Posts
On Sunday 7th April I was invited to take part in a ZOOM meeting with the JASNA Vermont group. Deb Barnum had sent me a notice about the meeting which intended to review the recent JASNA AGM at Colorado, whose theme was ,”Pride and Prejudice.”
What follows doesn’t necessarily discuss things we talked about in the meeting, it is more a riff on thoughts about Pride and Prejudice the meeting got me thinking about.
I have been reading Pride and Prejudice recently because I needed something gentle, amusing and thought provoking to help me through these times of recovery after an operation. Jane Austen as recouperation treatment?
One topic we discussed at the ZOOM meeting was how, Elizabeth Bennet, through her independent behaviour and attitudes to marriage and also the love she has for her aunt and uncle the Gardeners, challenges the status quo of the world she lived in.
Her mother, Mrs Bennet, the epitome of that status quo, has one aim in life, to marry her daughters off to whoever makes an offer. Love is low down on her list. A good house, a well off husband and servants to manage, those are the things that Mrs Bennet thinks are important. Their neighbours in Meryton, the Lucas’s, have the same ambitions for their daughter Charlotte. 18th century marriage seemed to be all about property and position. Lady Catherine de Bourgh vehemently tries to uphold these social priorities when she challenges Elizabeth Bennet , the Bennet’s second daughter, over her engagement to Darcy, her wealthy landowning nephew. Mr Collins fits right in to all that marriage process. He tries his luck with the Bennet sisters.. Mr and Mrs Bennet's own marriage is worth exploring in the light of the social norms of that time.
Tony Tanner, who wrote the first introduction to the Penguin Classics version of Pride and Prejudice, says that ,
"the overall impression given by the book is of a small section of society locked in an almost timeless present in which very little will or can change. For the most part the people are as fixed and repetitive as the linked routines and established social rituals which dominate their lives. Money is a potential problem, and courtship has its own personal dramas but everything tends towards the achieving of a satisfactory marriage- which is exactly how such a society secures its own continuity and minimizes the possibility of anything approaching a violent change.”
Elizabeth appears to go against these ,”social rituals,” She turns down Darcy’s first rather pompous first proposal and dislikes him intensely. She doesn’t want the social standing marriage to Darcy would provide on his terms.
Elizabeth appears to be the revolutionary in this story. She goes against the expectations of the time. Even Darcy with all his pride, wealth and position in society doesn’t appear to be about to change his stuffy ways at first. Elizabeth jumps to conclusions with her ,”first impressions,” of Wickham and Darcy and much of the story is about the process she goes through, a sort of journey ,that delves deeper into the characters and actions of these two. Darcy of course has his conversion process and Wickham doesn’t. Real love for Elizabeth is at the core of Darcy’s feelings and actions ( he just has to excavate them first) and it is that love that breaks the mould and helps him grow. A man who changes ( is that realistic?) for the better, is the great attraction for readers of this novel of course. We are lead through both Elizabeth’s and Darcys inner processes at a gentle pace. He becomes a better nicer person but the two of them only make progress within what the society allows them. Some might not be completely happy, about their coming together which of course is the tension in the novel. Bingley’s sisters and Lady Catherine de Bourgh are certainly against the marriages of Jane and Bingley and Elizabeth and Darcy. But they are permissible within the bounds of what their society will allow. In the18th century there was some movement possible between the levels of gentry high and low. The gentry needed new blood.
I have come to the conclusion that the real revolutionaries in this story are Lydia and Wickham. They not only challenge the society they live in but they go much further and step over the line of acceptability. Their characters are not of course the most likeable and far from endearing to the reader but they break that societies mould. Shock and horror is of course the response. Who today would have given their actions a second thought? If we think of our actions and beliefs within the society we live in, the 21st century , it is the society we live in that shapes our behaviours.
There is the question of ,"trade." Sir Willam Lucas and Lady Lucas, are near neighbours of the Bennets. Sir Willam had previously been ,
"in trade in Meryton, where he had made a tolerable fortune and risen to the honour of knighthood by an address to the King during his mayoralty."
However after rising to such an exalted level he had abandoned his ,"trade," we do not hear what his trade was, and made every effort to live as though he had always been part of the gentry. He mentions visiting the court of St James , and wants to associate with Lady Catherine de Bourg and her nephew Fitzwilliam Darcy.
On the other hand there are the Gardiners,Elizabeth's uncle and aunt, living in Gracechcurch Street in Cheepside, in the City fo London, who are also in ,trade. They live near their wharehouses. Presumably their trade is maritime being so close to The Thames. Oddly Austen never tells us what trade these characters participate in. The word ,"trade," is a catch all.The Gardiners are intelligent and kind people who are loved for themselves. They appear to have no grandiose pretentions. With this question of trade and Elizabeth challenging the attitudes of her mother about marriage, is Austen starting a debate about who and what is valued in society? She seems to be breaking away from the stifling class structure rules. In Austen's novel Emma, there is a character called Robert Martin, a local farmer in Highbury who is looked down upon by Emma. Mr Knightly, a member of the gentry, on the other hand, values him. Jane Austen seems to be exploring changing attitudes in society with these characters.
I have always thought, in a lazy sort of way, without really thinking about it that the attraction to 21st century readers of Pride and Prejudice was that it shows how a good relationship develops, that people can change for the better and that it is applicable to us today. Having read Pride and Prejudice again I think we are bluffing ourselves. I don’t think that is the case. The way we live now is totally different from the time of Jane Austen.
What use then is reading Jane Austen novels today? They are social histories and the novels read in conjunction with historical research can reveal much about life then. There is much in a Jane Austen novel which is useful to the historian. She explains clearly in her novels exactly how things are. She is laying things out saying this is the way it is, whether she is talking about the clergy, the gentry or village life. The gentle narrow world of the gentry and lesser gentry her novels portray, where nothing really terrible happens, where peoples’ lives are mostly in balance and harmony is always achieved at the end, make us feel good.
In a way Jane Austen was conning us. The world she lived in was going through one of its most turbulent changes. The Industrial revolution when cities grew, industries poured out smoke and villages such as Chawton and Meryton were emptied of manpower to feed the factories. The differences between those in poverty and those who had wealth became even greater.
I came away from rereading Pride and Prejudice thinking yes, I enjoyed that, it was fun but its not about me. A novel takes you into a world where you meet people you would never otherwise experience and a period in history, often, that you could never be in.
I have called this article ,
“Could I have a discussion with jane Austen about life?”
I think Jane Austen and I are so different in our social experiences, 250 years different. I don’t think I could understand Jane Austen and she couldn’t understand me. A conversation of mutual understanding would be impossible. We might smile at each other over a cup of tea.
No comments:
Post a Comment