Elizabeth’s independent spirit was out of step with the advice given to ladies in Fordyce’s very popular Sermons to Young Women and Rousseau’s Emile, both of which we’ve quoted at length on this site. Both of these texts were enormously influential, and in Jane Austen’s day there was of course extreme social pressure on young ladies to behave according to their ludicrous ideas.

However, there were also contrary voices at the time that educated ladies of the era could have accessed. Most famously, Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 book ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Women’ even dared to describe women as ‘rational creatures.’  Here are a few extracts from her seminal work.

First, from the introduction, this is Wollstonecraft’s take on the dominant ideas of femininity in her day, that led to many women behaving like children:

Women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert, that this artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize, and gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of strength, which leads them to play off those contemptible infantile airs that undermine esteem even whilst they excite desire. Do not foster these prejudices, and they will naturally fall into their subordinate, yet respectable station in life.

It seems scarcely necessary to say, that I now speak of the sex in general. Many individuals have more sense than their male relatives; and, as nothing preponderates where there is a constant struggle for an equilibrium, without it has naturally more gravity, some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern.

She goes on to tackle the argument of Rousseau and Fordyce that men and women, led by their respective natures, should aspire to very different characters:

To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by providence to lead MANKIND to either virtue or happiness.

If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and groveling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, OUTWARD obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives.

While more traditional, patriarchal ideas would surely have dominated, there were at least sections of the population that were challenging the idea that ladies should be witless, servile and above all, ‘soft’ in their dealings with men. Who knows whether Elizabeth would have agreed with Mary Wollstonecraft – although she certainly wouldn’t have gotten much from Fordyce’s Sermons!

Darcy

Keira Knightley has an unrivaled ability (for an actor, anyway) to polarize opinion. She is the marmite of the movie industry. While her fans are of course everywhere, I always seem to be bumping into people who can’t stand her, or stumbling onto critical forum posts about Ms Knightley that reflect a toxic mixture of spite, rage and usually a seeming inability to TURN CAPS LOCK OFF. Meanwhile, tabloid newspapers in the UK mercilessly maul her for her thinness, peddling rumors of eating disorders and doctoring images of her in swim wear to make her appear like the bride of skeletor.

Critics, however, rightly gushed over her performance in Pride and Prejudice 2005, likening her in several cases to Audrey Hepburn. A reviewer in the Washington Post put it most strikingly, even appealing to the heavens in his review:

Lord God, can she take control of a scene, dominate a movie, project to the last seat, radiate power and personality unto the rafters. It’s a great performance. I love the way Knightley’s eyes light with furious intelligence when she cuts the pompous Darcy a new something or other.

Director Joe Wright was also unsurprisingly forthcoming in his praise of Keira Knightley’s Elizabeth, although in more earthly terms, explaining that he wasn’t looking for someone like her at first:

This is the first of our installments detailing the endings of the Pride and Prejudice adaptations. For the 1995 dramatization click here and for the 2005 movie here

---

Pride and Prejudice ends with a kind of epilogue that briefly covers the lives of the Bennets, post marriage. We also hear of the unhappy Mr. and Mrs Wickham and the financial help they receive from Elizabeth. Dramatizers like to tie things off a little more tidily, so choosing the right point to end the story must be a little tricky, and all the adaptations do so a little differently. Over the next couple of weeks I’ll post transcripts of the final scenes of  the major adaptations, so we can discuss how they compare. We haven’t posted much on the BBC 1980 adaptation for a while, so this is where we’ll begin.

---

In the 1980 adaptation, Lizzy isn’t given the chance to express her love for Darcy to her father, which is a pity since it’s such a moving scene, and goes a long way toward humanizing and redeeming the character of Mr Bennet. It is, however, suitably heartwarming and made especially charming by Elizabeth Garvie’s sparkling performance.

This transcript of the final scenes begins after Lizzy has been told of Mr Collins’ letter, warning that Elizabeth should not accept Mr Darcy’s proposal. After this encounter we dissolve to the scene in which Lizzy and Darcy are taking a stroll in the countryside.

---

EXT. COUNTRYSIDE. DAY

Elizabeth and Mr Darcy are walking side by side.

MR DARCY:
Dearest, loveliest Elizabeth. By you I was properly humbled… No, I did not blame you for coming to Pemberley. I felt nothing but surprise. My object was then to show you that I was not so mean as to resent the past. As to my gravity and thoughtfulness on hearing news of Lydia I’d already resolved to leave in search of her.

ELIZABETH:
So, you gave your permission for Bingley to marry Jane?

DARCY:
(Nods)

ELIZABETH:
I guessed as much. Confessed interference in his affairs.

DARCY:
It was absurd and impertinent of me. He never had the slightest suspicion. The more I saw of them together the more I was convinced of her affection. I never doubted his.

ELIZABETH:
And your assurance I suppose carried immediate conviction to him.

DARCY:
It did.

ELIZABETH:
What set you off in the first place?

DARCY:
I cannot fix the hour or the spot or the look or the words which lay the foundation. I was in the middle of it before I knew it had begun.

ELIZABETH:
My beauty you had earlier withstood. As to my manners, did you admire my impertinence? You were sick of servility I dare say, of deference, of officious attention. I aroused and interested you because I was so unlike the rest. I did not want your approbation. There, I have saved you the trouble of accounting for it, and all things considered, I begin to think it perfectly reasonable. To be sure you know no actual good of me. But nobody thinks of that, when they fall in love.

Lizzy and Darcy walk for a few seconds before embracing.

DISSOLVE TO:

INT. LONGBOURN LIBRARY. DAY

Mr Bennet is seated, with a book. Mrs Bennet is pacing around excitedly.

MRS BENNET:
10,000 a year! How rich and great my Lizzy will be! What pin money! What jewels, what carriages she will have! I hope Mr Darcy will overlook my having disliked him so much. Three daughters married. I shall go distracted!

MR BENNET:
Mr Darcy! What an uproar there will be. (Laughs) But for what do we live but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them our turn. Mrs Bennet, if any young men come for Kitty or Mary, send them in, for I am quite at leisure.

---

So there we have it. The lines are beautifully written, and Mr Bennet’s ‘I’m quite at leisure’ remark is a lovely place to end the story, yet we miss the moment when Mr Bennet hears from Elizabeth just how much she is in love. It’s also noteworthy that Darcy doen’t recoil at the idea of his giving ‘permission’ to Bingley to marry as he does in the book. Instead he simply nods. This doesn’t seem particularly out of place in this adaptation, since David Rintoul’s Darcy never quite loses his superior, aristocratic air. I can easily imagine him ordering his inferior friend to propose ‘at once!’ once he’d withdrawn his objection.

I love that Elizabeth explains in such detail why Darcy is in love with her. It fits Elizabeth’s ‘impertinent’ personality so nicely, to have Darcy nodding along as she describes her own charms with such delicious irony. I think it’s a pretty good way to end the story. What do you think?

Darcy

This is a review of the BBC 1995 adaptation. For a review of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie click here.

---

Carl Davis was a veteran composer for BBC dramas when he wrote the soundtrack for Pride and Prejudice, having worked on scores for the corporation since the mid-1970s. He was a great fan of the book, having said in an interview that he battered down the door for the chance to compose the soundtrack, especially when he heard producer Sue Birtwistle was making the series. An anglophile born in New York, Davis came to England in 1960 to pursue his love of English literature, theater and cinema. He ‘…thought Elizabeth Bennet must be one of the greatest heroines of English literature, and the book is wonderfully easy to read, with its strong themes and bright wit.’ He was, in other words, the perfect choice to compose the score for the BBC Pride and Prejudice 1995 series.

Davis also chose the source music along with Sue Birtwistle, picking, for example, a Handel piece that was just outside of Mary’s vocal range for her cringeworthy performance at Netherfield. The soundtrack, however, only contains Davis’ original pieces – not that I am longing to have Mary’s performance on CD!

To capture a ’small town in 1810′ feel, Davis chose against using a full symphony orchestra. For the larger scenes, no more than 18 musicians were used, and the soundtrack features the fortepiano. This is an instrument from the Regency era which was, as Davis explains in the sleeve notes, a forerunner of the modern piano. ‘The ’slight, hunting refrain’ that flows through the entire score reflects the theme of the hunt for husbands, and also gives continuity to the soundtrack as an album, making it delightful dining, driving or even husband-hunting music.

The opening song of the album is unsurprisingly the opening title music for the series, and of course the most familiar song to fans of the TV show. In a nice homage, this is the tune used for the ring-tone on Amanda Price’s cell phone in Lost in Austen. It’s a tune that instantly brings back fond memories for those of us who fell in love with the series back in 1995, and stands on its own as an excessively diverting, bright and lively piece. Once you’ve become tired with hitting the rewind button and had your fix with this opening gem, it’s time to move on and explore the rest of the soundtrack.

Most of the tracks should be instantly recognizable to the more ardent fans of the series, and it’s suprising how evocative it is to relive the scenes through the music that accompanied them.  A few tracks may have you scratching your head, but the CD comes with explanations of where each song is used, and in any case it’s a welcome excuse to dust off the DVD and find them all again…

Overall, this is a great album for lovers of the 1995 series, looking for a calming, yet bubbly soundtrack for their commute, workout session or candlelit bath. This album will surely be trespassing on the hospitality of my iPod for some time to come.

Your aurally intoxicated friend,

Lizzy

Mr Darcy’s motivation for his behavior at the Meryton ball has been interpreted in various ways. If none of them have quite convinced you, then how about this attempt from British comic duo Mitchell and Webb? Be warned, however, that the clip does contain some very strong language – from the mouth of Mr. Darcy himself!

Refusing to conga is certainly a lesser crime than refusing to dance altogether, so perhaps Elizabeth should have been more understanding of the gentleman’s reluctance, and suggested a freestyle-disco dance-off instead? 196 years after the publication of Pride and Prejudice, the riddle of Mr Darcy’s supposed ‘inconsistency’ has been solved! A gentlemen simply does not conga.

Did you enjoy the clip? It made me chuckle, and am I alone in thinking that Robert Webb could actually make a half-decent Darcy…?

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but the skilful use of irony is much prized. Pride and Prejudice begins, as we all know, with an ironic opening statement, and the book is full of the stuff, in various forms, from start to finish. The ironic tone of Pride and Prejudice is also one of the reasons that the book manages to be all things to all people. Irony can be hard to interpret in specific cases, and its purpose is more generally open to question. Here are two ways in which critics have tried to make sense of the gentle, ironic tone of Pride and Prejudice.

Mr Bingley must be in want of a wife!

Irony and Radicalism

According to one view, Jane Austen used irony as a shield, which allowed her to express her radical ideas. Think of the authority figures and national icons that are savaged in the book: a vicar (Collins), an officer in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces (Wickham), and an aristocrat (Lady Catherine.)

D. W. Harding’s article, partly reprinted in Robert Morrison’s 2005 Pride and Prejudice Sourcebook, argues that:

[Jane Austen's] thesis that the ruling standards of our social group leave a perfectly comfortable niche for detestable people and give them sufficient sanction to persist would, if it were argued seriously, arouse the most violent opposition…

As well as the key villains of the story, consider also the treatment of the major social institutions of the day. Marriage, the family, aspects of the class system, and the entailing of property along gendered lines, all receive a mauling in the novel.

In maintaining this gentle, mocking tone while dealing with controversial themes, Mrs. Bennet’s role is particularly important. She can be seen as something of a Shakespearean fool in Pride and Prejudice. Ironically, she is (to an extent!) sane in an insane world. Her social ineptness allows her to speak the truth about the unfairness of the system that threatens her daughters with lives of poverty and humiliation. She speaks honestly and openly about throwing her girls into the paths of rich men, and of course she has a point. Marriage was the only hope for educated ladies of the era, but only Mrs. Bennet has the ability to talk openly about it. And yet she is condemned as a woman of ‘illiberal mind’ and ‘mean understanding.’

Irony and Conservatism

The other view is that irony comes from moderation, and is therefore more of a conservative literary tool. It reflects a kind of awareness of the less admirable aspects of the human condition, alongside a belief that such things are impossible to change. British satire has always had its conservative strand, which comes from skepticism about grand social statements and projects. As critic Alan Bloom, also cited in Robert Morrison’s Sourcebook, put it:

Irony flourishes on the disproportion of the way things are and the way they should be, while accepting the necessity of this disproportion.

As long as human nature remains what it is, we’ll continue to be preached to by idiots, defended by good-for-nothings and ruled over by tyrants. All you can do is approach this world with honesty, integrity and humor. It is, after all, the only one we have, and the only one we’ll ever have.

For Brits like me, irony is so integral to our national culture that it’s probably impossible to fully disentangle its purpose and effects. Certainly, it is often used as a default mechanism for avoiding talking openly about feelings and emotions. Irritatingly, my more arrogant country folk often repeat the mantra that Americans don’t understand irony. This is, of course, completely untrue. Speaking generally of course, they simply have the ability to communicate in other ways, whereas we tend to rely so heavily on irony – often to avoid addressing issues directly.

Sorry to end this post in so wishy-washy a manner, but I’m not sure what the purpose of the irony in Pride and Prejudice really is. It goes without saying that, independently of moral or political purpose, it makes for wonderful comedy. However, it’s hard to imagine that somebody with radical political tendencies would work so hard to drench them in such ambiguity. To leave generations of critics to bicker over one’s views would be a strange ambition indeed.

One can never be sure with irony, which is why it’s so rich and interesting a topic. Is there anything about Jane Austen’s life, outside of her writing, that suggests an answer? We’d love to hear from any of the many Austen-experts out there…

Darcy