Nikki N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Darcy admitted in his letter "That I was desirous
> of believing her indifferent is certain -- but I
> will venture to say that my investigations and
> decisions are not usually influenced by my hopes
> or
> fears." and that "from what passed that evening my
> opinion of all parties was confirmed, and every
> inducement heightened which could have led me
> before to preserve my friend from what I esteemed
> a most unhappy connexion."
>
> Well, I believe that his decision was
> subconsciously influenced by his hopes and fears,
> as well as "every inducement" (e.g. Mrs Bennett
> talking about marrying rich men etc)., that led
> him to believe it would be "a most unhappy
> connexion" for Bingley .
I can agree with you that Darcy was subconsciously influenced by his fears. But what exactly were these fears?
Bingley is Darcy's friend, and Darcy does not want him tied forever to an unpleasant family. The younger girls are often inappropriate in company, and the mother has a loud and incautious manner. I believe Darcy's real fear that he is unwilling to state and perhaps to unable to admit, is through his friend Bingley Darcy himself will be tied to the Bennets. Yes, Darcy truly cares about his friend but his true fear is more selfish.
This is not about money or even rank so much as it is about behavior. Note that Darcy explains to Elizabeth in his letter post-Hunsford proposal: "...the want of connection could not be so great an evil to my friend as to me. -- But there were other causes of repugnance; -- causes which, though still existing, and existing to an equal degree in both instances, I had myself endeavoured to forget, because they were not immediately before me. -- These causes must be stated, though briefly. -- The situation of your mother's family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly, betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father."
Put simply, Darcy is appalled because these people don't know how to act. They behave badly. If they were not so badly behaved, even the objectionable situation of Mrs. Bennet's family -- and there, of course, he refers to the connections in trade -- could be overlooked. The lack of of connections are nothing in comparison to the way these people act as if they have no sense--and it is not just the sisters and the idiot mother. Sometimes even the gentleman father Mr. Bennet behaves badly. I can imagine Darcy going "Uggggh!!" at the thought of being intimately connected to these people through his friend, or horrors, directly through a marriage of his own.
>If Jane was an
> heiress, would he have such strong hopes for her
> indifference, and such fears for her motives? I
> don't think so. Even if he didn't quite like the
> match, there is a vast difference between not
> quite liking a friend's choice and preferring
> another match for him, to "pointing out to my
> friend the certain evils of such a choice.
> I described, and enforced them earnestly".
So, given what I have just said above, my answer to the question of whether Darcy would so fear a marriage and hope for Jane's indifference if she was an heiress, I believe yes, he still would. This is more than Darcy "not quite liking" the friend's choice. Darcy believes this family would be a horrible mistake for Bingley. The evils of that choice include Bingley tying himself to a woman who does not not care for him.
But, I anticipate, Nikki, that you will return to your initial proposition that Darcy was influenced by his own fears in believing Jane did care for Bingley. If Darcy thought Jane DID care, then would he be so opposed to the match? I think that if Jane behaved with the same polite coolness she had shown before, Darcy would draw the same conclusion. Darcy would not be influenced by Jane's money because money is not the issue for Darcy; behavior is. And it is not Jane's behavior or Elizabeth's behavior. It is their immediate family. Darcy says, "let it give you consolation to consider that to have conducted yourselves so as to avoid any share of the like censure is praise no less generally bestowed on you and your eldest sister..."
But what if Darcy is convinced that heiress Jane is truly interested in his friend? I think Darcy would behave differently in that case.
But how would Darcy be convinced that Jane is truly interested? Would the fact that she has money and more prospects be persuasive to Darcy? And, what would cause the cool Jane to change her ways and be more expressive of her feelings, such that when Bingley can answer Darcy with certainty that that she loves him enough for him to risk being tied to that awful family? Remember, Bingley only stepped out of the picture because Darcy persuaded him it would hurt Jane and put her in a bad position if Bingley pursued her, when she did not really want him? Would Bingley be able to say about heiress Jane, "Of course, she wants me. With her beauty and property, she could have any man she wants and she has chosen me."
I suppose that in the right story, I could see this chain of events. But you cannot simply say it happens automatically because Jane is an heiress. Being an heiress has to change Jane from what she is in canon to a woman whose emotional response Darcy cannot refute to his friend. It is not just about a pile of money or owning an estate; it is how that affects Jane's being able to communicate to Bingley in order to overcome the effect of both her family's behavior and Darcy's advice.
>(snip, snip)
> It is slightly off topic, but while on this
> subject of rational and romantic marriages JA
> believed in both rational and romantic love, and
> that love could be founded on reason, gratitude,
> esteem and friendship as well as attraction and
> romance. I admit that I'm surprised at some views
> that only the best men of at least Darcy's calibre
> could make Eliz happy, and that she would hardly
> be contented even with such attractive, agreeable
> men as Bingley or Col Fitz, because they were not
> her intellectual equal, although not stupid like
> Collins (with whom she would of course have been
> miserable). I think the idea of Eliz's superior
> intellect is often exaggerated in some fanfics and
> adaptation. In fact it is the Miss Dashwoods in
> S&S who are described expressly as fond of
> reading, with Elinor being artistic and Marianne
> musical, Anne in Persuasion as being fond of
> reading new publications and states of the nations
> with Lady Russell, and accomplished at music,
> Fanny in MP as very fond of reading. Darcy's
> remark about an accomplished woman improving her
> mind by extensive reading in addition to other
> accomplishments was not a compliment to Eliz, but
> a set down for Caro -- to show her that while Eliz
> did not meet his standards, neither did Caro. And
> in that scene, Eliz only picked up a book as an
> excuse to avoid joining the party at cards.
I personally do not think love is a matter of matching up IQ scores. I also don't think that is what Austen intended. I think she paired people whose personalities, spirits and overall individual natures fitted. For example, one might have a brilliantly intelligent Bingley who retains his joyful, lively spirit and his aversion to arguments. That Bingley, in my opinion, would still be attracted to the sweet and calming and balanced Jane -- perhaps even if she was not as brilliant as he. They are drawn to each other not by one characteristic or one aspect of their situation but by a complex dynamic.
Just because two people are nice does NOT mean that they can make a marriage. In fact, two perfectly nice people, who might be happy with other partners, could make each other feel dull and unfulfilled. I think one of the big points in Austen's writing is that marrying for the sake of financial prudence is doable and it probably happened all the time during the Regency period. Indeed, Jane Bennet sensibly says of Charlotte's match to Mr. Collins, "You do not make allowance enough for difference of situation and temper. Consider Mr. Collins's respectability, and Charlotte's prudent, steady character. Remember that she is one of a large family; that as to fortune, it is a most eligible match; and be ready to believe, for every body's sake, that she may feel something like regard and esteem for our cousin."
So, yeah, as long as both parties are reasonable and basically decent, you can make any marriage work. When it came to Jane Bennet's own marriage and her sister's, Jane had somewhat higher standards for what it should be than she was willing to accept for others: "...And do you really love him quite well enough? Oh, Lizzy! do any thing rather than marry without affection. Are you quite sure that you feel what you ought to do?"
And that is what I think Austen sought in the marriages she offered in her six completed books--not just contenting yourself and making do, but finding someone who answers your nature with their own. It would not be just anyone for Anne Elliott or Elizabeth Bennet. Even Colonel Brandon for Elinor would not be enough if something in his heart always yearned for the sweet music he and Marianne could make. Austen wrote complex human interactions out of which came the happy marriage that can make two souls sing. She also depicted the make-do marriages of respectable people muddling along, but none of them represent the apex of joy she shows is possible.
I am not saying there is only one person for you in all the world, but there are people who answer your nature better than others. That was always a part of Austen's story. Bingley and Charlotte Collins are both nice people and Charlotte's sensibility might even help Bingley to feel more settled. But Bingley does not answer Charlotte's nature, I think, any better than does Mr. Collins. And Bingley would perhaps always know he was missing something in his life even if he never met the angel whose smiles could make him soar. When it comes to Darcy and Elizabeth, they are depicted by Austen as being both clever but, I agree, that does not mean they have to be geniuses. Rather, they both have a similar questioning approach to life that does not allow them to take things as easy as do Jane and Bingley. Darcy and Elizabeth have their differences, as Elizabeth notes, but in they are birds of a feather who attracted to fly together in a way that Colonel Fitzwilliam does not fascinate Elizabeth. Just as she did with Wickham, Elizabeth quickly puts the colonel out of mind. But Darcy? She cannot stop thinking about him.
There is a reason, key to the story, that Austen does that. And if you mess with that, you run the risk of crumpling the beauty of it-- in my opinion. Perhaps there could be an Elizabeth/Bingley story that is as beautiful? Mostly, I think it would rise only to the level of being curious or interesting.
Rational love, yes, but also rational love, not rational make do. Not, he's nice enough. Not, she's nice enough. Let's try to make it work and forget that is someone who might make us tingle from the first moment whom we could come rationally love? Not!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Darcy admitted in his letter "That I was desirous
> of believing her indifferent is certain -- but I
> will venture to say that my investigations and
> decisions are not usually influenced by my hopes
> or
> fears." and that "from what passed that evening my
> opinion of all parties was confirmed, and every
> inducement heightened which could have led me
> before to preserve my friend from what I esteemed
> a most unhappy connexion."
>
> Well, I believe that his decision was
> subconsciously influenced by his hopes and fears,
> as well as "every inducement" (e.g. Mrs Bennett
> talking about marrying rich men etc)., that led
> him to believe it would be "a most unhappy
> connexion" for Bingley .
I can agree with you that Darcy was subconsciously influenced by his fears. But what exactly were these fears?
Bingley is Darcy's friend, and Darcy does not want him tied forever to an unpleasant family. The younger girls are often inappropriate in company, and the mother has a loud and incautious manner. I believe Darcy's real fear that he is unwilling to state and perhaps to unable to admit, is through his friend Bingley Darcy himself will be tied to the Bennets. Yes, Darcy truly cares about his friend but his true fear is more selfish.
This is not about money or even rank so much as it is about behavior. Note that Darcy explains to Elizabeth in his letter post-Hunsford proposal: "...the want of connection could not be so great an evil to my friend as to me. -- But there were other causes of repugnance; -- causes which, though still existing, and existing to an equal degree in both instances, I had myself endeavoured to forget, because they were not immediately before me. -- These causes must be stated, though briefly. -- The situation of your mother's family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly, betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father."
Put simply, Darcy is appalled because these people don't know how to act. They behave badly. If they were not so badly behaved, even the objectionable situation of Mrs. Bennet's family -- and there, of course, he refers to the connections in trade -- could be overlooked. The lack of of connections are nothing in comparison to the way these people act as if they have no sense--and it is not just the sisters and the idiot mother. Sometimes even the gentleman father Mr. Bennet behaves badly. I can imagine Darcy going "Uggggh!!" at the thought of being intimately connected to these people through his friend, or horrors, directly through a marriage of his own.
>If Jane was an
> heiress, would he have such strong hopes for her
> indifference, and such fears for her motives? I
> don't think so. Even if he didn't quite like the
> match, there is a vast difference between not
> quite liking a friend's choice and preferring
> another match for him, to "pointing out to my
> friend the certain evils of such a choice.
> I described, and enforced them earnestly".
So, given what I have just said above, my answer to the question of whether Darcy would so fear a marriage and hope for Jane's indifference if she was an heiress, I believe yes, he still would. This is more than Darcy "not quite liking" the friend's choice. Darcy believes this family would be a horrible mistake for Bingley. The evils of that choice include Bingley tying himself to a woman who does not not care for him.
But, I anticipate, Nikki, that you will return to your initial proposition that Darcy was influenced by his own fears in believing Jane did care for Bingley. If Darcy thought Jane DID care, then would he be so opposed to the match? I think that if Jane behaved with the same polite coolness she had shown before, Darcy would draw the same conclusion. Darcy would not be influenced by Jane's money because money is not the issue for Darcy; behavior is. And it is not Jane's behavior or Elizabeth's behavior. It is their immediate family. Darcy says, "let it give you consolation to consider that to have conducted yourselves so as to avoid any share of the like censure is praise no less generally bestowed on you and your eldest sister..."
But what if Darcy is convinced that heiress Jane is truly interested in his friend? I think Darcy would behave differently in that case.
But how would Darcy be convinced that Jane is truly interested? Would the fact that she has money and more prospects be persuasive to Darcy? And, what would cause the cool Jane to change her ways and be more expressive of her feelings, such that when Bingley can answer Darcy with certainty that that she loves him enough for him to risk being tied to that awful family? Remember, Bingley only stepped out of the picture because Darcy persuaded him it would hurt Jane and put her in a bad position if Bingley pursued her, when she did not really want him? Would Bingley be able to say about heiress Jane, "Of course, she wants me. With her beauty and property, she could have any man she wants and she has chosen me."
I suppose that in the right story, I could see this chain of events. But you cannot simply say it happens automatically because Jane is an heiress. Being an heiress has to change Jane from what she is in canon to a woman whose emotional response Darcy cannot refute to his friend. It is not just about a pile of money or owning an estate; it is how that affects Jane's being able to communicate to Bingley in order to overcome the effect of both her family's behavior and Darcy's advice.
>(snip, snip)
> It is slightly off topic, but while on this
> subject of rational and romantic marriages JA
> believed in both rational and romantic love, and
> that love could be founded on reason, gratitude,
> esteem and friendship as well as attraction and
> romance. I admit that I'm surprised at some views
> that only the best men of at least Darcy's calibre
> could make Eliz happy, and that she would hardly
> be contented even with such attractive, agreeable
> men as Bingley or Col Fitz, because they were not
> her intellectual equal, although not stupid like
> Collins (with whom she would of course have been
> miserable). I think the idea of Eliz's superior
> intellect is often exaggerated in some fanfics and
> adaptation. In fact it is the Miss Dashwoods in
> S&S who are described expressly as fond of
> reading, with Elinor being artistic and Marianne
> musical, Anne in Persuasion as being fond of
> reading new publications and states of the nations
> with Lady Russell, and accomplished at music,
> Fanny in MP as very fond of reading. Darcy's
> remark about an accomplished woman improving her
> mind by extensive reading in addition to other
> accomplishments was not a compliment to Eliz, but
> a set down for Caro -- to show her that while Eliz
> did not meet his standards, neither did Caro. And
> in that scene, Eliz only picked up a book as an
> excuse to avoid joining the party at cards.
I personally do not think love is a matter of matching up IQ scores. I also don't think that is what Austen intended. I think she paired people whose personalities, spirits and overall individual natures fitted. For example, one might have a brilliantly intelligent Bingley who retains his joyful, lively spirit and his aversion to arguments. That Bingley, in my opinion, would still be attracted to the sweet and calming and balanced Jane -- perhaps even if she was not as brilliant as he. They are drawn to each other not by one characteristic or one aspect of their situation but by a complex dynamic.
Just because two people are nice does NOT mean that they can make a marriage. In fact, two perfectly nice people, who might be happy with other partners, could make each other feel dull and unfulfilled. I think one of the big points in Austen's writing is that marrying for the sake of financial prudence is doable and it probably happened all the time during the Regency period. Indeed, Jane Bennet sensibly says of Charlotte's match to Mr. Collins, "You do not make allowance enough for difference of situation and temper. Consider Mr. Collins's respectability, and Charlotte's prudent, steady character. Remember that she is one of a large family; that as to fortune, it is a most eligible match; and be ready to believe, for every body's sake, that she may feel something like regard and esteem for our cousin."
So, yeah, as long as both parties are reasonable and basically decent, you can make any marriage work. When it came to Jane Bennet's own marriage and her sister's, Jane had somewhat higher standards for what it should be than she was willing to accept for others: "...And do you really love him quite well enough? Oh, Lizzy! do any thing rather than marry without affection. Are you quite sure that you feel what you ought to do?"
And that is what I think Austen sought in the marriages she offered in her six completed books--not just contenting yourself and making do, but finding someone who answers your nature with their own. It would not be just anyone for Anne Elliott or Elizabeth Bennet. Even Colonel Brandon for Elinor would not be enough if something in his heart always yearned for the sweet music he and Marianne could make. Austen wrote complex human interactions out of which came the happy marriage that can make two souls sing. She also depicted the make-do marriages of respectable people muddling along, but none of them represent the apex of joy she shows is possible.
I am not saying there is only one person for you in all the world, but there are people who answer your nature better than others. That was always a part of Austen's story. Bingley and Charlotte Collins are both nice people and Charlotte's sensibility might even help Bingley to feel more settled. But Bingley does not answer Charlotte's nature, I think, any better than does Mr. Collins. And Bingley would perhaps always know he was missing something in his life even if he never met the angel whose smiles could make him soar. When it comes to Darcy and Elizabeth, they are depicted by Austen as being both clever but, I agree, that does not mean they have to be geniuses. Rather, they both have a similar questioning approach to life that does not allow them to take things as easy as do Jane and Bingley. Darcy and Elizabeth have their differences, as Elizabeth notes, but in they are birds of a feather who attracted to fly together in a way that Colonel Fitzwilliam does not fascinate Elizabeth. Just as she did with Wickham, Elizabeth quickly puts the colonel out of mind. But Darcy? She cannot stop thinking about him.
There is a reason, key to the story, that Austen does that. And if you mess with that, you run the risk of crumpling the beauty of it-- in my opinion. Perhaps there could be an Elizabeth/Bingley story that is as beautiful? Mostly, I think it would rise only to the level of being curious or interesting.
Rational love, yes, but also rational love, not rational make do. Not, he's nice enough. Not, she's nice enough. Let's try to make it work and forget that is someone who might make us tingle from the first moment whom we could come rationally love? Not!