The title of a novel typically draws attention to important themes: however, in Pride and Prejudice these themes are not simply alluded to, but more actively discussed by the characters. After realizing how badly she had misjudged Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth says "I, who have prided myself on my discernment . . . Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind" (159). Unlike Darcy's excessive pride, Elizabeth's pride does not regard her own status or accomplishment, merely her ability to discern things about others. It is a pride of perception, as opposed to a more hubristic pride of character. However, just like Darcy's pride, it is an impediment to happiness. Being excessively confident in one's abilities, even if it's not a characteristic thought of as particularly desirable (in Elizabeth's case, perceptiveness) is problematic. Because Elizabeth is a relatively reasonable character, the fact that her initial hatred of Darcy makes her so "wretchedly blind" illustrates that just as love clouds judgment, so does excessive hatred, and that no one, regardless how "good," can avoid the sway these emotions have over judgment.
Another type of pride becomes visible when Elizabeth hears about what Darcy has done for Lydia, and
"she was proud of him. Proud that in a cause of compassion and honour, he had been able to get the better of himself" (248). Here, pride is good because it is pride for someone else rather than for oneself. Elizabeth is proud that Darcy "had been able to get the better of himself," overcoming his character flaws. Because the focus is on an improvement rather than an intrinsic characteristic, representing a positive evolution of character, it is no longer destructive. In fact, Elizabeth's emotion here arguably marks the beginning of the realization of her love for Mr. Darcy.
Beyond the obvious title themes, another motif I observed was the interplay between appearance and character. After realizing the truth about Wickham and Darcy, Elizabeth observes that "one has got all the goodness, and the other all the appearance of it" (172). In this society, outward appearances (both physical appearance and manners/social conduct) are what matter most, but it is obvious that these do not often match up to inward character. For the first half of the book, however, outward appearances triumph over true good (Wickham over Darcy), illustrating the difficulty of succeeding without appropriate social manners in this kind of world. However, after Mr. Darcy's character has been somewhat vindicated, Mrs. Gardiner: "He has not an ill-natured look" (195). I've definitely experienced this too: after better understanding someone's character, your view of their physical appearances shift accordingly. This suggests that eventually, those who are actually good should triumph eventually (as they do in the end of Pride and Prejudice).
Pemberley, Darcy's estate, is obviously meant to echo its master's character. It is described that "in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, without any artificial appearance" (185). This natural importance" without "artificial appearance" is exactly the temperament Mr. Darcy is eventually shown to possess, and it is clear from the beauty of Pemberley that this genuine, unembellished "good" is far superior to the affected pretensions of morality and classiness embodied by so many other characters.
In a similar vein, the second half of the novel continues to reflect on the absurdity of class structure and snobbery. To me, the epitome of this was Mr. collins' letter about Lydia, which said, "the death of your daughter would have been a blessing in comparison of this" and recommended that Mr. Bennett "to throw off your unworthy child from your affection forever" (225). Even though Mr. Bennet doesn't exactly relish in Lydia's misdemeanor, there is no consideration of actually banishing her from the family. The fact that Mr. Collins proposes something which is so obviously immoral and cruel highlights both the absurdity of being concerned with public reputation to this extent, and the fact that being of higher class (as Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine are) does not confer good morals or good sense.
Similarly, when lady Catherine is talking to Elizabeth, Elizabeth says " Neither duty, nor honor, nor gratitude have any possible claim on me, in the present instance. No principle of either, would be violated by my marriage with Mr. Darcy" (274). She implies here that there is nothing morally reprehensible about marrying into lower classes, implying that there are certainly no moral differences between social classes, and thus that there are no truly sound reasons for class barriers to exist.
Though the novel focuses on the ability to change one's character, as Mr. Darcy is able to do, it seems that this is only possible to some extent. Elizabeth says to Jane: "If you were to give me forty such men, I could never be so happy as you. Till I have your disposition, your goodness, I can never have your happiness " (267). From this quote, it seems that happiness is intrinsic, though it may be helped or hindered by circumstances. At the end of the novel, it seems that Elizabeth is as happy as Jane, but is it true that in reality, her happiness is constrained by her disposition? Are some people just generally more at peace with the world, while others are perpetually unsatisfied? Is it possible to change something this basic about oneself?
No comments:
Post a Comment