However, before we can accept this supposition, we must recall that Elizabeth has already turned down two well-off potential husbands – one of them being Mr. Darcy himself! – in an attempt to hold out for true love and personal happiness. Her disgust at the proposal of the unbelievably boring and rude Mr. Collins was surpassed only by her shock at discovering that her best friend, Charlotte Lucas, had consented to marry him instead. Unabashedly mercenary, Ms. Lucas declares that marriage is a woman’s “pleasantest preservative from want” but that it is “uncertain of giving happiness” (p.103) (Jones, V., etc). Elizabeth, on the other hand, claims to believe in marriage for love, and holds her own individual happiness as a personal goal. This portrayal of the heroine as a creature of emotion and feeling, as opposed to a rational, logical and slightly more masculine figure, would assume Austen to be in favour of the theories of such feminist thinkers of the time as Mary Wollstonecraft – a staunch opposer of the writings of Edmund Burke.
What, then, is Austen’s stance towards marriage as seen in ‘Pride and Prejudice’? Is she a romantic feminist or a rural traditionalist? My personal belief is that Austen is neither – I would suggest that she, in fact, manages to reach a happy compromise between the two. Austen clearly applauds Elizabeth Bennet’s Wollstonecraftian behaviour in rushing across the countryside to Netherfield to take care of her sister Jane in her illness as she describes Elizabeth’s appearance afterwards in very favourable terms, and highlights how it contributes to Darcy’s growing attraction to her, mentioning “the brilliancy which exercise had given to her complexion” (p.30). However, it is also apparent that Austen is in support of the traditional Burkean notion of family and marriage, as the novel finishes with both Jane and Elizabeth happily and prosperously married to men who are their social betters. Both women marry above themselves and secure financial and social stability for both themselves and their families, thus falling in line with what would have been expected of well-brought up young rural ladies. Austen’s achievement in writing ‘Pride and Prejudice’ was, therefore, to show that Wollstonecraftian femininity could exist alongside and within the rural traditionalist ideals of Edmund Burke.
Marriage in the time of Jane Austen was neither a religious sacrament (as the predominant English religion of the time, and Austen’s religion, Anglicanism, did not view marriage as a sacrament) nor a symbol of romantic love. In Enlightenment England, marriage was rather a necessity, the ultimate aim of all self-respecting young women. Women were, from birth, trained for their inevitable final position as a mother, wife, chef, and household head. Education was not about schooling in the ways and knowledge of the world, but rather the acquisition of a rich store of ‘accomplishments’ – painting, musical talent, singing, embroidery - essentially the marketable skills of a desirable, and socially respectable, wife. Not only was marriage expected by men to be the desire of all women, but it was also, in fact, a means to an end. Women married to secure their status in society and often to improve their social standing, or ‘move up a rung’ in the all-pervading class hierarchy of the era. ‘Pride And Prejudice’ was no exception to this rule. Take the most obvious examples of Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. On a first glance, these women marry for love and for happiness – ‘Pride And Prejudice’ is clearly a classic romance novel. However, constantly bubbling away on the backburner is the undeniable reality of the Bennets’ impending impoverishment, should they fail to secure rich husbands. Effectively disinherited by the fine print of their father’s will, the future of their whole family is staked on their choice of suitors, now that they have reached marriageable age – as is reflected very effectively by Mrs. Bennet’s neuroticism!
Aside from the personal difficulties of the Bennet family, there lies in the background of ‘Pride And Prejudice’ the grim historical reality of the time. 1790’s England was a time of “political crisis and social mobility” (Jones, V., etc), a time when the stability and power of the rural ruling class was threatened by the upwardly mobile ‘nouveau riche’ merchant class and the increasingly outspoken and demanding working class. Marriage, family – these were seen as social institutions, traditions essential for the preservation of the supremacy of the ruling gentry that the Darcys, the Bingleys, and to a lesser extent the Bennets. Marriage was, for the members of this class, a means of preserving their social position, protecting the integrity of the class structure, and upholding the rural traditions essential for their survival.
When we say then that marriage in Jane Austen’s ‘Pride And Prejudice’ can be viewed as being a kind of social contract, we mean in so far as it enabled the women of the time to amass fortune and social respect, and allowed their men to protect the ruling culture which was threatened at this time by outside political influences. Marriage was a mutually beneficial agreement between the man and the woman – in exchange for the woman’s inheritance (if any), body, and the social respectability and support of the rural traditions that possession of an ‘accomplished’ wife offered, the man gave financial support and social status. This leads to charges of marriage being akin to “legal prostitution” (Wollstonecraft, Mary: A Vindication of The Rights of Woman) – women were seen by some as selling their bodies for societal betterment. Mr. Darcy is naturally the object of the mercenary desires of the women of Pemberley, as he is rumoured to be in receipt of a fortune of ten thousand pounds a year – it has been said by some commentators that Elizabeth Bennet merely falls prey to these mercenary desires, and engages in a marriage as a social contract, using romantic love as an excuse, not a reason, for unity with Darcy. I must disagree – I feel this argument has a critical flaw, in so far as Elizabeth not only turns down Darcy at his first proposal, while being fully aware of his riches (although perhaps not yet confronted with all the glory of Pemberley), but also refuses the advances of the well-off, yet exceedingly boring, Mr. Collins. If Elizabeth Bennet were purely mercenary in her designs, why then would she turn down two apparently suitable matches in an attempt to hold out for her goal of personal happiness?
How then can we summarise the view of marriage as a social contract in ‘Pride And Prejudice’? Firstly, I think it is important to note that Austen did not set out to write a feminist text, denouncing the marital and romantic traditions of the ruling class. Her heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, does finally settle down with a man who would have been viewed in anybody’s eyes as being a most suitable and socially acceptable match for her. Darcy provides wealth, respect, security, and an elevated position in society – all of which were the most desirable attributes for a prospective husband of the era. However, the novel is not entirely traditionalist, praising as it does the actions of a heroine who defies her mother in order to please herself long-term, who engages in plenty of outdoor activity usually viewed as unbecoming to a young lady of status, and who openly speaks her mind regarding the behaviour of Mr. Darcy. As I stated earlier, Austen seems to come to a happy compromise between Wollstonecraftian feminism and the staunch traditionalism of such writers as Hannah More. Similarly, Austen appears to compromise between two marital viewpoints – that which would view marriage purely as a social contract, a means to an end, and that which would promote a more romantic version of marital unity. Marriage as a social contract is, then, rampant in ‘Pride And Prejudice’ – we can see it clearly in the marriage of Charlotte Lucas to Mr. Collins – and could be seen as being something of a necessity to young women, to preserve their social standing. However, it is clear that Austen does not neglect a romantic viewpoint, presenting as she does two beautiful young women who are both madly in love with their chosen husbands.
References:
Austen, Jane, ‘Pride And Prejudice’, (1813)
Burke, Edmund, ‘Reflections on The Revolution in France’, (1790)
Carter, Angela, ‘The Sadeian Woman’, (1978)
Jones, V., ‘Introduction to “Pride And Prejudice”’, (1996), London: Penguin Classics
Wollstonecraft, Mary, ‘A Vindication of The Rights of Woman’, (1792)
