Can anyone throw some light on how closely the characters in Pride and Prejudice reflect the culture of the community?
Printable View
Can anyone throw some light on how closely the characters in Pride and Prejudice reflect the culture of the community?
I don't understand why someone would ask the question. How could we... almost 200 years later... know what the culture of the community was like back then? I would think it would only be after we knew what it was like that we would know how closely it reflected it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG74
The book itself does not reveal this to the reader. A person has to read outside documents to learn the answer to the question... at least that is the impression I am under.
I have learned... from outside sources... for instance that Austen's promotion of the idea that a couple should marry for reasons of "similarity" was a relatively new concept. Before that, marriages were "arranged" ahead of time, usually by the parents, and was mostly an economic liason.
Austen shows many different examples of the reasons people choose to marry through the different marriages she portrays, but the only people she portrays as "truly happy" are Elizabeth and Jane, who married not only because of attraction (Bingley - Isn't she the most beautiful creature you have ever beheld - or something like that) but also because of "similarity" (Elizabeth telling her father - We are so similar. Mr. Bennet delineates Jane's and Bingley's similar attributes... they shall be cheated by their servants, etc.)
Frankly, while I believe "similarity" in some aspects is important, it's also true that "opposites attract" and therefore can be a complement to each other and balance each other. In my opinion, it's not a great match when you both have all the same faults. :p
Contrary to popular argument, I believe Charlotte's marriage was "happy enough", not unhappy, as some believe. (Their little "olive branch" (baby) on the way, was a sign of this, imo.)
The Bennets and the Wickhams are portrayed as unhappy.
More information on the culture of Austen's day can be found here...
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html
I agree that most marriages would be based on reasonable arguments (and not 'but mum, I love him') as money (foremost), but were arranged marriages from childhood (like in India, f.e.) also common?
I aways thought that they took their youngsters to London for the Season to make them (hopefully) choose from the 'stock' so to say :p. And the stock could be bought with fortune, character and title. One stayed in one's own league. Though someone with a title and little money, like Anne Eliot, went usually for the money and the man who married her for the title. Whereas a man like Darcy might choose one woman for her manners and nobility (natrually, he cannot be seen with a middleclass girl...). If he was really avaricious, he would make sure she had some dosh, but that was less important than having the apearance of it only. Just imagine someone who is in trade shouting her head off :sick:.
I guess some of those marriages had been arranged, as is mentioned by Lady Catherine de Burgh...
I would rather say the higher up the social ladder you were, the more the circumstances were artificially "arranged" so as to produce an acceptable union for a man or woman. Perhaps, to all intents and purposes this is the same thing, but the distinction is, I think, required. It was believed it kept out the riff-raff. The malicious nature of Bingley's sisters throughout the book but especially when they were when discussing Jane's relations is bad enough, imagine if the child Anne de Bourgh was caught playing with the shoemakers children!
Subjection to the absolute tyranny of the class system and the notion of unwavering obediance to a person's guardians often meant daughters, sons or other dependants were sometimes openly cast-off and struck from an inheritance by their families if they married below their level. At the very least, from that point onwards, they were usually denied the society of their family. This fact is not restricted to the upper levels of society, it is prevalent in the lower levels too although Jane Austen doesn't ever deal with either of two extremes, so perhaps this is irrelevant.
Whilst the author seems at first glance to hold this concept as a nonsense, it is evident she abides by it. She takes great pains to have her heroines marry at least their equal in fortune, if not in rank. No poor baker's sons for them!
Lady de Bourgh's interview with Elizabeth at Longbourne is one of the most important scenes in the book, it shows the true nature of the class system within it, besides being a magnificient display of "girl power".
But all of this, I think does not answer, fully, the original question-how each character reflects the culture of the community. It is but one element. I think we have to discuss Mr Collins.
A living, as it was described, was often the gift of the local landowner, and it was common practice for a younger son, nephew or family friend to be given it. It was not even necessary that the parish be their place of residence, and not unheard of that the only place you can catch the sight of a Vicar was in his pulpit-I think Mary Crawford says something to this effect when she is berating Edmund Bertram's decision to enter the clergy ( Mansfield Park). It is the case that non-family member was therefore at the mercy of the gift-giver for his living, it could be as easily taken from them to be given to some idiot younger relation.
Mr Collins, fool that he is, is wise enough to show his obseqious manner toward Lady Catherine de Burgh-it is perfectly understandable, and as she is a proud, supercilious woman who likes to keep the distinctions preserved, she, in turn, is flattered by his manner.
He is absolutely correct when, during his proposal scene with Elizabeth, he makes mention of the fact that he is (seemingly) valued by Lady C de B, invited to dine about twice a week, as these are indeed circumstances highly in his favour, an indication that his living-his gift, is a secure one. He also has the addition advantage of being to inherit Longbourne when Mr Bennet dies. All sympathy toward him is lost, however, when, in his vanity, he just can't bring himself to believe that he is actually rejected. Charlotte Lucas is quite right when she encourages him to propose to her. It does provide her with life-long financial security, he may be a fool, but his prospects are attractive.
While I agree with you on the first score about the implications of the system, I don't agree on the sencond. I don't think that marrying outside of your class was in first instance only a affront, while that idea might have grown throughout history. I rather think that it has grown to that idea, because it was logical.
We must keep in mind that the times were different: while we have now dishwashers, hot water that comes out of the wall, clean cookers that we can just turn on, etc. they did not have that in Regency England. We do not need a whole load of servants to do the same work, even if we are rich. Running a household/family cost a lot of time. One had to get up at 6 to get the fire going in order to make breakfast and to have the family warm in winter. If the washing had to be done, it was a huge task that was only done once a month or so, because it took so much hot water and energy. I expect that washhouses came into existence just because single women (with children too small to help) were at a loss how to wring their own washing alone. When the time of the roll came, it was much easier for a woman to do it alone. One became dirty because of the fire, started to smell because of it.
If a woman was raised in a family with a view of a life of leisure, there is no way she could have pulled this off in an efficient and satisfactory manner, taught to her by her mother from the age of 6.
It was also not common for a woman to know arithmetic properly to work in a shop f.i. If Darcy looks intently at Elizabeth for being able to identify a dozen and being able to divide by two when she learns that he 'do[es] not know half a dozen accomplised ladies' amongst his circle of acquaintances, then it might have been a little short-sighted of a baker to take girl who cannot count as his shopkeeper. The only things these ladies learned at best was embroider, read, play, sew (at best, if they had to sew their on clothing and tart up their own bonnets), decorate, draw... She could manage a household, but not in financial terms. The husband/brother (for unmarried ladies whose father had died) was the one who concerned himself with his financial means and who gave his ladies an allowance per year. Out of that they paid their occasional purchases. Clothing for a lady, like Elizabeth Bennet has become as wife of Darcy, was probaly paid by a credit-account, paid once a year, at a credited shop, if in town, where they made the clothes for Mrs Darcy. Possibly Darcy had a tailor for himself and one female one for his wife who would make the clothing for him and her if they were at the estate of Pemberley. He would not have tolerated that his wife went to buy a bonnet in the shop, pulls it apart and then sews on her own ribbons. The contrast between Emma and Harriet Smith is great in that respect. Silk warehouses could also have come into play in order to choose the fabric for such clothing, but never would the lady of the hous, like Caroline Bingley, lower heself to sew her own dress.
We must keep in mind that Elizabeth Bennet comes from a relatively poor family. They pull bonnets apart and make an argument about it. I expect that a reasonable amount of sewing went on. Sewn by hand (before the sewing machine was invented), such a dress would take an awful amount of hours, not comparable to the price of the fabric bought. Hence, dresses were extremely expensive, so poorer people sewed stuff themselves, because they did not have to pay for the hours put into the work. I do not expect that a lady like Ann de Bourgh would have learned how to make a dress. To tart it up with embroidery, maybe; to embroidr her own handkerchiefs, maybe; to embroider her own scarfs, too, but not to sew the thing together.
As I said, in the best case they knew arithmetic, and they knew how to manage a household in terms of servant-management, not in terms of finances.
As Knightley says is Emma about Harriet (raised in a school for gentlemen's daughters): 'She has been taught nothing useful' and he found that Robert Martin could have dchosen better. Indeed, she has not been taught how to do household tasks (something Martin's sisters and mother were taught, undoubtedly) and so will be a burden at first because she will have to be shown. In Summer, it was often the case that preserving was done with the family because the servant(s')'s hands were not enough to do everything in time. Washing, washing up and such daily tasks, they probably had a maid for, but when an extra workload came on, there needed to be some extra hands. Put a lady there liike Ann de Bourgh, and everything goes belly-up.
For gentlemen, the case was much the same. Either they were privately educated on the estate and then they knew everything to get by: arithmetic, geography (in the best case), music, reading, management, bookkeeping (in order to oversee the accounts and invest wisely), history,... Or they went to university in order to be able to go into a profession like law. Priesthood was in itself not a very good option because it earned very low. Only by marrying rich, having a large inheritance (mostly unlikely, because the priest was not the heir) or coming onto a good situation (large allowance of the private landowner and large vicarage), a priest could live well. Heirs of large estates like Darcy did not prepare for any profession as such or did not go to university. So, in case of marrying low and being disinherited, they had a big problem (like Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensiblity). They fell without income and could do nothing to earn any money, because they had no skills. Certainly for a man this was a problem, because he had to support his family, if he had one or wanted one.
Austen indeed makes the whole class-system out to be ridiculous, but I don't think it is a major flaw. One cannot stop such a system when people are conditioned by their education to be able to do only the things that are expected of them. I believe she didn't see the whole calss-system as ridiculous, but only the notion that one who is rich, should marry equally rich and hate his/her partner. In that system Ann de Bourgh and Darcy would have made a marriage pair, but would not have suited each other in the least. Elizabeth would have married a Mr Collins and would have been tolerably comfortable, but would have hated her husband. Why not, if it doesn't concern one to have more money (like Mr Elton justly required), marry for something else than money? What moves a Darcy to have Ann de Bourgh or Caroline Bingley for a wife? Not their money, because he doesn't need it. Then what else? What moves a Bingley to have a Georgiana Darcy? Not her money, because he has enough of his own.
I don't see the fact that no-one marries really low as a major flaw, but just a logical consequence of conditioning. If one learns nothing but how to do nothing in a gracious manner, then one is condemned to keep doing that. Otherwise, one runs into trouble. Putting it off as a major flaw is a little too modern a view.
I edited and removed the major flaw bit, because upon reflection it is also a strength of her work, in that she steers clear of the topics upon which she has no experience. I now can't decide if it is a flaw or not-maybe both.
You're quite correct, you couldn't ask even Fanny Price to run the local chip-shop, she was suffering headaches because her brothers were loud and boisterous.
I would have liked to read Jane Austen upon just such a subject, to show how foolish it was to bring daughters up this way.
Kiki, your post was a very interesting read and I learned a couple of things I didn't know before. Thanks for sharing.
I'm just thinking about what Lady Catherine says about Elizabeth being of "inferior birth"... and Elizabeth defending herself as being a Gentleman's daughter... Darcy being a Gentleman... and I thought... a Gentleman's son.
The impression I have is that Mr. Bennet and Darcy were both landowners who rented out their land and oversaw the welfare not only of their own immediate family but also of those whom they oversaw... sort of like a microcosm of a kingdom.
chapter 43 - speaking of Darcy
""He is the best landlord, and the best master,'' said she, "that ever lived. Not like the wild young men now-a-days, who think of nothing but themselves. There is not one of his tenants or servants but what will give him a good name. Some people call him proud; but I am sure I never saw any thing of it. To my fancy, it is only because he does not rattle away like other young men.''"
Americans have been brainwashed to disdain business owners, but there are those who do it well, and I admire them. Running a successful business, such as a farm, is complicated and difficult. And for Darcy to have such an excellent reputation among his tenants means he is doing his job very well. Austen represents him as a man of utmost integrity and work ethic.
I suppose there was a difference in callibre between Mr Bennet and Mr Darcy. Darcy's estate is immense, so is his income of 10000 pounds (the equivalent of 300 000 pounds nowadays). Mr Bennet's is rather smaller at 2000 pounds. Still something handsome, but not even a tenth of what Darcy's is. So here we have two people who are maybe of the same class in the absolute sense (both are landowners), but not in the practical sense (they do not have the same amount of money). So, indeed, Elizabeth finds that Darcy and she are equal in an absolute sense: both are children of gentlemen. Yet, Lady Catherine finds that both are not the same, as both do not have the same amount of money. However, it is interesting to note that the Fitzwilliams were nobility. The Repubic of Pemberley puts a nice chart together... http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppdrmtis.html#index5 As nobility, seen from an absolute viewpoint, Lady Catherine finds that Elizabeth is "only" middleclass... With a maternal grandfather who had a profession! Mr Darcy, on the other hand, is not only Lady Catherine's nephew, but a descendant Lady Anne Darcy (née Fitzwilliam) no less! If she can unite Anne de Bourgh (daughter of Lady Catherine de Bourgh née Fitzwlliam and Sir Lewis de Bourgh) and Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy (only half nobility), she creates a huge estate and dinasty as the son of Mr Darcy and Anne will be the heir of both families and the title of de Bourgh. In absolute terms Lady Anne Darcy was fairly highly born, as her father was an earl which ranks as high as a count. Lady Anne did a little worse than Lay Catherine (only marrying a commoner, but one with money and undoubtedly good connections), but Lady Catherine sees it as a message and a chance to keep Lewis de Bourgh's title in the family. As such, the heir of the couple will put Pemberley in the noble circuit. Althought Elizabeth finds that both she and Darcy are gentlemen's children, Lady Catherine is o the opinion hat the noble blood in Darcy actally mkes him worth a lot more than Lizzy (the granddaughter of an attorney no less!).
Sp, maybe she is right, but a little haughty about it. "I am nobility, and you are only middlesclass". That creates disdain amongst people and is not productive.
I believe landowners had a great responsibility. They could either be beasts, or they could not. If they were beasts they would ask unreasonable rents, could ask for unreasonable services to their landlords. Certainly in a country without real government in this respect, it was important to have not a nasty landlord. I am not sure how important it was to be a good landlord, though. At any rate, they got their money, even during the Irish Potatoe Famin, so in the end, it didn't really matter to themselves.
But you are right in the sense that he didn't have to be nice. Scott put it like this: "He who does good should not only be rewarded for the good he does, but he should also be rewarded for the bad he foregoes." (or something in that sense, Ivanhoe). I guess Darcy got rewarded? :)
Thanks for the compliment, Siencefan, but I always used to think that you knew such a lot... ;)
Well, you know what they say...
you learn something new every day. :)
Thanks all of you for your views. specially to sciencefan and kiki1982, both of your views are worth reading and thought provoking.
Yet, at the end of the novel all seem remarkably happy, even Mr Bennet with his new-found friend, Wickham. Charlotte has her little "olive branch", Mrs Bennet is happier than ever with married daughters, Wickham has extorted even more money from Mr Darcy, and Lydia has found as much happiness as such a light-weight would either expect or appreciate!Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
They all live happily ever after.
I don't see it that way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
or are you are being sarcastic?
No, I'm not, and I find your question almost startling. Pride and Prejudice is explicitly a comedy, and Austen's light-hearted irony begins at the first line and ends at the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Reading the latter half of the book, I became increasingly convinced that, in every paragraph, Jane Austen is ever so gently pulling my leg. The satisfactory resolution, for all characters in the ending, is a small part of a most amusing story. I think Austen intended us to laugh all the way. I did!
By contrast, I found Persuasion deeply moving.