Inheritance, Ethics and Classic Lit, Part 2: Persuasion
I've spoken on occasion (here and here) about whether you should accept an appointment as executor of another's estate. I have suggested that there are situations in which you may not want to act in this capacity. In Persuasion, Jane Austen talks about a situation where a person (Mr. Elliot) declines to act as executor of the estate of a friend (Mr. Smith). Ms. Austen takes a notably dim view of this declination to act (See Chapter 21 -- it's page 215 of my Penguin edition):
[Mr Smith] had died just in time to be spared the full knowledge of [his debts].... With a confidence in Mr Elliot's regard, more creditable to his feelings than his judgment, Mr Smith had appointed him the executor of his will; but Mr Elliot would not act, and the difficulties and distresses which this refusal had heaped on [Mrs. Smith], in addition to the inevitable sufferings of her situation, had been such as could not be related without anguish of spirit, or listened to without corresponding indignation.
I think it's worth noting that Ms. Austen's dim view of Mr. Elliot's actions (or inactions) is based on two factors:
1. Mr. Elliot was wealthier than Mr. Smith, and had led Mr. Smith "into expenses much beyond his fortune." Sound like any credit card companies you know?
2. Certain property owned by Mr. Smith in the West Indies "might be recoverable by proper measures; and this property, though not large, would be enough to make [Mrs. Smith] comparatively rich. But there was nobody to stir in it. Mr. Elliot would do nothing, and she could do nothing herself," because of health and financial issues. I'm sure there's an element of chivalry that comes into play here, of not assisting a woman in her time of distress.
Bookmark: 
