Pride and Prejudice and the Fixation on Acquisition

Dakshina Chetti

Schneider

Pride and Prejudice paper

December 22, 2015

Columbia University

Pride and Prejudice and the Fixation on Acquisition

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice recounts the countless undertakings and mistrials of the Bennet family in their attempts to manage issues of ethics, wealth and matrimony in dealing with the status-conscious and money-minded gentry of the British Regency. Though frequently regarded as a whirlwind tale of romance, a sort of “all is well that ends well”, it would seem that Austen’s work offers a bleaker experience when considered in the framework of feminist literary criticism and gender studies. Drawing from these perspectives of feminist reading, the reigning theme of possession and proprietorship, rather than love or romance, is brought to the fore. Observing the significance of inheritance, the cultural obsession with social status, and the primacy of matrimony in relationship-formation, it is apparent that the lion’s share of Austen’s character’s behaviors, aspirations, and trepidations are prejudiced by the desire to possess. The fixation with the acquisition of goods, whether material or conceptual, sheds light on one of the novel’s less romantic veracities, that in which the female, aside from being important as a learning, thinking individual, also becomes a form of currency, a sentient variant of legal tender in the microcosm of Regency-era economy. By no means negating the presence of romance and love in Austen’s plot, the feminist lens provides readers another essential avenue by which to understand the significance of characters’ conducts and apprehensions, for whom “the state of having, owning and/or controlling something” takes primacy above all else.

            Perhaps the greatest subset in the novel’s theme of possession is that of inheritance, or, more specifically, the control of the direction in which material possessions are bestowed upon successive generations. Inheritance in the regency era came tethered to numerous guidelines and regulations, many of which complicated the ease with which familial property could be transferred from generation to generation (Macpherson, pg. 8). Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is acutely aware of the complexity of birthright and very early on introduces the matter of estate and heritage in the concerns of the Bennet family.  Due to the requisites of Mr. Bennet’s will that only a male heir can inherit his estate, none of the Bennet girls can collect any of their father’s money. Unless they wed wealthy men, they’ll be left destitute upon the death of Mr. Bennet. For Mrs. Bennet, the circumstance is made exceedingly maddening knowing that Mr. Bennet’s cousin would come to inherit Longbourn House—the family estate—thus wholly discounting the five legitimate Bennet daughters from the family bequest. The possession and acquisition of material wealth through inheritance is never lost on Mr. Collins’, who even integrates the fact in his marriage proposal to Elizabeth, saying  “But the fact is, that being, as I am, to inherit this estate after the death of your honoured father (who, however, may live many years longer), I could not satisfy myself without resolving to choose a wife from among his daughters, that the loss to them might be as little as possible, when the melancholy event takes place” (Austen, 1990, pg. 64). Observing Collins’ choice of diction, the unrelenting emphasis on possession is further highlighted by his insertion of the words “inherit”, “estate”, and “death”. Essentially, he reaffirms the terms and conditions of his marriage proposal, recapping the primacy of entailment in his wish to enter into a marital contract with one of the Bennet girls. In summation, it is the advent of material possession that motivates his proposition. The words “inherit” and “estate” are very cold, emotionally disconnected, with almost contractual connotations—belying the expected elation and passion that habitually supplement a marriage proposal. Perhaps more disturbing is the clinical way in which he reminds Elizabeth that the inheritance is contingent upon the death of her father, demonstrating an absence of epithetical sense as well as an almost blind prioritizing of proprietorship over sympathy.  In the mind of Collins, love has naught to do with it. It would seem that inheritance is on everyone’s mind, like Wickham, the striking young soldier who befriends Elizabeth and talks to her about the unforgiving manner in which Darcy defrauded him out of his inheritance.

From a feminist lens, the exclusion of the female from hereditament is the underpinning for the setting’s patriarchal dominance and the establishment of inherent female inferiority. The capacity for the female to possess agency is profoundly reduced by the fact that she is not given access to possessions that are rightfully hers. Thus, it only makes sense that inheritance becomes a focal point and behavioral determinant, as it so evidently does for Mrs. Bennett, whose prime objective is to use her daughters’ marital potential to secure their capital in the event of Mr. Bennet’s passing.  In that sense, the Bennet daughters, (even Elizabeth, however intellectual and accomplished) acquire the utility of pseudo-currency, means by which inheritance can be safeguarded and the bequeathal of familial fortune can be controlled (Fraiman).  Mrs. Benet intends to find suitors for her daughters with the ambition of retaining the estate and securing a financial future for her family. This is particularly suggested in her remorseless insistence that Elizabeth espouse Mr. Collins despite his overweening and ignorant disposition. In fact, she reassures him that “But, depend upon it, Mr. Collins…Lizzy shall be brought to reason. I will speak to her about it directly. She is a very headstrong, foolish girl, and does not know her own interest but I will make her know it” (Austen, 1990, pg. 67).  Her appraisal of her own kin as “headstrong” and “foolish” characterizes Mrs. Bennet as exceedingly deprecating and meddlesome, a portrayal further validated by her forceful resolve to impose her will upon Elizabeth. She is critical and derisive towards an otherwise brilliant female character, almost reducing Elizabeth to childlike witlessness in order to vindicate her behavior to Mr. Collins. From a feminist perspective, it may seem as though she considers her daughters chattel, using them as tools to acquire financial security, but it is important to remember that she has an unaccommodating, inert husband who has failed to put any wealth aside as funds for his daughters, despite his awareness of the entailment. Perhaps, rather than taking away from her daughters’ agency, Mrs. Bennet’s neurosis with possession and insuring her daughters’ inheritance is simply representative of her understanding of the problematic legal circumstances constricting their livelihoods.

Another vein of the general theme of possession is that of social status; in essence, the accession to social prominence or the possession of goods that either maintain or elevate one’s standing in the echelons of regency-era society. Even Darcy, the character who expresses, arguably, the most genuine love towards Elizabeth, is highly prejudiced by the realities of her lesser communal standing, and is in many ways rendered reluctant by the possible detriment to his own repute. Austen recounts,  “ . . . Darcy had never been so bewitched by any woman as he was by her. He really believed, that were it not for the inferiority of her connections, he should be in some danger” (Austen, 1990, pg. 33).  The theme of possession, in the form of the fear of loss of social status is made apparent. Austen calls Darcy “bewitched”, suggesting that he was not experiencing emotions with mildness but with intensity, captivated by the woman in question. Despite this revealed vehemence in sentiment, the power wielded by Elizabeth’s “lack of connections”, or financial inferiority, if you will, is enough to temper his beguilement. The idea that monetary position is sufficient to interfere with a woman’s appeal suggests a strong patriarchal presence in the regency era, paired with the lesser purpose of women as individuals, and more as keys to complement a gentleman’s footing in high society (Macpherson).  Perhaps in a more cringe-worthy and consummate manner, the motif of regard for possession of social standing is made most apparent in the litany of faux pas made by Collins’ during his proposal to Elizabeth, where he remarks, "My situation in life, my connections with the family of de Bourgh, and my relationship to your own, are circumstances highly in my favour…Your portion is unhappily so small that it will in all likelihood undo the effects of your loveliness and amiable qualifications” (Austen, 1990, pg. 66).  Not only does he openly denigrate her shortcomings in terms of contacts and connections, but he also states that this drawback will actually nullify whatever other positive qualities she may have (what he calls her “amiable qualifications”). He reduces Elizabeth to less than an individual, merging all of her qualities as an individual into a single feature—one that has little worth in comparison to the weight of good standing in the social ladder. The fact that this man makes female individuality redundant furthers the argument that, in the context of a patriarchal society that sees near nothing besides affluence and prestige—even in a novel that gives its female characters a spectrum of voice and agency—the reality of women is that they are often prescribed the role of token. They become objects in the construction of the male image and his movement upwards in the social strata.  Despite his imperious tenor and immodest appraisal of his social standing, it can be said, from another point of you, that Collins also appeals to Elizabeth’s regard for possession in attempting to persuade her to marry him. He puts forward the profitability of an association with one like himself, making note of his possessions in terms of connectedness to high society as well as his privilege in association to the Benet’s (i.e. through the inheritance of the estate). It is interesting to notice that a comment almost exact to this one is made by one of the Bingley sisters in her consideration of Jane, placing an unfortunate parallel between the goodness of her qualities and the damning nature of her socially inferior family—“I have an excessive regard for Jane Bennet, she is really a very sweet girl, and I wish with all my heart she were well settled. But with such a father and mother, and such low connections, I am afraid there is no chance of it” (Austen, 1990, pg. 23). In her unbridled address of the characters’ indomitable regard for possession of status—through their dialogue, thoughts and behaviors—Jane Austen provides a matchless observation of the gentry’s infatuation with prestige and reputation in the Regency era. Thusly, she illustrates the way class-consciousness contaminates and guides the behaviors of virtually all the novel’s characters, often at the expense of females being appreciated less as individuals, and more as instruments in a bartering system.

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife” (Austen, 1990, pg. 1). It is thus that Austen begins her book, very confidently acquainting her audience with the foremost themes of the novel. Matrimony intimates possession as the female becomes tethered to her husband’s name—she becomes his—and initiates a family liaison, reaping the benefits of whatever material possessions (luxuries, estates, renown and such) her husband may have—without actually owning them, naturally. At the same time, the male is appraised in a certain manner by his community based on the good breeding of his wife—in essence, the standing of her family and their connections, as well as her beauty and charm.  Mrs. Bennet is arguably consumed by the task of marrying her daughters off, as the marital contract provides as avenue by which her daughters can accumulate possessions in terms of wealth, social regard, and inheritance (Kruger, pg. 9). In the act of marriage in Pride and Prejudice, examining the expectations and aspirations of the respective genders reveals an unfortunate reality that works to discredit female agency. We can argue, as does Fraiman, that in this respect the female becomes a form of currency, or legal tender by which a man can form an alliance with another man (Fraiman, pg. 2). Perhaps Austen’s most saddening observation of the pervasive preoccupation with the marital contract is through her brief insights into Charlotte Lucas’ character. She describes the poor girl’s circumstance, “Without thinking highly either of men or matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want” (Austen, 1990, pg. 74). Charlotte is a "well-educated young woman of small fortune," which, once you contemplate her lack of good looks, is actually awful. She has near no opportunity of marrying, and doing anything else would, in someway “withdraw her” from her social stratum. Thus, her options become astonishingly restricted, saved only by the prospect of marrying Mr. Collins or, less temptingly, spending the rest of her existence in her brothers' households and depending on them for financial security. Indeed Charlotte says, “I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state” (Austen, 1990, pg. 76). Charlotte’s tone does characterize her as almost passive to her own life, resigned to the fate bestowed upon her by mediocre appeal and trifling financial possessions. She reports asking “only” for a comfortable home, suggesting that she has set her wants and prospects very low in light her of ill-starred circumstance. Her desire for a comfortable home indicates that for her as well, possession, acquired through the marital bond, is at the root of her actions, i.e. her pursuing and acceptance of the marriage proposal. In fact, all of the female characters, even Elizabeth (though to a much lesser extent), see marriage as an way by which they can advance their livelihood. Elizabeth, arguably, marries Darcy for love, though one should not neglect her admiration at the exquisiteness and luxury of the Pemberley grounds (which, by no coincidence, was the first thing that made her envision herself as mistress of Pemberley). Marriage is on everyone’s mind, further supported by the way Austen’s characters assess and attempt to augment their own level of beauty in the effort of securing marriage prospects; as remarked by Kruger in her investigation of the novel’s female characters—“they gossip, flirt, and denigrate others—all strategies women use to obtain and retain mates” (Kruger, pg. 5). Far be it from Austen to limit the consuming focus on matrimony to the females. The men themselves engage in the search for spouses (as bluntly stated in the novel’s first line), for only marginally different reasons. When Elizabeth meets Colonel Fitzwilliam, he quickly clarifies the motives behind his search for a wife, stating  "Our habits of expense make us too dependent, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without some attention to money"  (Austen, 1990, pg. 109). Less than subtly, he reminds Elizabeth that whilst he appreciates her good looks and qualities, she does not constitute a prospective wife. Despite being the son of an earl, his position as the younger son (back to laws of entailment) preclude him from benefitting from the inheritance (i.e. the estate). Thus, he very openly concedes that he has to marry a rich woman to support the lifestyle to which he's become habituated with—i.e. his "habits of expense." Even for the men, marriage is generally a matter of exchange and social insurance, even if it may also have the element of love (perhaps, by chance). Indeed, even Wickham (though his dissembling façade may have been a forewarning) only accepts the marriage between him and Lydia after being supplied a lump sum and promised a small income. In this situation, Lydia was undoubtedly made an object, bartered and negotiated for. Pride and Prejudice observes marriage as more of a contractual agreement and less as an affair of the heart.

Indeed, ownership, control and title are all amassed into one greater concern: possession, occupying the mind of every character to a great (or—sporadically—lesser) extent, incontestably wielding substantial influence on their thoughts, aspirations, and actions. Drawing from Fraiman’s idea of the female as a sort of token, or currency in the context of patriarchal regency-era economy was fascinating, as almost every female character, regardless of her qualities and attributes, seemed (to some degree) involved in the men’s affairs of possession (Fraiman). Naturally, this does not take away from the complexity and intrigue that Austen so carefully bestows upon her characters, but more, from a feminist understanding, provides readers with an appreciation of the gender imbalance and cultural norms and concerns that were in-built to that historical period. Perhaps it can be reasoned that Austen’s consideration of possession and its varied forms denotes her acknowledgment of her characters’ circumstances, both male and female, aside from their construction as fascinating, complex individuals.

Citations:

Austen, Jane, and James Kinsley. Pride and Prejudice. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990. Print.

Daniel J. Kruger. and Maryanne L. Fisher. and Sarah L. Strout. and Shana’e Clark. and Shelby Lewis. and Michelle Wehbe. "Pride and Prejudice or Family and Flirtation?: Jane Austen’s Depiction of Women’s Mating Strategies." Philosophy and Literature 38.1 (2014): A114-A128. Project MUSE. Web. 22 Dec. 2015. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Fraiman, Susan. "The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet." Refiguring the Father: New Feminist Readings of Patriarchy (1989): 168-87.

Handler, Richard, and Daniel A. Segal. “Hierarchies of Choice: The Social Construction of Rank in Jane Austen”. American Ethnologist 12.4 (1985): 691–706. Web...

Macpherson, Sandra. “Rent to Own; Or, What's Entailed in pride and Prejudice”. Representations82.1 (2003): 1–23. Web...