Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
|What I find interesting
Written by LeeAnne
(10/9/2008 8:39 a.m.)
in consequence of the missive, Persuading Anne – was Lady Russell right? (long), penned by Rachel G
"but Anne, at seven-and-twenty, thought very differently from what she had been made to think at nineteen. She did not blame Lady Russell, she did not blame herself for having been guided by her; but she felt that were any young person in similar circumstances to apply to her for counsel, they would never receive any of such certain immediate wretchedness, such uncertain future good. She was persuaded, that under every disadvantage of disapprobation at home, and every anxiety attending his profession, all their probable fears, delays and disappointments, she should yet have been a happier woman in maintaining the engagement than she had been in the sacrifice of it;"
I fully agree with Rachel's synopsis of the situation, and I believe if I had a daughter in Anne's situation, I would really be worried about her. It seems analygous to a situation where my daughter wanted to marry a young man who was determined to move to California to become an actor. Without any current money or any certainty of getting an acting gig when he gets there, I would definitely be hesitant to give my blessing to that arrangement. If he got a job, and then came back for my daughter, then I'd feel a lot better about it. But I guess Lady Russell didn't recommend this because she thought Anne could do better than wait around for Wentworth.
But Anne, with all her common sense, either didn't see the imprudence of the arrangement or didn't care. Is it possible that she has the tiniest bit of Sir Walter's thoughtlessness? Or was her heart SOOOO engaged that she didn't care about wealth or comfort? I would be happier to think that she would be willing to live in poverty for the man she loved.
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.