‘A whole Gothic world had come to grief…there was no embroidered feet on the
green sward; the cream and dappled unicorns had fled.’
Waugh employs deliberate archaisms to describe this fairytale world, and through his highly visual language allows us to understand that Tony has been living under illusions for too long. The elaborate medieval imagery is alluring, but I believe is used to express Waugh’s point that living in the past is dangerous and may have been one cause of his failed marriage.
Another ambivalent authorial technique Waugh often employs is the use of motifs such as:
‘Hard cheese on Tony’
which is seen as being pro Brenda or:
‘It was a way she had….’
which is seen as being pro Tony. Yet both lend themselves equally to interpretation for either camp in their irony. Tony espouses the values of an earlier era, which has caused problems in the marriage, Brenda is of the contemporary social scene, which has equally put strain on the marriage. Evelyn Waugh again remains ambivalent as he shows how living in the past is dangerous but equally, how the contemporary social scene of London can be precarious. Both characters are the targets of Waugh’s satire as the flowery language of medievalism and the sophisticated slang of Brenda’s era make clear. He seems as J.F. Stopp says, both curiously attached and detached. Yet, consequently, this balanced perspective may be similar to that of Austen. She may seem to be more partial to Mr Bennet as she shows herself to be more understanding of his condition but she also demonstrates to us that she is aware he sometimes ignores his paternal duty:
‘..they are all silly and ignorant like other girls….’
Equally, Austen may see Mrs Bennet as an interfering fool, but she is also sympathetic to her desire to marry off her daughters. I believe Austen does not approve of the methods which Mrs Bennet uses, but is understanding of the terrible fear of a mother of five impecunious girls. Austen, therefore, like Waugh is shown to be an equivocal author. She may not agree with Mrs Bennet’s strategies, and in fact she presents them as amusing, but she is aware that for the majority of women, especially those without much money, it is the only possible future if they are not to be dependent on their parents and the object of ridicule. As Bridget Hill stated in her article ‘Eighteenth Century Women:’
‘…the fear of becoming ‘Old Maids’….ensured that however bad a marriage
might be it was regarded as infinitely preferable to remaining single.’
Therefore, Austen’s attitude is extraordinarily complex. She presents Mrs Bennet both as a target of satire but also as a prudent and hardheaded mother.
The most prudential marriage in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ is that of Charlotte and Mr Collins. Through Elizabeth’s first reaction to Charlotte’s ‘prudent’ engagement to Mr Collins being perhaps excessive, certainly impolite, we may believe Austen does not approve of the marriage:
‘Engaged to Mr Collins! Impossible my dear Charlotte.’
Yet when Elizabeth later visits Charlotte at Hunsford, she has to concede that Charlotte’s management ‘was all done very well,’ which allows us to believe that Austen was supportive of the marriage. Jane Austen was a hard headed realist who given Charlotte’s circumstances sees this marriage, based on Charlotte’s shockingly satirical:
‘Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance…’
as better than Charlotte not marrying at all.
Similarly, in a ‘Handful of Dust’, Waugh often uses the technique of authorial silence. It is particularly noticeable at the closing of the novel with the prudential marriage of Jock and Brenda. This is certainly a marriage of convenience, as Jock needs Brenda to further his career by using her superb social skills. Likewise Brenda needs Jock to help efface her affair and restore her place in society:
‘She didn’t show much widowly grief. It didn’t take her long to get hitched up again.’
Jock has helped Brenda escape from the coldness of an unbefriending society, yet the comic motif attached to Jock:
‘Know anything about pigs?’
points to an emptiness that bodes ill for this marriage of mutual need. When Jock breaks the news of the affair of Brenda and Beaver to Tony he is seen as being unpleasantly insensitive:
‘Yes, I’m afraid it is. Everyone has known for some time.’
making us believe that on an emotional level his callous nature will not bode well in his relationship with Brenda. Therefore, once again, we are forced back on our own judgement as with the match of Charlotte and Mr Collins in ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ Ultimately the ambivalence has to be conceded: the ironic nature of both authors throughout their novels leads to double meanings and the balancing of conflicting interpretations. Therefore here, we have to weigh expediency with principle, romance with realism, to decide whether we term these relationships successful or otherwise.
The eighteenth century law of primogeniture led to another aspect of the prudential marriage, which Austen explores in ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ Marriages were sometimes arranged so as to keep money within the family. Certainly the ownership and transmission of wealth via marriage is a pre-occupation of Lady Catherine de Bourgh as she is determined that her daughter Anne, will marry Mr Darcy, a match so far removed from romantic notions and personal predilection that Austen’s satire is virulent:
‘From their infancy they have been intended for each other. It was the favourite
wish of his mother as well as of hers.’
This importance of money is seen in Elizabeth’s relations with Wickham and Colonel Fitzwilliam. Mrs Gardiner warns her not to become too involved with Wickham:
‘ Do not involve yourself…in an affection which the want of fortune would make so
very imprudent.’
We can therefore see that the cash nexus features closely with marriage in another sense. Young men, often young sons, have a tendency to try and raise their failing fortunes via a prudential, advantageous match, something Elizabeth experiences regularly in the novel.
Females needed the status of marriage to survive in the patriarchal society of the eighteenth century. Marriage promised security and a transmission of wealth allowing ladies to achieve a desired status. Austen shows a good deal of female energy being devoted to strategies evidently pursuing the male. I believe this is most apparent when we see Mrs Bennet not allowing Jane to use the carriage when she visits Mr Bingley at Netherfield. This is seen in a satirical light. Mr Bennet’s cynical comment:
‘If your daughter should have a dangerous fit of illness…it would be a comfort to know
that it was all in pursuit of Mr Bingley, and under your orders.’
places him almost in the role of authorial spokesperson on the extremity of Mrs Bennet’s devices, showing he disagrees with his wife’s intervention.
The much-stressed entail is a pointer to the fact that economically life favoured the male and restricted the female. Deborah Kaplan remarked in ‘Jane Austen Among Women’:
‘The social and economic advantages that occurred to young men merely because
of gender were vast, their immense powers of choice, meant that the powerless women
had to ally herself with this agenda. Their behaviour is understandable and even prudential.’
Women are put under great strain to find a man. Charlotte Lucas goes to great extremes, in a panic driven state to find a companion. Yet even rich women feel pressured to find a man. Caroline Bingley is a target of satire in her ruthless pursuit of Darcy. Mr Darcy is clearly aware of Caroline Bingley’s amorous gestures towards him. His short, sharp replies such as:
‘.. there is meanness in all the arts, which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable.’
leave Miss Bingley speechless, showing his indifference to her. To the reader this represents Miss Bingley as a ridiculed character. This causes her to be afraid to continue the conversation, as when Mr Darcy speaks with this decisive tone she is unable to fantasise about their imaginative relationship. Austen therefore cleverly uses the sub-text of silence to develop an ambivalent, cutting atmosphere, which reveals her awareness of the difficulty of sexual relationships.
It was almost impossible to keep sexual relationships private in the eighteenth century, as the sexual mores meant that courtship was conducted in the public eye. In ‘Pride and Prejudice’ several couples are seen to bear public scrutiny as they try to overcome criticism from society. I believe the unconventional relationship between Lydia Bennet and Mr Wickham receives most social perusal; we can see their relationship in private interpersonal terms can yield no good. Wickham is criticised for being immoral and weak as he openly allows himself to be seduced by a woman he does not admire. Lydia on the other hand, is too infantile to realise the effect this will have on her relatives, as she looks for an adventure:
‘Good gracious! When I went away, I am sure I had no more idea of being married
till I came back again! Though I thought it would be very good fun if I was.’
We see clearly society’s reaction to the relationship. They delight in the misfortune of others, which shows the malicious, black side of civilisation:
‘All Meryton seemed striving to blacken the man, who, but three months before, had
been almost an angel of light.’
Waugh in his presentation of the 1920’s affluent, well-heeled groups of society develops a picture of this cold hearted, unbefriending world. As in ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ individuals relish in the downfall of others. This society supports immoral companionships, as affairs were a common aspect of this society. One such character, Lady Cockpurse relishes this superficial society: ‘Good morning, darling, what’s the dirt today?’
She thrives upon gossip; this is the most important aspect of her daily routine. This shows how society lives vicariously, everyone being interested in scandalous discussions.
Waugh has a unique authorial method of displaying his paradoxical view of 1920s society. In his use of symbols and metaphors, ‘A Handful of Dust’ is shown to be vividly different from ‘Pride and Prejudice.’ The recurring jungle metaphor indicates Waugh’s satirical view of London as a primitive, animalistic society. In society, Polly Cockpurse is seen as being a flea-eating monkey, Mrs Beaver as a yoghurt gobbling businesswoman and John Beaver ‘the cub’ signifying a young, uncivilised beast. All of these metaphors help us to imagine what London was like at this time, a cold, uncongenial city where once you were no longer the subject of gossip, survival was a dangerous struggle.
Towards the end of the novel, Tony trades in his life in London for the real jungle of Brazil. Waugh cleverly, through flashbacks, presents several similarities between the two different worlds. He shows both Tony and Brenda suffering mentally and physically even though one is in the real jungle of Brazil and the other in the metaphorical jungle of London. Moreover, I believe there is a serious meaning behind Waugh’s comic vision. We have seen that happiness is hard to find and the cruelty of human relations especially those expressed through the sexes is the main cause of this difficulty. The final metaphor of the novel sends us a message, revealing why relationships in the 1920s were so unconventional:
‘That little vixen…got her brush bitten off during the night. Must have got it through
the wire into the next cage. Tricky birds foxes.’
The metaphor of the fox is also a metaphor of London society, as civilised people like the foxes often turn on each other given the least chance. Everyone is out to defend self, so is unwilling to think about anyone else. Waugh himself, even, seems unconcerned by the extremely malicious environment he has presented, showing himself to be amused rather than indignant at society’s actions.
‘Pride and Prejudice’ on the other hand is a warmer novel as the central relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth is truly affectionate and based upon equality of intellect, a true knowledge of each other’s character, characters which balance each other, a relationship which was pursued over a valuable period of time and a true aspiration to please each other and put the other first. Elizabeth is triumphant because she admits her mistakes and amends her ‘pride’ and ‘prejudice’, which leaves her free to marry. Elizabeth’s rebellious energies change Darcy. He responds differently to his social and economic privileges after contact with Elizabeth, which again, makes him open to marry.
Yet there are several different interpretations of the ending. Firstly, there is the feminist view that through marriage Elizabeth will ‘dwindle by degrees into a wife.’ The critic Judith Lowder Newton in her article, ‘Women, Power and Subversion’ believes that by the end of the novel, there is a decline in Elizabeth. Her power has been over ridden by marriage so that eventually her female vitality will be dissolved:
‘...marriage demands resignation even as it prompts rejoicing and there is a
flickering suspicion that the best is over.’
I disagree with this view, as even though Austen may not be able to see marriage as in itself a perfect resolution, signified by the continual list of shattered and insufficient marriages, she does not dismiss marriage completely. I therefore believe it is important for her to show us the necessary characteristics for a successful marriage.
Secondly, there is the view that the end of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ may just be as intelligent marriage of resolution. As the critic Karen Newman says:
‘Marriage is the reaching of self-knowledge, the overcoming of egoism, the mark
of psychic development.’
Two individuals have resolved their differences and decided to get married therefore not making any particular statement, but, realising they have found a perfect match, act upon this. I believe Jane Austen’s reasoning goes further though. She shows through Darcy and Elizabeth a blissfully jubilant marriage, not of convenience but of desire. They will have money, but neither married because of it. Both characters have received a reward, a marriage of love, for the self-truths they have faced and overcome. I suspect Jane Austen wants to embody in the novel all the qualities of a good marriage. As the critic Stuart Tave expressed it:
‘…in this marriage two properly humbled people have learned to bear mortification
and rise above it through love.’
In conclusion, both novels have deep, informative messages, which gives their composition extreme relevance. As the novels were written in different times, there are obvious social changes, which are recognisable throughout, causing characters to have noticeably different opinions, particularly to sexual relations exterior to marriage and divorce. In their different structures the novels also stand apart. Both authors regularly employ a satirical mode to explain how unconventional couples, failed marriages, and society’s immense satisfaction in the misfortune of unsuccessful companionships can often be seen as comic. In ‘Pride and Prejudice’ though there is a beneficial element showing the serious qualities needed for a sincere marriage, something entirely lacking in ‘A Handful of Dust.’ Through the closing union of Elizabeth and Darcy, a marriage containing social imperatives following its law and duty to family and the expression of individuality through romantic love, the novel is saved from the cynical, gloomy vision, which is apparent to us in ‘A Handful of Dust.’