Economy of Love: Marriages of Pride and Prejudice

Marriage is a term that generally denotes a kind of promise. It could be best characterized as a formal declaration about the future; even regarded as an explication of sorts from one person or group of persons to another. As there are potentially different futures and even ideologies that ally their purposes, the reasons why people enter into such obligation vary, as well. According to Oxford English Dictionary, marriage is termed as a “matrimonial alliance” (Simpson); breaches from which, at least in terms of the Victorian-era, were most likely not to be taken lightly. It could be argued marriage holds within it even more profound meaning, however, outside traditional and ancestral terms. For example, certain marriages in Pride and Prejudice do nothing more than work in an economy of exchanges for convenience or filial duty; so much so, that to not partake in proverbial “game” would be circumstance most likely to be met with dire consequences, i.e., recompense, banishment, imprisonment, starvation or even death, for example. In conventional terms, parents of particular status enter into promises and contracts with other parents or guardians of their like; daughters and sons prudently follow suit as a matter of social propriety; the structure invariably repeated again and again as a matter of course because “every man of fortune must be in want of wife.” Unless, one person or pair decides to transgress the boundaries or terms of propriety previously held by others; this is, in fact, the condition exhibited by other marriages of the text that run beyond basic or even simplistic allegiance.

Mr. and Mrs. Bennet

The marriage of the elder Mr. and Mrs. Bennet holds multiple meanings. This indication alone makes the pair among the best in the entire text; the “best” being, a marriage that speaks to the multiplicity of the human condition in its dynamic sensibility rather than in a singular fashion or static form. For example, the Bennets are, in fact, traditional, conditions of which illustrate social convention of the Victoria era, i.e., they were legally wed, had kids, got married, and have property; they even hold a little financial status as the two “can keep a good cook.” There are elements to their relationship, however, that may potentially suggest something deeper than mere convention. For example, they were not betrothed as was the case with some marriages of Jane Austen's day. The text makes mention of this characterizing Mr. Bennet as a man “captivated by youth, beauty and the appearance of good humor” (Ch. 42, para. 1). This factor is important as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are seemingly very much unalike and a kind of relational gap emerges between the two of them that illustrates the varied components of love. The Bennets do not exhibit features of romantic marital love, for instance, like other characters in the text. Mr. Bennet is significantly more intellectual than his wife; a woman who is profoundly more overt, boisterous and with a mind a little “less difficult to develop.” In these terms, social conformity that drew them together generates a rift and it is this particular component that speaks to all marriages across borders and time. The two are not characterized as lovers or real partners in any other than a business sensibility; he loves her, but the effects of the absence, in his case, a soulful, intimate connection with another is something that is revealed to his daughter, Elizabeth. The expression of this particular inheritance makes its mention and even textual relevance resonate again and again.

Elizabeth, Mr. Darcy,

As two of the most significant proponents of love in the text, examination of the marriage between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy becomes paramount. They illustrate a new evolution of love that expands somewhat from their parental predecessors; it is arguable this literary expansion is composed of something which even resonates today. Elizabeth, much like her father, is intellectual, but she is a personage with a little frivolousness embedded within as she is also quite temperamental; a trait no doubt inherited from her mother. She is headstrong and willful and this is a component that a Mr. Darcy willingly contends with as her stubbornness is matched by her intellect; almost as if her willfulness serves as an aphrodisiac of sorts. The gap or better, the awareness of gap, i.e., the lack of intimacy or even soulful connection, is filled in the subsequent courtship between the two of them. Mr. Darcy, complacent because of his wealth, initially views Elizabeth with disdain as her status is significantly less than his; however, it is her fullness and richness of virtue and character which brings and keeps the two together. Mr. Darcy views himself as staunchly virtuous and moral above many others, but not only because of his financial status. His dynamic alliance with Elizabeth, allows their eventual marriage to cross over the features of conformity that so plagued Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. One could characterize this factor as reason enough to suggest their marriage is also among the “best” for different reasons, however. Of course, it is arguable Darcy and Elizabeth even canonize a new fashion and brand of marital alliance; one that allows two people of unequal social or financial status to be intimately partnered in the fullest sense because other components of love, those outside filial duty or propriety, make it acceptable or reasonable to do so.

Mr. Bingley, Jane Bennet

Components of love illustrated in the relationship between Mr. Bingley and Jane Bennet, also indicate the necessity and enduring permanence of soulful connection in marriage; their relationship also shows how social convention seeks to subdue love often subjugating these terms, as well. These two basic elements also make their marriage “best,” but on a lesser scale, however. While Bingley and Jane appear not as intensely connected as Elizabeth or Darcy, they do show how varying degrees of love may affect or disaffect, or their interpretation thereof, a marriage that sometimes results in absence or gaps as was the case with Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. When Jane and Bingley meet, they experience the first indications of love; however, when Darcy suggests to Bingley (prior to any significant experiences with Elizabeth) that Jane doesn't love him enough or even equally, Bingley reluctantly does not continue to pursue his would-be wife. Jane is unaware of what had transpired between the two men and only believes Bingley does not return her affections. It could be suggested the attempted break by Darcy represents how turmoil drives the text one direction or another. It appears that conflict works in this particular case as a tool to fill the absence caused by interruption of normative forces; their ability to rise above the injury is evident as their course essentially simply runs in tandem with both Elizabeth and Darcy. Each pairing eventually results without an absence or gap because of the newly formed social cannon (Weinsheimer).

Mr. Collins, Charlotte Lucas

The marriage between Charlotte and Mr. Collins illustrates how gaps which occur in the absence of soulful connection, often become filled with other proverbial social or even normative “bits” (Sassler139-166). While this condition may, at least at first glance, appear sad or tragic in some respects, it does speak to a potentially false sensibility which prioritizes romantic love in marriage above all else; this is significant in its own terms. Further, Collins and Charlotte are displaced when neither of them falls in love so they essentially settle for a marriage of convenience. It is arguable that, while they are not attached like some of their counterparts, their purposes may cleanly diverge from others which allow that they remain unbound by the same terms that hold others. Strangely, the text conversely implies that Collins' and Charlotte's marriage will somehow not endure especially when Elizabeth's thoughts characterize their match as “unsuitable” (Chapter 22). It is as if the vision of the marriage in these terms remains frozen in time. While the two are married and yet not in love, it is not to say they will never grow into the role they have created and enjoy it in the fullest of terms. This pairing may make the most sense of all if not viewed in solely static terms. Collins and Charlotte are not too unalike as with other marriages in the text. Put simply, their relationship may grow and love could come later.

Whether for love or convenience, marriages are about the future. People will choose their different courses. It isn't always accurate to characterize one set of value system in these terms over others. While it is significant to examine why or how people choose the paths they do, in no uncertain terms, what is past is not always prologue.

Works Cited

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Dover Thrift ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1995. Print.

Simpson, J.A. The Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. IX. Taunton: 1989.

Weinsheimer, Joel. "Chance and the hierarchy of marriages in Pride and Prejudice." ELH. 39.No. 3 (1972): n. page. Print. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2872192?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103718138967>.

Sassler, Sharon. "Revisiting Jane Austen's Theory of Marriage Timing ." Sage Journals. 25.No. 3 (2004): 139-166. Print.

Newman, Karen. "Can this marriage be saved: Jane Austen makes sense of an ending." ELH. 50.No. 4 (1983): 693-710. Print.

Mordechai, Marcus. "A major thematic pattern in Pride and Prejudice." Nineteenth Century Fiction. 16.No. 3 (1961): 274-279. Print.