Mr. Collins: An Interesting Perspective

[Jamie123]

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins

Enjoy what you have and take delight in every small thing. And give no thought to what other people think of you. Could this be the long sought-after key to happiness?

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins

Enjoy what you have and take delight in every small thing. And give no thought to what other people think of you. Could this be the long sought-after key to happiness?

What a great article! And it has a moral, too! A very good moral, if you happen to be an oyster.

[Jamie123]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

What a great article! And it has a moral, too! A very good moral, if you happen to be an oyster.

We might all be oysters in the cosmic oyster bed...

[Vort]

"The time has come..."

[Jamie123]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

"The time has come..."

Better to have been a happy oyster...

[Vort]

As to the article itself, I think the author gives Collins too much credit. Dislike of him is not based on (or mainly based on) his social cluelessness nor his blind optimism, but on his stringent insistence on categorizing people according to the most superficial, simplistic, vain categories possible. He is not happy because he's stupid; rather, he seems incapable of being truly happy or even contented, because he utterly lacks the awareness of self and of others that would allow him to order the world in any kind of coherence. He is thus the perfect underling for Lady Catherine, a slightly smarter but even more corrupt version of Collins himself.

As far as the author's ideas of being content with one's place and situation, I think she's onto something. Long ago, as a child, I learned of the Buddhist idea of ridding oneself of desire in order to avoid the unhappiness of unmet desires. I dismissed it in my childhood as grossly cynical (though I would not have used that word; I probably didn't know that word), but the older I get, the more wisdom I see in getting rid of stupid, vain desires for exactly this reason—and the more I see that such stupid, vain desires constitute most of the desires we use to guide our life course. So in that, I agree with her. Despite his own lack of perception and good sense, Collins seemed to have ended up pretty well situated, all things considered.

[Jamie123]

I also wonder whether Collins really was such a "good vicar". It's worth noting that a gentleman-priest in those days was not so much a pastor or a preacher serving his flock, as a Church tax collector. He could employ some poorly-connected nobody to do the actual vicaring (for the 18th century equivalent of "minimum wage") and spend his time collecting tithes from wealthy (and poor) farmers, or ingratiating himself with potential patrons in the hope of acquiring new parishes to milk wealth from.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:29 PM, Jamie123 said:

I also wonder whether Collins really was such a "good vicar". It's worth noting that a gentleman-priest in those days was not so much a pastor or a preacher serving his flock, as a Church tax collector. He could employ some poorly-connected nobody to do the actual vicaring (for the 18th century equivalent of "minimum wage") and spend his time collecting tithes from wealthy (and poor) farmers, or ingratiating himself with potential patrons in the hope of acquiring new parishes to milk wealth from.

There’s a lot there thought-provoking and attractive in the article, but let me play devil’s advocate for a minute.

I confess I don’t know much about what Anglican clerics of Collins’s station actually did (then or now).  It would be interesting to know what Austen thought of clerics generally (wasn’t her father one? And wasn’t there a sort of view through the period that the clergy was more or less a dumping ground for the mediocre younger sons of the gentry/ nobility?)

You get the impression that at least some measure of self-discipline and sexual restraint was expected (cf Darcy’s observation that Wickham “must not” (IIRC) join the clergy).  And you get the feeling that whatever was expected of clergymen, Sense and Sensibility’s Edward Farrars would probably do it in good faith and with good intentions, if nothing else. 

But it’s hard to imagine any of those characters (at least, as I recall them) crafting really effective sermons, or providing particularly solid life-advice to congregants seeking counseling, or offering material charity to the poor in a way that wasn’t at least a little bit cringeworthy.  And - again, I don’t know what contemporary Anglican discourse really looked or sounded like; but it seems telling to me that (again, so far as I can remember) none of these priestly candidates ever says anything about Jesus Himself.  The entire Church, for Austen, seems more an enforcer of convention than a repository of spiritual vivification; and we know from Collins’s final letter to Mr. Bennet that he himself is capable of (and advocates for) great cruelty which even Bennet (not a particularly kind man himself) recognizes.

One could potentially respond to the author of the article of the OP that Collins is at heart a secular humanist in a collar—the sort of amiable bumbler intent primarily on cashing out his own legacy of life-happiness while giving perfunctory service to forms created by predecessors better than himself whose purpose he is incapable of comprehending; and the type of person who through ignorance and apathy permitted and enabled the spiritual (and then temporal) rot of the British Empire.

Edited February 6 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s a lot there thought-provoking and attractive in the article, but let me play devil’s advocate for a minute.

I confess I don’t know much about what Anglican clerics of Collins’s station actually did (then or now).  It would be interesting to know what Austen thought of clerics generally (wasn’t her father one? And wasn’t there a sort of view through the period that the clergy was more or less a dumping ground for the mediocre younger sons of the gentry/ nobility?)

You get the impression that at least some measure of self-discipline and sexual restraint was expected (cf Darcy’s observation that Wickham “must not” (IIRC) join the clergy).  And you get the feeling that whatever was expected of clergymen, Sense and Sensibility’s Edward Farrars would probably do it in good faith and with good intentions, if nothing else. 

But it’s hard to imagine any of those characters (at least, as I recall them) crafting really effective sermons, or providing particularly solid life-advice to congregants seeking counseling, or offering material charity to the poor in a way that wasn’t at least a little bit cringeworthy.  And - again, I don’t know what contemporary Anglican discourse really looked or sounded like; but it seems telling to me that (again, so far as I can remember) none of these priestly candidates ever says anything about Jesus Himself.  The entire Church, for Austen, seems more an enforcer of convention than a repository of spiritual vivification; and we know from Collins’s final letter to Mr. Bennet that he himself is capable of (and advocates for) great cruelty which even Bennet (not a particularly kind man himself) recognizes.

One could potentially respond to the author of the article of the OP that Collins is at heart a secular humanist in a collar—the sort of amiable bumbler intent primarily on cashing out his own legacy of life-happiness while giving perfunctory service to forms created by predecessors better than himself whose purpose he is incapable of comprehending; and the type of person who through ignorance and apathy permitted and enabled the spiritual (and then temporal) rot of the British Empire.

If I may go off-topic just a bit and comment on this: What a brilliant analysis. Insightful and incisive. Shows why lawyers, at their best, are formidable arbiters of thought. If I could do it all again, maybe I'd be a lawyer and write things like this.

[Vort]

On 2/4/2025 at 11:29 AM, Jamie123 said:

I also wonder whether Collins really was such a "good vicar". It's worth noting that a gentleman-priest in those days was not so much a pastor or a preacher serving his flock, as a Church tax collector. He could employ some poorly-connected nobody to do the actual vicaring (for the 18th century equivalent of "minimum wage") and spend his time collecting tithes from wealthy (and poor) farmers, or ingratiating himself with potential patrons in the hope of acquiring new parishes to milk wealth from.

JAG gave an excellent response to this already. I will add only that I never thought that Collins was portrayed as a good anything, and certainly not a good or even competent vicar. Like JAG, I wonder exactly what was expected of an Anglican vicar, then or now. Perhaps Fordyce wrote thoughtful and insightful sermons, but I wonder if that was expected of vicars in general. (Maybe Fordyce was popular exactly because he provided ready-made sermons for those who needed them but were unwilling, or unable, to generate them.) I, too, have sort of assumed that the Anglican Church of the time (and probably of today) functioned more as a promoter of societal status quo than as an agent of Christlike living.

There is some inherent unfairness in putting LDS expectations on a decidedly non-LDS organization and perspective. But I think it entirely reasonable to expect a Christian clergyman of any denomination to attempt to uphold the ideals Christ taught. The literary character of Mr. Collins lacks even the most basic self-awareness and understanding of selfless service. Flattering his benefactrice seems Mr. Collins' highest and, ultimately, only purpose.

[Jamie123]

On 2/7/2025 at 3:06 PM, Vort said:

I, too, have sort of assumed that the Anglican Church of the time (and probably of today) functioned more as a promoter of societal status quo than as an agent of Christlike living.

I've not made any secret of the fact that, although I'm still a practicing Anglican, I'm not a great fan of the Church. So I don’t totally disagree with your assessment of it. I suppose I get a kind of comfort from the continuity the Church of England provides - stretching back to Saint Augustine - to a time even before England was a single country. You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

Edited February 22 by Jamie123

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

We don't entirely disagree with you:

Quote

D&C 10:67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

The Lord appears to use the word "church" in two ways: one to mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church), and the other to mean those who repent and come unto Christ (the church).  Some Latter-day Saints might disagree with me, but I think this is similar to "the body of Christ" idea found in the New Testament that a lot of Christians cite.  Where we diverge from other Christians is in the idea that the Church doesn't matter, as long as you're of the church.    The church is a starting point to us - a good place to be if you know nothing more.  But the Church is where you want to be headed.

Also, just yesterday I saw evidence of something @Vort taught us on here long ago: Christ's sheep know His voice.  Our job isn't to convince them, it's to let them hear His voice.  (I read the account online of an investigator who felt overwhelmed by the Spirit just holding the Book of Mormon - clearly one of His sheep.  Which isn't to say that all of His sheep recognize His voice the way this person did; it's simply an extreme example.)

On an unrelated note: I'm glad you're still with us, @Jamie123 (as opposed to being tossed in jail).  I hear some pretty scary things about the UK speech-police and consequences of uncontrolled immigration there these days.

[Traveler]

On 2/4/2025 at 4:46 AM, Jamie123 said:

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins

Enjoy what you have and take delight in every small thing. And give no thought to what other people think of you. Could this be the long sought-after key to happiness?

Keep in mind that Mr. Collins was created completely from an Elizabethan female with what I consider a limited understanding of men.  At least as limited of men as I am of females – especially Elizabethan females.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

9 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

I do disagree, but not as strongly as you might think. The New Testament speaks of the "body" of Christ as metaphorically being the individual Christians—eyes and ears and hands and all that. This idea has extended through thousands of years now, and still forms a part of most if not all Christian theology.

"Church" is the English rendition of a Greek word that was used to translate an old Hebrew term that meant, ultimately, "congregation"—that is, a gathering of people, namely, the people of Israel. In Italian, a "gregge" means a flock of sheep. The Latin word congregatio, meaning a "society" or "association", was literally formed from the Latin con- "with" and greg "flock [of sheep]". That's how our modern word "congregation" came about.

The "congregations" spoken of in English translations of the Old Testament were the gatherings of Israel together in groups. If you understand "church" as being exactly these sorts of gatherings, then I would actually agree that the separate "congregations" or "gatherings" are churches, and the entire "congregation" of believers in Christ could be considered a sort of "church", in the sense of usage described above. Obviously, as a believing Latter-day Saint, I think the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] is much more than simply a gathering of like-minded people; I believe it is literally God's earthly kingdom, here to allow us to gather and associate and eventually lead us back to our home in God's eternal kingdom.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Keep in mind that Mr. Collins was created completely from an Elizabethan female with what I consider a limited understanding of men.  At least as limited of men as I am of females – especially Elizabethan females.

Speaking for myself, I have found Jane Austen to be uncommonly perceptive of how men think, despite the fact that she herself disclaimed any ability to speak from the male perspective. Would that all good women understood men as well as Austen seemed to have done.

[mrmarklin]

On 2/22/2025 at 10:41 AM, Traveler said:

Keep in mind that Mr. Collins was created completely from an Elizabethan female with what I consider a limited understanding of men.  At least as limited of men as I am of females – especially Elizabethan females.

 

The Traveler

Austen was not Elizabethan. She was born in the Georgian era and her novels were published is what is generally known as the Regency era of George III. If one has read her novels, she had a fair understanding of not only men but human nature. Particularly the foibles we have.