Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
|Prudence or foolhardiness?
Written by Tracy W
(5/15/2007 6:05 p.m.)
in consequence of the missive, Prudence, prudence, penned by Robbin
Charlotte is marrying a man she has known for less than four days (they met for the first time at the Netherfield Ball, she sees them the next day, and the day after, Mr Collins proposes first thing the next morning). If a friend of yours stated that they were engaged a man they had known for only four days, would you regard them as prudent?
Now let us imagine that your friend lives in a time where divorce was nearly impossible, where the jurist William Blackstone stated:
Oh, also, if you died in childbirth your husband would have the job of bringing up your children. It is little wonder that Elizabeth says:
And, furthermore, as you say, she lives very close to the Bennets, whose unhappy marriage appears not to be 100% in the kids' favour, but we never hear of Charlotte thinking what Mr Collins would be like as a father.
What I think shocks Elizabeth so much about Charlotte's actions is that Charlotte is placing all her trust of future happiness in having enough wealth. I agree that it was regarded as important at the time for a couple to have sufficient fortune between them, what was wrong about what Charlotte did was that she *only* cares about fortune. It's like buying a jacket by fit and ignoring whether it will keep you warm or what colour it is. Charlotte made her decision based on one factor, unlike what Elizabeth advocates of multiple ones degree or her own regard, or its reasonableness.
Charlotte deciding to marry a man *just* for the money is like putting your mortgage payment down at the horseraces. She may be lucky and it may all work out, but it isn't what I would describe as prudent.
And now I have had my say on Charlotte's actions and I suspect we will have to agree to disagree in the future.
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.