role of 19th century woman in novel

[LynnWhis]

Does the 19th century woman have a role other than to be married in this novel?

[sciencefan]

Does the 19th century woman have a role other than to be married in this novel?
From what I have read and heard, no.
Even on the special interviews on the DVD, several of the actresses said the same.
(I presume they did some background research for the movie.)
Kiera Knightly said that marriage was the only way a woman could improve her station in life.
Nowadays, we go to college for that.;)

Certainly there were exceptional women who broke into the professional ranks of men,
but I think that was not the lot of the grand majority.
Women were expected to run a home and raise children.

A women had only to learn to be "accomplished".
"``Then,'' observed Elizabeth, ``you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished women.''

``Yes; I do comprehend a great deal in it.''

``Oh! certainly,'' cried his faithful assistant, ``no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved.''

``All this she must possess,'' added Darcy, ``and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.''"

In Pride and Prejudice, the Bennett girls had no formal education.
"``Has your governess left you?''

``We never had any governess.''

``No governess! How was that possible? Five daughters brought up at home without a governess! -- I never heard of such a thing. Your mother must have been quite a slave to your education.''

Elizabeth could hardly help smiling, as she assured her that had not been the case.

``Then, who taught you? who attended to you? Without a governess you must have been neglected.''

``Compared with some families, I believe we were; but such of us as wished to learn, never wanted the means. We were always encouraged to read, and had all the masters that were necessary. Those who chose to be idle, certainly might.''

``Aye, no doubt; but that is what a governess will prevent, and if I had known your mother, I should have advised her most strenuously to engage one. I always say that nothing is to be done in education without steady and regular instruction, and nobody but a governess can give it."

I was never a great history student, so I can give no further illumination than that.

[RachelUofM]

To answer your question, yes!!! Women did have a role other than marriage in the nineteenth-century novel. I would recommend reading Gilbert and Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic, which is a collection of their essays concerning nineteenth-century literature and feminism.

Also, when looking at Jane Austen (who is, technically, late-Eighteenth to early-Ninteenth century), you will notice the the novels never actually end with marriage, only an engagement. In the Eighteenth century, novel writing was seen as a lesser form of literary talent: poetry was considered a man's realm, while novels were written by women for women. While there are always exceptions (for instance, Aphra Behn was writing poetry even in 1660 and Daniel DeFoe wrote an early version of a novel with Robinson Crusoe), women were supposed to write and read novels. Austen used the framework men gave her (that is, novel writing) to instruct other women on how to find the ideal partner. Since she knew women were supposed to read novels, she targeted her books for women. And, because she knew marriage was necessary in English society, Austen wrote her novels for women between the marrying ages (typically 15-25). At the end of every Austen novel, the woman is engaged, but Austen never actually marries the protagonists in her novels: Austen believed that marriage ended a woman's freedom, aptly ending her novels with a free woman rather than a married one (this proves even further that Austen would have shuddered with the 2006 film version of "Pride and Prejudice," when Elizabeth is called "Mrs. Darcy," as well as with those new novels which continue where Austen left off--she left off with engagement for a very specific reason!).

The Bronte Sisters take a very proto-feminist approach to marriage, specifically in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. While Jane does get married in the end of novel, it is she who is equal to Rochester both in status and wealth by the end.

It may be frustrating or confusing as a twentieth/twenty-first century reader to read novels of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, specifically as women. Yet, it is imperative when looking at literature of the past to take off your twentieth century glasses and put on nineteenth century lenses. While women were pressured far more to marry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we can explore today how some women worked within the framework of marriage to actually promote females to equal status as men. The perfect example is Jane Austen: the novel was considered lesser and a female genre, while poetry was considered the best and written by men. Today, which genre do we read more--the novel or poetry?

[sciencefan]

Also, when looking at Jane Austen (who is, technically, late-Eighteenth to early-Ninteenth century), you will notice the novels never actually end with marriage, only an engagement.
I have read these words before, in another thread, and at the time,
I believed them because I did not know any better.
But now I feel obligated to stand up for the truth.

I cannot speak about the other novels, since I have not recently read them,
but Pride and Prejudice does NOT end in the engagements of the women.

As a matter of fact, chapter 61 is entirely devoted to a brief synopsis of married life
for Jane, Elizabeth and Lydia for over a year after their marriages,
and life in general for the rest of the principle characters.

"Mr. Bingley and Jane remained at Netherfield only a twelvemonth."
"...he bought an estate in a neighbouring county to Derbyshire..."
"...Jane and Elizabeth, in addition to every other source of happiness, were within thirty miles of each other."

"Georgiana had the highest opinion in the world of Elizabeth; though at first she often listened with an astonishment bordering on alarm at her lively, sportive, manner of talking to her brother."

Concerning Wickham and Lydia:
"They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and always spending more than they ought."
"...with the Bingleys they both of them frequently staid so long, that even Bingley's good humour was overcome, and he proceeded so far as to talk of giving them a hint to be gone."

[RachelUofM]

I was referring to the marriage of the protagonist---Austen often marries off characters such as Lydia and Wickham to demonstrate a female who has chosen poorly for a partner. Another example of this can be found in Persuasion.

As to [I]Pride and Prejudice[I], my apologies for not specifying very clearly--the performance of the marriage of the protagonist is never actually staged in Austen's novels, for a very specific reason. Also, Elizabeth is never referred to as "Mrs. Darcy," which is the revulsion I expressed in the film version, because it represents an Elizabeth without her own identity--when she is only known as "Mrs. Darcy," she assumes the secondary identity of her husband. Some critics argue that Austen never writes in the marriage of the protagonist because to put the marriage of the "correct" couples in a fiction would expose marriage as a complete fiction itself. I see your point, and completely admit to my mistake---hopefully this clears it up!

Remember, though, the point is that Austen knew marriage was necessary in 18th and 19th century society, so she used her novels as a tool of instruction for women on how to choose the proper partner. The reality is, once a woman got married, perhaps it would "improve her station," as Knightley said, but it would also cause her to lose her own freedom. Women did not have many choices, but by the 18th century they did have the choice to reject an offer of marriage--Austen utilizes this one trait in the majority of her female protagonists--besides the Dashwood sisters, all of Austen's other protagonists refuse an offer of marriage. Austen does this to show her female audience that they can utilize their own rights of refusal in order to find the proper partner. Even though chapter 61 of P&P may end with a very skimpy, epilogue-like account of Elizabeth's life with Darcy, Austen (as proved by the actual text) was very conscious of the loss of identity a woman suffers when she takes on the name of her husband.

[sciencefan]

I was referring to the marriage of the protagonist---Austen often marries off characters such as Lydia and Wickham to demonstrate a female who has chosen poorly for a partner. Another example of this can be found in Persuasion.

As to [I]Pride and Prejudice[I], my apologies for not specifying very clearly--the performance of the marriage of the protagonist is never actually staged in Austen's novels, for a very specific reason. Also, Elizabeth is never referred to as "Mrs. Darcy," which is the revulsion I expressed in the film version, because it represents an Elizabeth without her own identity--when she is only known as "Mrs. Darcy," she assumes the secondary identity of her husband. Some critics argue that Austen never writes in the marriage of the protagonist because to put the marriage of the "correct" couples in a fiction would expose marriage as a complete fiction itself. I see your point, and completely admit to my mistake---hopefully this clears it up!

Remember, though, the point is that Austen knew marriage was necessary in 18th and 19th century society, so she used her novels as a tool of instruction for women on how to choose the proper partner. The reality is, once a woman got married, perhaps it would "improve her station," as Knightley said, but it would also cause her to lose her own freedom. Women did not have many choices, but by the 18th century they did have the choice to reject an offer of marriage--Austen utilizes this one trait in the majority of her female protagonists--besides the Dashwood sisters, all of Austen's other protagonists refuse an offer of marriage. Austen does this to show her female audience that they can utilize their own rights of refusal in order to find the proper partner. Even though chapter 61 of P&P may end with a very skimpy, epilogue-like account of Elizabeth's life with Darcy, Austen (as proved by the actual text) was very conscious of the loss of identity a woman suffers when she takes on the name of her husband.
I beg to differ with you.
Before, you said the books always end with the engagements,
and now you say she doesn't stage the wedding,
and you claim to know her motive!

Maybe it's just plain boring to read the details of a wedding?
Or maybe she put them in there and her editor or publisher made her take them out?
Austen seems to be a very dialog-driven author.
I have read complaints of the lack of descriptive detail of the settings in her books.
Perhaps, since there's really not that much dialog at a wedding, it wasn't that interesting to her.
Of course, another possibility is that it is too anti-climactic.

I would like to see, in her own words, where Austen says she thinks a married woman loses her identity.
That sounds like a lot of feminist mumbo-jumbo to me.

I knew you would attack the "skimpy account" in chapter 61,
but I dare say it is not nearly as skimpy or unsatisfying as the wrap-up of the end of another great book: Jane Eyre.

[Newcomer]

I beg to differ with you.
Before, you said the books always end with the engagements,
and now you say she doesn't stage the wedding,
and you claim to know her motive!
....
Of course, another possibility is that it is too anti-climactic.
.....
I would like to see, in her own words, where Austen says she thinks a married woman loses her identity.
That sounds like a lot of feminist mumbo-jumbo to me.

When RachelUofM states that Austen used her novels for a didactic purpose, it is in my opinion a gross misreading and not substantiated by any literary critics ( I refer to Jane Austen Bicentenary Essays, edited by John Halperin). The general opinion is that her aim was to entertain.
If one reads the novels chronologically from Lady Susan to Sense and Sensibility, to Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion, one can't help but note that she trims and discharges the unessential. A process of distillation so that only the essence remains. She is the opposite of the art of Charlotte Bronte where feelings are examined. One has to read between the lines to interpret Austen's characters dialogue, as rarely are the intentions transparent. Therefore the omission of the wedding scene or of Lydia's tryst, is not an oversight, nor of moral scruples but only of the minimalism in style; elimination of the nonessential.
“Austen (as proved by the actual text) was very conscious of the loss of identity a woman suffers when she takes on the name of her husband.”- Where in the actual text do you find this? It seems to me that all the principal women of Austen's are very strong, distinct characters and only seek comparably interesting characters in husbands, marrying for love as opposed to the custom of money.

[RachelUofM]

Are all of Austen's characters strong throughout the novel? If you examine Austen's very first book, Northanger Abbey, you will see hard evidence for everything I have stated. Catherine Morland is hardly a strong character. In fact, Austen describes her as "extraordinary," the joke being that she is "extra" ordinary---even more ordinary than the everyday person (Austen loves ironic understatement). In fact, Austen identifies in this, her very first completed novel, exactly what she believes her novels to be: tools of education and instruction (Looking at the Penguin Edition, Page 36-37, Vol I Chapter 5). This also reveals Austen as a somewhat proto-feminist, as she refers to womenkind as an "injured party" who must stick together (to contradict earlier statement that Austen was in no way a feminist—while she would never even know what a feminist is, Austen is doing something completely new and arguing for the injuries the world inflicts upon her sex). If you, and the critics you cite, see her novels purely as forms of entertainment, then you fail to recover the historical aspects of the genre. If you study History of the Novel, as well as Austen's letters and moments in her works, specifically NA, you will see the novel as a tool for instruction, targeted at a very specific audience. Today, most readers view novels purely as forms of entertainment. Most readers even view comedy from the past merely as cheerful entertainment. The point is literature had a purpose other than "entertainment" before the twentieth century. As to not finding any critics that support the idea of Austen's novels as tools of instructions, look at some relatively new critics of her work: Bagchi, Raff, Rudderman, and Butler (who writes an excellent essay at the beginning of the Penguin Edition of NA--constantly referring to the process of Austen's heroines as educative and instructive).

As to the P&P comment, again, I apologized for my mistake. I have not read P&P as recently as I would have liked—I’ve been focusing on the other novels—and my Graduate Professor misspoke when he claimed “all” her novels end in marriage—I brought your evidence to him and he, too, admitted his mistake. However, we looked further into the works and did find that the majority of Austen's novels do not end in a description of married life. In fact, look at the characters who are married in Austen's novels--they always are the most miserable! Austen DID NOT look on marriage too kindly when observing these characters (Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, Mr. and Mrs. Elton, Mr. and Mrs. Allen, etc). Austen uses these characters as juxtapositions to the single women, showing them that they need to know how to pick the right partner in marriage--something her novels will teach women to do. Elizabeth even comments on this, when she exclaims she and her sisters have "daily proof" of a poor marriage match (i.e. her mother and father). As to married women losing their freedom and most of their identity, answer me this: does Austen ever give you the first name of the married people in her novels? What is Mrs. Bennett's first name?

To address assuming Austen's "motives," literary scholars know from her letters, novels, and the period in which she was writing exactly what the novel attempted to do. Notice, specifically in Northanger Abbey, how Austen ridicules the literature that is meant solely to entertain (i.e. the gothic novels, etc.). Austen's "heroine" even grows embarrassed for applying her wild ideas from her "entertaining novels" to real life.

Plus, comparing Austen to Bronte is like comparing Thomas Hardy to Ernest Hemingway---Austen wrote P&P in 1813, Bronte wrote JE in 1847. By the time Bronte was writing, the novel shifted to the realist movement, just as Hardy was writing in a Pre-Modernist world versus Hemingway's modernist approach.

As to "maybe staging a wedding scene was boring," that's just going a little too far into aestheticism. Literary critics are taught to read absence as well as presence--the fact that Austen left the ceremony out of the novel is as significant as if she were to put it in the novel. You're tackling Austen from a totally New Critical, and somewhat aesthetic, standpoint. The point is, she left the ceremony out—she left married life of the heroines out in a majority of her novels—and, as critics, we need to ask why? Evidence from several theoretical schools state it is because Austen believed a woman’s freedom to end with marriage—a very realistic proposal considering what marriage looked like in the nineteenth century.

To look at main sources of the criticism to which I am referring regarding Jane Austen, first look at Gilbert and Gubar’s Madwoman in the Attic, specifically the chapters on Austen. Within it, you will see how Austen critiques society, instructs female readers, and argues that patriarchal society limits the “space” of women and their art in late-Eighteenth / early-nineteenth –century England. Gilbert and Gubar are considered the authorities on many writers, specifically female writers, of the nineteenth century.


To answer the "Newcomer" post, the idea of the heroines marrying solely for love is laughable. Does any Austen heroine end up with a husband who does not have a good estate (excluding Elinor Dashwood, but Marianne marries the wealthy Brandon)? Even by the end of Persuasion? In NA, it is even suggested that Catherine may be about money---look at her last name!! Morland--- mor/land--larger estate. And, as I believe I addressed in the first paragraph, not all of Austen's women are strong, nor do they all have sense: Emma is educated on sense by the end of her novel, as is Catherine, Marianne Dashwood, etc. Even by reading NA or Emma alone, one can see clearly that Austen is educating her heroine, while educating her readers at the same time.

[sciencefan]

Thank you.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments and remember that when we post our opinions, there will be people who disagree with them as well as those who agree.