Chicken and the Egg
Posted by Mark on December 02, 1997 at 10:03:34:
In response to Mark, I beg to differ . . ., written by Rachel on December 01, 1997 at 22:02:56
] But the characters who end up in wonderful marriages (Jane and Lizzie) both had love very high up on their lists, but that love could not have come into being unless they had respected their mates.
You just argued my point. First comes respect, then comes love. Not the other way round.
Elizabeth wants to marry for love. But will she marry only for love. I doubt it. She will only marry for respect. Would she have accepted Darcy's first proposal if her feelings had been "indifferent", AND Darcy hadn't made such a mess of it? I think she might of.
Remember her "flutterings" with Col. Fritzwilliam. There was definite respect there. But certainly there was no "violent love". Would she have married Col. F. if he had proposed? I suspect she might have. Things were pointing in that direction.
As her Aunt Gardiner says, "But that expression of 'violently in love' is so hackneyed, so doubtful, so indefinite, that it gives me very little idea. It is as often applied to feelings which arise from an half-hour's acquaintance, as to a real, strong attachment." So I suspect we can argue the various shades of love versus respect forever and really be arguing for the same side, or only differing by hair breadths of shading.
I guess the main thrust of my post was to disparage the line in P&P2, "I am determimed that only the deepest love will induce me to Matrimony." I do not feel that that line can stand up to close scrutiny. I don't think Elizabeth would ever say such a thing. If I am mistaken, I am willing to be enlightened. But I doubt that I am wrong in this.
] I am sorry about this defence; it is haphazard and wild, but I hope it gets my point across. Thank you for your post, Mark. I enjoyed it.
There is never a need to apologize for a intelligent posting. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
