РефератыИностранный языкChCharlotte Temple

Charlotte Temple

’s Ideas Of Love Essay, Research Paper


In the 18th century, when Charlotte Temple was written, society?s ideas


about women, love, and obligations were extremely different from views


held in the 20th century. Women did not have many rights, and society


made them think that their place in life was to marry well. They were


not supposed to have desires or hopes for an amazing kind of love. They


were merely supposed to marry the man who their families intended them


to marry, and live their lives being a dutiful wife and mother. Love


had a similar essence in the 1700?s. It was not looked at as being


essential to a relationship; convenience and social status was more


important than love in an 18th century marriage. Finally, social


obligations were almost completely opposite then to what they are now.


As opposed to 20th century obligations to the self, education, and


wealth, the 18th century focused more on social status and family, and


not so many personal or independent obligations. (?Eighteenth?) In


Charlotte Temple, a radical idea concerning a breakdown of social norms,


and a restructuring of important obligations was presented. Familial


and social responsibilities seemed to take a backseat to Charlotte?s


(and other characters) independent and personal lives. For this reason,


Charlotte Temple was a revolutionary novel that gave people in the 18th


century a new way of looking at life. It emphasized love and emotions,


while disregarding normal cultural ideas.


Persico 2


In the beginning of the novel, familial or social obligations were


told through the stories of Mr. Temple, Charlotte, and La Rue. The


narrator remarked that Mr. Temple?s brother was ?made completely


wretched by marrying a disagreeable woman, whose fortune helped to prop


the sinking dignity of the house,? and his sisters both married old men


for their social status. The narrator commented on how their marriages


were productive in the sense that the family name was held in high


regard, yet the actual participants in the marriages were miserable


(854). Temple recognized that he will be under the same obligations as


his brother and sisters, and would probably have had to marry someone


who would be good for the family. He also realized that he would risk


disownment by his father if he chose a mate not suited to his father?s


taste.


Another person bound with familial obligations was Charlotte


Temple. Even when she was away at boarding school, she still felt she


should have obeyed her mothers? wishes. She did not think she should


open the letter given to her by Montraville, because her mother told her


not to open any letters from men without letting Mother read it first.


She shied away from seeing Montraville again, for she knew her mother


and schoolmaster would not have approved. At one point, Montraville


asked Charlotte if she loved her parents more than she loved him. She


responded, ?I hope I do. I hope my affection for them will ever keep me


from infringing the laws of filial duty.? Here in the story, it was


especially evident the ?laws? that came with being an 18th century girl.


She said here that she has a specific obligation to her parents, and


Persico 3


nothing should keep her from fulfilling her obligations to them (872).


She also was distressed about leaving to go to America with Montraville,


in fear of hurting her parents. This part of the text illustrated the


strength of the responsibilities imposed on Charlotte from her family.


Everything that she encountered in her personal life she was forced to


think about the influence it would have had on her family life.


Last, instead of familial obligations, La Rue risked social


obligations to pursue personal happiness. Mademoiselle La Rue agreed to


go with Charlotte on her elopement with Montraville. Charlotte did not


think La Rue was risking very much by doing so, since she did not have a


family to answer to. However, La Rue contradicted her by saying that


she was risking her ?dear reputation? by leaving all occupational and


social responsibilities in her life. Unlike Charlotte, La Rue had no


qualms about l

eaving her duties. She did not waver back and forth, as


Charlotte did. She admirably made up her mind and was strong in her


convictions.


As the novel Charlotte Temple showed devout loyalties to family


obligations, it also illustrated the rejection of familial and social


duties for the sake of love and personal growth. Again, Mr. Temple was


under strict orders by his father to marry a woman who was good for the


family?s status and name. Specifically in the novel, he was commanded


by his father to marry Miss Weatherby, an admired woman with an affluent


family, not Lucy Eldridge, the poor, imprisoned daughter of a sailor.


However, Temple went to his father, declared his love for Lucy, and left


the house forever. This illustrated the point that, in the 18th


century, people were growing tired of the social norms. The society was


Persico 4


being restructured, and changing from a status based society, to one who


depended more on personal attribution. ?Normal? was no longer arranged


marriages and social standing, but personal growth and true love. Also


illustrating this point is Charlotte Temple. Despite frequent wavering


between family and true love, she finally chose true love with


Montraville. La Rue also, after absolutely no wavering, left her job


and her school and her job for personal growth.


Charlotte and La Rue both valued their independence; this was


evident because they left their obligations to pursue it. However, they


each valued it differently, and therefore, each story of independence


and growth ended differently. Charlotte, in her heart, would have liked


to be independent. She felt strongly for Montraville, and longed to be


with him, but felt obligated to fulfill her duty to her parents. But,


she ended up giving into her feelings, and left her duties at home to


elope to America. She maintained her independence, even when


Montraville abandoned her. This showed that Charlotte wanted to be her


own person, with no obligations from home. However, even when she was


faltering in her attempts to be unconstrained, she knew that she could


have returned to her family in England. The fact that she tried to keep


her head above water in America illustrated her strength and


perseverance. She was scared and proud at the same time, unwilling to


return home to the safety of her family. However, after hitting rock


bottom (pregnant and homeless in the bitter winter of New England), her


father appeared by her side. She turned to him for support and


forgiveness, and finally returned to her family after years of being


independent from them. So, in the end, the reader was presented with


Persico 5


the idea that, eventually, Charlotte (or anyone) must return to the


societal norms in order to be happy.


On the other hand, La Rue did not return to the obligations that


she had in the beginning of the novel. After marrying the affluent


socialite that she met on the ship to America, she denied her past, and


even denied Charlotte in her moment of need. Unlike Charlotte, La Rue


did not return to her roots and societal obligations presented in the


beginning of the novel. And, the reader is presented again with a


consequence. La Rue denied her past, and therefore in the end, died


miserable and alone.


The two women began Charlotte Temple in the same fashion: looking


for independence and self-worth. However, then endings of the two women


were different. It seemed as if the narrator is saying if one never


leaves or even returns to social obligations, the end result will be


happiness. If one denies obligations, then the end result will be


misery. This novel, however radical it was regarding the risks of


social and familial obligations for personal attribution, basically


stated at the end that the one who does adheres to obligations will be


happy in the end. So, in conclusion, Charlotte Temple did break down


social norms by presenting the idea that people could have resisted


?normal? social obligations to pursue personal happiness. However, it


was not so radical as to say that one would have been happy if they


denied their duties.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Charlotte Temple

Слов:1502
Символов:9917
Размер:19.37 Кб.