It is a truth widely acknowledged that any woman found in possession of too much knowledge must be scorned, reprimanded or put down. “You’d be better off staying home” is the adage that follows us to this day. Yet, throughout history, women have found ways to rebel. Jane Austen was no exception.
When I was in year 10, Pride and Prejudice was the ‘it’ book. Based on nothing but its title, progressive teens flocked to find copies, convinced it must contain discussions of Pride as we know it in the modern world. Just as quickly, it was cast aside. It was labelled ‘stuffy’ or ‘dead’ for its emphasis of heterosexual ideologies and the status-quo. But were they right to do so?
In her book ‘Jane Austen at Home’, Lucy Worsley continually highlights Jane’s propensity to write in two voices simultaneously: an uncontroversial first voice that discusses the world as Georgian society saw it, and a subversive, critical second voice. This is a voice that can only be accessed by those who understand the author well enough to glimpse her sarcasm through layers of propriety.
Money money money
Let’s take my favourite quote as a starting point. At this point in Chapter 2, Mr John Dashwood is considering how much money he should give to his half sisters and stepmother once he and his wife take the women’s place in the family home. His wife, wishing to keep the family fortune to herself, argues they need give very little as
‘They will have no carriage, no horses, and hardly any servants; they will keep no company, and can have no expences of any kind! Only conceive how comfortable they will be!’
On first glance, this sentiment is easily recognisable as that of the privileged in the modern day; with more land and more responsibility come more costs and bills and expenses. This exchange could easily be read as supporting the rich who withhold their wealth from others. Given that Mr and Mrs Dashwood inherit because of the laws of Primogeniture and inheritance, which prioritise sons above daughters when it comes to fortunes and estates, it also appears that Jane supports the traditional ways in which wealth was divvied out. But to believe this of her would be to ignore Jane’s second voice.
As Worsley reminds us, Jane Austen herself was the victim of laws and expectations that governed who inherited family wealth. Although her father could never have passed down an estate like Norland, the women in Jane’s family were of course far too genteel to work paid jobs*. This, of course, meant they were always bequest to male family members for their security. And once these men died, it put the women into a difficult position. Jane, therefore, understood intimately the difficulties facing Elinor, Marianne and their family in Sense and Sensibility. Mrs John Dashwood’s meanness does not reflect the author’s support for the establishment, but rather her understanding of the irony that meant that the wealthy remained wealthy, and the poor and dependent were expected to simply do without. Notice the juxtaposition between the repetition of ‘no’ – ‘no carriage, no horses’ and the idea of being ‘comfortable’. The idea of having ‘no expences’, too, is fundamentally ridiculous; the expences paid by a family of poorer women such as the Dashwoods may seem irrelevent to their sister-in-law, but to the family they would be significant. Indeed, as the story progresses, we see Elinor advocating to reduce the family’s expenditure by choosing cheap accomodation, reducing the size of the household by keeping fewer servants*, and eating more cheaply.
By choosing the critique the way wealth is divided in Georgian society, Jane brings a female perspective into the traditionally male world of finances. She demontrates the vulnerability of her heroines who rely on relatives, some kind, like Mrs Dashwood’s cousin, to unkind, like Mr and Mrs John Dashwood. Rather than simply accepting the decisions of those in power, Jane laughs at their hypocrisy. Is this any wonder when we look at her own life? After all, rather than simply accepting her female financial powerlessness, she sold her novels. Unclassy for the time, perhaps, but what a powerful display of feminine proactivity.
It’s a rich-man’s world
Another common criticism of Jane Austen’s books is their focus on traditional, heterosexual relationships. To an extent, this can’t be denied. However, they are not limited to these relationships, nor the stereotypes associated with them.
Persuasion
Published posthumously, Persuasion follows a character a little older than many of Jane’s heroines. Having initially broken up with her Captain Wentworth because of her family’s criticisms, she has regretted the decision ever since. Whilst the modern reader may scorn Anne’s inability to get over a man, even after many years, this same desire was new to Regency England.
Pride and Prejudice
In Pride and Prejudice, Charlotte Lucas famously marries Mr Collins, who originally proposed to Elizabeth Bennett, for the security a good marriage would bring her. Outside the text, Jane Austen was similarly tempted to marry rich Harris Bigg-Wither. The benefits offered by such a match would have given her mother and sister security as they aged. Yet she did not. Like Elizabeth Bennett, Jane did not want marriage for the sake of marriage, or even for the sake of an easier life. She allowed her heroines to defy convention and reject proposals in order to follow their hearts. But she did not require them to do so.
Through Jane’s works, we see example after example of women finding happiness; happy endings, after all, are a hallmark of a Jane-Austen book. We meet women who know what is important to them, whether that is love, security, sense or sensibility. Some choose to fall directly into love, some initially accept isolation and disappointment out of love for their families, some choose security above and beyond anything else. But with each decision comes a justification, and the idea that the women have chosen this path for themselves*.
Conclusion
Jane Austen’s work seems, at face value, to celebrate the world as it is. Filled with happy endings and weddings, heteronormative womanhood seems rife. It is only when you look under the surface and understand Georgian expectations a little more, that the significance of her literary choices comes to the fore.
Critiquing and even finding a way around the financial restrictions on contemporary women, Jane Austen rejects the idea that she should simply accept the decisions of those more wealthy than herself. Similarly, by allowing her heroines diverse perspectives on marriage, she showcases the breadths of femininity within a society where marriage was an assumption, rather than just a possibility. Far from being stagnant or celebrating traditional heteronormativity, as we now understand it, Jane Austen rebels powerfully, in the only way the world would listen.
_________________________________________
*Although Jane became and published, paid author, her books were initially anonymous so as to avoid seeming too pushy or self-important compared to Georgian standards for women.
*Both modern and working-class standards make keeping any servants a luxury. However, the story must be considered in the light of the expectations of Genteel Georgian society, which considered servants a fundamental part of a household.
*Marianne in Sense and Sensibility is a common point of division when it comes to the question of choice, and I will tackle this next week.
Bibliography
Austen, J. (1813). Pride and Prejudice. United Kingdom: T. Egerton, Whitehall.
Austen, J. (2008). Persuasion. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Austen, J. (2016). Sense and sensibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Cop.
Worsley, L. (2018). Jane Austen at home. London: Hodder.
Lively Words 
Leave a comment