PR

EV
I EW
PR
EV
I EW
 A VINDICATION OF JANE AUSTEN:

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT’S FEMINIST IDEOLOGY EMBODIED IN

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

THESIS

W
Presented to the Faculty

of the University of Alaska Anchorage

IE
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
EV

for the Degree of

PR

MASTER OF ARTS

By

Melissa A. Ray, B.A.

Anchorage, Alaska

August 2013
 UMI Number: 1541851

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 1541851
EV
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 iii
Abstract

Jane Austen’s novels center on courtship and marriage. Despite her use of irony and

satire, Austen’s focus on marriage has caused many leading feminists to undervalue or

ignore her contribution to feminism. In response to Austen’s diminished status in

feminist criticism, I argue that Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice embodies Mary

Wollstonecraft’s ideology as set forth in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and that

aligning Austen to Wollstonecraft situates Austen as a proto-feminist. In particular,

W
Pride and Prejudice exemplifies Wollstonecraft’s critique of marriage—namely that

woman is socialized merely to please and obey man and that such an education leads to
IE
inequitable unions—and her vision of marriage based on friendship. Pride and

Prejudice’s embodiment of Wollstonecraftian ideology is apparent in the juxtaposition of

EV

Lydia Bennet’s marriage to George Wickham and Elizabeth Bennet’s marriage to

Fitzwilliam Darcy. Ultimately, framing Austen within the milieu of proto-feminism

PR

argues for a contemporary feminism with broader and more extensive boundaries.
 iv
Table of Contents

Page

Signature Page .................................................................................................................... ii

Title Page ............................................................................................................................ ii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv

A Vindication of Jane Austen: Mary Wollstonecraft’s Feminist Ideology Embodied

W
in Pride and Prejudice ....................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Pride and Prejudice: Austen’s Diminished Status in Feminist Criticism .... 3
IE
Mary Wollstonecraft: Dethroning Prejudices and Re-envisioning Matrimony ............ 13
EV
Making Friends with Austen: Wollstonecraft’s Feminist Ideology Embodied in Pride
and Prejudice ................................................................................................................ 26

Notes ................................................................................................................................. 44
PR

Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 49

 1
A Vindication of Jane Austen:
Mary Wollstonecraft’s Feminist Ideology Embodied in Pride and Prejudice

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good

fortune, must be in want of a wife” (5)—thus opens Jane Austen’s scintillating and,

perhaps, most beloved novel, Pride and Prejudice. While her initial line does not

replicate the conventional once-upon-time fairy tale, the novel is certainly a love story

W
with a happily-ever-after—albeit realistic—marital resolution. Pride and Prejudice

recounts the budding and unlikely romance between the economically-disadvantaged

IE
heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, and the affluent hero, Fitzwilliam Darcy. By overcoming their

blinding vanity and narrow-minded subjectivity, Elizabeth and Darcy discover love that
EV

is based on mutual admiration and intellectual compatibility. Ultimately, Pride and

Prejudice, like all of Austen’s narratives, centers on love and the pursuit of matrimony,
PR

yet far from being sentimental drivel or puerile poppycock, her novel wraps fierce and

profound social commentary in a witty and beguiling story about courtship and marriage.

In Pride and Prejudice, as well as her other novels, Austen confronts her culture’s

prevailing assumptions regarding women, assumptions that were primarily engendered by

the masculine hegemony of her day. However, despite Austen’s clever and satirical

depiction of the inequitable status of women in the nineteenth century, feminist critics

have wrestled with questions regarding where to situate Austen in the tradition of

feminism. Austen’s novels certainly deal with issues surrounding womanhood and
 2
woman’s social roles, yet feminists waver in their reception of Austen as a significant

contributor to the progressive and liberating feminist tradition.

The result of the vacillating feminist response to Austen is a legacy of criticism

that devalues Austen’s contribution to feminism. Contemporary theorists have to respond

to this critical legacy to answer the question: where do we—twenty-first century

scholars—place Jane Austen in the tradition of feminism? To parody the Sound of Music:

How do we solve a problem like Jane Austen? How do we situate a conservative,

W
moralistic authoress in the tradition of emancipating feminism? In response to these

questions, I propose two central claims. First, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice
IE
embodies Mary Wollstonecraft’s ideology regarding the institution of marriage as set

forth in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In particular, Pride and Prejudice

EV

exemplifies Wollstonecraft’s critique of marriage—namely that woman is socialized

merely to please and obey man and that such an education leads to inequitable unions—
PR

and her vision of marriage based on friendship. Pride and Prejudice’s embodiment of

Wollstonecraftian ideology is apparent in the juxtaposition of Lydia’s marriage to

Wickham and Elizabeth’s marriage to Darcy. Second, the connection between Austen’s

novel and Wollstonecraft’s treatise situates Austen’s work in the realm of proto-

feminism—early feminism that anticipated the ideology inherent in the woman’s rights

movement (Botting and Houser 265).1 Ultimately, framing Austen within the milieu of

proto-feminism argues for a contemporary feminism with broader and more extensive

boundaries.
 3
It is significant to note that all of Austen’s narratives embody aspects of

Wollstonecraft’s ideology; however, for the purpose of responding to the feminist

devaluation of Austen’s work—which primarily centers on Austen’s treatment of

marriage (as Julia Prewitt Brown elucidates)—Pride and Prejudice is the most useful text

to investigate quite simply because it presents the most extraordinary marriage in all

Austen’s novels. Vivien Jones aptly articulates, “In each of her six novels Austen

provides her heroine with a good marriage, but that of Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and

W
Prejudice is the most dazzling of all” (xi). By aligning Austen’s narrative to

Wollstonecraft’s ideology, I endeavor to inspire readers to look at Pride and Prejudice,

IE
and consequently its author, as part of an innovative feminist tradition. In the process, I

aspire to vindicate Austen and liberate her from the pride and prejudice of feminist
EV

theory.
PR

Theoretical Pride and Prejudice: Austen’s Diminished Status in Feminist Criticism

There is an implicit pride and prejudice inherent in feminist theory that elevates

certain expressions of feminism—particularly depictions of rage, rebellion, or

repression—and disparages portrayals of marriage or family life, especially portrayals of

rewarding or fulfilling domesticity. This theoretical pride and prejudice diminishes

Austen’s contribution to the feminist tradition, excludes Austen from the realm of proto-

feminism, and engenders a theoretical perspective that endorses only subversion,

subjugation, rebellion, anger, or insanity as valid expressions of feminism. This feminist

partiality is spawned by the idea that marriage is an unsuitable—or at least diminished—

narrative resolution. Julia Brown assesses:

 4
To the feminist critic, marriage is too simple and restricted a resolution of the

moral, psychological, and spiritual quest in the life of the heroine up to that point;

marriage to a man is without moral or spiritual dimension, and therefore an

inadequate symbol with which to conclude a great novel. (“Feminist

Depreciation” 305)

As Julia Brown explains, feminist critics minimize matrimonial endings and favor instead

symbols of feminine rage, rebellion, or repression. Consequently, feminist critics

W
construct a hierarchy that prefers the madness of Bertha Mason (the heroine of Jane

Eyre) over the marriage of Elizabeth Bennet (J. Brown, “Feminist Depreciation”). The
IE
feminist predisposition against marital resolutions—particularly happy or favorable

marital resolutions—causes feminists to misjudge or simply miss the feminism of Jane

EV

Austen.

Since feminist critics tend to discard or belittle marriage as a poignant concluding

PR

symbol, Austen’s treatment of marriage represents a conundrum for feminist critics. Julia

Brown explains:

The feminist depreciation of Jane Austen hinges on the question of marriage. Like

much contemporary discourse, current criticism of Austen is taken up with

answering an ideological question: did she or did she not advocate traditional,

patriarchal marriage? Feminists tend to argue that she did: despite the irony and

satire, all the novels end in marriage, affirming her allegiance to what is called the

established order. (“Feminist Depreciation” 305)

 5
The ideological question—did Austen endorse the established order— is at the heart of

what I have labeled the Jane Austen problem. Here is the problem: If Austen sanctions

marriage—a social institution that feminists often equate with patriarchal oppression and

inequality—how can she be classified as part of a feminist tradition that advocates for the

emancipation of women? Said another way, if marriage reinforces the masculine

hegemony, then how can an author who seemingly endorses this hegemony be considered

part of a liberating tradition? Ultimately, feminist critics have to confront and solve the

W
Jane Austen problem. Many scholars have resolved the Jane Austen problem by either

denouncing her as a mere traditionalist or by investigating the subversive subtext

IE
embedded in her novels. Both approaches devalue Austen’s contribution to women’s

liberation. The former overtly aligns her with the established, male-dominated order.
EV

The latter, while liberating Austen from literal interpretations that denounce her as purely

conventional, validates only subversion as an acceptable manifestation of feminism. This

PR

limited validation places restricting parameters around how feminism can be expressed.

These two approaches to Austen’s work are exemplified in the scholarship of Marilyn

Butler, Mary Poovey, Sandra M. Gilbert, and Susan Gubar.

Austen is often defined as conservative, and her narratives are seen as buttresses

upholding the established social order. Marilyn Butler and Mary Poovey both reinforce

the idea that Austen is a traditionalist. Butler situates Austen within a political

framework and argues that Austen’s narratives “belong decisively to one class of partisan

novels, the conservative” (8). Butler focuses on the didactic nature of Austen’s novels.

She asserts that Austen “is by common consent an author remarkably sure of her values”
 6
and that “[It] is by virtue of her certainties that Jane Austen is called Augustan” (1).

Butler demonstrates, through close reading, that Austen’s novels endorse Christian

principles, that they are moderate and moralistic, and that they are anti-Jacobin—part of

“a movement that defines itself by its opposition to revolution” (123). In her conclusion,

Butler contends:

At some point it is necessary to come to terms with what cannot be explained

away. Jane Austen is conservative in a sense that is no longer current. Her

W
morality is preconceived and inflexible. She is firm in identifying error, and less

interested than other great novelists in that type of perception for which the novel
IE
is so peculiarly well adapted—the perception that thoroughly to understand a

character is to forgive him. But if this is true, are we right to call her a great
EV

novelist at all? (208)

Butler’s question implicitly discards Austen as a great novelist; however, her question—
PR

are we right to call Austen a great novelist at all?—is both rhetorical and hyperbolic. In

actuality, Butler does acknowledge some of the stylistic strengths in Austen’s novels.

Nevertheless, Butler focuses on the didactic nature of Austen’s novels and ultimately

resolves the problem of Jane Austen by linking her to the Augustan tradition. In the end,

Butler denounces Austen’s work as non-revolutionary and therefore not part of

progressive feminism.

Similarly to Butler, Poovey demonstrates Austen’s adherence to the social order

of her day. Specifically, Poovey investigates how Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley,

and Jane Austen responded to society’s expectations regarding the propriety of ladies.