Essay Help

[sarabear]

I have just completed reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time. It is a summer reading assignment. I have been asked by my teachers to compose an essay on how the historical context that Jane Austen presents in the novel influences the novel as a whole. I have a couple of ideas, such as how money plays an important role as well as the role of society. If anyone has any other ideas would you please let me know? Thanks.

[sciencefan]

Hi Sara.

I think the view of marriage was very different back then than it is now.
The people in Austen's book chose a marriage partner based on financial status, or social status.
Almost 200 years later, people don't do that much any more.
We look for commonality of interest and physical attraction.
I think Austen was trying to suggest that money and social status should not be the only considerations in arranging a marriage.
I think she thought that the couple should be of similar intelligence, such as Elizabeth and Darcy,
or of similar temperament, such as Jane and Bingley.

Elizabeth's parents' marriage was one of non-similar intelligence level and non-similar temperaments, and Austen portrayed them as a little unhappy in their marriage.

One of the devices Austen uses to show how marriages were arranged in her day is the arranged marriage of Darcy and Anne DeBourgh.

That should get you headed in a good direction.

[sarabear]

Sciencefan:

thanks. I thought of the diffrence in attractions as well. But the examples are great. You help out a lot with this book. Thank you.

[littlelit]

During the 19th century which is the time when the novel was written, there was a shift from feudalism to capitalism due to the industrial revolution. It was a time when the only means of improvement of prospects for a woman of middle class background was marriage. Marriage was a business for that age as the property laws did not allow a daughter to own her father's property.

It was also an age of class mobility i.e. by sheer hard work and luck (for men) one could rise in social structure which is represented by Mr. Bingley whose ancestors were traders & who is an upper class person now.. The only real 'upper-class' person is Darcy who is an aristocrat.( I don't know whether this point will help but i just wanted to write it down.)

The most pervading theme in the novel is that of Economy where relationships are being based on financial conditions.Even the first sentence points out the same irony with the phrase 'in the want of' which is kind of economic rather than emotional.

My teacher quoted another interesting point which was the political tussle in the novel which is not very apparent on the surface. Darcy being aristocracy represents Vigs ( i don't know the correct spelling ) whereas lizzy , being the gentry or the middle class represents Tory. The final reconciliation is brought about between the 2 parties with their marriage.

( i think it is a bit too much but bear with me. this is my favourite novel and i can't stop talking on it once i start.)

[sciencefan]

...Darcy being aristocracy represents Vigs ( i don't know the correct spelling )...I think the correct name of the Party was Whigs. Perhaps it was said with a German accent?

Great post, by the way.

[littlelit]

Hey sciencefan, thanks , both for the correct spelling and the compliment. God knows i needed the correct spelling. thnx..

[JananiH]

Pride & Prejudice was written at a time of violent social revolution in France, where the stiff resistance of the old aristocracy refused to acknowledge or accommodate the growing aspirations and power of an emerging bourgeois middle class. Because of the stiff resistance to change, the pressure exploded as a revolution that physically destroyed the old French aristocracy.

When England was threatened with revolutionary change by contagion from across the channel, the whole nation rose to the occasion of the French Revolution and was ready to do everything in her power to avoid a revolution. The French aristocracy had resisted the winds of change with rude vulgar assertion of their superiority, until it was imposed on them by physical force. In the process, about 1600 of them lost their heads. Their English counterparts consented to accommodate the aspirations of the rising middle classes by permitting intermarriage with commoners. They saved their heads. Pride and Prejudice depicts this silent process of social transformation in the lives of the English gentility. The whole process is summarized in Elizabeth’s accusations against Darcy, accusing him of arrogance, pride, conceit, and selfish disdain for others. Darcy’s conscious individual response epitomizes the collective subconscious response of the English upper classes. He accepts the truth of her accusations and endeavors and transforms himself for the explicit purpose of pleasing and winning her. Thus, a charming story of romance and marriage becomes both a vehicle for and a product of social evolution.


Each of the four marriages that occurs in the story involves a social elevation that is characteristic of the evolutionary process. Elizabeth, the daughter of an aristocratic gentleman and middle class woman, rises by marriage into one of the wealthiest aristocratic families in England. Her sister Jane marries a man whose wealth is twenty-times greater than her own. Even the scoundrel Wickham, the steward’s son, who would have been outcaste or murdered for his effrontery in a previous age, not only marries a gentleman’s daughter but also becomes brother-in-law to his father’s former master. Moreover, by a strange course of events, the servile Mr. Collins becomes related through marriage to his august patroness, Lady Catherine.

These events symbolize not just movement between the classes but a profound shift in social values as well. The collective is becoming individualized. Social conformity is giving way to formed individuality. Elizabeth rises in spite of her mother’s family background because she is a developed individual personality who values character more than wealth or status. It is this trait that surprises and attracts Darcy, and makes him fall in love with the light in her eyes. Society nurtures and applauds Eliza’s individual development rather than frowning on or preventing it.

Society is shown in the process of redistributing the fruits of social status by a new set of criteria to a wider class of its members. Mrs. Bennet and her relations have already acquired aristocratic status through her marriage to Mr. Bennet and that status is about to rise enormously through the marriages of her two elder daughters. By Eliza’s marriage, the lower level of the aristocracy, which has strong links with the business community, unites with the highest level of the aristocracy.

For more details, visit http://humanscience.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Evolution_in_Pride_and_Prejudice

[sciencefan]

Pride & Prejudice was written at a time of violent social revolution in France...[/url]At first, I thought this poster was the writer of this material,
but the original writer of the article is "Roy Posner" - who of course may indeed be JananiH.
Being a writer myself, I just thought the original author should receive proper credit for his work.

His entire essay can be found at this site:
Accomplishment & Human Development in Pride & Prejudice (http://www.gurusoftware.com/gurunet/Personal/PridePrejudiceProject/AccomplishmentDevelopment/AccomplishmentDevelopmentFrame.htm)

His essay is promoted by a group called "Mother's Service Society".
It is this group's founder's belief that "...humanity is not the final goal of creation.
Humankind will evolve beyond mind into Supramental being."


With a world view like that, it is not surprising the author of this lengthy article comes to the conclusions that he does.

I just want to point out that it is an opinion, not necessarily TRUTH.

I found the historical backdrop information very enlightening,
but how can we call something "evolution" -which is supposedly good-
when the aristocracy must not have considered it evolution at all!
It all depends on your point of view.

If I was in the aristocracy and had 1600 of my friends, relatives and peers have their heads chopped off,
I would not have thought of it as a positive thing for society.
.
.
.

[Newcomer]

... Pride and Prejudice depicts this silent process of social transformation in the lives of the English gentility.

A common criticism of Jane Austen is that her view is too narrow, too provincial, concentrating on the minutia of a few families in a bucolic English countryside. Thus the statement that “Pride and Prejudice depicts this silent process of social transformation in the lives of the English gentility. The whole process is summarized in Elizabeth’s accusations against Darcy, accusing him of arrogance, pride, conceit, and selfish disdain for others. Darcy’s conscious individual response epitomizes the collective subconscious response of the English upper classes” , is a very novel argument in interpreting Pride and Prejudice.
The Wikia article Social Evolution in Pride and Prejudice is an interesting gloss on the novel. In the introduction it states - “Note: This article applies social development theory to explain and interpret events in Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice.” Why not? As the 'unwashed' would claim 'it's a free country', and if the Feminists can use Pride and Prejudice for their purposes, why not 'Human Science'. Rhetorical question – apart from the purported extraterrestrial in Roswell is there any other science than human?
And the premise is : “The implicit theme of this story is that what the less civilised achieve physically, the more mature nation attains by a psychological change.”....”Any story reflects the mood of its period. The marriages of Darcy and Bingley are symptomatic of the mood of the period. The French aristocrats lost their heads not only because they were aristocrats but because of the assertion of their superiority. Darcy lost his arrogance and saved his head. “ The assumption is that the English aristocrats learned, evolved , from the mistakes of the French. Such a claim is questionable on several grounds.
1.In Austen's novels the aristocrats are ridiculed: Lady Catherine deBourg and her daughter, the Bingley sisters, and Sir William Lucas in P&P. In Sense and Sensibility, John Dashwood and Mrs.Ferrars or John Willoughby, considered a gentleman. In Persuasion Sir Walter and his elder daughter and even Lady Russel, who is characterized as a well meaning but prejudiced. Thus there is sufficient evidence that Austen had a jaundiced view of the so called 'enlightened' British aristocracy quite apart from the assumption that Austen can be read as a social critic.
2.Recent historical examples seem to indicate that self interest and looking down, if despising is too strong, is the paramount attitude of the English aristocracy:
The most serious example is that post WW1 the attitude among the aristocracy was that England was no longer theirs. That social reforms and laws had transformed the country and that they were no longer equals among peers but that as in Labor party, the commoners ruled. The outcome of this attitude was the rise of Fascism, admiration Hitler, in the elite universities (Cambridge spy ring) pre WW2 and post WW2 the ideological Communists who turned spies for Soviet Union against the interests their own country. These types of aristocrats penetrated English society from newspapers, to civil servants, to the staff of the Royal family.

The members of the Cambridge spy ring were the privileged sons of the British aristocracy and their rise to the highest levels in civil service, is an indication stratification of the British society. When exposed they were sheltered, and when imprisoned, their escape to Moscow indicates that there was a larger collusion than of a few communist sympathizers. Two of the Cambridge University traitors, Burgess and Maclean were recruited by the KGB in the 1930s and joined the British Foreign Office. Maclean was stationed in a Foreign Office post in Washington and turned over nuclear information while Burgess became a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6). Warned that they were exposed, they fled and in 1956 surfaced in Moscow. Kim Philby the "third man" of the "Cambridge spy ring", entered the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6), became head of counterespionage operations. Warned he escaped to the Soviet Union, were he died in 1988 and was buried with full military honors in Moscow.

Sir Roger Henry Hollis, KBE, CB (1905 - 1973) was a British journalist, secret-service agent and director general of MI5. His father was Bishop of Taunton, he was educated at Clifton College and Worcester College, Oxford. In the 1950s and 1960s, a large number of MI5 operations failed in circumstances that suggested the Russians had been pre-warned. He was replaced by Dick White when many became convinced that Hollis or his deputy were responsible alerting Philby to his impending arrest.

The "Fourth Man" of the Cambridge Five, Anthony Frederick Blunt (26 September 1907 – 26 March 1983), KCVO between 1956 and 1979, was an English art historian, formerly Professor of the History of Art, University of London and director of the Courtauld Institute of Art, London (1947-74). His lineage reads as Who is Who of the British aristocracy - “he was, however, demonstrably a cousin of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the late Queen Mother, through his mother, Hilda V. Master, daughter of John Henry Master, son of Frances Mary Smith, sister of Oswald Smith, father of Frances Dora Smith, mother of Claude George Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, father of Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, making Blunt and the Queen Mother third cousins, by common descent from George Smith and his wife Frances Mary Mosley.” In 1945 Blunt became Surveyor of the King's Pictures, and retained the post under Queen Elizabeth II, for which work he was knighted as a KCVO in 1956.

The fifth member of the Cambridge Five, John Cairncross (25 July 1913 – 8 October 1995) was a British intelligence officer during World War II who passed secrets to the Soviet Union during the war. Cairncross admitted to spying. He was never prosecuted, however, which later led to charges that the government engaged in a conspiracy to cover up his role.

Perhaps the most humorous example was the disfunctionality in industry where the management with the proper British accent was unable to communicate effectively with the workers, who were the lower class. The Scots who had attended the red brick universities were often used as interlocutors.

The post 19th. century practice of the aristocrats looking for rich American heiresses to support an unsupportable life style. The current opening of the art of the great houses and gardens to a paying public (was hardly from a philanthropic impulse but to generate upkeep cash), are but the less egregious examples of the unchanged attitudes of the British aristocracy. Nor was this an aberration among the lower aristocracy as the recent examples of the royal family show. In 1955 Princess Margaret was forbidden by the Queen from marrying a commoner, (Townsend was a divorcé, which, in the eyes of the government and the Church of England, made him an unsuitable husband for a Royal Princess. Rather ironic that The Prince of Wales married, continued his adulterous affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, divorced in 1966 and married a divorcé in 2005.) The theological principle applied in 1955 was ignored in 2005. What had changed? Nothing. Prince Charles was the son of the Queen, and priviledge was priviledge. At the death of Diana. it required the intervention of prime minister Blair, a commoner, from saving the Royals from the public relation disaster. The only evolutionary change in the British aristocracy is the loss of political power and consequently wealth to the mercantile class and that began in the industrial revolution not because of lessons learned from the French revolution.

[JananiH]

Hi Sciencefan.

Thank you for seeking clarification on the authorship of my comment. I regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen from my comment. The content quoted in my comment was taken from the Pride & Prejudice Project on Human Science Wiki to which I have provided a link in my comment. The wiki is a GNU open content site to which multiple people contribute as in Wikipedia and we normally do not attribute authorship to individuals. I have been the principle editor of this project wiki responsible for designing and hosting material developed by a number of people, including Roy Posner with whom I am in close correspondence. The content posted is the result of a seven year study by The Mother’s Service Society, a recognized social science research institute in Pondicherry, India, to evolve a new basis for literary criticism based on the idea that great literature presents profound insights into life, social development and human nature. Many individuals have contributed to development of the project content and we have been in the habit of freely sharing content without attribution since it is difficult to even recall who the original author of a particular idea or statement actually is and our primary goal is not personal recognition. In fact, Roy himself has borrowed from other members of the project team in formulating his contribution. As the wiki develops and other people add to, edit and amend each article, personal attribution will become extremely difficult. My purpose in placing the comment on the blog is to invite responses to our research by others who are informed and interested in Jane Austen’s magnificent novel. I thought the best way to do that was to respond to posts indicating the perspective we have developed and providing links to our source material. I hope that clarifies the issue of authorship and my intention.

Regarding your comment on “evolution”, I was using the word in the manner commonly applied by social scientists to reflect major changes in society such as the movement from monarchy to democracy to contrast it with radical and violent “revolutionary” change of major change such as the French Revolution. The precise meaning attached to my usage can be found on the Development Portal of Human Science wiki at http://humanscience.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Development_Theory#Three_stages_of_Developm ent.

Of course, any concept of social progress and retrogression must be relative and subjective depending on one’s point of view. You are certainly right that the aristocracy would hardly have considered the breakdown of their privileges as progress. Nor perhaps would I if I had shared their experience. But the same argument can be made regarding the end of slavery and slave trade, women’s suffrage, colonialism and imperialism. Looked at from the point of view of any particular group, any change can be viewed positively or negatively. However, when we look at it from the point of view of the whole humanity and from the perspective of the major drift of social change over the past 500 years, we can say that certain changes are in line with that general movement. The end of feudalism, oligarchy, autocracy, authoritarianism; and the spread of individual liberties, rising aspirations, greater social mobility, universal education, access to information are trends prevalent to varying degrees throughout the world. It is in that sense that I used the word ‘evolution’.

It is fascinating to reflect on what the aristocracy must have felt during and after the terrors of Revolutionary France and what must have been the conscious and subconscious impact of those events on values, attitudes and life in England and other European countries. A similar thing occurred during and after the Russian Revolution when the Labor and socialist movement in England and other parts of countries was deeply stirred and every European government was afraid that communism might spread to them as well. The rise of social democracy in western Europe was a reflection of that trend. Many people would not consider communism an evolutionary advance, but the greater consideration given to the conditions of the working class and lower levels of the society became a universal movement in the 20th century.

I would welcome and greatly appreciate further interaction on these topics as well as feedback, responses and contributions to the wiki.

[sciencefan]

Thank you for your contribution.

[JananiH]

Newcomer, I agree with your observation that the attitudes of the aristocracy retain their elitism and snobbery. However, that does not mitigate the fact that the ideals and events associated with the French Revolution profoundly impacted the attitudes and actions of the English aristocracy, consciously or subconsciously, just as the fall of the Berlin Wall, breakup of the USSR and end of the Cold War had profound impact not only on politics but on social aspirations and attitudes among the people of Eastern Europe. It is true that other events have also contributed to this change, including the Industrial Revolution, spread of education, etc. I am only saying that FR was a significant force in the same direction. P&P depicts the movement of classes toward each other through intermarriage which existed earlier but accelerated with and after the FR, just like the caste exclusivity of Brahmanism and intermarriage with other castes in India has gradually diminished with Indian Independence and the eradication of untouchability although the attitudes and behavior of many in the Brahman caste cling traditional attitudes and behaviors as far as they can.

I would regard Jane Austen’s ‘jaundiced view’ of the aristocracy as an expression of this social change, even if it preceded the more general movement. It is interesting to speculate how different the behavior of the characters in P&P would have been had the story taken place 50 years earlier or 50 years later than it did:

Fifty years earlier—

Would Wickham have dared to elope with Georgiana?
Would Wickham have been murdered for the attempt?
Would Lady Catherine have come to Longbourne to speak with Elizabeth or demanded that Mr. Bennet come to Rosings to hear her demands?
Would Collins have dared speak with Darcy at the ball?
Would Darcy have befriended Bingley whose wealth came from business?
Would Mr. Bennet have married a lawyer’s daughter?
Would Darcy have ever proposed to Elizabeth, regardless of the intensity of his attraction to her?
Would Lucas have been knighted and would Darcy attend his ball?
Would Lady Catherine have asked Elizabeth to remain longer at Hunsford or offered to send Elizabeth her back in the barouche-box?
Would Darcy have invited Mr. Gardiner to fish?
Would Elizabeth have been so forthright in expressing her personal opinions before Lady Catherine?

Even the smallest of our social behaviors reflects the times in which we live.

[Newcomer]

.... P&P depicts the movement of classes toward each other through intermarriage which existed earlier but accelerated with and after the FR ....“Even the smallest of our social behaviors reflects the times in which we live.”

That is unarguable as a general observation, but it is arguable how it applies to Pride and Prejudice. Just as Prejudice has a specific meaning in the novel and the dictionary meaning of 'prejudice' does not enlighten us what Jane Austen meant. Just as it is safe to assume that the French Revolution had a profound effect on English society but it is arguable whether it had any affect on Austen's view of the English aristocracy. It can be said that Austen's view of the world was myopic without detracting from the genius of her provincial characterization. The Napoleonic wars were much more immediate than the French revolution and the class and gender equality that the upheaval brought to prominence throughout Europe, yet neither is mentioned in Austen's writing. Her brother was an officer in the navy but only in the last novel, Persuasion, does the war and the British navy have any mention. England was an island and its isolation physically and intellectually from Europe was profound. The feeling of superiority that peaked in the Victorian era did not materialize overnight and has an preview in the pride of the navy in the lines, “Louisa, by whom she found herself walking, burst forth into raptures of admiration and delight on the character of the navy; their friendliness, their brotherliness, their openness, their uprightness; protesting that she was convinced of sailors having more worth and warmth than any other set of men in England;”

When JananiH writes “P&P depicts the movement of classes toward each other through intermarriage which existed earlier but accelerated with and after the FR” and “ Darcy’s conscious individual response epitomizes the collective subconscious response of the English upper classes. He accepts the truth of her accusations and endeavors and transforms himself for the explicit purpose of pleasing and winning her.”,”Each of the four marriages that occurs in the story involves a social elevation that is characteristic of the evolutionary process.” I would maintain that this is an Utopian reading of Pride and Prejudice. Let us look at a specific of social evolution in P&P, that of entailment.

“In 1066, William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings, took over the British throne and established the feudal system as the law of the land. In so doing, he made England a united country and created legal systems that are still with us today. We have to go back to 1066 to make sense of the entailment in Pride and Prejudice because many rules developed under feudal-system-controlled property law in Jane Austen’s day;” - Land, Law and Love, Luanne Bethke Redmond, Jane Austen Society of North America.
The Bennet estate was “entailed in default of heirs male on a distant relation.” and that the daughters would lose all rights when the property passed to Mr. Collins. Mrs. Bennet complains that something should have been done about it. As a lawyer’s daughter, she should have been aware of the common recovery. If Mr. Bennet had been tenant in tail of Longbourn, he could have used such a method to convey his property, possibly to his daughters, or in trust for their benefit.

Under Primogeniture: property passed to the eldest son; if he did not survive to inherit, the next son in line got everything but this instance of common law was mostly disregarded in Jane Austen’s day. When Lady Catherine remarks that “It [entailment] was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family,” she is echoing the thinking of the times. Yet Austen uses this obsolete interpretation of entailment as a foundation stone of her story. It took almost a century before the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 provided that married women could acquire, hold and dispose of property and Primogeniture was finally abolished in 1925. These specifics call into question of how much the Egalité of the French revolution influenced English custom. It would also indicate that Austen's critique of the aristocracy was of the Swift character, more of irony than of social reform.

The rhetorical questions that JananH posses, such as - Would Darcy have invited Mr. Gardiner to fish?- , are unanswerable and idle suppositions. Mr. Gardner was invited by Darcy, not because of social progress but because Jane Austen chose to put it into her story.

[sciencefan]

...The Napoleonic wars were much more immediate than the French revolution and the class and gender equality that the upheaval brought to prominence throughout Europe, yet neither is mentioned in Austen's writing. ...I enjoyed your post. History was never my forté but your argument makes logical sense to me.

I wasn't sure if I agreed with the above comment I quoted, because of the comments Caroline Bingley makes in the latest film with Knightley and McFadyen.

Just before Elizabeth arrives at Netherfield to take care of Jane (with her hem 6 inches deep in mud) Caroline is reading a letter, and she informs Darcy who is breakfasting with her:
"Lady Bathurst is redecorating her ballroom in the French style.
A little unpatriotic, don't you think?"

Because I have never been good with history, the presence of "OFFICERS!!" and the military in Pride and Prejudice have often left me wondering what war was going on or who they were fighting.

However, in searching the text of the book, Lady Bathurst is never mentioned and neither is "unpatriotic", so I can only conclude that Austen did not make any reference to any war in the book- that I can recall or find.