Originally Posted by Karen 19th January 2006


I don't think we can discuss this book without at least touching on the Mugrave affair.

Wilmot wrote "For all men would be cowards if they durst."

Lamb goes on to say "The implication that he was braver than anyone else for daring to be a coward fuelled the indignation of his principal foes at Whitehall."

Lamb goes on to write about Rochester's self hate and hate of his society.

How do you think Rochester's self hate affected the decisions he made?

Deppraved


Could you refresh my memory of the pages the Mulgrave affair is on--(early on/towards the middle?), but if you have those earmaked, could you just give me the section so I can re-read this to jog the memory. I finished it two weeks ago and currently am reading Harry Potter COS.

Karen


Certainly! Chapter 6. Coward!

Whitehall


Mr. Lamb talks of the 'bad decision' Rochester made in terms of the Mulgrave Duel. Yes, at the time, bravery was measured by outward acts and responses to challenges, however duel ling was also quickly losing favor. This incident happened early in both of these men's lives - and both had already demonstrated courage under fire in battle.

Mulgrave himself admits that he challenged Rochester, but then came to believe Rochester had never said the things that provoked his challenge. Yet he, Mulgrave, even though he no longer has a reason for the duel - insists there still be one?

We are told from many sources that others had a hard time believing that Rochester's attitude towards them or of their opinion was one of aloof disdain, or lofty amusement. Obviously Rochester was not urgently driven to have Mulgrave's esteem. Rochester also did not seem to lose any friends or the respect of the Court for his refusal to fight Mulgrave. Not as Mulgrave hoped for anyway!

In my opinion, the men of that day and age were capable of seeing through Mulgrave's absurdity. Perhaps for a week or two there were charges of cowardice on Rochester's part.... but as Mulgraves' explanation grew to be more widely known, the label he hoped to brand Rochester with, seems not to have stuck very well! Mulgrave however, now gives himself the public reputation of a man who will challenge you to a duel and insist it be carried out, even when there is no cause or reason. Duels were a matter of honor - and to falsely accuse someone and insist they fight you over the matter was not deemed an honorable act.

Rochester chose the harder road to walk in this instance... but still in the following years he was known both at home and abroad for his wit, his satires, his lampoons, his achievements with the women, his close relationship with the King, his friendship with the Duke of Buckingham, and many other escapades and running wild and amok.... We find much the same even today, but you don't find the label 'coward' foremost in any of these. People were much more worried about what they might find Rochester had written of them, then accusing him of being a coward. Or, they wanted to read what he had written latest about someone else!

I don't think Rochester hated himself afterwards for his choice in this. He had put himself in for a few difficult weeks - perhaps a month - but in the end Mulgrave actually negated the charge of cowardice himself by admitting to the fact that there was no legitimate reason for him to have even challenged Rochester to begin with. Had Mulgrave thought about it a little more, he never would have made that one admission that probably allowed Rochester to escape being branded a coward.

He wanted Rochester to be thought badly of - but he didn't really succeed at this point in his efforts - not nearly as well he hoped he would anyway.

If anything, Rochester might have been rather pleased at Mulgrave's being the one to admit he had no reason to be on the dueling field to begin with! He didnt have to be the one who said Mulgrave might be 'missing a few of hs marbles' - the man said it himself!

Deppraved


the Mulgrave affair-I seem to recall that is the time he switched his second and insisted on dueling on horseback. Feeling poorly, weakened by his infirmaties, etc.

It is my experience that those who feel an acute lack of self-respect tend to, subconsciously, sabotage themselves, by their actions, time and again, in order to prove they are unworthy of respect.

A viscous cycle, I'm afraid; the bad decisions and ensuing consequences make them feel ashamed, but at the same time they are in a state of denial. The shame gets pushed down, but never really goes away. The resulting emotional pain and conflict causes them to act out badly, presumably (in their mind) to make themselves feel better, but ultimately adding to the list of 'Reasons To Loathe Oneself.'

I'm not the best armchair psychologist, but I have been exposed to enough substance-dependent individuals to think I know what I'm talking about. I hope this makes sense. I beleive lamb when he declares that Rochester was a classic alpha, then gamma, alcoholic. Such a pity; there was no understanding of it until this century. Rochester was a seriously conflicted man. His alcoholism fueled his self-hatred.

Deppraved


I love it when they talk about writing "libels". The Gossip Tabloids of the 17th Century

Mairimaih


I think rochester saw the falseness of Mulgrave and saw it not worth wasting his time on it, he hated falseness and hypocracy, what could be more hypocritical than fighting a duel, when the man concerned said there was no initial insult to warrent it, what idiocy would justify it, I think Rochester saw the weak arguemnt for such actions and refused to be bound by foolishness and lies
cowadice was not part of it, refusing to let an idiot build a reputation on him, he walked away and thought nothing of it, as a resul, thats how I see it