcy and possibly if Lizzie gets Darcy to talk to him one on one, it could be explained to him that his fawning is disagreeble and only Lady C's type of person is flattered by it. Given a marginally concerted effort by Lizzie and Charlotte he could be made significantly more tolerable.
of course this isnt a sure thing because thought patterns are difficult to beat, but there is a decent chance of its success. i understand that neither lizzie, charlotte, or darcy would likely be persuaded to attempt this, but it would be interesting to see if it were possible. but even Charlotte's efforts alone could produce a decided change if she went about it the right way. I don't think that
Mr. Collins is so terrible that he cannot be made tolerble. he actually ahs some things to recommend him, emotion aside:
1. he wont beat his wife
2. his living and that of any family is relatively assured even without Darcy being persuaded to help
3. he really does want to be pleasing even if he goes about it the wrong way becuase of Lady C.'s negative influence
4. He has no serious character flaws such as a temper, or a terrible sense of humor
5. more that i dont have time to set to type
Last edited by Matrim Cuathon; 02-24-2007 at 10:00 PM.
prostitution NOT Austen's word!
I was having a hard time believing that Jane Austen would even USE such a word as prostitution, so just for the record, I tried to find proof that she actually used that word, or used ANY harsh language to describe marriages made for financial reasons, and I could find none.
What I DID find was a radical anti-social “grandmother of feminism” who is credited with describing ALL marriage as legal prostitution: Mary Wollstonecraft, who by the way, had a baby out of wedlock, and later became pregnant again by another man, who then married her.
“Mary Wollstonecraft's views even shocked fellow radicals.”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...stonecraft.htm
Further, I found an article trying to persuade readers that Mary Wollstonecraft and Jane Austen thought alike on the issue of marriage, but nowhere was the idea of marriage as legal prostitution listed as a thought that they shared. As a matter of fact, the connections made were superficial.
There is no record of Austen having ever read any of Wollstonecraft's writing.A Feminist Connection: Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-...ascarelli.html
Therefore it is my opinion that this is probably one of those urban legends that people believe about Jane Austen, and I’m starting to believe it’s not true. It smacks of “revisionism” to me.
I personally don’t believe Jane Austen was that radical or that vicious.
Her writing is too innocuous for that.
At worst, we can see that Austen understood marriage as an economic institution, which it most certainly was, but NOT as prostitution.
I don’t have a problem with being proved wrong, but it will have to come from Austen’s own pen, not someone else’s opinion of her writing.
Last edited by sciencefan; 02-24-2007 at 10:39 PM.
I agree that Mr. Collins is probably at least teachable.
You give a very interesting scenario.
There's no reason to believe their marriage could not have turned out well.
And truly, before my mind was poisoned with accusations of prostitution, I myself thought it would turn out just fine, based on what Austen had written.
well, im certainly happy to consider that Austen was intelligent and reasonable.
well, we see that Collins has no massive problems. The main thing i disliked was his fawning on important people. Its probable that given the right encouragement he can be taught to treat themwith respect and deference of a more reasonable measure.
I agree with you, and that is such an excellent word for what he does: fawn.
Apparently it came from his lowly background, and his recent success at having come into money, as it were.
On the one hand, I don't think Mr. Darcy would ever appreciate Mr. Collins' fawning, but I think perhaps Lady Catherine desires it.
Funny thing, people's pride.
isnt it
that's probably becuase Darcy is secure in himself and Catherine desires validation, she wants approval of her actions. Collins is a sycophant. a yes man. and she can be secure in his regard simply by "condescending" to treat him well and in the bargain she gets the feeling of being generous. Collins doesnt understand that he provides her with something infinitely more valueble than what she gives in exchange.
Actually, sciencefan, you yourself made a reference to someone's statement in their essay that this was Jane Austen's opinion ( in your very first post ). Perhaps I became influenced by that, or perhaps I read that fact in one of the biographies.
I do remember, however, specifically reading that Jane Austen had a difficult time finding a husband, due to her lack of wealth, finally receiving a proposal from a childhood friend at the age of 27 ( Charlotte's age ). At 21,he was younger than Jane ( like Mr. Collins who was 25 ), and was an heir to a substantial estate with a stately home which would have allowed Jane to live in luxury and to become an influential hostess in the area.
Last edited by olichka; 02-25-2007 at 04:51 PM.
He was a tall, strongly built young man (like Mr.Collins ) and in many sources he is described as being shy, awkward and having a stutter which made social life difficult and occasionally made him aggressive. Some sources mention him as being a graduate of Oxford, yet others describe him as "shambling" and "intellectually blunt". The main idea is that of a socially awkward and esthetically unappealing young man.
Jane at first accepted him, but then refused him because, although fond of him as a childhood friend, she didn't love him as a husband. This experience embittered her ( again, this is from a source ), since she came so close to a life of economic ease and influence, but which would have involved being married without love and to a man who evoked feelings of squeamishness in her. ( Mr.Collins, although socially awkward in a different way--he is obsequious and much too talkative---also evokes squeamishness ).
The point is , Jane based Charlotte/Collins situation on her own experience ( I think there are many similarities ), describing a type of marriage she disapproved of---that without love and contracted for the sake of economic survival, a "preservative from want". Although she may not have considered it as prostitution, it does have contain elements of bitterness, at least in the initial stages and even though,on the whole, it's a workable and positive situation.
Last edited by olichka; 02-25-2007 at 04:19 PM.
Actually, after re-reading pertinent passages, I'm becoming even more convinced that Charlotte's marriage is a sensible and a workable choice.
In the book, Mr.Collins is described as being tall and heavily-built and having grave, formal manners which creates the impression of an imposing appearance and behaviour, even if obsequious around Lady Catherine---thus, not exactly somebody physically unappealing, even if not having the sex appeal of the handsome Darcy, Bingley or Wickham.
As someone already said, with Charlotte's and Darcy's help, it's possible that positive changes can be worked in him, particularly since he's still a very young man (being only 25 ). It's obvious that his ridiculous behaviour is caused by a combination of deficiency in upbringing and of his coming to an important position relatively early in life. His behaviour in many ways is just immaturity and lack of life experience : thus, being raised in poverty by an illiterate father who beat him explains why he's so much in awe of Lady Catherine ( a mother figure ?) who's rich and patronizing.
I think that Mr.Collins' character suffered a lot from various productions of "Pride and Prejudice", particularly the BBC's one (with Colin Firth ). There he is portrayed as a man of very small stature, making him look ridiculous and insignificant. We also are not given his background, so we don't see any justification for his behaviour.
This unflattering portrayal may be in part responsible for some of us ( including me ) judging him as an inadequate husband for Charlotte.
Last edited by olichka; 02-27-2007 at 05:01 PM.
My,my, I certainly did not expect this thread to extend this far, but it is very interesting to see the posts thus far. I have to say I again I really appreciate everyone so far for their input; there seems to be so many useful points, I'm not sure what to consider in my paper lol. Well, like I said before, keep up the posts because it is very interesting to see this topic from different perspectives, greatly appreciate it!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote