In Pride and Prejudice
Elizabeth and Charlotte embody two different philosophies about marriage. Elizabeth is a romantic. Her father observes, “you could be neither happy
nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband,” (356). She turns down two marriage proposals it
would have been logical to accept on the grounds that she does not love the
man. First she rejects Mr. Collins, who,
as the heir of her father’s estate, is in a position to provide a secure future
for herself, her mother, and her sisters when her father dies. Elizabeth’s decision, fueled only by emotion,
is so impractical that her mother seems like the sensible one, telling her
husband to “insist upon her marrying him,” (109). Elizabeth’s refusal of Darcy is even more
impractical given his vast fortune and social status and her lack of other
prospects. Nevertheless, she turns him
down for want of love. As a modern audience
especially, we cheer this decision, but given her social position and familial
obligations this is rather shocking behavior on Elizabeth’s part.
Charlotte,
unlike Elizabeth, is a pragmatist.
Charlotte herself tells Elizabeth, “I am not romantic you know. I never was,” (123). She takes Mr. Collins for the social and
financial security he provides and gets exactly what she pays for. She has her own home, the prospect of
inheriting Longbourn, and proximity to Lady Catherine in exchange for tolerating
her husband’s company.
Charlotte
seems relatively satisfied with the bargain she strikes, but Elizabeth’s
rewards are far greater. At the end
of the story she is married to a wealthy man she loves and is mistress of Pemberly
estate. Had she been practical in the
first place and married Mr. Collins as Charlotte did she would have only had a
small home with only a small estate to look forward to and an unpleasant
companion. Elizabeth is clearly rewarded
for being a romantic rather than a pragmatist.
Charlotte sells her chance at love for security and a few worldly
pleasures, while Elizabeth, who prizes love above all else, receives it in
abundance along with financial benefits that put Charlotte’s to shame. Austen is clearly extolling the virtues of
romanticism and decrying pragmatism when it comes to matrimony through this
story.
While I agree with your argument, I believe that some qualification is necessary. Although Austen shows partiality toward marriage for love instead of money, this partiality is ultimately limited to marriage with wealthy men as both Mrs. Gardener’s comments and the treatment of Lydia’s marriage demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Gardener, when she fears that Elizabeth is falling in love with Wickham, tells Elizabeth that she should be wary of forming an affection with him “which the want of fortune would make so very imprudent”(Austen 142). Thus, she sees Wickham, despite what she believes to be his good character, disqualified as a suitable object of love and marriage by his poverty. Her statement is particularly significant due both to her positive depiction in the novel and the fact Elizabeth agrees to follow her advice, consequently suggesting that Austen might have viewed said advice as sensible.
Additionally, the narrative’s attitude toward Mr. Wickham’s marriage with Lydia demonstrates the limits of Austen’s appreciation of marriage for love. Lydia elopes with him because he is “the one man in the world” that she loves(Austen 276). However, the text expresses a negative attitude to this marriage, with Elizabeth commenting that the two of them would suffer misery in their poor marriage because they only married “because their passions were stronger than their virtue,” thus, with the contemptuous attitude the text has to the idea that the couple is actually in love, demonstrating the dismissive attitude the text has toward marriage for love to anyone other than grooms wealthy and virtuous(Austen 296).
I think that this idea can also be seen in some of the marriages of the parents, like the Bennets, the Lucas’s and the Gardeners. Very early in the novel, we can see that the Bennets do not have a very happy marriage. While it is not particularly straining, they do not fight often or behave rudely to each other, they are clearly not in love the way we might expect a married couple to be. The Bennets have been married for “three and twenty years” and Mrs. Bennet still did not “understand [Mr. Bennet’s] character (7). The Lucas family was described similarly to the Bennets, with Lady Lucas being good, but “not too clever” (19). The Gardeners provide a different perspective, as they appear to be more in love than the other couples. They are both quite clever, and are able to have real conversations, whereas the previously mentioned families are not. In the novel, the ability for good conversation seems very important, as that was part of what made Mr. Collins so unappealing to Elizabeth. It is therefore likely to assume that many of these marriages were made much like those in the book, quickly. After meeting an eligible partner, much time was not lost before the idea of marriage arose, and it was thought that if you did not act quickly, the chance might slip away altogether. This quickness of marriage is what led many of these couples to unhappiness, as they did not fully understand the person they were marrying. This explains Charlotte’s case, as she says “it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life” (24).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Jane Austen is encouraging marriage for love over marriage for pragmatism using the outcomes of the marriages of Charlotte and Elizabeth. It is very interesting to me, however, that this is the case, as Austen seems to condemn irrational decisions and judgements in other ways. Elizabeth is proclaimed to be a very good judge of character, both by herself and by other characters. This judgement is done mostly based on her first impressions of the person and what she has heard from others about them, so they are not founded in much fact, but based mostly on “gut feeling.” This tendency of hers, however, is reprimanded when she judges two very important characters very incorrectly: Mr. Wickham and Mr. Darcy. When learning about her mis-judgement of Wickham, she proclaims: “How despicably I have acted!... I, who have prided myself on my discernment!- I, who have valued myself on my abilities!” (201-202). This revelation both chastises her pride and her rashness, showing that one should take time to get to know someone before passing judgement on them. This, however, does contradict the point that is made by the marriages: that one should marry for love and not based on what is practical, that you should follow your heart and not your brain. I find this dichotomy very interesting and intriguing.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth’s romantic notions which include a desire for love—or, at the very least, a good match in a partner—certainly contrast to Charlotte’s pragmatism. This idea of pragmatism drove many real marriages throughout the Regency period as well as several within the novel, including the marriage of Elizabeth’s own parents. By agreeing to marry one another due to their initial chemistry, the Bennet parents are doomed to “an end to all real affection” and a relationship that relies on Mrs. Bennet’s follies amusing her husband (228). Elizabeth’s awareness of the dangers of an improper match stem from the relationship her pragmatic—yet silly—mother has with Mr. Bennet.
ReplyDeleteHowever, romantic notions do not serve as the driving force behind Elizabeth’s rejection of Mr. Darcy’s proposal. Though still driven by emotion, her response is out of contempt for the man rather than a desire for a better relationship further down the road. His proposal of marriage, filled with complaints about her family, causes Elizabeth to be “roused to resentment … she lost all compassion in anger” (185). Beyond his insensitive words and manner in the situation, she believes him to be responsible for ruining Jane’s prospects with Mr. Bingley as well as harming Mr. Wickham—only one of which is true. Elizabeth’s verbal lashing of Mr. Darcy illustrates that she does not simply want a man she could love as her husband. Rather, Darcy is “the last man in the world whom [she] could ever be prevailed on to marry” (188). This decision may not seem to be a sound economic decision for a woman with an entailed estate during the Regency; however, Elizabeth believed Mr. Darcy’s actions at the time to be the antithesis of what she believed to be proper, not a simple annoyance.