Book review: Pride and Prejudice; Sense and Sensibility; Mansfield Park

By Jane Austen. Classics, as you're doubtless aware. In the unlikely event of your being unfamiliar with the Austen oeuvre, see Wiki for P+P; S+S; MP. I enjoyed reading them, which is why I read all three². They are well written, athough in inevitably somewhat dated form, but occasionally charmingly so in the spelling: people for example do not choose, they chuse.

To an extent the books blur together in my mind: young ladies - genteel young ladies, of course - floating in society with thoughts of matrimony to suitable - and of course suitably moneyed - men are the subject of all of them.

Wiki calls P+P a novel of manners and this seems fair of all; whilst one can still see that many of the judgements would still be valid today, for example of Mr Crawford's character in MP, nonetheless the suffusion of bowing to social convention is far stronger that could be entertained now.

In all the books a central driving force is money, or estate, in the sense of marrying for it, this being the only way that a poor but genteel person could hope to become rich or even well off. There is a delightful fragment in one of PoB's where Mrs Williams worship of fortune is excused, on the grounds that neither she nor any of her friends would be able to earn even pin-money from their own talents. And one feels that none of the central characters in Austen ever display much in the way of skills that could ever earn them anything¹. Perhaps even in this theme there is a lot of excuse: her real theme is people's emotions and characters and development under stress; impending marriage is her chosen stress; and estate merely drives the plot conveniently. What stratum of society are these people? I find it hard to know. By their houses ye shall know them? In which case they are near the top, in that they occupy the largest of houses, at least in their neighbourhoods. And so I think I do not know any people like them today, and so perhaps I don't know whether marriage-for-money still applies, in today's analogues.

As well as stories the books are intended to be, and are, instrunctional, moral. We learn what behaviour will lead to ultimate rather than short term happiness. We see flashy fashionable characters reproved by steady and more sensible ones; even excessive sensibility is criticised. Good sense, sound judgement, quiet reflection, continence in speech are all praised.

On the relativity of morality

A question that could be asked is, "how much is Austen arguing for morality, in the sense of person's being guided by the one known to a given society, as against arguing for one particular morality - the one she herself knew?" Phrased like that the question doesn't really work because I doubt she ever considered it, being so sure that the one she knew was the only possible one; but phrased as "as illuminated by the stories she tells" it would make sense.

I think I could make a case for her being in favour of the former. Her principle desire seems to be family and sociable stability, and reputation, and decourous and honourable behaviour, all of which are satisfied by obedience to whatever code of morality is currently present.

Obviously, the plot devices would have to be different: our own code can hardly conceive that putting on a play might be immoral.

Refs

* Book review: Ancillary Sword.

Notes

1. To be fair, the lawyer in S+S is sympathetically described; Austen herself feels no need to look down upon him.

2. As well as them being available on Gutneberg for free for Kindle, of course.