Open to interpretation, of course--but given the speech patterns of the time, I *think* that by "adequate husband," John merely means that he's sure he can perform sexually with her (and thus give her children), and isn't really saying anything about the emotional nature of their relationship. -- LJG Discussion board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 23, 9:55:55 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:47:17 09/30/07 Sun
Author: maddiej
Subject: Open to interpretation, of course--but given the speech patterns of the time, I *think* that by "adequate husband," John merely means that he's sure he can perform sexually with her (and thus give her children), and isn't really saying anything about the emotional nature of their relationship.
In reply to: pamelalass 's message, "I always thought John's acknowledgement that he was "adequate" as a husband revealed that he knew he was not a good husband for any woman, and had regret for never being able to be more than "adequate." At a time when wives could be treated as property by their husbands, and romantic love was not necessarily a requirement for marriage among the gentry, one could argue that he was indeed adequate (he was kind, he respects women, he did not prevent her from acting independently when she chose not to go to Jamaica), but certainly nothing more, and certainly by marrying him Isobel gave up her chance for a marriage of true lovers and equal partners. And I think he knows/knew that, which is why he would never make a self-serving claim to have been a "good" husband." on 15:29:20 09/29/07 Sat

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Good point. It's clear he didn't mean being "adequate" was anything more than what would have been minimally required. I don't see him trying to suggest Isobel was lucky to have him in any way - - perhaps I just want to believe that he knew Isobel was getting kind of a raw deal, and did have some regret for this. (NT) -- pamelalass, 06:56:06 09/30/07 Sun
- Well, as I have said in the past I am sure Isobel got a much better deal than her sister did. John was kind and honorable, he truly cared for her, plus he was handsome, witty and intelligent, and the son of a Duke. Quite a catch! Women of the day didn't expect to like sex, she no doubt was relieved he didn't ask a lot of her. (NT) -- Jane, 07:42:39 09/30/07 Sun
- I believe he means adequate in all way...emotionally and physically. He seems to say it in a regretful manner, and LJG is known to talk "undercurrent". I agree totally with Pamelalass on this analysis. (NT) -- Conmama, 05:45:43 10/01/07 Mon

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.