Revelation!

[LizzieAnn]

Why would you say the Colonel is effete? He is a military man (although right now there is peace). That was the society of the day - to marry for money - both men and women.

---

Choisya wrote:
Then one day she meets the Colonel on one of her walks, and he indicates that, as a younger son, he needs marry to money.


This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

[Everyman]

You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

[Choisya]

You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like of me. IF I had been born into the right class in Regency England I may well have looked for someone with wonderful gardens to play in. However, I have met quite a few wealthy men with nice gardens in my present life and, as they say, 'had my chances' but my cap was never set that way.

---

Everyman wrote:
You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-26-200701:57 PM

[Everyman]

But of course in this life you had a nice career in government, so you had the option of an economically comfortable life and an independent home with a nice garden without the need for marriage. If your choices had been marriage to the wealthy man, life as a governess, living perpetually with your parents, or life as the wife of a working class man living in a hovel with no servants to do the hauling water, cooking, laundry, etc., you might not have been so cavalier about rejecting the wealthy man.

You yourself have often opined with passion on the limited options available to women in 18th and 19th Century England. Can you really put yourself in that position and be so certain that you would have rejected the wealthy man back then?

---

Choisya wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like of me. IF I had been born into the right class in Regency England I may well have looked for someone with wonderful gardens to play in. However, I have met quite a few wealthy men with nice gardens in my present life and, as they say, 'had my chances' but my cap was never set that way.

---

Everyman wrote:
You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-26-200701:57 PM

---

[Choisya]

No, but what I am saying is that given that I belong to the working class - and back then it would have been the lower working class - I wouldn't have had the chance of meeting a wealthy man, much less marrying one. The Bennetts were from the middle class and even then Austen was pushing the idea a bit far because it would be very unlikely that a person from the 'gentry' with a mansion etc. would have married so far beneath him. The Royals here might be doing it now but there is absolutely no evidence of them doing it then. Blood to blood, land to land, riches to riches, was how they kept all the wealth in their families. Look at the family tree of any member of our aristocracy and you will find that is what has happened for centuries. Since Victoria and Tsar Nicholas' haemopiliac son, they have begun to worry about inbreeding and have looked further afield, hence Fergy and Diana etc. Austen is really retelling the Cinderella fairy story in P&P and there is very little evidence of that happening in real life - it is a romantic notion which turns young girls' brains, one which Mary Wollstonecraft despaired of, as did my grandmother and as do I.

---

Everyman wrote:
But of course in this life you had a nice career in government, so you had the option of an economically comfortable life and an independent home with a nice garden without the need for marriage. If your choices had been marriage to the wealthy man, life as a governess, living perpetually with your parents, or life as the wife of a working class man living in a hovel with no servants to do the hauling water, cooking, laundry, etc., you might not have been so cavalier about rejecting the wealthy man.

You yourself have often opined with passion on the limited options available to women in 18th and 19th Century England. Can you really put yourself in that position and be so certain that you would have rejected the wealthy man back then?

---

Choisya wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like of me. IF I had been born into the right class in Regency England I may well have looked for someone with wonderful gardens to play in. However, I have met quite a few wealthy men with nice gardens in my present life and, as they say, 'had my chances' but my cap was never set that way.

---

Everyman wrote:
You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-26-200701:57 PM

---

---

[Everyman]

Saying you wouldn't have had the chance is a totally different ting from saying you would have turned down the chance if it had been offered. So you're not responding to the point I made.

But that's okay. I'm ready to move on.

---

Choisya wrote:
No, but what I am saying is that given that I belong to the working class - and back then it would have been the lower working class - I wouldn't have had the chance of meeting a wealthy man, much less marrying one. The Bennetts were from the middle class and even then Austen was pushing the idea a bit far because it would be very unlikely that a person from the 'gentry' with a mansion etc. would have married so far beneath him. The Royals here might be doing it now but there is absolutely no evidence of them doing it then. Blood to blood, land to land, riches to riches, was how they kept all the wealth in their families. Look at the family tree of any member of our aristocracy and you will find that is what has happened for centuries. Since Victoria and Tsar Nicholas' haemopiliac son, they have begun to worry about inbreeding and have looked further afield, hence Fergy and Diana etc. Austen is really retelling the Cinderella fairy story in P&P and there is very little evidence of that happening in real life - it is a romantic notion which turns young girls' brains, one which Mary Wollstonecraft despaired of, as did my grandmother and as do I.

---

Everyman wrote:
But of course in this life you had a nice career in government, so you had the option of an economically comfortable life and an independent home with a nice garden without the need for marriage. If your choices had been marriage to the wealthy man, life as a governess, living perpetually with your parents, or life as the wife of a working class man living in a hovel with no servants to do the hauling water, cooking, laundry, etc., you might not have been so cavalier about rejecting the wealthy man.

You yourself have often opined with passion on the limited options available to women in 18th and 19th Century England. Can you really put yourself in that position and be so certain that you would have rejected the wealthy man back then?

---

Choisya wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like of me. IF I had been born into the right class in Regency England I may well have looked for someone with wonderful gardens to play in. However, I have met quite a few wealthy men with nice gardens in my present life and, as they say, 'had my chances' but my cap was never set that way.

---

Everyman wrote:
You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-26-200701:57 PM

---

---

---

[Choisya]

Well, the answer to that is that I don't know what I might have done in those times. I might have stayed a spinster and lived in Cranford. If I had been born as independent and bolshie as I am today, it is doubtful I would have chosen a rich and idle life Maybe I would have been a bohemian Unitarian and devoted my life to reform, like Mary Wollstonscraft. I like to think so.

---

Everyman wrote:
Saying you wouldn't have had the chance is a totally different ting from saying you would have turned down the chance if it had been offered. So you're not responding to the point I made.

But that's okay. I'm ready to move on.

---

Choisya wrote:
No, but what I am saying is that given that I belong to the working class - and back then it would have been the lower working class - I wouldn't have had the chance of meeting a wealthy man, much less marrying one. The Bennetts were from the middle class and even then Austen was pushing the idea a bit far because it would be very unlikely that a person from the 'gentry' with a mansion etc. would have married so far beneath him. The Royals here might be doing it now but there is absolutely no evidence of them doing it then. Blood to blood, land to land, riches to riches, was how they kept all the wealth in their families. Look at the family tree of any member of our aristocracy and you will find that is what has happened for centuries. Since Victoria and Tsar Nicholas' haemopiliac son, they have begun to worry about inbreeding and have looked further afield, hence Fergy and Diana etc. Austen is really retelling the Cinderella fairy story in P&P and there is very little evidence of that happening in real life - it is a romantic notion which turns young girls' brains, one which Mary Wollstonecraft despaired of, as did my grandmother and as do I.

---

Everyman wrote:
But of course in this life you had a nice career in government, so you had the option of an economically comfortable life and an independent home with a nice garden without the need for marriage. If your choices had been marriage to the wealthy man, life as a governess, living perpetually with your parents, or life as the wife of a working class man living in a hovel with no servants to do the hauling water, cooking, laundry, etc., you might not have been so cavalier about rejecting the wealthy man.

You yourself have often opined with passion on the limited options available to women in 18th and 19th Century England. Can you really put yourself in that position and be so certain that you would have rejected the wealthy man back then?

---

Choisya wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like of me. IF I had been born into the right class in Regency England I may well have looked for someone with wonderful gardens to play in. However, I have met quite a few wealthy men with nice gardens in my present life and, as they say, 'had my chances' but my cap was never set that way.

---

Everyman wrote:
You may claim that. I'm entitled to believe that if you had been offered marriage to a wealthy man you were able to respect or even love with a country house with wonderful gardens you could have played in while directing a staff of ten gardeners, you would have jumped at the chance.

---

Choisya wrote:
I doubt it Everyman because I wouldn't have been born into their class and would have been one of those who were rebelling against the rich and effete, living off the backs of working people

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
This is one of the things I do not like about Austen - the men! They are all so effete and none of them, except the clergy, do a job of work.

---

It's easy to criticize her men from the safe distance of the 21st century, but I'm willing to bet that if you had lived then you would have preferred marrying one of her men to a working man if you had a chance.

And she does show us a number of working people, though not as many in this book.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-25-200711:23 PM

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-26-200701:57 PM

---

---

---

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-28-200702:34 PM

[pmath]

This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

Message Edited by pmath on 02-28-200703:32 PM

[LizzieAnn]

I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

Message Edited by pmath on 02-28-200703:32 PM

---

[Everyman]

---

Choisya wrote:
Maybe I would have been a bohemian Unitarian and devoted my life to reform, like Mary Wollstonscraft. I like to think so.

---

For your sake, I hope not. She was a seminal figure in feminist thinking, true, but she had for the most part a very unhappy life, including trying to commit suicide at least twice. She certainly suffered from depression, and may have been bipolar. I wouldn't wish that fate onto you even for the benefits of bohemiamism.

[LizzieAnn]

I enjoyed the passages of Lizzy's honesty, contemplation, and self-analysis:

She grew absolutely ashamed of herself. Of neither Darcy nor Wickham could she think, without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd.

. . . "I who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameable distrust. How humiliating is this discovery! Yet, how just a humiliation! Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind. But vanity, not love, has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other, on the very beginning of our acquaintance, I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away where either were concerned. Till this moment, I never knew myself." [page 204-5]

It cannot have been easy for Lizzy to look at herself, her actions, and her feelings honestly - to accept her flaws & faults without trying to excuse them; to be willing to look at things differently than she had been; and to be look at them objectively.

From herself to Jane, from Jane to Bingley, her thoughts were in a line which soon brought to her recollection that Mr. Darcy's explanation there had appeared very insufficient; and she read it again. Widely different was the effect of a second perusal. How could she deny that credit to assertions, in one instance, which she had been obliged to give in the other? He declared himself to have been totally unsuspicious of her sister's attachment, and she could not help remembering what Charlotte's opinion had always been. Neither could she deny the justice of his description of Jane. She felt that Jane's feelings, though fervent, were little displayed, and that there was a constant complacency in her air and manner, not often united with great sensibility. [page 205]

To acknowledge that she was wrong about such important things, that she had judged incorrectly, must have done damage to Lizzy's sense of self-assuredness, and yet illustrates her strong sense of character, of justice, of honesty.

[pmath]

I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

[Choisya]

He is being sarcastic and pointing out in a backhanded way that he thinks Lizzie turned him down because his home wasn't good enough for her, not that she disliked his person.

---

pmath wrote:
I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

---

[pmath]

It's funny how people read things differently! I see genuine feeling here, as Elizabeth did, too, from her response:

Elizabeth was eager with her thanks and assurances of happiness. She had spent six weeks with great enjoyment; and the pleasure of being with Charlotte, and the kind attentions she had received, must make her feel the obliged.

On the other hand, what follows this is another matter altogether!

---

Choisya wrote:
He is being sarcastic and pointing out in a backhanded way that he thinks Lizzie turned him down because his home wasn't good enough for her, not that she disliked his person.

---

pmath wrote:
I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

[Choisya]

It was the words 'but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension' which I thought made the whole tone sarcastic. But I may be wrong and I bow to all the Austenonians.

---

pmath wrote:
It's funny how people read things differently! I see genuine feeling here, as Elizabeth did, too, from her response:

Elizabeth was eager with her thanks and assurances of happiness. She had spent six weeks with great enjoyment; and the pleasure of being with Charlotte, and the kind attentions she had received, must make her feel the obliged.

On the other hand, what follows this is another matter altogether!

---

Choisya wrote:
He is being sarcastic and pointing out in a backhanded way that he thinks Lizzie turned him down because his home wasn't good enough for her, not that she disliked his person.

---

pmath wrote:
I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

---

[Choisya]

That is true Everyman - she had a very unhappy marriage and an abusive husband too I must think of a better life to emulate when I am reincarnated. I favour spinsterhood to the marriages of those days. Quite a few rich spinsters travelled the world collecting plants, so that would suit my gardening side.

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
Maybe I would have been a bohemian Unitarian and devoted my life to reform, like Mary Wollstonscraft. I like to think so.

---

For your sake, I hope not. She was a seminal figure in feminist thinking, true, but she had for the most part a very unhappy life, including trying to commit suicide at least twice. She certainly suffered from depression, and may have been bipolar. I wouldn't wish that fate onto you even for the benefits of bohemiamism.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-01-200710:21 AM

[pmath]

Ah. Unfortunately, that's just the way he talks!

---

Choisya wrote:
It was the words 'but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension' which I thought made the whole tone sarcastic. But I may be wrong and I bow to all the Austenonians.

---

pmath wrote:
It's funny how people read things differently! I see genuine feeling here, as Elizabeth did, too, from her response:

Elizabeth was eager with her thanks and assurances of happiness. She had spent six weeks with great enjoyment; and the pleasure of being with Charlotte, and the kind attentions she had received, must make her feel the obliged.

On the other hand, what follows this is another matter altogether!

---

Choisya wrote:
He is being sarcastic and pointing out in a backhanded way that he thinks Lizzie turned him down because his home wasn't good enough for her, not that she disliked his person.

---

pmath wrote:
I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

[Laurel]

I think he is being his usual clueless self. He actually seems to think that Liz will feel some remorse for having rejected him after seeing his abode and environs.

---

Choisya wrote:
He is being sarcastic and pointing out in a backhanded way that he thinks Lizzie turned him down because his home wasn't good enough for her, not that she disliked his person.

---

pmath wrote:
I think he's being nice! What's your take on it?

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I can just imagine what he's thinking!

---

pmath wrote:
This is one of my favorite passages:

On Saturday morning Elizabeth and Mr. Collins met for breakfast a few minutes before the others appeared; and he took the opportunity of paying the parting civilities which he deemed indispensably necessary.

"I know not, Miss Elizabeth," said he, "whether Mrs. Collins has yet expressed her sense of your kindness in coming to us; but I am very certain you will not leave the house without receiving her thanks for it. The favor of your company has been much felt, I assure you. We know how little there is to tempt anyone to our humble abode. Our plain manner of living, our small rooms and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension, and that we have done everything in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly."

---

---

[Laurel]

What qualifies one for spinsterhood? Would being sixty and still single do it? I recommend it highly for people just like me, but I think others might find it difficult.

---

Choisya wrote:
That is true Everyman - she had a very unhappy marriage and an abusive husband too I must think of a better life to emulate when I am reincarnated. I favour spinsterhood to the marriages of those days. Quite a few rich spinsters travelled the world collecting plants, so that would suit my gardening side.

---

Everyman wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
Maybe I would have been a bohemian Unitarian and devoted my life to reform, like Mary Wollstonscraft. I like to think so.

---

For your sake, I hope not. She was a seminal figure in feminist thinking, true, but she had for the most part a very unhappy life, including trying to commit suicide at least twice. She certainly suffered from depression, and may have been bipolar. I wouldn't wish that fate onto you even for the benefits of bohemiamism.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 03-01-200710:21 AM

---

[Everyman]

---

Choisya wrote:
It was the words 'but I hope you will believe us grateful for the condescension' which I thought made the whole tone sarcastic.

---

If he were not so naturally obsequious, you would probably be right. But this comment fits in perfectly with the way he speaks and writes generally. He out-humbles Uriah Heep!