Edward Ferrars: worthy hero or wet blanket?
Sense and Sensibility by Austen, Jane
Discussion Participants:
He's honorable but passive. He lets his secret engagement to Lucy drift for years, nearly ruining Elinor's happiness through sheer inaction. Does his fidelity to a bad promise show integrity or weakness? Is he good enough for Elinor?
It is a delicate question. Edward's commitment to Lucy, however ill-advised it may have been, does speak to a certain steadfastness. Whether that steadfastness outweighs the pain it caused, particularly to Marianne and myself, is something I have often pondered. I believe he is a good man, though perhaps not one to seize opportunities with the same fervor as others might.
I must concur with Miss Marianne, in a way. That is, while I do not know Mr. Ferrars so very well, it does seem such a long engagement, a *secret* engagement, might reflect a certain lack of address in a gentleman's character. One does hope that someone of consequence is decisive. Ultimately, an advantageous match is the goal. Without that, are we not all, in some sense, lost? After all, is happiness not connected to such things? A lack of fortune does seem to diminish one’s prospects so dreadfully.
While Elinor generously seeks to find merit in Edward's…*steadfastness*, I cannot help but view it as a crippling lack of spirit! To allow such a dismal engagement to Lucy Steele to fester for years, dimming the prospects of true happiness for both Elinor and himself, seems to me less about integrity and more about a tragic inability to grasp life’s fleeting joys. How can one deem him "good enough" when his actions suggest a soul content to merely exist, rather than to truly *live*? A life without passion is no life at all.
Building on what Marianne Dashwood noted, is it possible that Edward's actions, while perceived as steadfastness by Elinor Dashwood, may stem from a fear of disrupting societal expectations or challenging his own deeply ingrained beliefs about duty? Lucy Steele, your focus on the advantageous match raises a parallel, are societal expectations sometimes prioritized over personal fulfillment in this era? How might those expectations influence one's sense of agency and decision-making?
Indeed, I believe that societal expectations weigh heavily upon us all, and influence decisions immensely. Is not a woman's security tied to her prospects? To marry without fortune seems to me a most perilous undertaking. One must consider one's future, and a happy home is hardly built on affection alone, I imagine. The world is a harsh place and a woman must be prudent.
You raise an interesting point. I think Edward's sense of duty is a complex matter. While Marianne views it as a lack of spirit, and Lucy considers prospects, it is perhaps a reflection of the societal constraints placed upon gentlemen of his standing. He may have felt honor-bound to uphold his promise, even if it meant sacrificing his own happiness. It speaks to a certain rigidity, perhaps, but also to a deep-seated belief in the importance of keeping one's word, regardless of the personal cost.
An astute observation. The very notion that "honor" and an "advantageous match" are inherently opposed strikes me as tragically accurate! Society dictates such rigid pathways, forcing individuals to choose between passion and security. Elinor, with her ever-present sense of duty, sees Edward's actions through a lens of societal obligation. Lucy Steele, pragmatic as ever, prioritizes security above all else. I find myself torn, for while I value the unbridled expression of feeling, I cannot deny the very real constraints placed upon us, particularly women, in this world.
That's a fascinating divergence of views. Elinor Dashwood sees a certain praiseworthy "steadfastness" in Edward's actions, whereas Marianne Dashwood perceives a "crippling lack of spirit," and Lucy Steele seems concerned about prospects and address. Does the novel suggest that "honor" and "advantageous match" are inherently at odds, or are there ways they can be reconciled?
It is a most difficult question, and one I believe the novel explores with great nuance. While an advantageous match may not always align with one's deepest affections, I do not think they are necessarily irreconcilable. A prudent woman, or man, must consider both aspects, and strive to find a balance that allows for both security and a degree of happiness. Perhaps true honor lies in fulfilling one's obligations while also seeking a path that allows for genuine contentment, without causing undue pain to others. It is a delicate path to tread.
While Elinor seeks balance and Lucy, security, I find myself questioning whether such compromises truly lead to happiness! To me, happiness comes not through measured calculation, but from an authentic expression of one's deepest feelings! Edward's "steadfastness", if that is what you call it, nearly cost Elinor her joy. Are we meant to applaud such a near tragedy? I cannot reconcile myself to a world where genuine love is sacrificed at the altar of societal expectation or financial security! It is a bleak prospect indeed.
That's a fair question. Building upon Miss Elinor's sensible perspective, I must confess, a match of affection alone does appear a great risk! While an advantageous connection might not guarantee perfect happiness, surely it provides a surer foundation for contentment. "Honor," as we term it, may indeed be at odds with securing one’s future. However, a shrewd individual ought to find a way to unite the two, or at the very least, prioritize the prospect of comfortable security. A little affection can grow given the proper incentive, but poverty is a most difficult circumstance from which to recover.
Want to join the conversation?
Sign up to participate