Charlotte And La Rue example essay topic

In the 18th century, when Charlotte Temple was written, society 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 Charlottes (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. Temples brother was made completely wretched by marrying a disagreeable woman, whose fortune helped to prop the sinking dignity of the house, and hi 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 disown ment by his father if he chose a mate not suited to his fathers 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 leaving 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 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.