Phylogeny, niche conservatism and the latitudinal diversity gradient in mammals
Social Conservatism in Austen and Ferrier - Ghent University ...
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Social Conservatism in Austen and Ferrier - Ghent University ...
Social Conservatism in Austen and Ferrier Matrimony and Class in Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Marriage
and The Inheritance
Word count: 26,722
Jessica Vandevoorde Student number: 01400152
Supervisor: Dr. Koenraad Claes
A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Linguistics and Literature Dutch - English
Academic year: 2017 – 2018
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Koenraad Claes, for his enthusiasm, support and feedback. He
was always willing to arrange a meeting to discuss the thesis, he answered promptly to my inquiries
and steered me back into the right direction when necessary. I am sincerely grateful to have him as my
supervisor.
I also want to express my gratitude towards my parents who have always believed in me. A well-
meant thank you to my mom for the sweet notes and for her hugs. A sincere thank you to my dad for
supporting me when I was feeling down and for making sure that I regularly got away from my laptop
and the thesis, even if that meant he had to bribe me with ice cream.
I am very grateful to my boyfriend Florian for his endless support, for staying up late with me
and for making sure that I took enough breaks from work by distracting me with his two adorable cats.
I could never have done this without him.
I am also in debt to Florian’s parents, An and Renaat, who always have my back. I will never
forget what they have done for me during those four years at Ghent University. Going to them feels
like going to my second home. I am glad that I could spend many hours of thesis-writing over there.
Words cannot describe how grateful I am to have my closest friends Kelsey, Lisa, Lieselot, Emilie
and Justine in my life. They have always tried to cheer me up when I was feeling down. Thank you for
all your supportive messages and for believing in me. Also, special thanks to Lieselot for fangirling with
me about Jane Austen and Colin Firth and thank you to Lisa for listening to all our fangirling.
Lastly, I would like to thank my cousin Lindsey who, despite her busy schedule, found the time
to proofread most of this thesis. She thought along with me, gave me tips to make my writing smoother
and reminded me that I have to keep things simple.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Sense and Sensibility ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1. John Dashwood and Fanny Ferrars ......................................................................................... 7
2.2. Edward Ferrars and Lucy Steele ............................................................................................ 10
2.3. Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood ................................................................................... 13
2.4. John Willoughby and Marianne Dashwood .......................................................................... 18
2.5. Colonel Brandon and Marianne Dashwood .......................................................................... 21
3. Pride and Prejudice ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.1. Charles Bingley and Jane Bennet ........................................................................................... 28
3.2. William Collins and Charlotte Lucas ...................................................................................... 31
3.3. George Wickham and Lydia Bennet ...................................................................................... 34
3.4. Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet ................................................................................ 40
4. Marriage ........................................................................................................................................ 45
4.1. Lady Juliana and Henry Douglas ............................................................................................ 46
4.2. Adelaide Douglas and Lord Lindore ....................................................................................... 52
4.3. Mary Douglas and Colonel Lennox ........................................................................................ 55
5. The Inheritance .............................................................................................................................. 61
5.1. Sarah Black and Thomas St. Clair .......................................................................................... 62
5.2. Gertrude Lewiston and Edward Lyndsay ............................................................................... 68
6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 77
7. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 81
Primary Works ................................................................................................................................... 81
Secondary Works ............................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix: Table Incomes Austen Characters ........................................................................................ 85
Word count: 26,722
1
1. Introduction
During Austen’s and Ferrier’s lifetime, English and Scottish society was in flux. In the beginning of the
seventeenth century, England consisted of small rural communities ruled by the hereditary members
of the upper classes (Butler “Romantics” 101). In return for their power, those gentlemen and ladies
had social responsibilities towards the people of the lower classes (Butler “Romantics” 101). They were
thus supposed to set the moral tone (White 79). Gradually, however, all of that started to change from
the mid-seventeenth century onwards when the landed gentry began to invest in agricultural
improvements to make more profit from the land they owned. Those innovations involved, for
instance, new tools and the introduction of crop rotation techniques (Quigley and Chalmers 25). To
increase efficiency, a lot of common land was enclosed and thus became private property of the
landlords (Quigley and Chalmers 25). It is said that by the end of the eighteenth century, three-quarters
of the rural land was fenced off (Willard 886). That kind of commercialisation of agriculture had a large
impact on the social order. On the whole society seemed to be better off, since an abundance of food
was produced which kept the population fed (Butler “Romantics” 102). Besides that, the mass
production and the selling of the products created further wealth (Butler “Romantics” 102).
Nevertheless, the landlords’ attempt to improve their estates also led to a “widening gap between rich
and poor” and the neglect of the old social obligations that the gentry had towards the poor (Butler
“Romantics” 102). According to Butler, the incomes were “unevenly distributed” (“Romantics” 102).
The landed gentry and their tenants gained much money, for the rents and farming profits nearly
doubled (Butler “Romantics” 102). On the other hand, the poor faced even bigger struggles to sustain
themselves. The system of enclosure had forced them off the lands that they used to farm free of
charge (Ciment and Ness 64). Since they could not count on the support of wealthy landlords and the
“technical advancements in farming [reduced] the need for peasant labour in the countryside”, many
left for the cities in the search of employment (Ciment and Ness 64). Clearly, the former rural and
cohesive communities were gradually falling apart.
Following that, it is important to emphasise that the landed gentry’s investment in farming also
led to another significant change in the social order. As mentioned, the agricultural improvements
increased England’s commerce. This economical boost gave rise to a bourgeois middle class “geared
to the maximisation of profit” (Evans 3). That brought England in the socioeconomic situation of
entrepreneurial capitalism. Focussed on individualism, merchants, manufacturers and other middle-
class people did everything in their power to improve their own situation in life. Eventually, many of
them managed to earn as much money as some of the upper-class members (Heyck 50). As more and
more middle-classers could purchase their own estate, they started to form a threat to the landed
2
genteel people, who could no longer distinguish themselves by means of their wealth and properties.
Next to that, their growth in size and social significance started to damage the prestige and power of
the hereditary upper classes. Ultimately, by the nineteenth century, the gentry and the aristocracy
were in decline.
Similar events took place in eighteenth-century Scotland. Before the Union with England in
17071, Scotland was “a small country of limited resources” (Walker 57). At the end of the seventeenth
century, the Scottish economy suffered from “a series of harvest failures” and an unsuccessful attempt
to set up a trade colony (Devine 37)2. It is, therefore, very likely that the hope of a brighter economical
prospect was one of the motives of the Scots to enter the Union. England, on the other hand, probably
liked the idea of a Kingdom of Great Britain because of the political and military benefits3. Despite the
Jacobine rebellions shortly after the Treaty, the alliance between England and Scotland was
consolidated4. A result of the Union was that Scotland gained “freedom of trade with England” and its
colonial markets (Clark 290). That led to an increase in Scottish trade. Due to the lucrative commerce,
several Scottish port cities, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, flourished economically and grew
substantially (Whyte 330). Successful trade also engendered innovation in agriculture. Just like in mid-
seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy and the landed gentry started to invest in new rotations,
breeds of livestock and the system of enclosure, which caused the former small-scale but independent
farmers to become underpaid wage labourers (Whyte 148). Simultaneously, as in England, a Scottish
capitalist middle class rose to compete with the hereditary upper classes.
1 The Union consisted of agreements between the Scots and the English in which it was stated that the Scots had to give up their independence, that they needed to pledge alliance to the English monarch and that their Parliament would be united with the English one. It is, however, important to emphasise that the Scots did not have to give up everything. They were, for instance, allowed to maintain their law and legal system (Powell 6). 2 Scotland started in 1698 a project, often called the “Darien Scheme”, “to establish a trading colony on the Ishtmus of Panama” (Wilkie 21). Unfortunately, Scotland’s colonial aspirations failed within two years as “the Darien settlement was beset with challenges” such as “poor leadership and equipment”, “disease” and “death” (Wilkie 22). Besides that, the situation was also hindered by the English who “refused to support the scheme” (Wilkie 22). They viewed this plan “as a threat to the English monopolies” (Wilkie 22). Consequently, the English colonies were not allowed to trade with the Scots or to “assist them in any way” (Wilkie 22). It is said that this English blockade was one of the key factors in the failure of the Darian scheme (Wilkie 22). 3 A first benefit for the English was that the Union made the Scots accept the Hanoverian succession (Clark 290). As Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch, was left with no children, there would have been a good chance that the Scots put her half-brother James Francis Stuart, also known as “the Old Pretender” on the Scottish throne (Lehman 515). That would have ended a more personal union between England and Scotland, because the crowns of those two countries were already united “since 1603 when James VI of Scotland also became James I of England following the death of Queen Elizabeth I” (Lehman 515). A second advantage for England was that the Union took away a potential military threat. Due to the Treaty, European enemies of England, such as France and Spain, could not invade the country through Scotland (Chaurasia 115). 4 The Jacobites were against the Union because they wanted Scotland to be independent and longed to continue the rule of the Stuart dynasty (Cooke 48). They would thus have preferred to see James Francis Stuart on the Scottish throne (Cooke 48).
3
These social changes affected many people, including the English author Jane Austen (1775-
1817). She was born into the hereditary gentry, but did not belong to the wealthiest upper classes. Her
parents, George Austen and Cassandra Leigh, were left with little money and no estate (Fergus 5). To
provide for his wife and eight children, Mr. Austen worked as a clergyman (Fergus 3). Yet, his income
was quite modest considering that he had so many mouths to feed. Looking at their economic
situation, it is clear that Jane Austen and her closest relatives were part of the lesser gentry. As Terry
Lovell (1978) points out, that position was not favourable:
[….] The lesser gentry, to which Jane Austen’s family belonged, was in a more exposed
position. A position from which the perception of a general threat to their class might be
perceived, from which the social and ideological differences between traditional rural society
and the new urban capitalist order would appear very great”. (Lovell quoted in Evans 4)
This anxiety towards the rise of capitalism and its influence on the community is often expressed
by Austen in her novels (Butler “Romantics” 97). As Butler points out, it is tempting at first sight to
regard Austen as, what is called in modern terminology, a progressive author, because of her satirical
portrayal of the gentry (“Romantics” 108). This reading would be misleading, since these satirical
sketches are more likely meant to show the harm done to her class by the new order (Butler
“Romantics” 105). Butler’s view that Austen took up a conservative plot, rather than a progressive one,
indeed seems more plausible. Austen wrote from a “position of insecurity” (Lovell quoted in Evans 4)
and was defensive of the old social order, of which she considered herself to be a part of (Evans 3).
Another author who was influenced by the changing social order was the Scottish novelist Susan
Ferrier (1782-1854). She was born as the ninth child of a family of ten children (Yeo in the Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography). She belonged to Edinburgh’s upper-middle class (Sassi 67). Her
parents were Helen Coutts, the daughter of a farmer, and James Ferrier who was originally a Writer to
the Signet, which means that he was a Scottish solicitor (Yeo in the Oxford DNB). One of his most
important clients was the fifth Duke of Argyll (Yeo in the Oxford DNB). With help of the latter, he later
became a Principal Clerk to the Court of Session and a colleague of Sir Walter Scott (Yeo in the Oxford
DNB). Due to her father’s contacts, Susan Ferrier became acquainted with members of the hereditary
gentry and even with the aristocracy of Edinburgh. This close connection to the upper classes also
implies that Ferrier could directly observe the impact of the changing social order on these ranks.
Ferrier, like Austen, comments on those historical changes in her novels. Through her depiction of the
4
upper and middle classes, which is mostly based on real people she met in life (Yeo in the Oxford DNB),
Ferrier gives her readers an idea of how she perceives capitalist society.
It is thus clear that Austen and Ferrier witnessed a similar changing social order and both authors
incorporated this into their novels. However, that is not the only reason why this paper will juxtapose
these two authors. As it turns out, Ferrier was familiar with and very fond of Austen’s work. That is, for
instance, illustrated in the following fragment of a letter that Ferrier wrote to a friend in which she
praises Austen’s novel Emma (1815):
I have been reading ‘Emma,’ which is excellent; there is no story whatever, and the heroine is
not better than other people; but the characters are all so true to life, and the style so piquant,
that it does not require the adventitious aids of mystery and adventure. (Ferrier quoted in
Baker 97)
It has been argued that Ferrier found her inspiration in Austen’s novels (Tiryak 252).
Consequently, these writers have often been compared to each other. Sir Walter Scott, a colleague of
James Ferrier and a friend of his daughter, was the first to draw a parallel between the two authors:
Reading at intervals a novel called Granby, one of the class that aspire to describe the actual
current of society, whose colours are so evanescent, that it is difficult to fix them on the
canvass. It is well written, but overlaboured – too much attempt to put the reader exactly up
to the thoughts and sentiments of the parties. The women do this better: Edgeworth, Ferrier,
Austen, have all given portraits of real society, far superior to anything man, vain man, has
produced of the like nature. (Sir Walter Scott quoted in Lockhart 314)
According to Scott, Austen and Ferrier both produced pleasant narratives inspired by real-life domestic
affairs. Apart from Sir Walter Scott, there are many others who have compared Ferrier to Austen. Paul
Henderson Scott, for example, points out in his book The Age of Liberation (2008) that both novelists
were occupied with the theme of marriage, since this was the only way for women to support
themselves (58). He also states that they have the same “main strength” which is “their sharp eye for
weaknesses of character and their ironic ability in the exposure of them” (P.H. Scott 59). Another
parallel can be found in Marshall Walker’s book Scottish Literature Since 1707 (1996) in which he
5
argues that Ferrier’s novels deal with social satire, prejudice, sense and sensibility (205). These are all
concepts that are clearly present in Austen’s novels as well.
It is thus apparent that both Austen and Ferrier used similar topics, such as class relationships
and marriage, to reflect on the social changes that were going on during their lifetime. It is also very
likely that Ferrier took Austen’s views regarding this subject into account when she was writing,
especially since she had read Austen’s novels and her books got published relatively shortly after those
of her fellow novelist. Nevertheless, it has not yet been examined to what extent Austen and Ferrier
shared the same opinion on that changing social order. To gain insight in both Austen’s and Ferrier’s
stance towards the social and political changes of their time and to understand how these are
portrayed in their narratives, this paper will compare two novels by each author.
This research will consist of three components. Firstly, it will verify Butler’s argument that
Austen was an adherent of the old social order by arguing that her conservative views are reflected in
her characters’ love interests and marriages. Naturally, class will play an important role as well in this
analysis. The focus will lay on Austen’s earliest novels Sense and Sensibility (1811) and Pride and
Prejudice (1813), because those are written when English society was still transforming into a capitalist
order (Butler “Romantics” 103). Austen’s first two novels highlight that, at that time, she still cherished
the hope of re-establishing the old social order5. Secondly, this thesis will analyse which views on the
changes in society can be derived from the matrimonial choices and romantic preferences of the
characters in Ferrier’s Marriage (1818) and The Inheritance (1824). Those novels are selected because
of similar reasons as those of Austen. Ferrier’s first two narratives mark that Scottish society was still
in transition when she wrote them. Consequently, the novels give insight in the social unrest that was
going on during her lifetime. Lastly, the studied aspects of both Austen’s and Ferrier’s novels will be
compared to see if the latter shares the conservative views of her English fellow novelist.
The reason why this study focusses on Austen is because there is still debate going on whether
she was a conservative or a progressive. Recently, the academic Helena Kelly published a book entitled
Jane Austen, the Secret Radical (2016) in which she claims that Austen was undoubtedly a progressive
writer:
Jane’s novels, in truth, are as revolutionary, at their heart, as anything that Wollstonecraft or
Tom Paine wrote. But, by and large, they’re so cleverly crafted that unless readers are looking
in the right places – reading them in the right way – they simply won’t understand. (33)
5 That is in contrast with Austen’s last complete novel Persuasion (1817) in which it is clear that capitalism has a greater impact on English society. Its melancholic tone shows that Austen has given up hope (Monaghan 143).
6
As mentioned, this paper will argue the opposite. Regarding Ferrier, the purpose of this thesis is to
gain insight in her views on the rise of capitalism and its effect on the different classes. This paper also
aims to focus more on Ferrier, because in comparison to Austen, her work is still understudied and
underappreciated.
7
2. Sense and Sensibility
Sense and Sensibility (1811), the first of Austen’s six complete novels, focusses on the lives of the
Dashwood family. The story begins with the passing of Mr. Henry Dashwood’s uncle and the news that
he bequeathed his fortune and the Norland estate to Henry’s son from a former marriage, John
Dashwood, instead of to his nephew. As a result, Henry Dashwood is left with merely seven thousand
pounds to provide for his wife and three daughters. With a positive attitude, Henry tries to live as
economically as possible to “lay by a considerable sum” (4), but unfortunately he “survived his uncle
no longer, and ten thousand pounds, including the late legacies, was all that remained for his widow
and daughters” (4). As Mrs. Dashwood receives no help from John Dashwood and his wife Fanny
Ferrars, she accepts the invitation of her cousin Sir John Middleton to move with her daughters to his
cottage in Devonshire.
It is clear that the heroines of the novel, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, are threatened to lose
their position among the gentry. To maintain their social status, they need to find a suitable husband.
Elinor, who stands for the sense in Sense and Sensibility, would like to form an attachment with her
love interest Edward Ferrars. However, she notices that he acts rather indifferently towards her since
she moved to Devonshire. Above that, she also discovers that he is secretly engaged to a girl named
Lucy Steele. After having faced many obstacles, everything ends well for Elinor. Edward’s unhappy
engagement to Lucy comes to an end and he confesses to Elinor that he has loved her all this time.
Eventually, Elinor becomes Mrs. Edward Ferrars. Marianne’s love story, on the other hand, is also not
without difficulties. The young lady, who represents the sensibility in the title of the novel, gives all her
attention to the young debtor Willoughby. As she believes him to be her ideal partner, she fails to
acknowledge the attentions of the older but good-hearted Colonel Brandon. Yet, after Willoughby
breaks her heart, Marianne finally comes to the realisation that Colonel Brandon is her perfect suitor.
She gradually lets this man into her heart and by the end of the novel, they are happily wedded.
2.1. John Dashwood and Fanny Ferrars
As mentioned above, John Dashwood inherited the Norland estate, causing his wealth to increase
while his stepmother and half-sisters are facing a financial struggle:
The son was amply provided for by the fortune of his mother, which has been large, and half
of which devolved on him on his coming of age. By his own marriage, likewise, which happened
8
soon afterwards, he added to his wealth. To him therefore the succession to the Norland estate
was not so really important as to his sisters; for their fortune […] could be but small. (3)
Initially, John intended to help out his stepsisters, since he vowed at his father’s deathbed that he
would take care of his close relatives. That promise is, however, beyond the wishes of his wife Fanny.
She does whatever it takes to convince her husband not to give them financial support. She tries to
persuade him by arguing that this deed will eventually contribute to their impoverishment and that of
their only son, considering that the Dashwood girls will not give that money back once they have
married a wealthy husband. Next to that, she also reminds John of the fact that “all the china, plate,
and linen” (9) is left to his mother, including a set of breakfast china that is twice as handsome as the
one they have. Lastly, to ease her husband’s conscience, she tells him that it was never his father’s
wish that they would give up part of their fortune to support his wife and daughters. According to her,
John’s father used the term “assistance” in the sense of helping them find a comfortable house and
giving them a hand with the removal. After hearing those arguments, John’s original idea of giving his
stepsisters three thousand pounds quickly changed into keeping the whole inheritance to himself: “He
finally resolved, that it would be absolutely unnecessary, if not highly indecorous, to do more for the
widow and children of his father, than such kind of neighbourly acts as his own wife pointed out” (9).
From those arguments, it looks like Henry and Fanny would have to sacrifice their comfortable
life to help out Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters. Moreover, as Fanny phrases it, it almost seems as
if they cannot afford it to give them financial support. However, their income turns out not to be that
small. It is stated that the Norland estate provides them with an annual income of four thousand
pounds. In addition to that, they also have John’s present income and the remaining half of his
mother’s fortune. Although those last sums are not specified, it is estimated that John and Fanny have
a yearly income of six thousand pounds (see appendix)6. In comparison to the other characters in Sense
and Sensibility (see appendix)7, it is clear that they belong to the prosperous ones. That shows that
Fanny’s arguments, in which she expresses her alleged fear for impoverishment, are based on egoism.
Even if her husband decided to give away three thousand pounds, it would not have threatened their
current financial position. She is thus presented as a greedy person who values her luxurious life and
that of her son over other people’s well-being.
A similar negative image can be found in the representation of Fanny’s husband John. He is
described in the novel as cold-hearted, selfish and narrow-minded (4). There are several passages that
6 John’s fortune is based on the Norland estate, his present income and the sum he gained from his mother’s wealth. 7 It is important to highlight that the table focusses on the incomes that the characters have by the end of the novel (thus after their marriages).
9
illustrate why that portrayal is valid. First of all, John wanted to give the Dashwood ladies financial
support out of selfish considerations. It is stated that John “had not the strong feelings of the rest of
the family” (4), which already hints that his bond with them was not a strong one. Consequently, he
neither gets touched by their problems, nor does he feel some kind of moral responsibility towards
them. That also indicates that he does not want to help them because he cares about their well-being.
On the contrary, it turns out that John merely wanted to provide for them to salve his own conscience.
After all, he did pledge his father that he would assist his stepfamily and breaking that promise would
make him feel guilty. Those feelings of remorse are illustrated in the fragment that describes Mrs.
Dashwood’s and her daughters’ removal to Devonshire. After John decided not to financially support
the Dashwood ladies, he is still haunted by the vow he made to his father. He desperately wants to do
something for his stepfamily so that he can leave those feelings of guilt behind him. That is why he
insists on helping them with the removal, but unfortunately for him, Devonshire is too far away to be
able to assist them. As a result, John is left conscience-stricken:
Mr. John Dashwood told his mother again and again how exceedingly sorry he was that she
had taken a house at such a distance from Norland as to prevent his being of any service to her
in removing her furniture. He really felt conscientiously vexed on the occasion; for the very
exertion to which he had limited the performance of his promise to his father was by this
arrangement rendered impracticable […]. (17)
Besides being driven by pure self-interest, John also attaches too much importance to wealth.
Money is, of course, important to maintain oneself, but the pursuit of profit must not lead to greed
(Evans 17). John’s avarice is, for instance, emphasised in the passage in which Elinor talks to her
stepbrother about John Middleton’s mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings. While Elinor praises the moral
qualities of that lady, he merely speaks of the possible benefits that his half-sister might gain from that
acquaintance:
[…] Her house, her style of living, all bespeak an exceeding good income; and it is an
acquaintance that has not only been of great use to you hitherto, but in the end may prove
materially advantageous – Her inviting you to town is certainly a vast thing in your favour; and
indeed, it speaks altogether so great a regard for you, that in all probability when she dies you
will not be forgotten – She must have a great deal to leave. (137)
10
Characters such as Fanny and John Dashwood mark that Austen was not an advocate of the
changing social order. Their negative portrayal demonstrates “a nostalgia for a golden age of the
English gentry when elegant manners dictated and organised a coherent and ordered social world”
(Evans 1). In the old system, genteel people had moral responsibilities towards the lower classes, a
duty which is being described by Butler as “noblesse oblige” ( “Romantics” 104). John and Fanny,
however, seem to have forgotten that obligation. By introducing such egoistic and greedy characters,
Austen tries to hold up a mirror to her genteel contemporaries. She believes that it is the task of the
gentry to set an example which, in this case, means living according to the principle of moral concern
(Evans 17). If the genteel people give in to the self-centredness and the individualism of the new social
order, then they are, in her opinion, no better than the upcoming capitalistic middle class:
Ultimately Jane Austen’s outlook profoundly favours the gentry, but this does not mean that
she flatters them at a more superficial level. On the contrary, she is as critical of the current
practice of her class as she is admiring the ethical theory that sustains it. (Butler “Romantics”
105)
2.2. Edward Ferrars and Lucy Steele
Edward Ferrars is depicted as a shy but kind-hearted young gentleman. As his mother is in control of
his inheritance, he is completely dependent on her goodwill. However, a conflict soon emerges
between them. Mrs. Ferrars desires Edward to marry Miss Morton, the only daughter of Lord Morton,
who has a fortune of thirty thousand pounds. If Edward accepts this alliance, his mother will “settle on
him the Norfolk estate, which, clear of land-tax, brings in a good thousand a year” (161). To persuade
her son, she even offers to raise that income with an extra two hundred pounds per annum. The
combination of Miss Morton’s wealth, the sum that his mother is willing to pay and the two thousand
pounds that he owns himself, would give him an annual income of more than two thousand five
hundred pounds. According to Copeland, that sum would enable Edward to live a comfortable life if
he spends his money wisely (132). Unfortunately, that income is lost to him, as he is already secretly
engaged to Lucy Steele, a girl of low birth. When Mrs. Ferrars finds out about that “low connection”
(161), she demands Edward to break off the engagement. The latter, however, refuses to do so and
ends up being disinherited by his mother:
11
His own two thousand pounds she protested should be his all; she would never see him again;
and so far would she be from affording him the smallest assistance, that if he were to enter
into any profession with a view of better support, she would do all in her power to prevent his
advancing in it. (161)
Edward’s rejection of a connection with Miss Morton shows that he is not driven by financial
gain. Next to that, the fact that he does not detach himself from Lucy proves that he is an honourable
man. Especially since he has long ceased to love her (219). It is stated that he asked Lucy to marry him
when he was much younger. The only reason why he committed to her, is because she was one of the
very few people whom he often saw while he was feeling lonely back then:
[…] I was not entered at Oxford till I was nineteen […]. I had therefore nothing in the world to
do, but to fancy myself in love; and as my mother did not make my home in every respect
comfortable, as I had no friend, no companion in my brother […]. (220)
At that time, Edward “had seen so little of other women, that [he] could make no comparisons, and
see no defects” (220). Now, he realises that Lucy is not his ideal partner. He would rather be with
Elinor. Yet, he made a vow to Lucy and he does not intend to break it. That act shows, as Elinor argues
in the novel, a lot of integrity, for “how small [is] the consolation, beyond the consciousness of doing
right, that [is to] remain to him in the loss of friends and fortune” (163). It is, however, mentioned that
Edward did suggest a separation to Lucy shortly after his disinheritance. Yet, it was not for his own
sake that he talked about ending the relationship. It was for Lucy’s happiness. As he is left with merely
two thousand pounds, he realises that he cannot give her a comfortable life. In other words, he does
not wish Lucy to be bound to a man without fortune:
[…] He could not bear to think of her not doing better, and so he begged, if she had the least
mind for it, to put an end to the matter directly, and leave him to shift for himself […]. And it
was entirely for her sake, and upon her account, that he said about being off, and not upon his
own. (165)
12
Austen takes a positive stance towards her character Edward, because he is a true gentleman.
Unlike John and Fanny, he cares about other people’s well-being. He is even willing to sacrifice his own
happiness for the sake of that of Lucy. That indicates that Edward is primarily motivated by moral
responsibility and concern. His personality and conduct thus correspond with the principles of the old
social order.
His fiancée Lucy, on the other hand, rather fits within the new social order that Austen utterly
condemns. She is a vulgar, ignorant and illiterate middle-class woman who acts out of selfishness. She
does not care about other people’s happiness. The fact that she plays with Elinor’s feelings illustrates
that. Lucy realises that Elinor is in love with Edward. Instead of showing compassion, Lucy intentionally
tries to hurt Elinor by giving her detailed accounts of her relationship with him. She knows that it must
be painful for Elinor to be constantly reminded that her love interest is engaged to another.
Apart from that, Lucy’s immorality is also illustrated in her attachment to Edward. She knows
that Edward is very weary of their engagement, because he is in love with Elinor. Although Edward and
herself have no feelings for each other, she refuses to let him go. It is stated that Lucy only holds on to
the gentleman out of “self-interest” (91). She realises that their marriage will be her only opportunity
to elevate her social position. Despite Edward’s disinheritance, Lucy will still have a more comfortable
life with him than when she weds a man of her own rank.
That same kind of ambition eventually leads to Lucy breaking off her engagement with Edward
to wed his older brother Robert. By marrying Robert, Lucy does not only become part of the gentry.
She also has more wealth, because Mrs. Ferrars has given her eldest the whole inheritance, including
the part that was intended for Edward (cf. infra). By becoming Mrs. Robert Ferrars, Lucy thus shows
that she is driven by financial gain as well.
Her husband’s personality and conduct appears to be no better. Robert is described as a
pretentious “coxcomb” (89) who believes himself to be superior to others. He also proves himself to
be a greedy and immoral being by deceiving his mother. He promised Mrs. Ferrars that he would marry
the rich Miss Morton. Delighted with the prospect of such a good connection, Mrs. Ferrars gave him
Edward’s part of the inheritance. However, once Robert received the fortune, he married the penniless
Lucy. It is very likely that he wedded her out of unethical considerations. It is suggested that he started
a relationship with Lucy, because he wanted to hurt his brother by stealing his girl. The following
statement supports that claim: “He was proud of his conquest, proud of tricking Edward […]” (229).
Next to that, the novel also hints that Robert got carried away by his own pride:
13
Edward could only attempt an explanation by supposing, that, perhaps, at first accidentally
meeting, the vanity of the one had been so worked on by the flattery of the other, as to lead
by degrees to all the rest. (221)
Clearly, Robert’s nature and conduct fit within the new social order in which individualism and
selfishness predominate. He does not care about the responsibilities he has as a member of the gentry.
On the contrary, he contributes to the decline of the hereditary gentry by marrying an ambitious
middle-class woman. Consequently, this character is condemned by Austen.
2.3. Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood
In the mid-eighteenth century, the notion of “sensibility” started to emerge. Todd describes this
concept as “an innate sensitiveness or susceptibility revealing itself in a variety of spontaneous
activities such as crying, swooning and kneeling” ( “Sensibility” 7). This definition already shows that
sensibility is often associated with “unmeasured, extravagant emotion” (Manning 80). Such excessive
feelings form the core of the eighteenth-century sentimental novels that were intended as a “reaction
to the austerity and rationalism of the Neoclassical period” (Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of
Literature 1013). In those stories, the characters respond, for instance, in an effusive emotional
manner to “the beauties of nature” or to “the griefs of others” (The Oxford Dictionary of Literary
Terms). That kind of behaviour is considered righteous, because it shows that the person in question
has “a pure heart” (The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms). Sentimental novels thus try to convey the
message that there are “close connections between virtue and sensibility” (The Oxford Dictionary of
Literary Terms).
While the cult of sensibility proclaims “sentimental (or revolutionary) idealism” (Butler “Jane
Austen” 104), Austen upholds a more conservative, traditional Christian view. She is sceptical of human
nature, for she believes it to be fallible (Butler “Romantics” 104). Following that, Austen thinks that
sensibility does not necessarily stand for virtue, because she regards it as a system that people might
exploit to obtain what they want. Lucy Steele, for instance, is certainly not a sensitive and sympathetic
person, but she acts as such to fulfil her own individual, selfish needs (Butler “Jane Austen” 193-194)8.
Lastly, Austen is also no adherent of sensibility and its display of excessive feelings, considering that
8 It is mentioned in the novel that Lucy constantly compliments Lady Middleton and her children to make herself agreeable.
14
this kind of behaviour might endanger the ethical values that mark the old social system (cf. infra). A
little sensibility is necessary to lead a moral life, but it should be counteracted by some sense.
To oppose extreme sensibility, Austen introduces the protagonist Elinor, who is the oldest of the
Dashwood girls. She is depicted as a lady with an “excellent heart” (5), an affectionate disposition and
“a strength for understanding” (5). She is a person of feeling, but it cannot be denied that her behaviour
and actions are primarily based on sense. That is why Elinor stands for the “sense” in the title of the
novel. Contrary to the sensitive characters of the sentimental novels, who are optimistic, intuitive and
un-self-critical, Elinor constantly questions her own and other people’s judgements (Butler “Jane
Austen” 192). Besides her “coolness of judgement” (5), Elinor’s rationality is also illustrated in the way
she talks about her best friend and love interest Edward Ferrars. Although she clearly has feelings for
this gentleman, she does not talk about him in terms of love or passionate sentiments. Instead, she
says that she “esteems” and “likes” him (14). According to her younger sister Marianne, it is cold-
hearted to talk about a love interest in such a way. Elinor, however, gives a well-considered explanation
for her carefully chosen terminology:
Believe [my feelings] to be stronger than I have declared […]. But farther than this you must
not believe. I am by no means assured of his regard for me. […] Till his sentiments are fully
known, you cannot wonder at my wishing to avoid any encouragement of my own partiality,
by believing or calling it more than it is. (14)
That passage shows that Elinor does not wish to raise high expectations which may then result
in disappointment. After all, she is not certain if Edward’s feelings are mutual, as he often gives the
impression of being indifferent to her9. Above that, she is also very much aware that Edward is far from
independent and that his mother wants him to marry a woman with “great fortune” (14). As Elinor’s
father could not leave his family much profit, she is lingering on the edges of the lower regions of the
gentry. With her one thousand pounds that she can call her own, Elinor realises that Mrs. Ferrars would
never approve of her. Instead of letting herself get carried away by romantic ideals, Elinor clearly bears
in mind that the reality of her future prospect with Edward may be harsh:
9 It is important to emphasise that Edward often keeps himself aloof from Elinor, because he wants to prevent his feelings for her to grow stronger, considering that he is secretly engaged to Lucy Steele.
15
A more reasonable cause might be found in the dependent situation which forbade the
indulgence of his affection. She knew that his mother neither behaved to him so as to make
his home comfortable at present, nor to give him any assurance that he might form a home
for himself, without strictly attending to her views for his aggrandisement. With such a
knowledge as this, it was impossible for Elinor to feel easy on the subject. (15)
By introducing a woman of good sense such as Elinor, Austen criticises the individualisation of
feeling that was emerging (Evans 41-42). To protect the old social order and its moral values, Austen
wants to persuade her readers “to look less at their specific individuality than at their generality”
(Evans 42). Instead of individualising need by romance or fantasy, people should focus on the
necessities “that all share”, such as “material provision, social recognition, commitment, and the
means to support their children” (Evans 42). Elinor sets an example by reflecting on her future financial
prospect and by thinking about Edward’s feelings towards her.
Following that, it can be argued as well that Austen uses Elinor to emphasise the importance of
the gentry’s “social credo” (Butler “Romantics” 104). In the novel, Elinor is presented as a person who
puts her own feelings aside to help out other people with their sorrows. When Lucy tells her about her
engagement to Edward, she is asked to keep their marriage plans a secret. Consequently, Elinor cannot
talk to anyone about the fact that she is hurt by the news that Edward is engaged. Her emotional
torment becomes even worse when she has to support her younger sister Marianne who is sorrowful
as well (see following chapter). To spare Marianne from more distress, Elinor decides to conceal her
wretched state of mind by acting calmly and cheerfully. Moreover, as Miss Dashwood explains herself,
she sees it as her “duty” (158) to behave as such. That feeling of responsibility is, for example,
highlighted in the fragment where Marianne hears of Edward’s engagement to Lucy. Elinor explains to
her that she knew about it, but that she was bound to silence:
For four months, Marianne, I have had all this hanging on my mind, without being at liberty to
speak of it to a single creature; knowing that it would make you and my mother most unhappy
whenever it were explained to you. (159)
That Elinor was willing to suffer in silence all that time indicates that “the main impulse behind
her behaviour is always to protect others” (Butler “Romantics” 104). As she argues herself in the above-
mentioned fragment, she kept smiling, because she did not want to upset her closest relatives.
16
However, as Butler points out, Elinor does not only feel responsible for her mother and sister, she also
wants to protect others on a more social level (“Romantics” 104). That is, for instance, illustrated in
the passage where Elinor and Marianne are travelling to London with Mrs. Jennings:
Marianne's behaviour as they travelled was a happy specimen of what future complaisance
and companionableness to Mrs. Jennings might be expected to be. She sat in silence almost all
the way, wrapt in her own meditations, and scarcely ever voluntarily speaking, except when
any object of picturesque beauty within their view drew from her an exclamation of delight
exclusively addressed to her sister. To atone for this conduct therefore, Elinor took immediate
possession of the post of civility which she had assigned herself, behaved with the greatest
attention to Mrs. Jennings, talked with her, laughed with her, and listened to her whenever
she could; […]. (96)
That fragment indicates that Marianne openly expresses her unhappiness by remaining silent.
She is being criticised by Austen, because of her excessive sensibility (see following chapter). By acting
in such a way, Marianne is only occupied with her own individualistic feelings. She does not take into
account that her behaviour influences the mood of her companions. Her sensibility becomes, in other
words, “an excuse for anti-social and actually unkind behaviour” (Butler “Romantics” 104). Elinor, on
the other hand, puts her grief aside to make sure that Mrs. Jennings has a good time. Elinor’s self-
control is praised by Austen because this kind of behaviour proclaims that “the old style of social
responsibility is accepted, duty (the idealized reading of upper-class motivation) put before the new
individualism” (Butler “Romantics” 104-105).
Clearly, Austen has a high regard of the genteel lady Elinor. That is because her personality and
manners fit within the old social order where moral concern predominates. In that regard, she is a
better partner for Edward than Lucy. As argued in the previous chapter, Edward is, just as Elinor,
presented as a true genteel person who is morally upright. He too puts his own happiness aside to do
what he believes is right. In his case, that is keeping his promise to Lucy that he would wed her (see
previous chapter). However, when Lucy elopes with his older brother Robert, Edward is finally able to
ask the hand of the woman of his heart, Elinor. After they got engaged, Edward and Elinor are
“overcome by [their] own felicity” (220-221).
Nevertheless, there is still one important obstacle that prevents them to live a comfortable life
amongst the gentry. As already mentioned, it is important that people do not let themselves get carried
17
away by romantic ideals. One has to think about other important matters as well, such as financial
security. That is, however, problematic in the relationship of Edward and Elinor. After his
disinheritance, Edward is left with merely two thousand pounds (see previous chapter). With the help
of Elinor’s friend Colonel Brandon, Edward manages to become the parson of Delaford. That profession
gives him an extra income of two hundred pounds per annum. Together with Elinor’s thousand pounds,
this couple has an annual income of three hundred and fifty pounds. Unfortunately, that sum does not
suffice:
They were brought together by mutual affection, with the warmest approbation of their real
friends, their intimate knowledge of each other seemed to make their happiness certain – and they
only wanted something to live upon. Edward had two thousand pounds, and Elinor one, which,
with Delaford living, was all that they could call their own; for it was impossible that Mrs Dashwood
should advance anything, and they were neither of them quite enough in love to think that three
hundred and fifty pounds a year would supply them with the comforts of life. (224)
To maintain their position amongst the gentry, they go to Edward’s mother in the hope of
receiving some financial support. At first, Mrs. Ferrars “reasonably endeavoured to dissuade [Edward]
from marrying Miss Dashwood” (227). She told him that he still has the chance of marrying Miss
Morton, who is “a woman of higher rank and larger fortune” (227). She soon realises that Edward has
made up his mind and decides to provide for them:
[…] Not the smallest objection was made against Edward’s taking order for the sake of two
hundred and fifty at the utmost, nor was anything promised either for the present or in future,
beyond the ten thousand pounds, which had been given with Fanny. It was as much, however,
as was desired, and more than was expected by Edward and Elinor; and Mrs Ferrars herself,
by her shuffling excuses, seemed the only person surprised at her not giving more. (227-228)
With the received financial aid, their annual income raises from three hundred and fifty pounds to
eight hundred and fifty pounds. According to Copeland, that sum does not suffice “to enter a realm of
unlimited genteel comforts” (132). However, as long as they do not squander the money, they should
be able to live a comfortable life (132). As they have a sufficient income now, they finally get married.
18
Elinor and Edward’s marriage, which is clearly an exemplary one, shows that Austen is an
adherent of the old social order. She praises this couple’s connection because it based on morality,
mutual love, birth and financial security. According to Austen, those are all the fundaments of a good
relationship. Unlike Lucy and Robert’s attachment, there is no selfishness involved in the alliance
between Elinor and Edward. Consequently, their attachment is portrayed in a more positive light.
2.4. John Willoughby and Marianne Dashwood
Marianne Dashwood is not only described as generous and amiable, she also has an eager personality.
Unlike Elinor who is “sceptical, always ready to study the evidence, to reopen a question [and] to doubt
her own prior judgements” (Butler “Jane Austen” 192), Marianne relies too much on her private
intuition. That is why she represents the sensibility in the title of the novel. By opposing a character
such as Marianne to Elinor, Austen wants to warn her contemporaries about the dangers of excessive
sensibility. It is already clear from the beginning of the novel that Marianne lets herself get carried
away by romantic fantasies. She argues that she does not want to settle for someone whose interests
and ideas do not correspond with hers: “I could not be happy with a man whose taste did not in every
point coincide with my own. He must enter into all my feelings; the same books, the same music must
charm us both” (12).
One moment in the novel, it seems as if Marianne has found her ideal partner. She meets a
gentleman called Willoughby who carries her home after twisting her ankle. While admiring his beauty
and his personality, Marianne shares her thoughts on this refined man:
His person and air were equal to what her fancy had ever drawn for the hero of a favourite story;
and in his carrying her into the house with so little previous formality, there was a rapidity of
thought which particularly recommended the action to her. Every circumstance belonging to him
was interesting. His name was good, his residence was in their favourite village, and she soon found
out that of all manly dresses a shooting-jacket was the most becoming. Her imagination was busy,
her reflections were pleasant, and the pain of a sprained ankle was disregarded. (28)
After Marianne’s accident, Willoughby often visits her. The more they talk, the more they
discover that “their enjoyment of dancing and music [is] mutual” (30). Next to that, Willoughby also
has a similar taste in literature: “the same books, the same passages were idolised by each” (30). In
19
short, Willoughby appears to meet Marianne’s demands of her ideal partner. Blinded by the thought
of having found her prince charming, Marianne gives him her full attention. Willoughby assures her of
his affection by doing the same:
When he was present she had no eyes for anyone else. Everything he did, was right. Everything
he said, was clever. If their evenings at the park were concluded with cards, he cheated himself
and all the rest of the party to get her a good hand. If dancing formed the amusement of the
night, they were partners for half the time; and when obliged to separate for a couple of
dances, were careful to stand together and scarcely spoke a word to anybody else. (34)
Although they both seem to be enchanted by one another, Marianne’s fairy tale abruptly comes
to an end by the news that Willoughby is sent to London for business by his aunt Mrs. Smith. Elinor
already senses that something suspicious is going on. The day before Willoughby was still “so happy,
so cheerful [and] so affectionate” (48) around them and now, after only ten minutes notice, he is
suddenly gone without intending to return. Later in the novel, her distrust appears to be justified when
they come across Willoughby at a party, while he is supposed to be out of town. Even though he
catches Elinor’s and Marianne’s eye, Willoughby makes no attempt to approach them. Moreover, he
is “in earnest conversation with a very fashionable-looking young woman” (106). Marianne becomes
pale when she notices his indifference towards her and starts to exclaim “in a voice of the greatest
emotion” (106). To avoid a scene, Willoughby decides to walk away with his companion. The next
morning, however, Marianne learns about her lover’s true personality. She receives a letter in which
Willoughby explains that his “affections have been long engaged elsewhere” (110). He also informs
her that his marriage plans with this other woman will soon be fulfilled.
It is due to his past immoral actions that Willoughby suddenly detaches himself from Marianne.
It turns out that he seduced, impregnated and abandoned Colonel Brandon’s ward Eliza. When his
aunt Mrs. Smith found out about this scandal, she immediately disinherited him. As a result,
Willoughby was left with nothing more than a small estate that gave him an annual income of six or
seven hundred pounds. As he was used to extravagance, that sum did not suffice for him. Now, he has
been offered the chance to marry the wealthy Miss Eliza Grey, who has a fortune of fifty thousand
pounds. Clearly, he has decided to seize this opportunity.
By doing so, Willoughby positions himself within the new social order that is mostly based on
“the maximization of profit” (Evans 3). Austen has no problem with financial gain, but she believes that
“the pursuit of profit must be tempered by moral concern and values other than those of the profit
20
motive” (Evans 17). In Willoughby’s case, that moral aspect is completely absent as he does not take
Marianne’s feelings into account when he chooses to marry Miss Grey. On the contrary, he is “primarily
motivated by financial gain” (Evans 19). That is, for instance, highlighted in the following statement of
Mrs. Jennings:
[…] When a young man, be who he will, comes and makes love to a pretty girl, and promises
marriage, he has no business to fly off from his word only because he grows poor, and a richer
girl is ready to have him. Why don't he, in such a case, sell his horses, let his house, turn off his
servants, and make a thorough reform at once? I warrant you, Miss Marianne would have been
ready to wait till matters came round. But that won't do now-a-days; nothing in the way of
pleasure can ever be given up by the young men of this age. (117)
In her argument, Mrs. Jennings clearly accuses Willoughby of being selfish and greedy, since he
is not willing to give up some of his luxuries to pay off his debts. Elinor shares that view, for she
concludes that “his own enjoyment, or his own ease, was, in every particular, his ruling principle” (213).
He would, in other words, never have gone through the trouble of fighting for Marianne.
Willoughby still tries to defend himself by telling his side of the story to Elinor. He admits that
he first attached himself to her sister for his own amusement and that he originally had no intention
of returning her affection. Yet, he also states that his feelings for Marianne quickly changed and that
he soon realised that he was “sincerely fond of her” (194). Nonetheless, he could not ignore the
lingering threat of poverty and therefore decided that marrying Miss Grey would be his best option.
Now, however, he finds himself discontented with the choice he made:
"Do not talk to me of my wife," said he with a heavy sigh.— "She does not deserve your
compassion.—She knew I had no regard for her when we married.—Well, married we were,
and came down to Combe Magna to be happy, and afterwards returned to town to be gay.—
And now do you pity me, Miss Dashwood?—or have I said all this to no purpose?— Am I—be
it only one degree—am I less guilty in your opinion than I was before?—My intentions were
not always wrong. Have I explained away any part of my guilt?" […]. (200)
21
By focussing on his guilt and unhappiness, Willoughby shows once again that he is driven by self-
centredness. He does not tell his story to apologise for his behaviour or to express his compassion for
Marianne. On the contrary, he shares it with the intention of being pitied himself. That view is also
expressed by Elinor who says that he only regrets his decision, “because it has not answered towards
himself. It has not made him happy” (213).
Yet, Willoughby’s degree of grief is nothing compared to the kind of pain that Marianne feels.
After receiving Willoughby’s “impudently cruel” letter “of which every line was an insult, and which
proclaimed its writer to be deep in hardened villainy” (111), Marianne sinks into deep sorrow. Her
romantic hero turns out to be an idle and egoistic man who puts his individual needs above other
people’s well-being. She is thus presented as the victim of the self-centredness and greed that mark
the new social order. Following that, it can be argued that Austen uses Marianne’s tragic lot to warn
her readers about the dangers of excessive sensibility. When her romantic dreams and expectations
fall apart, Marianne is so heart-broken that she can barely eat and sleep. Consequently, her body
weakens. At a certain moment, Marianne gets a fever and almost succumbs to it. That near-death
experience makes her realise how dangerous it is “to trust private intuition or passion in forming
judgements of others” (Butler “Jane Austen” 101):
My illness has made me think— It has given me leisure and calmness for serious recollection.
Long before I was enough recovered to talk, I was perfectly able to reflect. I considered the
past: I saw in my own behaviour, since the beginning of our acquaintance with him last autumn,
nothing but a series of imprudence towards myself, and want of kindness to others. I saw that
my own feelings had prepared my sufferings, and that my want of fortitude under them had
almost led me to the grave. My illness, I well knew, had been entirely brought on by myself by
such negligence of my own health, as I had felt even at the time to be wrong. Had I died,—it
would have been self-destruction. (210)
2.5. Colonel Brandon and Marianne Dashwood
Colonel Brandon is introduced in the novel as a thirty-five-year-old man with a “particularly gentleman-
like” address (22). The use of that suffix “like” is very peculiar here, especially since this man is born
into a landed genteel family, for it is mentioned that he inherits the family estate in Delaford after his
older brother, who initially succeeded the property, passes away. Besides that, Brandon’s position as
22
a colonel should be enough to qualify as a gentleman in late eighteenth—and early nineteenth-
century-England. It is likely that Austen describes this character as a gentleman-like person because of
some events that took place in the English military during her lifetime. In 1808, it was revealed that
the Commander-in-Chief of the English army, the Duke of York, had an affair with the courtesan Anne
Clark (Fulford 159). She also accepted bribes from officers who were seeking promotion:
[…] To supplement the inadequate allowance that her royal lover gave her, she accepted cash,
in return for which the Duke arranged rapid advancement for the officer concerned. It was also
alleged that, as well as sterling, she accepted sexual favours from the more eligible soldiers.
(Fulford 159)
This scandal put the army in a poor light, for it caused that the military was rather associated with
vanity and sexuality than with warfare. Those happenings caused Austen to be sceptical about the
army.
Nevertheless, Colonel Brandon’s conduct appears to be upright as it stated that he is “a man of
great worth and respectability” and that he is “perfectly the gentleman” in his manners (175). That is,
for instance, highlighted in the passage where Marianne plays the pianoforte. While Sir John “was loud
in his admiration at the end of every song, and as loud in his conversation with the others while every
song lasted” (23), Colonel Brandon “alone, of all the party, heard her without being in raptures. He
paid her only the compliment of attention; and she felt a respect for him on the occasion, which the
others had reasonably forfeited by their shameless want of taste” (23).
Besides his cordiality, Brandon is also praised because he is always willing to help other people.
When he hears that Elinor’s friend Edward is having some financial problems, he offers him a job as a
clergyman to protect him from poverty (see 2.3. Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood). Another
example that highlights his good-hearted personality is when Marianne, who is at that moment very
ill, asks to see her mother one more time, just in case she would not make it. To grant Marianne’s wish,
Brandon immediately offers “himself as the messenger who should fetch Mrs Dashwood” (188).
As the examples above already illustrate, Brandon’s personality clearly fits within the expected
social credo of the gentry. That his nature and actions are worthy of praise is also emphasised by the
fact that he puts other people’s well-being above his own happiness. Just like Elinor, he suffers in
silence. That is shown in the way he copes with Marianne and Willoughby’s connection. It hurts him to
see his love interest with Willoughby, especially since he knows what this young man has done to his
ward Eliza (see previous chapter). Nevertheless, he never informs Marianne about Willoughby and
23
Eliza, because he does not want to interfere with her relationship. He sees that Marianne is very happy
with Willoughby and, therefore, decides to keep his mouth shut. It is also important to mention that
he only shares his story to Elinor in confidence after Marianne and Willoughby are already broken up.
That way, he does not run the risk of hurting Marianne:
His character is now before you; expensive, dissipated, and worse than both. Knowing all this,
as I have now known it many weeks, guess what I must have felt on seeing your sister as fond
of him as ever, and on being assured that she was to marry him: guess what I must have felt
for all your sakes. […] My behaviour must have seemed strange to you then; but now you will
comprehend it. To suffer you all to be so deceived; to see your sister—but what could I do? I
had no hope of interfering with success; and sometimes I thought your sister's influence might
yet reclaim him. (127)
It is thus clear that Brandon puts his own feelings aside to make sure that he does not stand in
the way of Marianne’s happiness. However, it takes Marianne a long time to realise that. As long as
she is together with Willoughby, she is too occupied with pursuing her romantic dreams. Consequently,
she neglects Brandon’s regard for her. Marianne also believes it to be impossible for a seventeen-year-
old woman to fall in love with a man of thirty-five:
[…] He is old enough to be my father; and if he were ever animated enough to be in love, must
have long outlived every sensation of the kind. It is too ridiculous! When is a man to be safe
from such wit, if age and infirmity will not protect him? […] Did not you hear him complain of
the rheumatism? And is not that the commonest infirmity of declining life? […]. (24)
Apart from age, Colonel Brandon also does not stand a chance because Marianne does not
believe in second attachments. According to her, a person can only fall in love once. As she gave her
heart to Willoughby, she thus regards him as the one for her.
So far, it can be concluded that Marianne’s romantic ideas are “too deeply rooted” (205). As a
result of focussing too much on her own intuition and passion, Marianne continually assesses people
wrongly. She sees Willoughby’s youthful beauty and immediately links that to romance and everlasting
love. She does not take into account that there is a possibility of him having a bad personality.
24
Conversely, she meets a man of thirty-five and instantly regards him as “an absolute old bachelor” (22)
with fortune who merely wants to marry her because of her youth:
It would be a compact of convenience, and the world would be satisfied. In my eyes it would
be no marriage at all, but that would be nothing. To me it would seem only a commercial
exchange, in which each wished to be benefited at the expense of the other. (24)
However, misjudging people is not the only negative consequence of too much sensibility. As
Austen tries to show, it often leads to unkind behaviour (Butler “Romantics” 104). In the novel, it is
apparent that Marianne repeatedly treats Colonel Brandon in a disrespectful manner, even though he
is always kind to her. That is, for instance, illustrated in the passage in which Marianne and Willoughby
are slighting Brandon by saying that he is the kind of man “whom everybody speaks well of, and nobody
cares about; whom all are delighted to see, and nobody remembers to talk to” (32). Above that,
Marianne also insults the colonel by arguing that “he has neither genius, taste, nor spirit. That his
understanding has no brilliancy, his feelings no ardour, and his voice no expression” (33). Elinor,
however, cannot stand those verbal abuses and confronts her sister with the fact that her judgements
are based on prejudices and imagination:
“You decide on his imperfections so much in the mass," replied Elinor, "and so much on the
strength of your own imagination, that the commendation I am able to give of him is
comparatively cold and insipid. I can only pronounce him to be a sensible man, well-bred, well-
informed, of gentle address, and, I believe, possessing an amiable heart […]”. (33)
Finally, towards the end of the novel, Marianne learns that Elinor was right. After been ill-used
by Willoughby and nearly passing away as a result of her sensibility, Marianne realises that she needs
to adjust her behaviour: “[…] My feelings shall be governed and my temper improved. They shall no
longer worry others, nor torture myself” (211). As she is no longer influenced by prejudices and
romantic illusions, she understands that Colonel Brandon is a true gentleman. Gradually, she falls in
love with him:
Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood
of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favourite maxims. She was
25
born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as at seventeen, and with no sentiment
superior to strong esteem and lively friendship, voluntarily to give her hand to another!—and
THAT other, a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former
attachment, whom, two years before, she had considered too old to be married,—and who
still sought the constitutional safeguard of a flannel waistcoat! (230)
Marianne and Brandon’s marriage is praised by Austen for several reasons. Firstly, it is a
connection between two kind-hearted upper-class people who will set an example to their fellow
citizens. Initially, Marianne did not behave properly, but she altered her conduct. Now, she is driven
by morality and responsibility, just like her husband. Secondly, Marianne and Brandon’s attachment is
based on the moral principle of mutual love. Thirdly, there is financial security. With Brandon’s annual
income of two thousand pounds, they will be able to live an enjoyable life among the gentry. As there
is no individualism and greed involved, Marianne and Brandon’s attachment thus meets Austen’s
expectations of an ideal connection.
27
3. Pride and Prejudice
In Pride and Prejudice (1813) the Bennet family is confronted with the consequences of an
“entailment”, which is a system that limits “the inheritance of property over a number of generations
so that ownership remains within a particular family or group” (the online Oxford Dictionary). As it
follows the rule of male primogeniture, the estate is bequeathed to the oldest son. That is, however,
a problem for Mr. and Mrs. Bennet whose offspring consists of five daughters. Considering that they
have no male descendant, the property will automatically become the possession of Mr. Bennet’s
cousin Mr. Collins, because he is the closest masculine relative. As Mr. Bennet’s property and the
income that can be derived from that will go to Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet’s own nine thousand pounds
will be all that is left to provide for herself and her daughters10. To prevent them from having to live in
poverty, Mrs. Bennet insists that her children get married before her husband dies, so that their
spouses can financially support them.
Regarding the daughters’ search for husbands, the narrative mainly focusses on the love
interests of the two oldest Bennet sisters, Jane and Elizabeth, and of the youngest child, the fifteen-
year-old Lydia. Jane falls in love with the kind-hearted Mr. Bingley and although his feelings for her are
mutual, the couple still faces some struggles as his sisters do not approve of this connection. In the
meantime, Elizabeth has set her mind on George Wickham, an officer with a pleasing appearance and
gentlemanly manners. Based on those characteristics, Elizabeth assumes that he must be an
honourable man. That prejudice, however, prevents her from seeing that there is a selfish person
hiding behind that noble façade. That same kind of judgement also leads to the condemnation of the
aristocratic gentleman Mr. Darcy. She fails to see that he is a caring person who is really fond of her,
because she focusses too much on their first encounter, in which Darcy acted in a haughty manner,
and on the fact that Wickham, whom she regards as an honest person, dislikes him. Nevertheless,
Elizabeth eventually manages to see the true colours of both these men. She finally lets Darcy into her
heart and intends to banish Wickham from her life. Unfortunately, her acquaintance with the officer
proceeds as her imprudent and flirtatious sister Lydia weds him.
10 She inherited four thousand pounds from her father. Next to that, a sum of five thousand pounds was settled upon her by marriage.
28
3.1. Charles Bingley and Jane Bennet
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must
be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his
first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding
families, that he is considered as the rightful property of someone or other of their daughters.
(235)
By means of that famous opening line, Austen announces the arrival of the wealthy tenant Mr. Bingley
at the estate Netherfield Park. The rumour goes that he is “a single man of large fortune” who has an
annual income of four or five thousand pounds (235). As the fragment above already indicates, the
women in the neighbourhood immediately assume that the man is visiting because he is searching for
a wife. Yet, the first sentence of the novel can also be interpreted in the opposite way, in the sense
that a single woman must be in want of a husband who has a good fortune. As Markley points out, the
number of suitable partners for women of the upper classes was rather limited in late eighteenth—
and early nineteenth-century-England (93). Consequently, there was some competition between the
higher-rank ladies. That is already illustrated in the first pages of the novel in which Mrs. Bennet desires
Mr. Bingley to meet her daughters as soon as possible before another lady grabs her chance of forming
an alliance with him.
Luckily for Mrs. Bennet, everything seems to fall into place. Mr. Bingley falls in love with her
oldest daughter, the kind-hearted Jane Bennet. Despite that Jane’s feelings for Bingley are mutual, she
tends to act rather reserved towards him. That causes him to question her feelings. When Bingley’s
sisters, Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley, hear about his doubts, they plan to keep him far away from Jane.
They convince Bingley to distance himself from her for a while. They also send a letter to Jane in which
they state that their brother went to London without the intention of returning and that it is very likely
that he will marry Mr. Darcy’s younger sister Georgiana. Jane’s sister Elizabeth immediately realises
that Miss Bingley and Mrs. Hurst believe the Bennet family “not [to be] rich enough, or grand enough
for them” (308). She understands that they would rather see their brother marrying Georgiana,
because she is connected to the aristocracy and has a fortune of thirty thousand pounds:
29
They may wish many things besides his happiness, they may wish his increase of wealth and
consequence; they may wish him to marry a girl who has all the importance of money, great
connections, and pride. (318)
Jane, on the other hand, is “so honestly blind to the follies and nonsense of others” that she fails
to realise that (242). As she tends to “like people in general”, she refuses to believe that the Bingley
sisters would sabotage her connection (242). Unfortunately for Jane, Elizabeth’s assumptions are right.
A private conversation between Mrs. Hurst, Miss Bingley and Mr. Darcy illustrates that:
“[…] 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.”
“I think I have heard you say that their uncle is an attorney in Meryton.”
“Yes; and they have another, who lives somewhere near Cheapside.”
“That is capital,” added her sister, and they both laughed heartily.
“If they had uncles enough to fill all Cheapside,” cried Bingley, “it would not make them one
jot less agreeable.”
“But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the
world,” replied Darcy.
To this speech Bingley made no answer; but his sisters gave it their hearty assent, and indulged
their mirth for some time at the expense of their dear friend’s vulgar relations. (255)
In the passage above, Miss Bingley, Mrs. Hurst and Mr. Darcy criticise the family situation of the
Bennet daughters. Mrs. Hurst’s comment on being well-settled immediately shows that the Bennet
ladies are in a disadvantageous position, considering that they do not have favourable connections,
their father’s property is entailed and they do not own much money themselves. Their marriage
prospect is thus already unfortunate. However, as Mr. Darcy’s remark on marrying men of any
consideration indicates, their chance of finding a suitable husband is even lower because of their
father’s matrimonial decision. In the passage, it is highlighted that Bingley’s sisters and Mr. Darcy
denounce the fact that Mr. Bennet, who belongs to the landed gentry, has married beneath his rank.
Mrs. Bennet’s inferiority is, for instance, illustrated in the profession of her brother Mr. Gardiner. The
30
latter is looked down upon because he is a merchant in Cheapside, one of the most prosperous
commercial areas in London (Shapard 67). That condemnation is shown in Mrs. Hurst’s sneering
comment “That is capital” (255). As Markley points out, the term “capital” seems to imply that “Mr.
Gardiner is involved with ungentlemanly forms of moneymaking” (90). The reason why Bingley’s sisters
and Mr. Darcy take such a negative stance towards Mr. Gardiner’s trading activities and the fortune
that derives from that can possibly be explained from a historical perspective. As argued in the
introduction, in late eighteenth—and early nineteenth-century-England the division between the
several social classes started to blur due to the rise of a capitalist middle class. Many merchants back
then were able to make as much money as the land-owning gentry and could thus also purchase their
own piece of land. Naturally, those tradesmen were frowned upon by the hereditary gentlemen and
ladies who regard them as inferior people trying to buy their way into the higher classes.
It is, however, quite remarkable that the Bingley sisters condemn Jane’s commercial relations,
because it is underlined in the novel that the fortune of the Bingley family derives from trade as well.
Bingley’s father got prosperous by lucrative trade and “intended to purchase an estate” to put himself
and his family at the position of the landed gentry (243). The tradesman, however, “did not live to do
it”, but managed to leave his children a fortune large enough that they do not need to work (243). His
daughters each got twenty thousand pounds and his son “inherited property to the amount of nearly
a hundred thousand pounds” (243). That gives Mr. Bingley an annual income of about five thousand
pounds which is, according to Copeland, enough “to enter a realm of unlimited genteel comforts”
(132). As the table on the incomes indicates (see appendix), Mr. Bingley’s income is almost six times
larger than that of Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood and is nearly triple the income of Colonel
Brandon and Marianne Dashwood. Despite their wealth, Mr. Bingley and his sisters still cannot enjoy
the same status as those Sense and Sensibility characters, because of their family background and their
lack of an estate (Kramp 75).
From that perspective, it can be argued that Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley’s haughty speech on
Jane’s relatives is an attempt to increase their own respectability. During the conversation, it quickly
transpires that the Bingley sisters claim to have a more elevated social position than Mr. Gardiner.
Unlike him, they are, allegedly, not of commercial stock. However, their ancestors were commercial
middle-class people who had made their fortune in the north of England. The sisters perceive the fact
that they physically left that part of the country as a distinct dissociation with their family’s past as
traders and craftsmen. Mr. Gardiner, on the other hand, still lives “within view of his own warehouses”
(320). The disdain is clear. Above that, they also claim that their status far exceeds that of Jane’s uncle,
because, unlike him, they were born into wealth. Based on these two givens, Mrs. Hurst and Miss
Bingley conclude that they have every right to associate with the gentry rather than with the middle
class.
31
Author Austen, however, has a different opinion on that. Through the negative portrayal of the
Bingley sisters who are willing to sacrifice the happiness of their brother to gain more status and
respect, the Pride and Prejudice readers are warned about social climbers. Their middle-class self-
centredness and personal ambition threatens the original rank system in which “birth and not riches
is the true (old-style) determinant of class” (Butler “Romantics” 105). Mr. Bingley is also not perceived
as a true gentleman, considering that he is called a “gentleman-like” person. He is, however, not
portrayed in such a negative manner as his sisters. Firstly, he does not act so proudly like they do. He
rather comes across as a humble man with “easy, unaffected manners” (239). Secondly, he is not
primarily motivated by improving his own status. He wants to marry Jane, because he really loves her.
Since Mr. Bingley’s feelings for Jane are sincere, Austen eventually allows him to re-establish his
relationship with the oldest Bennet daughter. By the end of the novel, he thus learns about his sisters’
sabotage and comes to the realisation that Jane truly loves him. He returns to Netherfield where he
proposes to his lady. After they got engaged, there is nothing but happiness in the narrative. Yet, it is
very likely that Austen is still sceptical about this attachment. By marrying Jane, Mr. Bingley manages
to conquer his place among the gentry. It is that kind of social mobility that Austen is afraid of. A
genteel person marrying a middle-class nouveau rich endangers the old social system in which the
hereditary gentleman is supposed to stand on top of the community.
3.2. William Collins and Charlotte Lucas
According to Copeland, clergyman William Collins is part of the rank that is defined by historian David
Spring as the “pseudo-gentry” (128)11. Although he does not belong to society’s highest classes, which
are of course the aristocracy and the (landed) gentry, he has a high opinion of himself. That is because
he is under the patronage of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who is the daughter of an earl. Mr. Collins is
so proud of his acquaintance with this aristocratic lady that he constantly brags about it. Lady de
Bourgh’s patronage also causes him to believe himself to be superior than his relatives. Naturally, a
clergyman ought not to behave in such a haughty manner. He is expected to teach people about
Christian principles such as humbleness and charity and most importantly, he is supposed to live up to
those values himself. Yet, by focussing on his own well-being, Mr. Collins’s behaviour tends, as Butler
11 By means of that term Spring refers to “a group of upper professional families” who “do not themselves possess the power and wealth invested in the ownership of land, but [who] depend upon earned incomes” (quoted in Copeland 128). Spring highlights that they “are gentry of a sort” for they seek “strenuously to be taken for gentry through the acquisition of the manners, the education and the same markers of station as their landed-gentry neighbours” (quoted in Copeland 128). In other words, they have much in common with the landed genteel people, except that their economic position is more vulnerable, since the loss of profession inevitably means a loss of income as well (Copeland 128).
32
points out, to immorality: “[…] This disposition to think well of the self and ill of others is the opposite
of what [is conceived] to be the Christian’s duty” (“Jane Austen” 205-206).
Due to his boasting and haughtiness, Mr. Collins is not really loved by the Bennet family.
Consequently, when he asks for Elizabeth’s hand, she is not excited, especially when she hears his
motives for marriage and for choosing her as his partner. Firstly, the clergyman argues that he wishes
to marry “to set the example of matrimony in his parish” (300). Secondly, having a wife “will add very
greatly to [his] happiness” (300). A third reason, which he believes he should have mentioned earlier,
is that “it is the particular advice and recommendation of the very noble lady whom [he has] the
honour of calling patroness” (300). Regarding that last motive, he also remarks that it will be necessary
for Elizabeth to temper her “wit and vivacity” with “silence and respect” if she wants to be in a
favourable position with Lady de Bourgh (300). Lastly, he tries to persuade Elizabeth to accept his
proposal by reminding her that he will inherit her father’s estate and that “one thousand pounds in
the four per cents, which will not be [hers] till after [her] mother’s decease, is all that [she] may ever
be entitled to” if she does not marry him (300).
Firstly, it is conspicuous that Mr. Collins never mentions the words “love” or “feelings” in his
proposal, which already indicates that he does not approach Elizabeth because he is attracted to her.
That argument is also supported by the fact that he initially intended to ask Jane’s hand instead of
Elizabeth’s. Following the lack of emotional attachment in the proposal, it is apparent as well that
Collins merely focusses on the advantages of the connection he plans to make. That indicates that he
regards matrimony as some kind of “business”, as he calls it himself, in which both partners receive
benefits from one another (299). As Mr. Collins argues, he would become a role model for his
parishioners by marrying Elizabeth and he would also rise in Lady Catherine’s estimation because he
followed her advice. Elizabeth, on the other hand, would be guaranteed that her father’s estate
remains in the possession of one of his daughters and on top of that, she would gain an honourable
connection for she would be in close contact with his aristocratic patroness. Apart from seeing
marriage as a business plan, Mr. Collins’s focus on the benefits of the connection also shows that he is
driven by selfish considerations.
Secondly, one could also argue that Mr. Collins’s haughtiness surfaces in his proposal. That he
believes Elizabeth to be inferior to himself and Lady de Bourgh is already illustrated in the comment
he gives on her personality. As seen in the overview of his proposal, he remarks that her wit does not
correspond with how someone of decent rank ought to behave (300). She will thus need to alter her
behaviour if she marries Mr. Collins for the latter cannot bear the thought of Lady Catherine thinking
his wife to be uncivil. Another example that highlights Mr. Collins’s feelings of superiority is the fact
that he constantly reminds Elizabeth of her threatening financial situation. If she does not marry Mr.
Collins or another suitable man of the gentry, she will face difficulties to support herself, meaning that
33
she will definitely lose her comfortable life. Following that, he also hints that there are not many men
who would be willing to marry a girl with such a disadvantageous economic prospect. He does that by
claiming that he is “perfectly indifferent” to fortune and by making the promise that “no ungenerous
reproach” about Elizabeth’s risky financial status “shall ever pass [his] lips when [they] are married”
(300). By means of those two utterances, Mr. Collins insinuates that other men would take Elizabeth’s
low income into account and that they would confront her with it when they are married. Lastly, Mr.
Collins’s proposal also shows that he believes that he is offering Elizabeth a rare opportunity and that
he is doing her a favour by asking her hand. That his proposal is meant as an act of kindness is shown
in his statement that he just as well could have chosen a wife among the “many amiable young women”
in his own neighbourhood (300).
While hearing Mr. Collins’s proposal, Elizabeth can only conclude that he is “a conceited,
pompous, narrow-minded, silly man” (317-318). Not interested to listen to the rest of his speech, the
Bennet daughter decides to interrupt him. To her, it is already clear that a marriage between them
would never work. As discussed, it does not really matter to Mr. Collins whom he marries, as long as
the connection turns out to be beneficial for him. Elizabeth, on the other hand, has a different view on
matrimony for she does not only regard it as a way of maintaining or improving one’s social status but
also as a confirmation of mutual affection. Since this last factor is missing on both Collins’s and
Elizabeth’s side, the lady politely turns down Mr. Collins’s proposal.
Collins does not feel strongly about the rejection, because he “[thinks] too well of himself to
comprehend on what motive his cousin could refuse him” (304). More than that, shortly after his
proposal to Elizabeth, he gets engaged to her friend Charlotte Lucas. Elizabeth cannot comprehend
that Charlotte is willing to spend the rest of her life with such an obnoxious man. Miss Lucas, however,
argues that her insecure financial position is the only reason she needs to marry the vicar:
I am not romantic, you know; I never was. 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. (312)
In the novel, Charlotte is portrayed as a twenty-seven-year-old woman who is not handsome.
To her, Mr. Collins’s proposal is a relief, for she already started to fear that she would die as “an old
maid” (310). She realises that Mr. Collins is “neither sensible nor agreeable”, that his society is
“irksome” and that “his attachment to her must be imaginary”, but that would not prevent her from
marrying him, because “marriage [has] always been her object” (310). Charlotte understands that
matrimony, “however uncertain of giving happiness”, is “the only provision for well-educated young
34
women of small fortune” (310). That is also the reason why Charlotte’s parents immediately give their
blessing for this marriage. As they can give but little fortune to their daughter, it is a great relief for
them to hear that a man like Mr. Collins proposed to Charlotte.
As already briefly mentioned in the chapter on Bingley and Jane, it was indeed the case in
Austen’s time that the “suitable marriage partners for young men and women of the upper classes
were […] few” (Markley 93). In the case of Charlotte Lucas, it would have even been harder to find a
proper husband, because of her lack of wealth and beauty (see previous paragraph). A woman like her
could thus only hope to receive a proposal from either a rich aristocrat who does not have to worry
about money or status, a well-off merchant or attorney willing to use marriage to buy his way into the
gentry, a clergyman or an army officer willing to marry without the prospect of being made rich by his
wife (Markley 93). From that point of view, it does make sense that Charlotte did not hesitate when
she got the opportunity of marrying Mr. Collins.
However, as mentioned before, Austen believed that a connection should not be merely based
on financial security. It should also involve feelings of love. That is, however, lacking in Charlotte and
Collins’s connection. Their lifestyle illustrates that. It is mentioned in the novel that Charlotte has
arranged their home in such a way that she does not see her husband very often. Apart from that, it
has also been discussed that Austen is a strong opponent of financial and material greed for she
believes that this interferes with moral principle and concern (Evans 17). There are passages in the
novel that indicate that Charlotte Lucas is primarily driven by material gain. That greed is, for instance,
illustrated in a letter that Charlotte writes to Elizabeth after she moved with her husband to
Longbourn. In that correspondence, not one word is uttered about her relationship with Mr. Collins.
Instead she focusses on “the house, furniture, neighbourhood and roads” that are “all to her taste”
(324). She thus puts the emphasis on the comforts by which she is surrounded. As Charlotte and
Collins’s relationship is based on selfishness, Austen condemns this marriage.
3.3. George Wickham and Lydia Bennet
George Wickham is an officer joining the –shire militia regiment that recently quartered near
Longbourn. He is introduced as a young man with an appearance “greatly in his favour”, for he has “all
the best part of beauty, a fine countenance, a good figure, and very pleasing address” (278). As he is
generally liked, people consider him to be an upright and honest person. That also applies to Elizabeth
Bennet when she hears his story on what has occurred between him and Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth already
takes a negative stance towards Mr. Darcy for she believes him to be a haughty and disagreeable
gentleman. That prejudice only intensifies when she hears that Darcy has harmed the kind-hearted
35
Wickham. According to Wickham, Mr. Darcy has robbed him from his part of the inheritance that the
late Mr. Darcy promised to him12. Due to Mr. Darcy’s action, he had to give up his dream of becoming
a minister, since he could no longer afford it. He argues that he had no other option than joining the
army. After hearing that story, Elizabeth first finds this hard to believe, but she quickly concludes that
it is “not in her nature to question the veracity of a young man of such amiable appearance as
Wickham” (286). That Elizabeth does not question Wickham’s sincerity is also illustrated in the
following statement she makes to her older sister Jane:
I can much more easily believe that Mr. Bingley’s being imposed on, than that Mr. Wickham
should invent such a history of himself as he gave me last night; names, facts, everything
mentioned without ceremony. If it be not so – , let Mr. Darcy contradict it. Besides, there was
truth in his looks. (287)
Throughout the novel, Elizabeth receives warnings that Wickham might not be such an
honourable man as she believes him to be. Miss Bingley, for instance, says that Mr. Darcy “has always
been remarkably kind to him” and that it was Wickham who “has treated Mr. Darcy in a most infamous
manner” (292). Furthermore, Jane asked Mr. Bingley about the officer and he heard from his
aristocratic friend that “Mr. Wickham is by no means a respectable young man” (293). Elizabeth,
however, refuses to believe those accusations, because Miss Bingley and Mr. Bingley are too closely
connected to Mr. Darcy and would, therefore, speak no ill of him. Next to that, they are possibly
influenced by the opinion of the haughty gentleman. As Elizabeth persists in believing that Wickham is
a moral person, the flirtations between her and the officer continue.
Nevertheless, at a certain moment his attentions for Elizabeth come to an end, because he has
met a rich lady, Miss King, who just received a large fortune of ten thousand pounds. Elizabeth is
“slightly touched” by this news, but her vanity is “satisfied with believing that she would have been his
only choice, had fortune permitted it” (326). It is also mentioned that Elizabeth, “less clear-sighted
perhaps in this case than in Charlotte’s, did not quarrel with him for his wish of independence. Nothing,
on the contrary, could be more natural” (326). This description of how Elizabeth perceives the situation
already highlights her subjectivity towards the officer. Miss Bennet’s feelings for Wickham and the
12 Wickham and Darcy grew up together. Wickham’s father was the steward and the “most intimate, confidential friend” of the late Mr. Darcy (284). Before Wickham’s father passed away, the late Mr. Darcy promised him that he would provide for his son as he is “his godfather and excessively attached to him” (283). Wickham tells Elizabeth that, originally, the late Mr. Darcy intended to give him money to make sure that he could pursue a profession in church. However, when the gentleman passed away, his will to help Wickham to enter the ministry was disregarded by his son Fitzwilliam Darcy. According to Wickham, he kept the entire inheritance to himself.
36
positive image she has of him prevent her from judging his partner choice like she did with her friend
Charlotte Lucas (see previous chapter). As discussed earlier, Elizabeth condemns Charlotte’s marriage
to Mr. Collins, because she has put financial security above personal happiness. In the case of
Wickham, however, she does not criticise his decision. Moreover, she defends the officer by arguing
that his decision is based on a “prudent motive” rather than a “mercenary” motive as her aunt Mrs.
Gardiner claims (328). Clearly, Elizabeth keeps defending Wickham.
That changes, however, when Elizabeth receives a letter from Mr. Darcy in which he clarifies the
events that have taken place between him and Wickham. He informs Elizabeth that he has given
Wickham his part of the inheritance and that he has even provided him with an extra sum13. He argues
that Wickham wanted to take advantage of his family’s wealth. Wickham continued to ask for more
money and when Fitzwilliam refused to give him that, he came up with a plan. He intended to make
Darcy’s younger sister Georgiana, who was then fifteen years old, fall in love with him. According to
Darcy, “Mr. Wickham’s chief object was unquestionable [his] sister’s fortune, which is thirty thousand
pounds” (358). Following that, Darcy also believes that the seduction of his sister was an attempt to
take revenge on him.
After reading that letter, Elizabeth “grew absolutely ashamed of herself. Of neither Darcy nor
Wickham could she think, without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd” (361).
She realises that she got carried away by her romantic feelings for Wickham. Elizabeth also
understands that she relied too much on her individual judgements. She was so certain of Darcy’s
disagreeable personality that she believed him to be capable of doing such mischief and she was so
charmed by Wickham’s pleasing manners that she never doubted his sincerity. Following that,
Elizabeth comes to the realisation that she actually knows nothing about Wickham:
She had never heard of him before his entrance into the –shire Militia, in which he had engaged
at the persuasion of the young man who, on meeting him accidentally in town, had there
renewed a slight acquaintance. Of his former way of life nothing had been known in
Hertfordshire but what he told himself. As to his real character, had information been in her
power, she had never felt a wish of inquiring. His countenance, voice, and manner had
13 Mr. Darcy explains to Elizabeth that his father provided “a legacy of one thousand pounds” for Wickham to become a clergyman, but that the latter did not want to practice a profession in church (357). Instead, he wanted to study law, which is a far more expensive education. Darcy knew that his father had a good relationship with Wickham and because of that, he decided to give him three thousand pounds extra to finance his law school. Yet, three years later, Darcy got a letter in which Wickham stated that “he had found the law a most unprofitable study” and that he had decided to become a clergyman after all (357). He asked Darcy for more money, but the gentleman did not want to provide for him any longer.
37
established him at once in the possession of every virtue. […] She could see him instantly
before her, in every charm of air and address; but she could remember no more substantial
good than the general approbation of the neighbourhood, and the regard which his social
powers had gained him in the mess. (360)
The fragment above illustrates that the only knowledge Elizabeth has of Wickham is information
that comes from the officer himself. That means that he could easily deceive Elizabeth and lie to her
about who he is as a person. Next to that, Miss Bennet also argues that she was influenced by the
opinion of the village people who claimed him to be an honourable man. Above that, Elizabeth points
out as well that Wickham’s position as an army officer already causes him to stand in high regard.
Realising that she actually knows nothing of Wickham, Elizabeth determines that she has never really
been in love with him. By arguing that “vanity, not love, has been [her] folly”, the genteel lady
eventually admits that she got carried away because Wickham made her feel good (362).
Darcy’s letter thus proves that Wickham is not the virtuous person everybody thought he was.
That revelation causes Elizabeth to be relieved when she hears that the –shire militia are leaving
Meryton. She intends not to see Wickham again, but unfortunately her younger sister Lydia
counteracts that plan. Lydia is a ‘self-willed”, “careless”, “ignorant, idle and vain” young lady who
ignores all the warnings her older sisters Jane and Elizabeth give on her imprudent behaviour (365).
She likes to flirt with the officers, especially with Wickham, for whom she has a soft spot. As she is fond
of Wickham, she does not hesitate to join him when he decides to desert his regiment. When the
Bennet family hears about their elopement, they fear that Wickham has settled down for Lydia.
Especially since his wedding plans with Miss King did not proceed14. Elizabeth, who in the meantime
has learned that Wickham only wanted to form an attachment with Miss King because of her fortune,
is astonished that the officer would do such a thing, because Lydia is not wealthy. The couple, however,
does get married by the end of the novel and Elizabeth finally learns what Wickham’s motives were
for leaving his troop and eloping with Lydia. Wickham abandoned the military force because he was
“in debt to every tradesman” (413) in Meryton and because he had “debts of honour” with the other
officers as a result of lost gambling games15 (415). Unable to stay, the ex-officer realised that “he must
go somewhere, but he did not know where, and he knew he should have nothing to live on” (430).
Therefore, he decided to take advantage of Lydia whom openly showed that she was fond of him.
14 This marriage did not proceed because Miss King decided to move to Liverpool with her uncle. 15 A “debt of honour” is a debt (as one incurred by betting or gambling) which is not recoverable by law but which a debtor is conventionally considered in honour bound to pay (Online Dictionary Merriam-Webster).
38
Although “Mr. Bennet was not imagined to be very rich”, Wickham knew that the gentleman would be
“able to do something for him” (431). Yet, it is also mentioned that he did not intend to marry Lydia
immediately, as he “still cherished the hope of more effectually making his fortune by marriage in
some other country” (431). He only married that quickly, because of the deal he had with Mr. Darcy.
The latter wanted to help out Elizabeth to protect her family’s reputation (see following chapter) and
thus searched for Wickham and Lydia himself. He offered to pay Wickham’s debts, which are more
than a thousand pounds, to purchase his commission and to give an extra thousand pounds for settling
upon Lydia. It was also arranged that Mr. Bennet would pay them “one hundred pounds per annum”
and that Lydia would still receive her equal fifth share of the five thousand pounds that is to be
distributed among the Bennet daughters after their parents’ decease (417). It thus seems like
everything has fallen into place for Wickham and Lydia. Yet, the information that Elizabeth gives in the
last chapter of the novel shows that their life is far from being perfect:
It has always been evident to her that such an income as theirs, under the direction of two
persons so extravagant in their wants, and heedless of the future, must be very insufficient to
their support; and whenever they changed their quarters, either Jane or herself were sure of
being applied to for some little assistance towards discharging their bills. Their manner of
living, even when the restoration of peace dismissed them to a home, was unsettled in the
extreme. They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and
always spending more than they ought. His affection for her soon sunk into indifference; hers
lasted a little longer; […]. (471)
This unhappy ending fits within Austen’s conservative views and the message she tries to convey
to her genteel readers. Lydia does not get a comfortable life as a consequence of her behaviour which
is not appropriate for a genteel lady. Instead of acting responsibly, Lydia maintains her dissolute
lifestyle. Next to that, she is also criticised for making a dishonourable connection. As Mrs. Gardiner
has pointed out to Elizabeth, Wickham is not a suitable husband for one of the Bennet daughters as
he does not have the fortune he ought to have. Moreover, it turns out that he has no wealth at all,
which is of course not favourable for a genteel lady like Lydia who will not inherit a large fortune from
her parents. Lydia, however, does not think about important matters such as finances and reputation.
She merely wants to fulfil her wish of getting married. Now, the lady has to bear the consequences of
her decision.
39
Wickham meets with the same fate. He fails to marry a woman of fortune and ends up struggling
to support himself and his genteel wife. He thus gets punished for his ungentlemanly actions (cf. infra).
That Austen chooses to introduce such an immoral officer can possibly be explained from a historical
perspective. As already mentioned, Austen generally takes a negative stance towards the militia (see
chapter 2.5. Colonel Brandon and Marianne Dashwood). It is likely that this attitude is based on the
York scandal that has taken place during Austen’s writing years (see chapter 2.5. Colonel Brandon and
Marianne Dashwood). Many militia back then were guilty of “sexual corruption as well as political
despotism” (Fulford 158). It is said that “the officers were more concerned with enjoying the women
impressed by their splendid uniforms than they were with beating Napoleon” (Fulford 160). According
to Fulford, it was a “perverted system, which ignored professional competence and rewarded princely
and noble vanity” (163). That kind of immoral behaviour is mirrored in the description of Wickham and
the –shire militia in general. Instead of defending their country, they engage in activities such as
gambling, going to balls and charming young ladies. That Austen perceives the militia as “unreliable
romantic partners who may exploit impressionable young women” (Fulford 169) rather than
courageous honourable men is, for instance, reflected in Mr. Bennet’s sneering comment “Here are
officers enough at Meryton to disappoint all the young ladies in the country” (319).
Following that, it can also be argued that the character Wickham is introduced to criticise the
“everyday social mobility offered by the new militia” (Fulford 170). As many soldiers and officers were
needed to defend the country, the army started to give men “commissions in the local militias without
needing ever to have owned a residence in the area” (Fulford 157). This implies that middle-class men
were offered a way to acquire social status regardless of their merit or “reputation among those who
knew their worth" (Fulford 157). Next to that, they were able to join a regiment far away from their
home, where nobody knew them and where they could escape their “past locale and reputation”
(Fulford 170). They could, in other words, start a completely different life. That is also the case for the
– Shire militia who are transferred to Meryton. Wickham joined that regiment as a new officer. Being
“posted away from his home district”, Wickham was able to free himself “from those who knew him
and his reputation” (Fulford 157). As Fulford argues, “his very identity was changed: he was now an
officer by title, and his previous self and his social status were covered by his gaudy regimental dress”
(157). After receiving Darcy’s letter, Elizabeth was, however, “forced to question what lies beneath the
polished manners and the sleek uniform” (Fulford 170). It is then that she started to realise that
“Wickham is all appearance” and that he managed to flatter “her by his polite exterior” (Fulford 170).
According to Fulford, Austen incorporated the hypocritical Wickham because she believed that the
militia, as an institution, “seduced too many of her fellow Britons, blurring the difference between true
and fake gentlemanliness and giving greater scope than ever before for local vices and weaknesses to
grow and move across the country” (175).
40
3.4. Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet
Fitzwilliam Darcy is a handsome aristocratic gentleman with a yearly income of ten thousand pounds.
In the novel, he is admired for his wealth, but not for his social conduct. At an assembly, for instance,
he refuses to talk to anyone because he considers himself to be “above his company” (239). Due to his
anti-social behaviour, he gets the reputation of being ‘the proudest, most disagreeable man in the
world” (240). Darcy’s haughtiness is also illustrated in his proposal to Elizabeth. Despite that he truly
loves her, he does not really express his feelings. Instead, he keeps dwelling on “her inferiority” and
on the fact that an attachment with her would actually be “a degradation” (350). As seen in the chapter
on Bingley and Jane, Darcy considers Elizabeth to be inferior, because of her middle-class relatives.
When Elizabeth hears his condescending speech, she naturally turns down his proposal. She explains
that she cannot accept a man who loves her “against [his] will, against [his] reason, and even against
[his] character” (351). Besides that, she also argues that he should learn to behave “in a more
gentleman-like manner” (352). According to Elizabeth, his manners have impressed her “with the
fullest belief of [his] arrogance, [his] conceit, and [his] selfish disdain of the feelings of others” (353).
It is thus clear that Darcy initially represents a gentleman who assumes that his high birth and
fortune automatically stand for virtue and integrity (Evans 66). At first, he believes that he is rightfully
allowed to act in a haughty manner as he is born in the aristocracy. However, Elizabeth’s remark on
his manners makes him realise that wealth and high rank alone do not create respectability. She made
him understand that he needs to demonstrate modesty, civility and grace to be regarded as an
honourable gentleman:
Unfortunately an only son (for many years an only child), I was spoilt by my parents, who,
though good themselves (my father, particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable),
allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond
my own family circle; to think meanly of all the rest of the world […]. What do I not owe you!
You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous. By you, I was properly
humbled. (460)
The passage above shows that Darcy was raised by his parents to be proud. He was taught to
feel superior and to look down on everybody who is not wealthy and who does not have good
connections. That caused Darcy to be prejudiced against Elizabeth and the Gardiners. However, Darcy
41
eventually discovers that Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner are pleasant, kind-hearted people and that integrity
does not necessarily correspond with class and wealth. He thus learns to put his pride and prejudices
aside. In the fragment above, Darcy admits that his behaviour was not appropriate for a gentleman
and argues that he is now “properly humbled” (460). In the novel, it is highlighted that Darcy indeed
altered his behaviour after receiving Elizabeth’s critique on his manners. An example that illustrates
his morality and kindness is the fact that he secured Lydia’s marriage to Wickham by paying a large
sum and that he never requested anything in return. He did not even ask for recognition as the Bennets
thought for a long time that Mr. Gardiner was the one who had settled everything. By doing such noble
acts for other people besides his own family, Darcy proves himself to be a true gentleman.
Darcy is, however, not the only one who is proud and prejudiced at the beginning of the novel.
Elizabeth saw Darcy’s haughty behaviour at the assembly and from that moment, his character was
decided (cf. supra). Already prejudiced that Darcy is nothing but a snobbish and selfish man, Elizabeth
believes Wickham’s story that this gentleman has reduced him to his present state of poverty (see
previous chapter). That indicates that Elizabeth thinks Darcy to be capable of such villainy. Next to that,
she also considers Darcy to be the main force behind the separation of Bingley and Jane:
[..] He was the cause, his pride and caprice were the cause, of all that Jane had suffered, and
still continued to suffer. He had ruined for a while every hope of happiness for the most
affectionate, generous heart in the world; and no one could say how lasting an evil he might
have inflicted. (349)
Those beliefs cause Elizabeth to turn down Darcy’s proposal (cf. supra). Darcy is hurt by the
rejection and especially by Elizabeth’s arguments for refusing him. He is disappointed to hear that she
has such a bad opinion of him. As mentioned in the previous chapter, he hands over a letter to Elizabeth
in which he clarifies everything. He explains what happened between Wickham and himself. He also
defends himself regarding Bingley and Jane. He argues that he was aware of the Bingley sisters’
sabotage and that he did not inform his friend about this, because he was questioning the sincerity of
Jane’s feelings. As he states himself, Jane always seemed to receive Bingley’s attentions with pleasure,
but she never invited them “by any participation of sentiment” (355). Due to her reserve, he believed
that Jane did not really love Bingley. He was thus unaware of the fact that Elizabeth’s sister was really
hurt by the separation. Lastly, he admits that he was in the wrong by claiming that Elizabeth is far
below himself.
42
Darcy’s letter can be regarded as an eye-opener for Elizabeth, because it makes her realise the
flaws of her conduct. She understands that she has been acting haughtily, in the sense that she
believed her judgement to be superior to that of others. According to Elizabeth, Darcy’s revelations
have “humbled” her (433). She also admits that she has been prejudiced all this time and that her
judgements, up until this point, were merely based on first impressions. Elizabeth decides that she will
let go of those prejudices and that she will attempt to look at Darcy in a different manner. Soon, she
learns that Darcy is actually a caring person. During her stay at Darcy’s estate Pemberley, she hears
nothing but praise from one of his employees. Darcy’s housekeeper tells her that the gentleman treats
his staff with respect and that he takes good care of his younger sister. Elizabeth’s admiration for Darcy
also increases when he helps Lydia (see previous chapter) and when he restores Bingley and Jane’s
attachment. He is the one who informs Bingley about the sabotage, who assures him of Jane’s affection
and who convinces him to go back to Netherfield to propose.
While observing Darcy’s kind-hearted behaviour, Elizabeth feels nothing but gratitude towards
him. She is grateful that he “once loved her” and that he has forgiven “all the petulance and acrimony
of her manner in rejecting him, and all the unjust accusations accompanying her rejections” (395).
Towards herself, however, she feels nothing but shame and vexation:
Oh! How heartily did she grieve over every ungracious sensation she had ever encouraged,
every saucy speech she had directed towards him. For herself she was humbled; but she was
proud of him. (433)
The fragment above shows that Elizabeth’s regard of Darcy has altered. Moreover, her feelings
are so different from when he proposed that she is hoping on “a renewal of his love” (422). That is,
however, beyond the wishes of Mr. Collins’s patroness Lady Catherine. She heard a rumour that there
is a chance that Elizabeth and Darcy will soon be engaged. After she received that news, she storms
off to Elizabeth. Lady Catherine argues that if Mr. Darcy is to propose to Elizabeth, she may not accept
it for “honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest” forbid it that “a young woman of inferior birth, of no
importance on the world, and wholly unallied to the family” should marry such a gentleman (451). The
aristocratic lady believes as well that Darcy should marry her daughter Anne de Bourgh:
My daughter and my nephew are formed for each other. They are descended on the maternal
side, from the same noble line; and, on the father’s, from respectable, honourable, and
ancient, though untitled families. Their fortune on both sides is splendid. They are destined for
43
each other by the choice of every member of their respective houses; and what to divide them?
The upstart pretensions of a young woman without family, connections, or fortune. (451-452)
The passage above illustrates that Lady Catherine considers Elizabeth to be inferior, which thus
also implies that Darcy would make a disadvantageous connection by marrying her. Elizabeth hears
that condescension and tries to defend herself by arguing the following: “He is a gentleman; I am a
gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal” (452). She thus emphasises that Darcy and herself both
belong to the hereditary gentry. Lady Catherine admits that this is true, but quickly points out her
mother’s inferior connection to middle-class people. Elizabeth counteracts that argument by stating
that those acquaintances do not form an issue if Darcy “does not object to them” (452). As Miss Bennet
refuses to promise that she will not accept Darcy’s hand if he were to ask her, Lady Catherine leaves
in anger.
Unfortunately for Lady Catherine, her visit to Elizabeth has had the opposite effect, because it
has given Darcy the courage to renew his proposal to Miss Bennet. When she recapitulated what
Elizabeth said to her, the gentleman did not hear utterances that showed that Miss Bennet is
“absolutely, irrevocably decided against” him (458). He knew that Elizabeth “would have
acknowledged it to Lady Catherine, frankly and openly”, if that was the case (458). So with a glimmer
of hope, Darcy addresses the subject of his sentiments again to Elizabeth: “If your feelings are still what
they were last April, tell me so at once. My affections and wishes are unchanged, but one word from
you will silence me on this subject forever” (458). Elizabeth answers that “her sentiments [have]
undergone so material a change” that she receives “with gratitude and pleasure his present
assurances” (458). Their connection is declared to be an affectionate one as Elizabeth states that they
are “the happiest couple in the world” (462).
The romance between Elizabeth and Darcy runs as a central thread through the Pride and
Prejudice story. Moreover, as the analysis has shown, the core themes “pride” and “prejudice” are
based on how those two characters initially behave. Yet, it has been discussed that Darcy and Elizabeth
both alter their unfavourable behaviour and that they eventually get married. As Butler points out, this
plot and its happy ending fit within a conservative novel. In that genre, marriage “should be, and is,
the fulfilment of a personal moral quest” (Butler “Jane Austen” 214). By means of the characters
Elizabeth and Darcy, Austen shows that a “close and sceptical analysis of the self” is necessary (Butler
“Jane Austen” 215). The protagonists’ plot serves, in other words, the purpose of rebuking “the
contemporary doctrine of faith in the individual” (Butler “Jane Austen” 212). Apart from that, Darcy
and Elizabeth’s storyline is also meant to remind the genteel people of their responsible leading role
in society. The genteel gentlemen and ladies do not only need to be kind-hearted and moral, they also
44
ought to defend the old social system by making an appropriate connection. Darcy and Elizabeth’s
relationship functions as a model for they both belong to the hereditary gentry and have financial
security. Following that, Austen also uses the protagonists’ connection to highlight the importance of
love. That is most likely the reason why the author did not choose to let Darcy wed Anne de Bourgh.
Even though that connection would have been more splendid with respect to rank and fortune, the
match would not have been ideal due to lack of mutual attraction.
45
4. Marriage
Marriage (1818) is the first of the three novels written by the Scottish author Susan Ferrier16. In volume
one, the readers are introduced to the story of the English gentlewoman Juliana. As the daughter of
an earl, she is expected to form an honourable connection with a high-rank person. That is why her
father has arranged a marriage between her and the wealthy Duke of L –. Juliana, however, falls in
love with Henry Douglas, the son of a Scottish laird who has no fortune of his own. Carried away by
her amorous feelings, she decides to disobey her father’s will. She marries Henry and elopes with him
to Scotland. Unfortunately for the young couple, the romantic adventure they had in mind soon
collapses when they are confronted with the harsh reality of impending poverty. Their economic
situation gets even more threatening when Juliana gives birth to twin daughters. Henry’s sister-in-law
Mrs. Douglas slightly mitigates their burden by adopting one child, whom she names Mary. Yet, Henry
is still unable to provide for himself, his wife and his other daughter, Adelaide. As the laird cannot
financially advance them, Henry seeks assistance from his friend General Cameron. With his help, they
can afford to move back to London. Nevertheless, Henry and Juliana lead a rather lush lifestyle causing
themselves to be in debt. Without further support from the general, they knock on the door of Juliana’s
brother Lord Courtland. He absolves them of their debts and puts Henry into a regiment operating in
India. The officer asks his wife to join him in that foreign land, but she refuses to leave her beloved
country England once again. This separation is the end of Henry and Juliana’s connection.
In the second and third volume of Marriage the focus shifts to the two daughters Mary and
Adelaide. The former is raised by the kind-hearted Mrs. Douglas who teaches her about Christian
virtues such as morality. When Mary falls ill, Mrs. Douglas decides that it might be good for her to be
in a different environment. She sends Mary to her mother Lady Juliana, who was staying in Bath at the
time. There, Mary meets her twin sister Adelaide, who has a completely different personality as she
was raised with the vain and selfish principles of Lady Juliana. During her stay, Mary falls in love with
Colonel Lennox, but her mother disapproves of this connection for it is based on love. After her failed
love marriage to Henry Douglas, Juliana swore that no daughter of her would make that same mistake.
Therefore, she wishes Mary to marry the wealthy Mr. Downe Wright who recently became Lord
Glenallan. Mary, however, disregards her mother’s wish and marries the man her heart desires,
Colonel Lennox, because, unlike Juliana and Henry, they will be able to support themselves. Adelaide,
on the other hand, originally gets acquainted with the poor Lord Lindore, but as she is driven by self-
centredness and greed, she breaks off this connection to wed the Duke of Altamont who is far more
16 The others being The Inheritance (1824) and Destiny (1831).
46
prosperous. Her mother is very pleased with this connection, but, unfortunately, Adelaide finds herself
very unhappy in her marriage. Consequently, she decides to elope with Lord Lindore after all.
4.1. Lady Juliana and Henry Douglas
Lady Juliana, who was merely seventeen years old at the beginning of the novel, is approached by her
father who believes it is time that his daughter starts “thinking of establishing [herself] in the world”
(1). As they have completely different views on marriage, a conflict quickly arises. According to the
earl, matrimony is a business for people of high birth. To both parties, it serves the purpose of
aggrandising their family and extending their political influence (2). He tries to obtain such a beneficial
connection for his daughter by forging an alliance with the rich fifty-three-year-old Duke of L –. He is
certain that this gentleman is the ideal partner for Juliana, considering that she will receive “a ducal
coronet, the most splendid jewels, the finest equipages, and the largest jointure of any woman in
England” (3). His daughter, however, objects to this connection, because she does not love the duke.
As the lady herself argues, she desires nothing more than “a mere competence with the man of [her]
heart” (2). The earl does not want to hear about such sentimental feelings as he believes that “love [is]
now entirely confined to the canaille” (4). It is “very well for ploughmen and dairy-maids to marry for
love; but for a young woman of rank to think of such a thing, [is] plebeian in the extreme” (4).
In the novel, it is emphasised that Ferrier does not agree with the earl’s way of choosing a
husband for his daughter. That criticism is, for instance, illustrated in the following fragment:
Her person he had predetermined should be entirely at his disposal; and therefore he
contemplated with delight the uncommon beauty which already distinguished it; not with the
fond partiality of parental love, but with the heartless satisfaction of a crafty politician. (5)
By setting up a connection between Juliana and a duke whom she does not know very well and who is
three times her age, the earl takes on the role of a politician rather than of a caring father. According
to Ferrier, it is heartless of the gentleman to arrange such an alliance without taking his daughter’s
feelings into account. He focuses so much on the material and financial wealth she will obtain as a
duchess that he neglects her personal happiness. However, it is important to emphasise that Ferrier
does not entirely disagree with the earl either. She believes that one’s choice in partner indeed should
be considered carefully as it influences one’s rank and fortune. That is why Juliana’s attachment to
“her handsome but penniless lover” Henry Douglass is condemned as well (5).
47
When Juliana runs off to Scotland with Henry, neither of them consider the economic
consequences of their elopement. They just assume that other people will financially support them.
Unfortunately for the couple, that turns out not to be the case. Juliana does not manage to obtain her
father’s forgiveness, causing her to receive no income from him. Moreover, it is later mentioned in the
novel that the earl passed away and that Juliana is not included in his will. Henry, on the other hand,
can no longer count on the rich relation of his mother who has always provided for him and who
intended to make him his heir17. When Henry’s benefactor heard of his “imprudent marriage” to
Juliana, he immediately disinherited him and refused “to listen to any terms of reconciliation” (8).
Consequently, the lovers are forced to stay at Glenfern Castle, the property of Henry’s father, and to
ask the latter for assistance in the hope of receiving enough money to move back to London. The laird,
however, argues that he cannot give them more than one hundred pounds a year, paid quarterly. That
sum does not suffice to live a comfortable, genteel life in England. As Copeland points out, it merely
allows them to hire one “young maidservant, and that at a very low wage” (130-131). To help them
out more, the old Mr. Douglas then offers them the nearby located Clackandow Farm, which recently
became vacant due to the owner’s passing. He will also advance them the livestock, the farming
implements and the buildings. The laird is proud that he was able to arrange this, because with good
management, the farm will provide them with an annual income of over two hundred pounds. Henry
and Juliana, however, take issue with this plan for that income is still not large enough to live among
the upper classes in London. It also is not the ideal occupation for Henry as he is “ignorant of country
matters” (68). Above that, the pastoral life does not suit “Lady Juliana’s rank and beauty” (69). The
couple thus turns down the laird’s offer, but that still leaves them in a precarious financial position.
Furthermore, their economic prospect becomes even worse, when Juliana delivers twin daughters into
the world:
The birth of twin daughters awakened the young father to a still stronger sense of total
dependence and extreme helplessness of his condition. Yet how to remedy it he knew not: to
accept his father’s proposal was out of the question, and it was equally impossible for him,
were he ever so inclined, to remain much longer a burden on the narrow income of the Laird
of Glenfern. (124)
17 The novel does not contain more information, thus the name of Henry’s benefactor remains unknown.
48
Luckily for the two lovers, their future starts to look a bit more promising when Mrs. Douglas
decides to take care of the weakest baby who needs the most attention and nursing. Apart from that,
the couple also receives the news that they can count on the help of Henry’s “friend and patron of his
youth General Cameron” (124). Although the general strongly disapproves of Henry’s marriage to “a
lady of quality”, he decides to assist them by reinstating Henry in his former position as a military
officer and by offering them a yearly allowance of seven hundred pounds (124). That income causes
them to be as fortunate as “the most prosperous pseudo-gentry families” in England (Copeland 131).
However, that sum still does not allow them to purchase all the carriages and servants that they want.
Unfortunately, Juliana and Henry spend more money than their income allows, because they are
convinced that they will inherit the general’s fortune as he has no children of his own. Consequently,
when they move to London, Juliana has “bright prospects of future happiness, and endless plans of
expense” (128). She spends a lot of money on unnecessary luxuries, such as expensive hammer-cloths
and porcelain ware. The general looks at this extravagant lifestyle with contempt and warns Henry that
they cannot go on like this:
You know, I am not on ceremony with you; and, if I refrain from saying what you see I think,
about your present ruinous mode of life, it is not to spare your feelings, but from a sense of
the uselessness of any such remonstrance. What I do give you is with good will; but all my
fortune would not suffice to furnish pug-dogs, and deformed tea-pots, for such a vitiated taste;
and if it would, hang me if it should. (135-136)
Despite the general’s warning, the couple continues to live in such an excessive manner, until
they hit rock bottom. After Juliana gave birth to their son Edward Douglas, they send a letter to
Cameron to spread the news. His response, however, contains some disturbing information. The
general answers that he is about to marry the young daughter of his steward and that he hopes “by
this time twelvemonth”, it “will be [his] turn to communicate to [them] a similar event in [his] family”
(147). Following that, he states that ten thousand pounds will be secured to Henry and Juliana’s
children and that he will continue to give them that seven-hundred-pound allowance. However, he
mentions as well that this is all they can expect from him, which implies that Henry will not inherit his
fortune. Hearing this news, Henry starts to worry about “the debts he had contracted on the faith and
credit of being the general’s heir” (148). As he cannot repay the people whom he owes money, he finds
himself “daily beset by creditors of every description” (149). Eventually, “the final blow came” (149):
49
“Horses – carriages – everything they could call their own, were seized. The term for which they held
the house was expired, and they found themselves on the point of being turned into the street” (149).
After they lost everything, the couple is saved from homelessness by Juliana’s brother Lord
Courtland, also known as the Earl of Courland, who is able to offer them lodgement in his apartments.
Besides providing them with a roof over their head, the earl also helps them out when Henry gets
arrested for being a debtor. Lord Courtland secures his brother-in-law’s release, takes upon himself
“the discharge of his debts” and gets him into a regiment “under orders for India” (154). This means
that their financial problems are finally solved. Nevertheless, the couple does not spend the rest of
their lives happily ever after as Juliana refuses to join Henry in India. She argues that she has already
sacrificed enough by accompanying him to Scotland when they were younger. Apart from that, her
spouse cannot “be so barbarous and absurd as to think of her leaving all her friends, and going to live
amongst savages” (155). When Henry hears his wife utter those words, he does not part on friendly
terms: “The pride of the man, as much as the affection of the husband, was irritated by this resistance
to his will; and a violent scene of reproach and recrimination terminated in an eternal farewell” (155).
Ferrier makes her characters struggle intensely and refuses to give them the happy ending they
originally expected from their attachment, to warn her readers of the dangers of forming a connection
that is merely based on love. Just like Austen, Ferrier believes that mutual attraction is important (see
the author’s criticism on the connection Juliana’s father set out with the duke), but one also has to
take class and fortune into account (see the following chapters as well). The former aspect does not
form a problem in Juliana and Henry’s attachment, because they both belong to the upper classes.
Juliana is born into the aristocracy and Henry in the hereditary landed gentry. It merely seems as if
Henry’s relatives are far below Juliana on the social ladder due to the genteel lady’s prejudices and the
abhorrence she constantly utters for her husband’s family. Juliana is used to the big city of London,
but when she arrives at Glenfern Castle, she finds herself in a remote rural district. That kind of
environment is not good enough for the fashionable and city-dwelling Juliana who is accustomed to
be surrounded by villas, conservatories and summer-houses. The real problem of Henry and Juliana’s
connection lies in the fact that neither of them has parents who are able to bestow a large sum on
their children. As mentioned, Henry’s father wants to help them, but he simply does not have the
means to advance them. Juliana’s father, on the other hand, states in the beginning of the novel that
he cannot give her a fortune, which is also the reason why he wants to arrange an alliance with a
wealthy duke. Juliana and Henry are thus both in a tight spot, which makes it not ideal to marry one
another. Instead of waiting until they have gathered the necessary financial means, like Elinor
Dashwood and Edward Ferrars did, the couple decides to wed immediately. That decision is
condemned by Ferrier for they risk getting “uncomfortably close to the possibility of becoming poor
and consequently far removed from” genteel society (Evans 6).
50
Another aspect that Ferrier shares with Austen is that she also conveys the message that it is
part of the gentry’s social responsibility to set a good example to the other members of the community.
She does that by criticising Juliana and Henry’s immoral behaviour. When the genteel couple finally
receives some financial security, they do not save the money: they immediately think about spending
it on unnecessary, expensive things. It is mentioned that “birth-day dresses, fêtes, operas, equipages,
and state liveries, whirled in rapid succession through Lady Juliana’s brain, while clubs, curricles,
horses, and claret, took possession of her husband’s mind” (126). Just like Austen, Ferrier criticises
such a luxurious lifestyle, because this is a token of greedy behaviour. From that perspective, Juliana
and Henry are no better than the egoistic and materialistic Fanny Ferrars and John Dashwood. Ferrier’s
condemnation of genteel people who value material wealth more than moral responsibility is reflected
in the unfavourable ending of Henry and Juliana’s connection. As discussed above, Ferrier chooses to
end the narrative with the loss of their financial security, the confiscation of all their possessions and
Henry’s mandatory leave to India.
Apart from that, Ferrier also proves herself to be a conservative like Austen by criticising
sensibility. Henry and Juliana’s connection is based on sensibility, because they both got carried away
by the fantasies and “ardour of romantic passion” like Marianne Dashwood did when she fell for
Willoughby (111). That their connection is founded on purely physical attraction is, for instance,
illustrated by the fact that Juliana and Henry did not know each other very well at the time they eloped
together:
At the end of two months, however, the enamoured husband began to suspect, that the lips
of his ‘angel Julia’ could utter very silly things; while the fond bride, on her part, discovered,
that though her ‘adored Henry’s’ figure was symmetry itself, yet it certainly was deficient in a
certain air – a je ne sçais quoi – that marks the man of fashion. (5-6)
After being married for a while, both of them understand that they made a mistake. Henry
begins to realise that Juliana might not be the woman of his dreams as it turns out that she mostly acts
out of “excessive folly” (137). Juliana, on the other hand, understands that she believed herself to be
in love due to the romantic illusions she had. When she eloped with Henry, she thought that they
would live a comfortable life in Scotland without the need to worry about duty. That is why she
declared to her lover that she would prefer a desert with him “to a throne with another” (18). However,
Juliana soon admits that, at that time, she “did not very well know what a desert was” (18). She “had
formed rather a different idea on it” (18):
51
I had fancied it a beautiful place, full of roses and myrtles, and smooth green turf, and
murmuring rivulets, and though very retired, not absolutely out of the world; where one could
occasionally see one’s friends, and give dejeunés et fêtes champetres. (18)
By introducing a couple who sees their romantic ideas being shattered by the harsh realities,
Ferrier tries to convey the same conservative message as Austen, namely that one should never neglect
his or her duties in the pursuit of romantic aspirations.
Lastly, it can be argued that Ferrier’s conservative views are also reflected in the criticism she
delivers on her character Juliana in particular, because her conduct does not at all correspond with
that of a gentlewoman. It has already been mentioned that she is guilty of material greed and excessive
sensibility in the form of romantic idealism. However, it is important to note that she also suffers from
too much sensibility in the sense of displaying “unmeasured, extravagant emotion” (Manning 80). In
the novel, it is stressed that Juliana reacts overly strongly to the world she encounters. Similarly to
Austen, Ferrier attempts to show her readers that the excessive display of feelings endangers the moral
values of the old social order, because it often leads to unkindness and anti-social behaviour. Just like
Marianne Dashwood, Juliana does not appreciate the help of others for she is too occupied with her
own individualistic feelings. It is stated in the novel that the Douglas ladies, Miss Jacky, Miss Grizzy and
Miss Nicky, do everything in their power to make sure that Juliana feels welcome and that she is
comfortable. The genteel lady, however, never expresses gratitude towards them for their hospitality.
Instead, she keeps sobbing and exclaiming that she wants to be taken away from that place. Her
husband Henry is left “mortified, ashamed, and provoked, at a behaviour so childish and absurd” (13).
Following that, Juliana is also criticised for being driven by the self-centredness of the new social
order. Unlike Elinor Dashwood, who cares about other people’s well-being, Juliana merely focuses on
her own happiness. That is, for instance, emphasised when she arrives at her brother’s place. His wife
just eloped with a lover and left him with some large debts. Juliana, however, never expresses
compassion towards Lord Courtland. On the contrary, she claims that this event is very “fortunate”
because now she can lodge in the luxurious apartments that were originally intended for her brother’s
former spouse Lady Lindore (150). Another example that highlights Juliana’s self-centredness is the
fact that she refuses to act as a responsible parent when her twin daughters are born. She calls them
ugly, cannot bear their crying and screaming and she does not want to breastfeed them. Moreover,
she does not want to have her children near her, for she keeps exclaiming that someone has to take
them away and that she wishes to have no more babies. In short, Juliana sees the birth of her daughters
as a burden to her life, because they demand a lot of time and attention, which the selfish mother is
not willing to give.
52
4.2. Adelaide Douglas and Lord Lindore
Eighteen years have passed now since Juliana and Henry’s separation. Unfortunately, the genteel lady
has not become wiser “by the added years and increased experience” (183):
Lady Juliana had fallen into an error, very common with wiser heads than hers – that of
mistaken the effect for the cause. She looked no farther than to her union with Henry Douglas,
for the foundation of all her unhappiness – it never once occurred to her, that her marriage
was only the consequence of something previously wrong; she saw not the headstrong
passions that had impelled her to please herself – no matter at what price. She thought not of
the want of principle – she blushed not at the want of delicacy, that had led her to deceive a
parent, and elope with a man to whose character she was a total stranger. She therefore
considered herself as having fallen a victim to love; and could she only save her daughter from
a similar error, she might yet by her means retrieve her fallen fortune. To implant principles of
religion and virtue in her mind, was not within the compass of her own; but she could scoff at
every pure and generous affection – she could ridicule every disinterested attachment – and
she could expatiate on the never fading joys that attend on wealth and titles, jewels and
equipages – and all this she did in the belief that she was acting the part of a most wise and
tender parent. (186)
The passage above highlights that Lady Juliana fails to understand that her own personality actually
caused the events that have taken place between her and Henry. She does not blame herself for the
misfortunes that happened to her, she ascribes it all to the fact that she married for love. As Juliana
chooses to be ignorant of her negative character traits, she raises her daughter with those same selfish
and greedy principles:
The seed, thus carefully sown, promised to bring forth an abundant harvest. At eighteen,
Adelaide Douglas was as heartless and ambitious as she was beautiful and accomplished – but
53
the surface was covered with flowers, and who would have thought of analysing the soul?
(186-187)
That Adelaide shares the unkindness of her mother is, for instance, illustrated in the first
meeting she has with her sister Mary after been separated for eighteen years. Mary is pleased to be
reunited with her sister after all this time and wants to express her happiness by embracing her. Mary’s
cordiality is, however, not appreciated by the cold-hearted and reserved Adelaide. The latter merely
“felt awkward and embarrassed” by it, because her “selfishness and vanity” makes her “incapable of
loving anything in which self had no share” (229). In short, Adelaide does not feel the need to act kindly
towards her sister, because she believes that she cannot benefit from this acquaintance.
Adelaide’s self-centredness and ambition are also displayed in the motive she has for seducing
her cousin Lord Lindore, the son of Juliana’s brother Lord Courtland. He is described as “an elegant
looking young man” with an amiable personality (274). However, his portrayal is not entirely positive
as it is also stated that he is a bit flighty and that “he admires none but les dames Mariées” (280). Yet,
that does not prevent Adelaide from trying ‘to captivate and secure the heart of her cousin” (280). On
the contrary, in the mind of the lady, Lord Lindore’s flirtatious character “increase[s] his consequence,
and enhance[s] his value”, because “it would be no vulgar conquest to fix and reform one who was
notorious for his inconstancy and libertine principles” (280). An attachment with him would, in other
words, favour her reputation for she would be known as a lady who convinced a self-indulgent man to
give up his loose life and settle down.
However, Adelaide’s focus soon shifts from Lord Lindore to the Duke of Altamont. The latter
pays much attention to Mary and Adelaide, driven by “pride, envy and ambition”, cannot not bear the
thought that her sister who is “so inferior to herself” would attain “a more splendid alliance” (317).
Consequently, she breaks off her relationship with the handsome but poor Lindore to marry the dull
duke who has a yearly income of ninety thousand pounds (318). With her husband’s sum, which is nine
times larger than that of the wealthiest Austen character Mr. Darcy (see appendix), Adelaide finds
herself “surrounded with all that rank, wealth, and fashion [can] bestow” (426). Despite all the wealth
and grandeur, the duchess is not happily married, for it is stated that she “most heartily hated and
despised the man she had so lately vowed to love and obey” (396). She is bound to a husband who
does not want to engage in any of the activities that she likes and who refuses to listen to any of her
wishes. Due to the lack of domestic happiness, Adelaide begins to question if she made the right
decision by marrying the duke. Her doubts and regrets increase even more when she beholds Lord
Lindore’s popularity:
54
Ambition had led her to marry the Duke, and that same passion now heightened her
attachment for Lord Lindore; for, as someone has remarked, ambition is not always the desire
for that which is in itself excellent, but for that which is most prized by others; and the
handsome Lord Lindore was courted and caressed in circles, where the dull, precise Duke of
Altamont was wholly overlooked. (431)
As the passage above illustrates, there is a marked contrast between the duke and Lindore. The
former is regarded as tiresome company while the latter is considered a pleasant man to converse
with. When Adelaide notices that her ex-love interest and not her husband is “the admired of all
admirers” (431), her vanity and ambition takes over once more. Vainly hoping to find “happiness in
the gratification of her own headstrong passions”, Adelaide leaves her spouse to elope with Lord
Lindore (432). The duke, overcome with feelings of dishonour and revenge, does not let that happen
without consequences. It is said that “he immediately set about taking the legal measures for avenging
it; and [that] damages were awarded, which would have the effect of rendering Lord Lindore for ever
an alien to his country” (433). As their public image in England is ruined, the couple is forced to move
to the south of France, where Adelaide finds herself in a state of “melancholy and discontent” (451).
The lady expected that she would be ensured of Lindore’s “boundless gratitude and adoration”, since
she left the wealthy duke for him (451). Unfortunately for her, that is just “a delusive dream”, because
in reality, she finds herself “friendless in a foreign land – an outcast from society – an object of
indifference, even to him for whom she had abandoned all” (451).
This unhappy ending is the result of Adelaide’s immoral conduct. Despite the lady’s claims that
she married the Duke of Altamont out of duty (364), it is clear that this alliance was purely based on
envy, the want of fortune and the wish to obtain the title of duchess. Regarding Lord Lindore, Adelaide
argues several times in the novel that she loves him. Nevertheless, it is rather ambiguous whether her
feelings can be defined as amorousness. When she first met Lindore, she already declared, after having
one glance at him, that “her cousin was worthy of falling in love with her” (273). This utterance is,
however, merely based on Lindore’s appearance, for she did not yet know his personality back then.
When she eventually does learn about his character, which appears not to be appealing, she decides
to form an attachment with him out of self-interest. That, together with her marriage to the wealthy
duke and the fact that the restoration of her alliance with Lindore is based on self-centredness as well,
causes her motives to be questionable. It rather seems as if Adelaide confuses love with vanity.
Whatever the nature of Adelaide’s feelings may be, it cannot be denied that selfishness and personal
ambition govern her actions. Naturally, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It endangers moral
55
principle and forms a serious threat to the old social order. From that perspective, Adelaide’s
banishment from her own country serves as a warning about the consequences of egotism and
individualism, for it shows that the community will definitely decay if the social leaders act in such a
depraved manner.
4.3. Mary Douglas and Colonel Lennox
Mary, born as the weakest twin, was neglected by her mother Juliana. Unlike her twin sister Adelaide,
she is raised by her aunt Mrs. Douglas who educates her with “the purest principles of religion” and
“the duties of morality” (158). There is, however, one lesson that Mrs. Douglass cannot teach her pupil,
because she has to learn it from experience itself (222). The youthful spirit of Mary still needs to learn
to surpass that “beau-idéal of a young and ardent imagination” and to accept the reality that life can
be harsh (178). That Mary has not yet acquired that knowledge is, for instance, illustrated by the fact
that she feels strongly for her grandfather’s death, even though she was never close to him:
She had heard and read, and thought, and talked of death; but it was death in its fairest form
– in its softest transition: and the veil had been abruptly torn from her eyes; the gloomy pass
had suddenly disclosed itself before here, not strewed with flowers, but shrouded in horrors.
(177)
Mrs. Douglas, seeing Mary suffer from excessive sensibility, suggests that the lady should change
surroundings for a while. Therefore, she sends Mary to her relatives Juliana and Adelaide. Mary is very
excited about this, because she can only think of “the happiness that [awaits] her in a re-union with
her mother and sister” (222). Again, she gives herself up “to the blissful reveries” of her youthful
fantasies, but those quickly get shattered when she arrives (222). Juliana and Adelaide do not treat her
with the expected kindness, but rather act coldly towards her. “Mary’s blood [rushes] back to her
heart” and her eyes start to fill up with tears when she observes their unkind behaviour (225). This
sentimental reaction shows that, at this stage in the novel, Mary is still struggling to control her
emotions.
Nevertheless, in the course of the narrative, it becomes clear that Mary does not allow herself
to get carried away by sensibility. Much like Marianne Dashwood, she begins to understand the
necessity of governing her emotions and lets go of those ideas of sentimental idealism. Consequently,
she no longer reacts in an excessive hurtful manner to her mother’s and sister’s coldness, she accepts
56
that this is simply their nature. After acquiring that insight, Mary is portrayed as a virtuous upper-class
lady, because she now meets all the expectations of a member of the gentry. Not only does she possess
the strength of self-control, she is also driven by moral concern, due to the honourable education she
received from Mrs. Douglas. That Mary lives by the ethics that dominate the old social order is, for
instance, illustrated in her partner-choice.
As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the wealthy Duke of Altamont originally had his
eyes set on Mary. She refuses to marry this gentleman, because she is not attracted to him. According
to Mary, an attachment should be based on “esteem, similarities of tastes and sympathy of feelings”
(320-321). An alliance with the duke would conflict with her principles, as she regards him as an “old,
stupid, formal” man of “more than double her age” with whom she has nothing in common (319):
Can you suppose I would so far forfeit my honour and truth as that I would swear to love,
honour, and obey, where I could feel neither love nor respect; and where cold constrained
obedience would be all of my duty I could hope to fulfil? (319)
By declining the prosperous duke, Mary shows that she is not motivated by financial gain. The
same can be said when she turns down William Downe Wright. Juliana tries to set up an alliance
between her daughter and this weak but handsome young gentleman, because he is wealthy. He earns
ten thousand pounds a year from his own estate and receives “an additional fifteen thousand pounds
per annum” by becoming Lord Glenallan (382). Unfortunately for Juliana, who merely thinks of “her
own aggrandisement” (360), Mary opposes attachments which are merely based on wealth and
grandeur . She wants to find felicity “in the cultivation of the domestic virtues – the peaceful joys of a
happy home, and a loved companion” (382). That is, however, impossible with Mr. Wright, since he is
“a stranger to her” (346):
Juliana: “[…] I know that he is a man of family and fortune; […] uncommonly handsome, and
remarkably sensible and well-informed. I can’t conceive what more you wish to know!”
Mary: “I would wish to know something of his character – his principles – his habits – temper,
talents – in short, all those things on which my happiness would depend”. (346)
There is only one man who catches Mary’s attention and that is Colonel Charles Lennox. As she
often visits his blind and weak mother, she occasionally sees him there. Originally, there is no mutual
57
attraction between them, for they do not know each other very well. That changes, however, when
they start conversing, walking together and seeing each other on a more regular basis. Gradually,
Colonel Lennox’s character unfolds itself and Mary sees much to admire in it. Moreover, she discovers
that his “turn of mind [is] so similar to her own” (360-361). Charles, on the other hand, does no longer
merely look upon Mary “as an amiable sweet-tempered girl” (342-343). He has now “formed a higher
estimate of her character, and a spark [is] kindled that [wants] but opportunity to blaze into a flame”
(343). Although, they are clearly attracted to one another, they do not immediately become a couple,
because Mary is suspicious of the colonel’s feelings. She once overheard a conversation between Mrs.
Lennox and her son, in which the former was recommending her as the ideal suitor for him.
Consequently, she considers his attentions “rather as acts of duty towards his mother, than as the
spontaneous expression of his own attachment” (386). Yet, after having a further reflexion on the
colonel’s personality, Mary realises that it is not in his nature to pretend that he is in love with her,
only to please his mother. When he then repeats “his vows of unalterable affection”, Mary feels that
she is justified in receiving them (406). Juliana, however, objects to this connection for the following
two reasons: it is based on love and it is not the most splendid alliance, considering that Colonel Lennox
is not as prosperous as the Duke of Altamont or as Mr. Wright. Despite her mother’s disapproval, Mary
proceeds her wedding plans, since she does not aspire to belong to the wealthiest upper-class people:
Colonel Lennox’s fortune was small; but such as it was, it seemed sufficient for all the purposes
of rational enjoyment. Both were aware that wealth is a relative thing, and that the positively
rich are not those who have the largest possession, but those who have the fewest vain or
selfish desires to gratify. From these they were happily exempt. Both possessed too many
resources in their own minds to require the stimulus of spending money to rouse them into
enjoyment, or give them additional importance in the eyes of the world; and, above all, both
were too thoroughly Christian in their principles, to murmur at any sacrificed of privations they
might have to endure in the course of their earthly pilgrimage. (445)
The passage above already highlights that Ferrier approves of this connection, because it is not
only based on the moral concepts of love and mutual respect, it is also well-considered regarding
wealth. Mary and Charles do not wish to be surrounded by superfluous luxuries, they merely desire to
lead a simple, comfortable life amongst the gentry. Eventually, the couple suits the action to the word,
when their “narrow” income unexpectedly turns into a very high one due to the fact that Colonel
58
Lennox suddenly becomes heir of the Maclaughan estate Lochmarie18, a property that provides them
with an annual income of seven thousand pounds (180). Despite now officially being part of the most
prosperous members of the gentry (see appendix to compare with the richest Austen characters), they
still do not let themselves get carried away by grandeur. On the contrary, they prove themselves to be
moral social leaders as they use their wealth to help out other people in the community:
The extensive influence which generally attends upon virtue joined to prosperity, was used by
them for its best purposes. It was not confined either to rich or poor, to cast or sect; but all
shared in their benevolence whom that benevolence could benefit. And the poor, the sick, and
the desolate, united in blessing what heaven had already blesses – this happy Marriage. (468)
In conclusion, Mary and Colonel Lennox’s attachment is based on all the principles of the old
social order and therefore serves the purpose of setting an example to Ferrier’s genteel readers.
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise that there is an ambiguity in Mary and Charles’s connection.
Similar to Colonel Brandon, it is apparent that Charles Lennox is described as a “gentleman-like” person
(361), even though his position as a colonel should suffice to qualify as a gentleman during the mid-
eighteenth – and early nineteenth century. The reason why Lennox is not being referred to as a
gentleman is because Ferrier shares Austen’s sceptical view on the army. Although Colonel Lennox is
portrayed as a kind-hearted moral being, it cannot be denied that the novel contains several passages
in which the readers are presented with a more negative image of the military men. Mary’s cousin
Lady Emily Lindore argues, for instance, that militia officers “are capable of passion, but not of love”
(320), while William Downe Right’s mother claims that the army is “a poor trade” (440) and that she
“never knew a military man but what must have his bottle of port everyday” (438). Considering that
18 This note is meant to provide some additional background information on the relationship between the families of Lennox and Maclaughan and how it comes that Colonel Lennox is heir to a Maclaughan estate. Due to a past family feud (461), the Lennoxes and the Maclaughans regard each other as enemies (460). For generations, the Lennoxes have been excluded from inheriting the Maclaughan properties until “the power of alienating […] was vested in Sir Sampson, as the last remaining heir of the entail” (461). The latter, who is a close acquaintance of the Douglases, continued the feud by banning General Lennox, Charles’s father, and his family from the possibility of inheriting the Maclaughan estates even though the general “was next in succession” (461). Sampson’s wife, Lady Maclaughan, however, did not support this grudge. She “contrived to prevent [her husband] from ever executing a new entail” (462) by sending Mary to Mrs. Lennox’s house to deliver a letter, hoping that this would lead to Miss Douglas meeting Charles and falling in love with him. She wishes Mary to form an attachment with Colonel Lennox, because this connection would put Sampson in a difficult position. It would be hard for him to exclude Mary and her husband from the property to which they are entitled, considering that he is on such close terms with the Douglases. Eventually, it turns out that Lady Mclaughan’s plan worked, for it is announced that Mary and Colonel Lennox are engaged. Naturally, Sampson opposes this attachment, but he cannot prevent this marriage from happening as it is stated that he passes away on their wedding day. Consequently, the Maclaughan estate Lochmarie becomes Colonel Lennox’s possession.
59
Ferrier specifically broaches the flirtatious and hedonistic behaviour of the militia might indicate that,
just like Austen, she was aware of the York scandal (see 2.5. Colonel Brandon and Marianne Dashwood)
and the corruption that was taking place in the army during her lifetime.
61
5. The Inheritance
In her second novel The Inheritance (1824), Ferrier tells the story of Gertrude St. Clair who becomes
heiress to the Rossville estates in Scotland. Her father passed away and her uncle, the present Lord
Rossville, has no children of his own. After Gertrude and her mother, Mrs. Sarah St. Clair, take up
residence in the Rossville castle, a conflict soon arises between the young lady and her uncle. Lord
Rossville plans to wed his niece to Member of Parliament Robert Delmour. The sole purpose of this
alliance is to increase the power and influence of the Rossville family. Gertrude, however, refuses to
be forced into a loveless marriage. Instead, she falls in love with the brother of Mr. Delmour, Colonel
Frederick Delmour. Her relatives and guardian Edward Lyndsay are not pleased with that connection
for they know this man to be an egoistic and ambitious person. Unfortunately, Gertrude fails to see
sense and continues her romance with Colonel Delmour. While the young lady is fantasising about a
romantic life with her lover, Mr. Lyndsay tries to keep Gertrude’s feet on the ground by reminding her
of the responsibilities she has as a member of the gentry. He stimulates Miss St. Clair to behave in a
moral manner, but regrettably, the immoral Colonel Delmour has more control over her. When
Gertrude becomes heiress of the Rossville property, he accompanies her to the fashionable city of
London where she adopts an abundant lifestyle.
Yet, the carefree life that Gertrude has in mind as Countess of Rossville soon comes to an end
when a vulgar man called Lewiston reveals a secret regarding her identity. It turns out that she is not
the daughter of the Rossville relative Thomas St. Clair and his wife Sarah Black. She is the child of
Lewiston’s cousin Jacob, an American trader, and Marian La Motte, who was always said to be her
nurse. As it appears that Gertrude is not really related to the Rossville family, she loses her position as
countess. The estates are left to Mr. Robert Delmour, who died shortly after becoming Lord Rossville,
leaving his brother Colonel Delmour as successor. When Gertrude’s lover receives the news that his
lady is actually of low birth and that the Rossville estates, which he always desired, are bequeathed to
him, he breaks off his connection with her. After losing everything, Gertrude realises that she has
wronged many people with her immoral behaviour, especially Mr. Lyndsay who has always sincerely
cared for her. She finally understands that, all this time, he has been the one who supports and protects
her. As she acknowledges his admirable nature, she gradually lets this kind and generous man into her
heart. Eventually Gertrude and Lyndsay get married and as the latter inherits the Rossville properties,
after Colonel Delmour’s passing, the lady is restored as countess.
62
5.1. Sarah Black and Thomas St. Clair
IT is a truth, universally acknowledged, that there is no passion so deeply rooted in human
nature as that of pride. Whether of self or of family, of deeds done in our bodies, or deeds
done in the bodies of those who lived hundreds of years before us – all find some foundation
on which to build their Tower of Babel. (1)
By means of this opening sentence, clearly inspired by the one of Pride and Prejudice (see 3.1. Charles
Bingley and Jane Bennet), Ferrier announces the conflict between Thomas St. Clair and his aristocratic
relatives. Mr. St. Clair is about to marry “the humble Miss Sarah Black, a beautiful girl of obscure origin
and no fortune” (1). As that description already indicates, Miss Black is inferior to Mr. St. Clair, who is
born as the “youngest son of the Earl of Rossville” (1). Consequently, Thomas’s family members oppose
to his matrimonial plans. The young gentleman, however, disregards their wish and Miss Sarah Black
becomes Mrs. St. Clair. This unequal alliance inflicts a wound so “deep and incurable” on the
Rossvilles’s “family pride” that Thomas and his wife are given the cold shoulder (1). Mr. St. Clair still
attempts to reconcile with his relatives, but his efforts are in vain. Eventually, Thomas consents to
move away to France, on the condition that his family provides him and his wife with “a suitable
allowance” as long as they remain abroad (1). However, once arrived in France, the couple realises
that they cannot really count on financial support to improve their situation. The only hope left for
Thomas is that his father will leave him something when he passes away. Unfortunately, when that
moment comes, it turns out that he is disinherited:
His father’s death, which happened some years after, made no alteration in his circumstances.
The patrimony to which he expected to succeed was settled on his children, should he have
any, and a slender life annuity was his only portion. (2)
They can thus only restore themselves if they produce an heir to the Rossville estates, as
Thomas’s brother, who is now Earl of Rossville, separated from his wife and is left childless19. Shortly
after they receive that news, Mrs. St. Clair comes up with a plan. During their exile in France, they got
19 It is stated in the novel that “Mr. St. Clair had been the youngest of five sons; but [that] three of his brothers had fallen victim to war, or pestilence, and [that] there now only remained the present Earl and himself, both alike childless” (2).
63
acquainted with a woman named Marian La Motte, who is in a dire situation. Her husband, Jacob
Ruxton Lewiston, left on an overseas-mercenary mission in the hope of gathering some fortune to
support himself and his wife. He has been gone for such a long time that Marian fears he perished at
sea. Marian is alone in France without an income, in poor health and heavily pregnant. Seeing this poor
woman’s state, Mrs. St. Clair suggests to her husband and Marian to adopt the baby as she and Mr. St.
Clair are in need of a child. After repeatedly pleading her case, she eventually gets “them to co-operate
in [her] schemes” (458). Her husband probably consents because he wishes to reconcile with his family,
Marian most likely to save the life of her child as she herself does not possess the means to provide
for her infant. Thus seven months after Mr. St. Clair heard about his disinheritance, he and his wife are
given a baby girl, whom they name Gertrude. Luckily for Mrs. St. Clair, the sex of the child does not
interfere with her plan, as the “Salique law [is] not in force in the Rossville family” (2)20. Pursuing her
scheme, Mrs. St. Clair informs the Earl of Rossville that she and her husband are the proud parents of
Gertrude, but to avoid suspicion that they have a child so soon, she tells him that their daughter is
born prematurely. Lastly, to prevent the earl from worrying about Gertrude’s so-called dangerous
condition, the lady fools him into believing that she has found a great nurse called Marian who takes
excellent care of her:
Its health and strength were, therefore the chief objects of consideration, and, although born
in the seventh month, it was a remarkably fine thriving baby, which Mrs. St. Clair, contrary to
the common practice of mothers, ascribed entirely to the excellence of its nurse. They had
been fortunate enough to meet a woman of superior class, who, having recently lost her
husband and her own infant, had readily adopted this one, and as readily transferred to it that
abundant stock of love and tenderness which those dealers in the milk of human kindness
always have so freely to bestow on their nursling for the time. (3)
When Lord Rossville hears that his brother and sister-in-law became parents, he insists on having
“the little Gertrude transmitted to him, [so] that she might have the advantage of being trained up
under his own eye” (3). As this suggestion endangers Mrs. St. Clair’s intention to improve her own
situation, she refuses the offer. The lady argues that she and her husband do not desire to separate
from their child and state that they will come over as a family when her own health is “sufficiently re-
20 “The Salique law” is a rule held to derive from the legal code of the Salic Franks excluding females from the line of succession to a throne (Online Dictionary Merriam-Webster).
64
established” (3). However, “some obstacle, real or pretended, always [arises] to prevent the
accomplishment of this plan”, until eventually Mr. St. Clair becomes paralysed and cannot be moved.
After been severely ill for a few years, he eventually passes away (3). Mrs. St. Clair immediately
announces this news to the earl, who promises to advise and protect them if they come over to the
Rossville castle. As “this invitation [is] too advantageous to be refused”, the lady and her supposed
child set out for Scotland (4), where the scheming continues:
In her early days her pride and ambition had been excited by making what was considered a
splendid alliance, and it was not till her understanding was thoroughly ripened that she made
the mortifying discovery that high birth, when coupled with personal insignificance, adds no
more to real distinction than a flaming sign does to an ill-kept inn. It was this disappointment
which, operating on a naturally proud and violent temper, had brought into play all the worst
qualities of her nature, and made her look upon the world as indeed a stage, where all the men
and women were merely players. To act a grand and conspicuous part, and regain the station
her husband’s pusillanimity had lost, was therefore now her sole aim. (5)
It is clear that Mrs. St. Clair is primarily driven by the “middle-class self-centredness and personal
ambition” that marks the new social order (Butler “Romantics” 104). As the passage above illustrates,
her marriage to Mr. St. Clair was meant to improve her own financial status and position. When she
noticed that her plan had failed, she had to come up with a new idea to obtain wealth and
respectability. She then moves to the scheme regarding Marian’s child, an action that again shows that
she only cares about her own selfish needs. Once arrived in the Rossville castle, Mrs. St. Clair still
behaves in the same immoral manner. She resolves to play the role of Gertrude’s mother for the rest
of her life and to act as if the young lady is the rightful heiress to the Rossville estates (see fragment
above). She is thus willing to spend the rest of her days living a lie, merely to gain a position among
“the noble race of Rossville” (1) and to enjoy the comforts that come with that.
However, after having spent years in peace in the Rossville castle without anybody suspecting
that something is awry, Mrs. St. Clair’s scheme threatens to be revealed when a man named Lewiston
turns up who lays claim to Gertrude’s fortune. The lady immediately understands that this mysterious
figure must be Marian’s missing husband and thus Gertrude’s real father. To prevent her secret from
being exposed, Mrs. St. Clair obeys all Lewiston’s commands. She allows him to meet Gertrude a few
times and gives him all her and the young lady’s jewellery. When Lewiston demands money, which
65
Mrs. St. Clair does not possess, she even makes Gertrude ask for a cheque of five hundred pounds to
her wealthy uncle Adam Ramsay, as she knows that he favours the young lady and will not refuse her.
Gertrude, who has been raised as Miss St. Clair and who, consequently, knows nothing about her real
background, feels uncomfortable with this mysterious man Lewiston threatening her mother and
bringing her in distress. Naturally, she starts to ask questions about the so-called authority he has over
her. Mrs. St. Clair, who does not want Lewiston’s real motives for his encounters to be discovered, tells
Gertrude that he is the husband of her nurse Marian who wants money for his spouse’s services:
[…] He seems to think his wife’s care and attention to you, and her long services in the family,
give him a claim upon our gratitude, which I fear I shall not find easy to answer. In short, he
seems a needy, rapacious man, urgent for money, which I have not to give, and yet am loth to
refuse. (98)
Gertrude’s guardian Lyndsay accidentally witnessed one of the meetings with Lewiston and inquired
about this man’s business with them. Mrs. St. Clair tells him that Lewiston “had been engaged with her
husband in certain money transactions”, which is why he can lay claim to Miss St. Clair’s fortune (253).
Unfortunately for Mrs. St. Clair, both Gertrude and Lyndsay question the truth of her account.
To ensure their silence and to convince them of the sincerity of her intentions, she uses the language
and the gestures of excessive sensibility. She attempts to convince Lyndsay of the gravity of the
situation by using “hyperbolic jargon” (254) and implores his silence by shedding a few tears (253).
With respect to Gertrude, she manipulates her so-called daughter by crying, exclaiming her words in
“a deep and agitated voice” and sinking on her knees at the young lady’s feet (432-433). Moreover,
she takes advantage of the love that Gertrude feels for her as a mother. Several times in the novel, she
manages to persuade Gertrude to remain silent and to make her obey Lewiston’s commands by
claiming that her life depends on it. That is, for instance, illustrated in the following passage in which
Mrs. St. Clair tells Gertrude that Lewiston wishes to converse with her alone:
[…] Mrs. St. Clair placed her hand on her daughter’s lips, as she saw an indignant refusal ready
to burst forth – “Oh, Gertrude! Dearest Gertrude! As you value my life, as you value your own
happiness, do not refuse – do not provoke him. I am in his power – one hasty word, one
contemptuous look, may undo me. Oh, Gertrude! For the love you bear to me, for the love you
bore your nurse, for the love of Heaven – be calm and patient. Speak – tell me I may trust you.”
66
[…] Gertrude started with terror, as the moonbeams now fell on her mother’s face, and
showed it wild, and even ghastly, from excessive emotion. “Compose yourself, mamma,” said
she; “I will do – I will be all your desire”. (111)
As the passage shows, Mrs. St. Clair uses emotional blackmail to submit Gertrude to her control. If the
young lady does not go to Lewiston, she endangers her beloved mother’s life. She would be the reason
for Mrs. St. Clair’s downfall and wretchedness. Gertrude, hearing this speech and seeing her mother’s
agitated facial expression, logically gives in.
Nevertheless, there comes an end to Gertrude enduring all of Mrs. St. Clair’s secrecy and
Lewiston’s threats. When she becomes Countess of Rossville, Lewiston suddenly arrives at her castle
to demand residence. Having a stranger in her home goes too far for Gertrude. She immediately tells
him that she will not have him as a guest and orders her mother to explain what exactly this man’s
claim is on her. Mrs. St. Clair is horrified when she hears Gertrude utter those words. She begs her
daughter to ask no further questions and to simply obey Lewiston. She also tries to appeal again to
Gertrude’s emotions by asking her if she wants to destroy her mother (431). Gertrude, however, does
not want to hear any more and commands Lewiston to leave her property. He does not accept that
the young lady denies him lodging and therefore reveals why she should respect his authority:
“Do you know who it is you are speaking to?” said he. “I neither know nor care,” said the
Countess, while her heart beat as though it would have burst. Lewiston was silent for a minute;
he then said abruptly, but in some agitation – “What if I am your father?”. Gertrude gazed
upon him with a look almost bordering on idiocy; her lips were apart, but no sound came from
them. “It’s very true though – ask the old lady, her you call your mother, if it an’t, she’ll confess
it – that she will. She’ll tell you you’re no more Countess of Rossville than I am; you’re the
daughter of Jacob Lewiston here and your nurse – “. (451)
Mrs. St. Clair’s worst nightmare becomes reality, the truth about Gertrude’s parentage is made
known. Since there is no information left to conceal, she tells the young woman, whom she always
called her daughter, the story of how she met her real mother Marian La Motte (cf. supra). However,
Mrs. St. Clair does not know that the American man who approached them was not being entirely
honest. After Gertrude’s protector, Mr. Lyndsay, gave him money to reveal his true identity, he admits
67
that he is the cousin of Marian’s husband Jacob Lewiston. He merely pretended to be Gertrude’s father
in the hope of receiving hush money. He then explains that the dying Marian had written a letter, of
which Mrs. St. Clair was unaware, that contained the secret of Gertrude’s birth and that she had
handed this over to her priest, who was only allowed to give it to Jacob Ruxton Lewiston of Pert-
Amboy, if he were to return from his mission. The minister did not know that the man he was looking
for drowned at sea, so when he went to Pert-Amboy and inquired for Jacob Lewiston, he found his
cousin.
Clearly, the American possesses no claim on Gertrude. However, that still does not take away
that she is a Lewiston. At first, the young lady is angry with Mrs. St. Clair for concealing this from her,
but eventually she decides to forgive the woman who pretended to be her mother. Mrs. St. Clair,
however, argues that she is not the only one who needs to be excused. She claims that Gertrude should
apologise to her as well:
“I too have something to forgive,” said Mrs. St. Clair vehemently; “I have to forgive the cruel
disregard – the unnatural, unrelenting violence, with which you treated one who had ever
been as a mother to you in all but the natural tie. I had done all for your aggrandisement; I had
raised you from beggary and obscurity to wealth and greatness, and it is you who have brought
me to shame and misery and poverty – and am I to have nothing to forgive? I humbled myself
in the dust to you, and you were deaf to my prayers. I told you that my life was in your hands
[…]”. (502)
Mrs. St. Clair’s speech highlights once again that she is a selfish being. She does not feel remorse
for what she has done. On the contrary, she is mad that the truth has been revealed and blames
Gertrude for it. Thanks to her, Mrs. St. Clair has to give up her comfortable life in the Rossville castle,
her position among the upper classes and her social respectability. In her speech, it is apparent that
Mrs. St. Clair merely focusses on her losses and not on the problematic situation that Gertrude finds
herself in now that she is no longer countess. That also indicates that Mrs. St. Clair is too occupied with
her own individual needs.
Lastly, it is also important to point out that the lady defends her immoral behaviour by arguing
that she did Gertrude a favour. Although it is true that Gertrude would have been raised in poverty, if
she had stayed with her real mother Marian, that still does not justify Mrs. St. Clair’s action. Contrary
to what the lady claims in the above-mentioned fragment, it has been established that she adopted
68
Gertrude for her own aggrandisement (cf. supra). Just like Austen’s character Lucy Steele, Mrs. St. Clair
is a middle-class woman who is willing to sacrifice other people’s happiness to ameliorate her own
position. As discussed before, Ferrier is not an advocate of such immoral behaviour. By displaying the
troubles and the pain that Mrs. St. Clair has caused with her disgraceful conduct, Ferrier expresses her
scepticism about “individual inclination that is not tempered by social and moral values” (Evans 36-
37). She tries to persuade her readers of the importance of ethics, by highlighting that selfish behaviour
does not pay off. By the end of the novel, Mrs. St. Clair does not get restored to the luxurious lifestyle
she had in the Rossville castle. Instead, she finds herself abroad again where she will probably struggle
to maintain herself as she has no fortune of her own.
5.2. Gertrude Lewiston and Edward Lyndsay
As seen, Gertrude is said to be the daughter of Thomas St. Clair. As she is believed to be an upper-class
lady, she is expected to make an honourable alliance with another high-born person. Unfortunately,
Gertrude does not appear to have a say in her own future prospect, since Lord Rossville has already
arranged an attachment for her with Robert Delmour. He is a politician who is aspiring to increase his
influence in Parliament. Nevertheless, to succeed in his plan, it is necessary that he wins the upcoming
elections. The earl really desires Mr. Delmour to win the political contest, because his victory would
benefit the power and consequence of the Rossville family. However, the gentleman is aware that Mr.
Delmour has to stand out as a candidate to make a chance. To boost the politician’s position, the earl
would like to make him the successor of the family estates. Yet, he cannot simple bestow the
properties on Delmour as Gertrude is next in line to inherit. To make sure that Delmour still can call
himself the future Lord Rossville, the earl promises him the hand of his cousin.
The latter, however, objects to the arrangements made. Unlike her uncle and her destined
suitor, she does not regard marriage as a business. She considers it to be a declaration of mutual love.
As Gertrude is not attracted to the dull Delmour “who can only talk of votes, seats, rolls and
qualifications” (74), she disclaims the engagement Lord Rossville has formed for her. The earl is furious
when he hears of her dismissal of his plans and threatens to disinherit Gertrude if she does not marry
Mr. Delmour:
[…] There is good reason to believe that it will bear a question whether I am not at liberty,
under the deed of Simon, second Earl of Rossville, to dispone and bequeath the whole of the
lands and estates according to my will and pleasure. […] You have therefore to choose betwixt
69
an annual income of £20,000, to which you are at present presumptive heiress (that is,
eventually), or to sink at once into comparative poverty, and insignificance, and obscurity.
(193)
Lord Rossville’s attempts are in vain, because Gertrude has made up her mind. She refuses to value
properties and wealth over affection.
It is very likely that author Ferrier is an advocate of Gertrude’s decision to decline the arranged
attachment, since it would be a purely diplomatic matter. The connection is clearly set up by a man
who loves power and who is driven by “the desire of human applause” (11). Those are not the
foundations of a good marriage. As discussed before, Ferrier believes that rank and a family’s
reputation ought to be taken into consideration when forming an alliance. So, from that perspective,
she agrees with Lord Rossville. Yet, according to Ferrier, a marriage cannot be merely or primarily
based on the wish for aggrandisement and increasing one’s influence (see chapter 4.1. Lady Juliana
and Henry Douglas). In Ferrier’s opinion, an attachment should not be all about rationalism, it should
involve an emotional connection as well.
Ferrier thus supports Gertrude’s view that feelings of love are important in a relationship.
However, the author also believes that one ought not to get carried away by those sentiments. She
warns her readers that they have to remain realistic. They cannot expect to lead an amorous life in
which they can leave all sense of duty behind them. In that respect, Gertrude’s reasoning and conduct
differ from what Ferrier expects, for it is emphasised in the novel that the protagonist makes the crucial
error of “mistak[ing] her imagination for her mind” (261). Instead of combining “reason or the stern
voice of duty” (164) with “delicacy of sentiment” (200) as Austen’s virtuous character Elinor Dashwood
does, Gertrude completely submits herself to “the religion of impulse and feeling” (200). Similar to
Marianne Dashwood, Gertrude’s “young, enraptured, and enthusiastic mind” is full of ideas of
romantic passion (9). Those views of romantic idealism eventually cause her to fall for the “strikingly
handsome” Colonel Frederick Delmour and his sweet nothings (30). Blinded by her romantic fantasies,
Gertrude thinks this person to be the ideal partner for her.
However, he is not as perfect as she believes him to be. It appears that this man has a lot in
common with Austen’s immoral character Wickham (see 3.3. George Wickham and Lydia Bennet). Just
like the Pride and Prejudice military officer, he is known to be a flirtatious man, for it is stated that
“he’s never happy but when he’s making love to somebody or other, married or single, it’s all the same
to him” (162). Delmour also gambled away a large sum like Wickham. His cousin Edward Lyndsay then
saved him from ruin by advancing him money. Yet, instead of paying back his relative, Delmour chooses
to live a luxurious life “far beyond his income” (162), causing him to create even larger debts. That
70
want for extravagance is also similar to Wickham of whom it is said that he always spends more than
he ought to (Austen “Pride” 471). A last resemblance between Austen’s officer and Ferrier’s colonel is
that they are both very ambitious. While Wickham wanted to marry Miss King for her wealth, Delmour
desires an attachment with Gertrude, because it is very likely that she will inherit the Rossville
properties:
Colonel Delmour certainly was in love – as much so as it was in his nature to be; but, as has
been truly said, how many noxious ingredients enter into the composition of what is
sometimes called love! Pride, vanity, ambition, self-interest, all these had their share in the
admiration which Colonel Delmour accorded to the beauties and graces of Miss St. Clair. In any
situation in life his taste would have led him to admire her; but it was only as the heiress of
Rossville his pride would have permitted him to have loved her. (156)
Clearly, Colonel Delmour is far from being a morally-upright person. Unfortunately, when Mrs.
St. Clair and Miss Pratt, who is a close acquaintance of the Rossville family, warn Gertrude about his
true personality, she refuses to believe them. Just like Marianne Dashwood and Elizabeth Bennet,
Gertrude makes the mistake of relying too much on her own judgement. As Ferrier describes it, the
young lady is “a stranger to the meanness of suspicion, and to suspect the man she [loves] is not in her
nature” (157). As Gertrude is under “the influence of a wayward and domineering passion”, she fails
to see that her lover is in reality not a prince charming (201).
Naturally, the earl is displeased to see that his niece fully surrenders to the “idol of her
imagination” (164) and that she chose Colonel Delmour as her partner. As he knows that Gertrude will
refuse to give up her alliance with her lover, he attempts to convince Colonel Delmour of detaching
himself from Gertrude by bribing him. He writes him a letter in which he offers to pay off his debts and
to bestow ten thousand pounds upon him, if he does not marry Miss. St. Clair. The colonel hesitates to
accept the offer, because he does not know whether the earl made empty threats when he said that
he would disinherit Gertrude or whether he actually possesses the power to do so. Yet, before Delmour
finds out how the matter stands, he receives the news that the earl passed away and that his lover is
now Lady Rossville. Whereas the colonel is pleased to hear that Gertrude became countess, his lady
sheds a few tears, thinking about the fact that her uncle was still angry with her. Nevertheless,
Gertrude’s sadness does not last long, for her thoughts soon wander off again to all the bliss she
expects from her relationship with Colonel Delmour.
71
While Miss St. Clair is still caught up in that dream of living happily-ever-after with the
dishonourable colonel, she fails to realise that all this time her ideal suitor has been standing right in
front of her. She is loved by her friend and guardian Edward Lyndsay who is portrayed as the most
kind-hearted and righteous person: “[…] For of Lyndsay it might be truly said, that he set an example
of all the moral virtues without pride, and dared to be conspicuous for all the Christian graces without
false shame” (79). This gentleman’s morality is, for instance, illustrated in the way he approaches
Gertrude and Colonel Delmour’s attachment. Although it is hurtful for him to see his love interest
giving all her affection to a deceitful and selfish being, he always puts his own feelings aside. Following
that, he never aspires to separate Gertrude from Colonel Delmour. He could easily have tried to
convince Gertrude of the colonel’s bad personality and to persuade her to break off the attachment.
He could also have participated in Mrs. St. Clair’s scheme to keep Colonel Delmour away from Gertrude
as much as possible. However, he did neither of those things, because “his nature [is] too noble to join
in any stratagem” (261):
[…] His love was not of that violent yet contracted nature which had sought merely to engross
and appropriate her affections exclusively to himself. He had proposed a nobler aim, a purer
gratification. As his love was without idolatry, so was it free from selfishness. He had not sought
to undermine her affection; he had aimed at elevating and ennobling them by extending their
sphere beyond the narrow perishable limits of human attachment, and he had hoped that a
mind so pure, so lofty, so generous as hers, might yet become enamoured of virtue, might yet
be saved from uniting itself with a nature so unworthy of its love. (321)
Instead of governing her actions and views, Lyndsay thus intends “to guide [Gertrude’s]
principles”, “to strengthen her mind” and “to impress upon her the responsibility of the duties assigned
to her” (307). By teaching the countess about the importance of virtue, the gentleman hopes that she
will understand that she has been relying too much on her romantic fantasies and that she needs to
listen more to the voice of reason. Following that, he also longs that his strategy will lead Gertrude to
the realisation that Colonel Delmour is a bad suitor for her. To guide Lady Rossville onto the path of
morality, Lyndsay encourages her to start up some charity projects. Together, they make plans for the
construction of a schoolhouse, they visit the poor and they intend to assist Gertrude’s cousin Anne
Black and her fiancé William Leslie in their financial situation. Leslie has finished his clerical education,
“but hitherto all his efforts to procure a living have proved ineffectual” (180). Consequently, he and his
72
partner are left with no income and are thus forced to postpone their wedding plans. To make sure
that the lack of wealth does not interfere with their happiness, Lyndsay and Gertrude offer to help
them in their search for a sacred office.
Despite that Lyndsay is making progress with Gertrude, his accomplishments soon are undone
by Colonel Delmour who exerts a more powerful influence over her. That ascendancy is, for instance,
highlighted when the lover joins Gertrude on a trip to London. Once arrived there, he introduces her
to the extravagant city life, which makes her forget about all the valuable lessons she received from
Lyndsay:
Her own mornings were spent in sitting to half the sculptors and painters in town for busts and
pictures, in all possible variety, to please the fastidious taste of her lover: in riding in the Park
with him, or in shopping with Lady Charles, or some other frivolous idler. In the evening there
were dinners, and parties, and balls, and operas, and concerts, in such quick succession, as left
her scarcely conscious of having been at one before she found herself at some other. “Confess
this is to live,” said Delmour to her one evening, as he led her from one gay multiple, where
she had been the admired of all admirers, to another where her appearance would excite an
equal sensation […]. (391)
As the passage above illustrates, Colonel Delmour does not encourage Gertrude to act dutifully like
Lyndsay did. Instead of letting her save money to help the poor or the contribute to society in general,
the colonel incites her to spend enormous sums on “frivolous occupations and amusements which
form the soil business of so many an immortal being’s existence” (391). It is due to his impact that Lady
Rossville adopts an excessive lifestyle.
Apart from that, Colonel Delmour’s negative influence on Gertrude is also demonstrated by the
fact that he makes her break the promise she made to Miss Black and Mr. Wesley (cf. supra). While in
London, Lady Rossville receives a letter from Lyndsay in which he mentions that the parish minister of
Rossville passed away. He asks her to draw up the paperwork so that Leslie can occupy the position.
Even though Delmour is aware that Anne and William need the income, he persuades Gertrude into
giving the clerical office to an acquaintance of his friend Monteith. When Lady Rossville asks the name
of the person to whom she bestows the church and living of Rossville, Delmour refuses to reveal the
identity of the man. The reason behind his secrecy soon becomes clear as it turns out that Gertrude
granted the Rossville ministry to “a superannuated bon vivant” (414) who absolutely does not deserve
73
the position. As soon as Lyndsay hears that news, he goes to the countess to confront her with the
injustice of her decision and to advise her to retract herself from it:
[…] Broken promises and power misused – ah! Gertrude, what can make up for these? […] The
happiness of two amiable, interesting beings is in your hands; you are their only earthly stay
at present; should you fail them, their disappointment may be bitter […]. (415-416)
Unfortunately, Gertrude persists in her choice. Lyndsay expresses his disappointment in her by
resigning as her guardian. That act makes Gertrude realise the incorrectness of her conduct: “How
must I have behaved, when even Lyndsay, the mild, forgiving, disinterested Lyndsay, has renounced
me!” (416).
Despite that Gertrude acknowledges her misconduct towards Miss Black and her fiancé, she still
fails to see the immorality of her overall behaviour. She only understands her flaws after she received
the news on her true parentage (see previous chapter). As she is not the daughter of Thomas St. Clair,
she loses her position as countess and all the wealth that comes with that. Having all her fortune taken
away made her realise how wrong it was to lead an extravagant life:
[…] She felt all the emptiness and the vanity of [the earthly] pleasures; her dreams of greatness,
her hopes of happiness, her gay-spent days, her festive nights, where were they now? Gone!
And where they had been was marked but with shame, disappointment, remorse. All earthly
distinctions had been hers, and what was the account which she had not to render to God for
the use of these His gifts? On which of these was it that she would now build her hopes of
acceptance with Him; […]. (497)
Next to that, the revelation about her biological parents and the loss of riches also makes her
understand that her relatives were right about Colonel Delmour. After Gertrude has to give up the
Rossville estates, they are bequeathed to Colonel Delmour’s older brother Frederick. As he does not
live much longer, the properties fall in the hands of the colonel. That offers Gertrude and Delmour the
chance to live the life they had in mind before the lady’s disinheritance. However, Delmour does not
want to be in a relationship with Gertrude anymore. As he is now the owner of the Rossville estates
that he always desired, he no longer needs her. Besides that, his pride and ambition withhold him from
marrying a woman of lower birth who has no fortune of her own. So, he detaches himself from
74
Gertrude. Only because of the separation with the colonel does she realise that, all this time, she has
let herself be swayed by her fantasies of romantic passion.
Since Gertrude is no longer captivated by her own illusions, she gradually begins to see what a
noble person Lyndsay is. His sincere kindness and integrity are, for instance, shown to the lady in the
actions he undertook in the case of Anne and William (cf. supra). Instead of informing the couple about
Gertrude’s abandonment, he bestows upon William another living and tells them it was Gertrude’s
doing. By this deed, he did not only secure the happiness of that couple, he also protected Gertrude’s
name and reputation:
He has saved me as far as he could from the disgrace of – at best, I fear, equivocation, and
from the wretchedness of having disappointed the hopes of those whom I had taught to put
their trust in me. (420)
Following that, Gertrude also starts to realise that Lyndsay is the one who truly loves her. He
never stopped supporting her and he sincerely cares for her. In the course of her stay at the Rossville
castle, he has always been there for her and that does not change when he hears that she is no longer
a wealthy countess. After she had to give up everything, he does not hold her in contempt like Colonel
Delmour did. On the contrary, Lyndsay expresses admiration for her, by arguing that, although she has
lost her noble title, she still is a noblewoman due to her amiable and virtuous nature:
‘Tis true you have no longer a title, a vain empty title, or wealth to spend, perhaps to satiety;
but how much nobler a being you are now, dignified by voluntary self-abasement, and rich in
all the native gifts of your Creator, […]. […] You have been the victim of imposture; but your
own name is pure and spotless; it is more. To those who can appreciate virtue, it will carry a
nobler sound along with it than any that heraldry could have bestowed. How poor is the boast
of ancestry compared with that lofty sense of honour […]. (476-477)
It is very likely that Ferrier, by means of this speech of her most moral and truthful character,
gives an account of her own views on Gertrude. It has already been mentioned that Ferrier attaches
importance to birth in the context of rank and status, but it is clear that Gertrude forms an exception
to the rule, because her situation is an extraordinary one. As Lyndsay’s speech mentions, it is not her
75
fault that she has been used for a scheme. Following that, she is raised as a person of high birth,
meaning that she has received the education of an upper-class lady and that she is accustomed to
living among people of the aristocracy. It is therefore very probable that Ferrier agrees with Lyndsay
that Gertrude still deserves to be seen as a genteel lady.
Besides that, it can also be argued that Ferrier displays her conservative views by means of
Lyndsay’s speech. The gentleman states that titles and ancestry are meaningless if they are not
combined with a sense of virtue. That corresponds with Ferrier’s stance that upper-class people ought
to set an example to their fellow citizens, because it is part of their responsibility. Gertrude is expelled
from the aristocratic family of Rossville, but as seen, many of its members do not act very honourably.
Through Lyndsay’s speech, Ferrier criticises, just like Austen, the assumption that the conduct of high-
born people is self-evidently exemplary. Gertrude deserves it much more to be called a genteel person
than, for instance, Colonel Delmour, because she has a kind-hearted and compassionate nature. She
made mistakes in the past due to her excessive sensibility, but she managed to leave those behind her.
That Gertrude has actually changed her conduct is illustrated in the attachment she forms with
Lyndsay by the end of the novel. After she learned about Lyndsay’s personality and his sentiments,
Gertrude gradually started to fall in love with him. However, this time it is emphasised that Gertrude
did not let herself get carried away by idealistic illusions:
The bewildering glare of romantic passion no longer shed its fair but perishable lustre on the
horizon of her existence; but the calm radiance of piety and virtue rose with steady ray, and
brightened the future course of a happy and useful life; and Gertrude, as the wife of Edward
Lyndsay, lived to bless the day that; had deprived her of her earthly Inheritance. (506-507)
As the passage above illustrates, Gertrude now lives by the principle that “piety and virtue” should
predominate over the want of wealth and estates, which is by Ferrier referred to as “earthly
inheritance” (507). Since Gertrude learned that valuable lesson, Ferrier restores her protagonist as
Countess of the Rossville estates. After Colonel Delmour passed away in a duel, the properties are
bequeathed to Gertrude’s husband Lyndsay21. As it is said that Gertrude now rules with an enlightened
mind and that she and her husband use their power and prosperity to contribute to society (507), it
can be concluded that Ferrier regards their alliance as an exemplary one.
21 Colonel Delmour married his former love interest, the Duchess of St. Ives, after he abandoned Gertrude. However, it is said that his “faithless wife” injured and betrayed him and that he had “fought to avenge his honour”, but that he “fell in the cause” (506).
77
6. Conclusion
This paper discussed that the social orders in England and Scotland were changing during Austen’s and
Ferrier’s lifetime. The small rural communities ruled by hereditary upper classes were gradually
transforming into capitalist societies dominated by an entrepreneurial middle class. Morality and
solidarity were no longer the key concepts. It was all about profit and individualism now. The middle-
classers tried to make as much money as possible to improve their social standing and the hereditary
upper classes started to neglect their social duties in their attempt to keep up with those ambitious
capitalists. All of that eventually led to the downfall of the hereditary gentlemen and ladies.
Austen and Ferrier both witnessed those changes and the selected novels deal with the social
order of their time. The purpose of this research was to argue that the books Pride and Prejudice and
Sense and Sensibility illustrate that Austen was an adherent of the old social order. Ferrier’s first two
novels Marriage and The Inheritance have also been studied to see whether this Scottish author shares
Austen’s conservative views. The analysis of the marriage plots and the characters’ love interests in
those four novels has produced some striking results. It appears that there are many similarities
between Austen’s narratives and those of Ferrier.
First of all, both authors introduce hereditary upper-class people who set an example to their
fellow citizens. In Sense and Sensibility, Edward Ferrars and Elinor Dashwood are portrayed as two
people who have their heart in the right place. They care about other people’s well-being and are
willing to sacrifice their own happiness to please others. Edward originally does not want to break off
his engagement to Lucy Steele because he made her a promise and because he does not want to upset
her. Elinor refuses to give in to her hurtful feelings as she knows that this would make her mother and
sister miserable. Pride and Prejudice character Jane Bennet is also described as a kind-hearted person.
Despite being a bit naïve and reserved, she is an amiable and morally-upright woman. In The
Inheritance, Edward Lyndsay is depicted as a true gentleman, for he fulfils his social responsibilities.
He advises Gertrude and teaches her about morality. He helps his fellow citizens and tries to turn the
community into a good place to live. All those above-mentioned upper-class characters are probably
created to emphasise the importance of the ethical values of the old social order. Society functions
much better when the ruling classes are driven by moral concern.
Secondly, it is apparent that Austen’s novels as well as those of Ferrier contain upper-class
characters who act honourably after they learned a valuable lesson. In Pride and Prejudice, Fitzwilliam
Darcy originally behaved in a proud and anti-social manner to all his acquaintances who are not close
to him. However, by the end of the novel, he realises that he is in the wrong and starts to act more
graciously. Elizabeth Bennet is too hasty in forming an opinion of people. Her image of somebody
78
completely depends on her first impression of the person in question. Eventually, she understands that
she has to take the time to get to know somebody. She also learns that she should not give rein to her
romantic feelings. Sense and Sensibility character Marianne Dashwood and the protagonist of The
Inheritance, Gertrude Lewiston, acquire that knowledge as well. Initially, they are driven by excessive
sensibility, because they rely too much on their fantasies of romantic passion. After reality struck them,
they comprehend that they need to act more rationally. Marriage character Mary Douglas also suffers
from excessive sensibility at first, since she is caught up in a dream in which everybody is good-natured,
and life is free of sorrow. Fortunately, she soon learns to accept that life can be harsh and people
unjust. It is likely that Austen and Ferrier came up with those upper-class characters to show that the
conduct of the higher-rank people is not automatically exemplary. They need to dedicate themselves
to a moral life. Besides that, the authors probably introduced many characters of feeling to criticise
the cult of sensibility. It can be concluded from the novels that Austen and Ferrier believe that
excessive sensibility leads to immoral and anti-social behaviour. That, of course, does not correspond
with the principles of the old social order.
Thirdly, Austen and Ferrier both incorporated upper-class characters in their narratives whose
conduct is far from being exemplary. John Dashwood and Fanny Ferrars clearly forget about their moral
responsibilities, as they put their own financial wealth above the well-being of the Dashwood ladies.
Robert Ferrars is also driven by selfishness and financial greed, since he tricked his mother into giving
him her complete inheritance. The same can be said about John Willoughby who weds Miss Grey for
her wealth. Charlotte Lucas joins those avaricious characters as well, considering that the prospect of
a comfortable life was her only motivation for marrying William Collins. The latter is also far from being
a role model. He is a haughty clergyman who does not live according to the Christian principles, since
his solemn aim consists of improving his own respectability. Lydia Bennet is an irresponsible and
flirtatious young woman who merely wants to get married. She does not think about the financial
consequences of the attachment she makes to an indebted and extravagant man. Lady Juliana also
does not think things through. She weds her poor lover but expects the same luxurious life as she had
before. Besides that, she also acts very selfishly as she only cares about her own happiness. Juliana’s
daughter Adelaide turns out to be no better. Twice does she form an attachment based on selfish
considerations. Her vanity and ambition first drive her into the arms of a wealthy duke. Then her proud
nature longs to conquer the handsome but poor Lord Lindore, because he is always the centre of
interest and adored by many ladies. All those above-mentioned upper-class characters clearly do not
behave according to the moral principles of the old social order. It is very likely that Austen and Ferrier
introduced them to remind the upper classes of the duties they have. They cannot rule responsibly if
they follow the individual and ambitious notions of the new social order.
79
Fourthly, both Austen’s and Ferrier’s novels present an overall negative portrayal of the army.
The officer of Pride and Prejudice, George Wickham, and the colonel of The Inheritance, Frederick
Delmour, clearly are immoral and selfish beings. Instead of defending the country, they flirt and
gamble. They also lead an extravagant life beyond their means and are driven by the pursuit of financial
wealth. As their conduct and lifestyle do not fit the morality and solidarity of the old social order,
Austen and Ferrier refuse to describe them as gentlemen. It is possible that some military scandals
which happened during Austen’s and Ferrier’s lifetime are the reason why the authors are doubtful
about the army. That Austen and Ferrier are suspicious of the army is also illustrated in the depiction
of the militia who seem to behave in a more morally-upright manner. In Sense and Sensibility, Colonel
Brandon appears to be a kind-hearted man. Yet, Austen expresses her doubt by referring to him as a
gentleman-like person. In Marriage, Colonel Lennox gives the impression of being a decent person.
However, the novel contains some general statements on the army that emphasise Ferrier’s
scepticism.
Fifthly, Austen and Ferrier both introduce middle-class people who behave badly. In Sense and
Sensibility, there is Lucy Steele who only cares about her own individual needs. She is willing to sacrifice
the happiness of Edward and Elinor in her pursuit of wealth and rank. In The Inheritance, Sarah Black
marries an upper-class gentleman and creates one big lie to be able to live a luxurious life among the
aristocracy. Just like Miss Steele, she is thus merely occupied with her selfish wants. Characters as
those probably served as a critique on the egoism and the ambitiousness of the new capitalist middle
class. However, there is one figure who is harder to pinpoint. In Pride and Prejudice, the readers are
introduced to Charles Bingley, a wealthy middle-class man whose fortune derives from his father’s
commercial successes. He is described as a pleasant and kind man who is definitely not immoral as
Lucy and Sarah. Despite that this middle-classer is portrayed in a more positive manner, Austen still
emphasises her scepticism and distrust towards him. That is illustrated by his description as a
gentleman-like person and the fact that his two sisters are ambitious, fortune-seeking women who
completely fit within the new social order.
In conclusion, the analysis of the characters’ matrimonial preferences and love interests in the
four selected novels seems to favour the old social system. Morality, charity and birth right are all
values to which Austen and Ferrier attach importance. On the other hand, it appears that the authors
are critical of the new social order. The emergence of capitalist society is clearly associated with the
principles of individualism, selfishness and greed. Those results show that is very likely that both
Austen and Ferrier were conservatives.
81
7. Bibliography
Primary Works
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Edited by Wordsworth Editions Limited, Wordsworth Editions
Limited, 2004.
Austen, Jane. Sense and Sensibility. Edited by Wordsworth Editions Limited, Wordsworth Editions
Limited, 2004.
Ferrier, Susan. Marriage. Edited by Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, 1971.
Ferrier, Susan. The Inheritance. Edited by The Nineteenth Century Scottish Women’s Series, Kennedy
& Boyd, 2009.
Secondary Works
Baker, William. Critical Companion to Jane Austen: A Literary Reference to Her Life and Work. Facts On
File, 2008.
Butler, Marilyn. Jane Austen and the War of Ideas. Oxford University Press, 1975.
Butler, Marilyn. Romantics, Rebels & Reactionaries: English Literature and Its Background 1760-1830.
Oxford University Press, 1981.
Chalmers, Jim, and Mike Quigley. Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age. Redback
Quarterly, 2017.
Chaurasia, Radhey. History of Europe 1649-1789, volume II. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2002.
82
Ciment, James, and Immanuel Ness. “The Demography of Migration.” Encyclopedia of Global
Population and Demographics, edited by Ciment and Ness, Routledge, 1999, pp. 64-73.
Clark, George. The Late Stuarts 1660-1714. Oxford University Press, 1963.
Cooke, Anthony. Modern Scottish History 1707 to the Present: The Transformation of Scotland, 1707-
1850. Tuckwell Press, 1998.
Copeland, Edward. “Money.” The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, edited by Copeland, Edward
and Juliet McMaster, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 127-143.
“Debt of honor”. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/debt%20of%20honor. Accessed 26 June 2018.
Devine, Thomas. Exploring the Scottish Past: Themes in the History of Scottish Society. Tuckwell Press,
1995.
“Entail”. English Oxford Living Dictionaries, Oxford University Press, 2018.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entail. Accessed 26 June 2018.
Evans, Mary. Jane Austen and the State. Routledge, 2011.
Fergus, Jan. “Biography.” Jane Austen in Context, edited by Janet Todd, Cambridge University Press,
2007, 3-11.
Fulford, Tim. “Sighting for a Solider: Jane Austen and Military Pride and Prejudice.” Nineteenth-Century
Literature, vol. 57, no. 2, 2002, pp. 153-178.
Heyck, Thomas. A History of the Peoples of the British Isles: From 1688 to 1914. Routledge, 2002.
Kelly, Helena. Jane Austen, the Secret Radical. Icon Books Ltd, 2016.
Kramp, Michael. Disciplining Love: Austen and the Modern Man. Ohio, The Ohio State University, 2007.
Lehman, Harvey. Lives of England’s Reigning and Consort Queens. AuthorHouse, 2011.
83
Lockhart, John G. Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott. Vol. 8, 2nd ed., Whittaker & Co, 1837,
https://archive.org/stream/memoirslifesirw12lockgoog#page/n331/mode/2up/search/auste
n. Accessed 1 August 2018.
Manning, Susan. “Sensibility.” The Cambridge Companion to English Literature 1740-1830, edited by
Keymer Thomas and Jon Mee, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 80-100.
Markley, Robert. “The Economic Context.” The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, edited by
Copeland, Edward and Juliet McMaster, Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 79-96.
Monaghan, David. Jane Austen: Structure and Social Vision. The MacMillian Press Ltd, 1980.
Powell, David. Nationhood and Identity: The British State since 1800. I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, 2002.
Runcie, Charlotte and Scott Campbell. “Could Mr Darcy Afford a Stately Home Today?”, The Telegraph,
29 August 2014, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11063670/Could-Mr-Darcy-
afford-a-stately-home-today.html. Accessed 29 March 2018.
“Salic law.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/Salic%20law. Accessed 3 August 2018.
Sassi, Carla. Why Scottish Literature Matters. The Saltire Society, 2005.
Scott, Paul H. The Age of Liberation. The Saltire Society, 2008.
“Sentimental novel.” Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature, 1995.
“Sentimental novel.” Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms [online].
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100455492?rskey=d
7JmfE&result=3. Accessed 1 August 2018.
Shapard, David. The Annotated Pride and Prejudice: A Revised and Expanded Edition. Anchor Books,
2012.
84
Tiryak, Mary. “Ferrier, Susan (1782-1854).” Britain in the Hanoverian Age, 1714-1837: An Encyclopedia,
1997, pp 251-252.
Todd, Janet. Sensibility: an Introduction. Methuen, 1986.
Walker, Marshall. Scottish Literature Since 1707. Longman, 1996.
Walker, Tom. Scottish Literature Since 1707. Routledge, 2014.
White, Simon. Romanticism and the Rural Community. Palgrave MacMillan, 2013.
Whyte, Ian. Scotland before the Industrial Revolution: An Economic and Social History c. 1050 – c. 1750.
Routledge, 1995.
Wilkie, Ben. “Darien Scheme (1698).” The British Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 21-23.
Willard, Thomas. ““The Free Enjoyment of the Earth”: Gerrard Winstanley on Land Reform.” Rural
Space in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: The Spatial Turn in Premodern Studies, edited
by Albrecht Classen, de Gruyter, 2012, pp. 865-890.
Yeo, Elspeth. “Ferrier, Susan Edmonstone.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [online], 2004.
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-
9780198614128-e-9370?rskey=Op8XfP&result=1. Accessed 1 August 2018.
85
Appendix: Table Incomes Austen Characters
Annual incomes of the Austen characters by the end of her novels:
Source: Runcie, Charlotte and Scott Campbell. “Could Mr Darcy Afford a Stately Home Today?”, The
Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11063670/Could-Mr-Darcy-afford-a-stately-
home-today.html, 29 Aug. 2004.