Jane Austen
According to the
historian, Lucy Worsley, Jane Austen was a feminist icon ‘ahead of her time’.
She also states that Miss Austen, ‘turned down
four or five proposals of marriage and financial security to have a go at
living by her pen,’ listing six possible suitors.
These claims are
extraordinary. I do not believe she was a feminist icon and the most likely
explanation for refusing her one and only proposal of marriage was because she
was not in love with the young man. His man was Harris Bigg Wither and he was
a rich family friend. Like all good early-19th century young ladies
she initially accepted him, but unlike the majority, she changed her mind
overnight.
Manydown, Harris Bigg Withers' home
We cannot know
for sure why she did this. It was a prudent match and would have secured the
futures of not only herself, but also her mother and unmarried sister. But
something stopped her and, soon afterwards, she started wearing a lace cap. At 26
she was effectively proclaiming she was no longer on the marriage market.
These are
verifiable historical facts. What we don’t know is why she acted as she did. Lucy
Worsley would have us believe it was to follow a career that was not socially
respectable. I think it is more likely she turned to writing simply because
needed the money. As a woman her options were severely limited. If she was
rejecting marriage, writing was all she had. Some years later she wrote, ‘...tho I like praise as well as anybody, I like what
Edward (her brother) calls Pewter
too.’
Without
verifiable historical facts, I turn to Jane Austen’s novels to help me understand
her actions. All her heroines finish their story by marrying, even Emma who
initially had no intention of doing so – she was rich and did not need a husband
– but she did marry and not just anyone. None of Jane Austen’s heroines fell
for a man below their social status. Emma could have fallen in love with Robert
Martin and shocked her family and friends by marrying him, but she did not.
Instead, she says that a young farmer was the very last sort of person to raise
her curiosity.
If Jane Austen
had been passionate about taking a career, surely Anne Elliot would have done
the same instead of languishing over the loss of Frederick Wentworth. Poor Anne
spent years longing for the man she felt she had lost forever and,
consequently, lost her bloom.
Jane Austen’s
heroines never challenged the status quo. They accepted that marriage for
financial security was a prudent action. Even Lizzy Bennett eventually accepted
Charlotte Lucas’ marriage to the stupidest man in England because it gave her
financial security and social status.
Jane
Austen’s heroines were fulfilled by marriage; they never spurned it in favour
of a career. Where she did challenge society was by continually affirming that
only the deepest love would draw her ladies into matrimony. Most fell in love with men of considerable
means. Elinor Dashwood and Catherine Morland married clergymen who were not
rich, but had adequate means and social status. Fanny Price also married a
clergyman, but not before refusing a rich man. Her family was horrified and put
all sorts of pressure on her to accept Henry Crawford, but she stood firm. I
wonder if this corresponds to Jane Austen’s own experience after she refused
Bigg-Wither.
When I look at
Jane Austen’s novels I conclude that she refused Bigg Wither because she did
not love him. Initially, she had tried to do the right thing by her family, but
she simply could not accept the idea of marrying a man she did not love. Having
put herself in this situation, she had to find a way of earning some money. She
not only enjoyed writing, but was extremely good at it. Consequently, she
finished Susan and sold it the
following year for £10.
I
think Jane Austen was a brilliant writer who was ahead of her time when it came
to her writing style, but she never railed against the woman’s lot. She is not
a feminist icon.
I
wonder whether Jane Austen would have minded Lucy Worsley’s speculation. I suspect
not. She would probably have understood the historian’s need of ‘Pewter’.
5 comments:
Yes! I love this post. It's good to recognise that historical figures were people just like us, but sometimes it can go too far in giving them ahistorical values because we want them to be like that. Or because it helps make a point.
Thank you, Becca. I agree wth you.
Oh, yes, class was very much in there. When Emma tries to get a "better" husband for Harriet, Mr Knightley points out that she has done the wrong thing by getting Harriet to turn down a nice, intelligent farmer in favour of a man who is unsuited to her and who won't be interested anyway ... Because, of course, class. Harriet is an orphan of no class, and not likely to end up married to someone much above her. Well, yes, Lizzie marries up, but she considers herself okay with that, as her father is a gentleman, and that should be good enough for Darcy, thank you very much!
And yes, her heroines do all marry, but only men they love.
Thanks, Sue. I love talking Jane Austen with fellow enthusiasts.
I'm inclined to agree with you, Val. A most interesting post - thank you.
Post a Comment