Jim G.M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J.A created him as a man of the cloth and he
> therefore had no choice but to observe a
> church-ruled fire and brimstone discipline in his
> views towards sex out of wedlock, not those of a
> butcher, baker or candle-stick maker. Being a
> parson's daughter herself, she must have well
> known this. His mean-spiritedness in such matters
> was a factor of his calling as much as his
> character,which was hardly strong enough to be
> positive about much. Granted, a more sensible man
> may have been more Christian in attitude, but the
> stain would remain nevertheless. The church,
> particularly in that era when even holding hands
> was a society no-no, was puritanical in its views
> on such "sins" as Lydia's folly..In this there
> will be a massive difference of view between the
> religious and the non-believers. If general
> society was condemnational, the church was
> decidedly more so.
>
I respectfully disagree that being a priest should make someone more condemning of sinners and promote "fire and brimstone discipline". Although the actual people did not always adopt the attitude of Jesus about forgiveness and condemning the sin but not the sinner, in theory a priest could and should have done that (I assume you are familiar with the story of Jesus and the adulteress). By the way, you contradict yourself when you say a more sensible man could have been more Christian. So his attitude wasn't very Christian after all, even if it was caused by the church's supposed attitude?
If you wish to answer me perhaps it is better in e-mail than in public since religion and interpretation of Christian attitude can be touchy and I don't want to offend anyone or use the board for explaining religious views. You can email me at noagnes at gmail dot com if you wish.
> Mr Collins also had no idea, at the time of his
> writing, how things would end up, thus he was made
> to look even more foolish when Mr Darcy's money
> saved the day ( a factor he knew nothing of) He
> was also shown as a man incapable of real love and
> affection, but in a world where such things took
> second place to security, was he any worse than
> any man or woman who put bank balances ahead of
> romance? ( ie almost the whole of society). His
> own wife, for instance? If Lady Catherine hadn't
> "ordered" him to marry, would he have even
> bothered to travel to Longbourn at all? Charlotte
> is classed as hard-done by in having such a man as
> a husband, ignores him, mocks him and yet went out
> of her way to ensnare him in the first place
> because he represented security. I find Mr Collins
> somewhat more to be pitied than scorned.
Maybe people were forced to marry without romantic love, for the sake of security, but some affection (and respect, as JA puts it) was still hoped for. And Charlotte did not mock Mr. Collins at all. She did ignore his foolish remarks but did not ignore him - she kept a good house for him, was a dutiful wife, accepted his servile attitude towards Lady Catherine ad did what she could to remain in her good books. She didn't seek his company and kept herself busy without being in his presence but he was hardly worse off for it. Charlotte did keep her part of the bargain in being Mr. Collins' wife and I admire her for it.
