Chance and the Hierarchy of Marriages in Pride and Prejudice

Author(s): Joel Weinsheimer

Source: ELH, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 404-419
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872192 .
Accessed: 17/10/2011 05:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
ELH.

http://www.jstor.org
CHANCE AND THE HIERARCHY OF MARRIAGES
IN PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

BY JOEL WEINSHEIMER

Chanceis givensignificance in JaneAusten'snovelsby herin-

sistenceon the value of its opposite-rationaland deliberate
choice. And it is an importantaspect of her realismthat she
does not dividechoiceand chanceinto two mutuallyexclusive
forces.Ideal choicemade in fullawarenessof motivesand con-
sequencesis, afterall, a rareoccurrencein hernovels.Few char-
actersachieveit at all, and theymoreoftenreachit as a climax
ratherthan as the normof theirmorallife. In generaldecision
and actionare determined by a variouslycomposedmixtureof
choiceand chance,and onlyas a givencharacterincreaseshis
knowledgeof selfand othersdoes choicebeginto predominate.
Littlecriticalcommenthas been devotedto the operationof
chance in Jane Austen'sworks,perhapsbecause it has been
eclipsedby the tightnessof her plots and the preeminently
unchaoticsanityof her ideals. But Lionel Trillinghas wisely
observedthat " JaneAusten'sfirstor basic ironyis the recogni-
tionthat the spiritis not free,that it is conditioned,
that it is
limitedby circumstance " and that " only by reason of this
anomalydoesspirithavevirtueand meaning." ' Justas thespirit
is morallydependenton and made meaningful by uncontrolled
circumstance, so also is plot enrichedby Jane Austen'scon-
sciousnessof chance. W. J. Harvey,in discussingthe plot of
Emma, attributesthe " solidityand opennessof the novel" to
the fact that "'it allows for the contingent." 2 Again,Lionel
TrillingfindsMansfieldPark moreunique than typicalin its
"need to findsecurity,to establish,in fixityand enclosure,a
refugefromthe dangersof opennessand chance."'
Paul Zietlowpresentsby far the most extensiveanalysisof
1Lionel Trilling, "Mansfield Park,' in The Opposing Self (New York, 1955), p. 207.
2 W. J. Harvey," The Plot of Emma," Essays in Criticism,17 (1967), 56-57.
'Lionel Trilling,p. 210.

404 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

chancein JaneAusten'snovelsin his examination ofPersuasqon,
whichis the novel of her canon that most overtlyinvitesthis
treatment.But the presenceof chancein Pride and Prejudice
is neitherso strikingnor obtrusiveas in Persuasion,where,as
Zietlowhas pointedout, the reunionof Anne and Wentworth
seems almost Providential.The "dark, menacingquality"4
whichhe and otherssensein Persuasionis absentin the " light,
and bright,and sparkling " Pride and Prejudice. Nor do the
fortunesof Elizabeth Bennet undergoso completea reversal
as those of Anne Elliot. This comparativeuniformity of hap-
pinessin Pride and Prejudicetendsto concealthe operationof
chance as a thematicmotifand plot device in bringingthe
novel to a felicitousconclusion.But, like Persuasion,the for-
tuitousemergesin Pride and Prejudiceas a forcewithwhich
bothitscharacters and itsreadersmustcontend.
As a workingdefinition, we may suggestthat all effects not
voluntarilyproducedbe considered, morallyspeaking,as the re-
sults of chance. Supplementing this definition,
thereare two
distinct,but connected,phases of action in whichchancecan
interpose.The firstoccurs in the processof decisionwhen,
throughself-ignorance or self-deception,
a characterremainsun-
awareofthe actualmotivation thatbringshimto a specific con-
clusionor planofaction.The secondoccurssimplywhena given
intentionfails-to producethe desiredeffect,when the conse-
quencesofan actionare unforseen and unexpected.Chancethen
fillsthe gap leftby the lapse of controleitherof one's selfor
one's circumstances.8 Both instancesare caused by a moreor
lessavoidable(and thusmorallysignificant) ignorance,
and both
are imagedin JaneAusten'snovelsas a varietyof " blindness."
With this definitionof chancein mind,we may investigate,
first,JaneAusten'smethodof establishing chanceas a credible
and effectiveplot device,and,second,herevaluationof the bal-
anceofchanceand choicein thenovel'sseveralmarriages.Critics
have already suggestedseveralperspectiveson the hierarchy
'Paul N. Zietlow,"Luck and FortuitousCircumstancein Persuasion: Two Inter-
pretations,"ELH, 32 (1965), 179.
'I have deliberatelyexcluded fromthis discussionwhat may be called " circum-
stantialchance,"forexample,the coincidencethat Darcy's aunt is Mr. Collins'patron.
This formof chance has little moral significance-atany rate, far less than the
chanceinvolvedin decisionand action.
'I am not suggestingby this definitionthat chance should be identifiedwith
causelessness,but ratherthat it is the ignoranceof causes or consequences.

Joel Weinsheimer 405

of marriagesin Pride and Prejudice;' each couple seemsto be
yokedbecausebothpartnersachievethe same moralrank,and
thusare fitmates. What has not yet beenfullyexploredis the
factthat the characters'responsesto chanceare significantcri-
teriafortheevaluationoftheirrelativemerits.Rankedby their
reactionsto the fortuitous, the charactersrange frompartial
self-determinationto completedomination by chance,and each
marriedcoupleillustratesa doubleview of one positionin the
novel'sscale ofimperfect responsesto chance.8
To assess the operationof chancein Pride and Prejudice,it
mayfirstbe helpfulto considerJaneAusten'smethodof making
the most fortuitousincidentsseem probable and natural.
DorothyVan Ghentrepliesto thosereaderswho feelthatPride
and Prejudiceis so limitedthatitsvalueis minimalby reminding
themthat " whenwe beginto look upon theselimitations
as havingthepositivefunction ofdefiningtheformand meaning
ofthebook,we beginalso to understand thatkindof value that
can lie in artistic mastery over a restrictedrange."9 "The
exclusionsand limitationsare deliberate,"10 and as soon as we
acknowledgethem so, we also realize that the novel's restricted
settingis definedby and thus implies the larger world which
comprehendsit. How this double awarenessof part and whole
can account for the credibilityof chance events in PrIde and
Prejudiceis best illustratedby examiningthe threeincidentsthat
appear most fortuitous.
The reroutingand reschedulingof the proposed trip to the
Lake country,the earlyreturnof Darcy to Pemberleyin time to
meet Elizabeth there,and Elizabeth's failureto expose Wickham
to Lydia or her parentsall seem to be the resultof chance. Yet
the author assigns each a cause: Mr. Gardineris "prevented
by business" (283) "1 fromhis originalplans; Darcy's " business
withhis stewardhad occasionedhis comingforwarda fewhours
before the rest of the party" (256); and Wickham is spared
7'For a useful summarysee Mordecai Marcus, " A Major Thematic Pattern in
Pride and Prejudice,"NCF, 16 (1961), 274-79.
8 For an analogousdiscussionof the novel'sscale of imperfection,
see W. A. Craik's
observationthat " all of the charactersare deficientin some way" in Jane Austen:
The Six Novels (London,1965), p. 64.
' The EnglishNovel: Form and Function
(1953; rpt.,New York, 1967), p. 124.
10 Van Ghent, p. 123.
to Pride and Prejudice are fromThe Novels of Jane Austen,ed.
"All references
R. W. Chapman,3rd ed. (London, 1932), Vol. II.

406 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

exposurebecausewhenElizabeth" returned home[fromthe Col-
ilnsparsonage], the -shire was to leave Merytonin a weekor
a fortnight'stime" (285) . Herethedutiesofan activebusiness-
man,the concernsof the landednobility,and the directivesof
thewaroffice a sphereof causationaliento thepro-
each signify
vincialsettingof the novel. Yet preciselybecause of its pro-
theyachievesignificance
vinciality, and probability. JaneAusten
balancesthe surpriseand thecredibility ofimprobable eventsby
imposinglimitations thatbothsuspendand maintainour aware-
ness of the largerworld.Thus whetherchanceoccurrences will
implydirectionby Providencebecomesa matterof choicefor
JaneAusten,sinceshesuggestsin thenovelan alternative sphere
ofterrestrialcausationintervening betweenthe Providential and
the immediate.
By establishing chanceas a realistictechniqueofplotdevelop-
ment,JaneAustenenablesthereaderto acknowledge itspresence
withoutapologyformystery or legerdemain.Consequently, we
can understand thatthe operationof chanceminimizes the dan-
ger (whichMaryLascelleswarnsis inherent in its " exactnessof
symmetry 1112) of imposing a benumbing orderon the material
of the novel. Chancehas its own symbology, and is employed
in a pervasivethematicpatternparalleling thatof choice.
Two significant symbolsof chanceunderlying the affairsof
the Longbourncircleare the entail by xvhichMr. Bennet's estate
will devolve on Mr. Collins ("' such things . . . are all chance in
this world'" [65]) and the lotteryat the Phillips home, where
Lydia " soon grew too much interestedin the game, too eager
in makingbets and exclaimingafterprizes,to have attentionfor
anyone in particular" (77). The entail typifiesthe financialin-
securityof the middle-classwoman, which participationin the
marriagelotteryis intendedto remedy. As Mr. Collins remarks
using an associated metaphor," 'When persons sit down to a
card table, they must take theirchance of these things' " (83) .
Here Jane Austendepictsthe hope of chance solutionsforchance
ills. But the gamble of the marriage lottery also symbolizes
design-even though we usually conceive of design as effort
directedtoward a particularend, thus limitingthe operationof
chance.
In Pride and Prejudice (as in Emma) design and its corre-
' Jane Austen and Her Art (London, 1939), p. 165.

Joel Weinsheimer 407

lates-art, scheming,contrivance,and cunning-become associ-
ated with chance by the partial disjunctionof intentionand
effect.In the cases of Mrs. Bennet's contrivancesforJane,Lady
Catherine'sfrankcondescensionto Elizabeth at Longbourn,and
Miss Bingley'sarts of captivatingDarcy, the existenceof the de-
sign per se initiatesits own frustration.The " quality of power-
lessness"13 which Marvin Mudrick finds characteristicof the
" simple" charactersin the novel derivesfromtheirinabilityto
conceive of an event as a somewhatunpredictableintersection
of diverse causes. There are, for example, at least five forces
operatingin Jane's estrangement fromBingley: her reserve,her
parent's impropriety,Darcy's interference, Miss Bingley's co-
operation with Darcy, and Bingley's malleability-any one of
which would have been insufficient to separate them. Without
an awareness of this multiplicity,design is ineffectual,and its
bafflement will seem attributableto the perversityof ill fortune.
If CharlotteLucas is typical of the designersengaged in the
marriagelottery,it becomes clear that those who most credit
chance, most employ art. Her marriage,of the three we will
centeron, is the most pathetic. Charlottedemonstratesherintel-
ligence,as does Elizabeth, by acknowledgingthat marriagedoes
not always bringhappiness. Marriage,Charlotteimplies,can be
contrivedsuccessfully:" 'Bingley likes your sisterundoubtedly;
but he may neverdo morethan like her,if she does not help him
on. '. . . Your plan is a good one,' replied Elizabeth, 'where
nothingis in question but the desire of being well married;and
if I were determinedto get a rich husband, or any husband,I
dare say I should adopt it'" (22) . Conversely,fromCharlotte's
perspective,"' Happiness in marriage is entirelya matter of
chance. . . . And it is better to know as little as possible of the
defectsof the personwithwhomyou are to pass yourlife' " (23) .
Charlotte'splan is a good one if she is to catch " any hus-
band."14 She succeeds in the same way as Lydia, who is also
too involved in the lottery" to have attentionfor anyone in
particular"(77). But the pathos of Charlotte'smarriageis that,
because of her intelligence,her ignorancemust be a pretense.
And thus she never arrives,as does Lydia, at the " sublime and
13 Jane Austen:
Irony as Defense and Discovery (Princeton, N. J., 1952), p. 104.
'4 From another perspective, Collins is not " any husband," since he is heir
apparent to the Bennet estate. And it is significantthat Charlotte, the spokeswoman
of chance, should marry the recipient of a fortuitoussufficiency.

408 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

refinedpoint of felicity,called, the possessionof being well
deceived."15 Charlottebegins as we have seen, by espousing
the value of ignorancein courtship,sincethe knowledgeof the
partner'sdefectshas no bearingon one'schanceofhappiness,and
shefollowsherprescription unswervingly.AfterElizabethrejects
Collins,Charlottesatisfies
hercuriosity by " walkingtowardthe
windowand pretendingnot to hear" (114) Mr. Collins ra-
tionalizehis disappointment. Whenthus informed that Collins
is, forthe moment,unattached,she sets the pretendedignorance
ofhermarriageschemeintomotion:" Miss Lucas perceivedhim
froman upperwindowas he walkedtowardthe house,and in-
stantlyset outto meethimaccidentallyin thelane" (121). And
as is usual in JaneAusten'snovels,the meansjustifythe end.
DuringElizabeth'svisitto theparsonage,shenoticesthat" when
Mr. Collinssaid anythingof whichhis wifemightreasonably
be ashamed,. . . Charlottewiselydid not hear" (156). What-
ever modicumof happinessCharlotteenjoys in her marriage
resultsnot fromchance,as she had predicted,but fromher
persistencein the same pretendedself-deception that charac-
terizedher courtship.In this way she unwittingly becomesa
fitmateforCollins,whois similarlydefinedby the" perseverence
in willfulself-deception"(109) in his deafnessto Elizabeth's
rejection.
Collinshimselfremarksthe perfection of thisunionat Eliza-
beth'sdeparture:"'My dearCharlotteand I havebut onemind
and one wayofthinking.Thereis in everything a mostremark-
able resemblance of characterand ideas betweenus. We seem
to have been designedforeach other'" (216). Here is at least
a tripleirony.Sincetheircompatibility is small,onlya perverse
designcouldhave joinedthem.Nevertheless, Collinsdoes design
Charlottefora wife,and at the sametime,she designshimfora
husband-thoughbothare merelysearching forany mate avail-
able. But, most important, they are attractedto each other
by a forcesuperiorto themboth-theirmutualidentity.Here
again JaneAustenpositsa new sphereof causation,non-Prov-
idential,yet extrinsicto the forcesof whichthe charactersare
immediately aware. In The Family ReunionAgatha concisely
describesthissphereand the follyofignoring it:
"Jonathan Swift,A Tale of a Tub, eds. A. C. Guthkelchand D. Nichol Smith,
2nd ed. (London,1958), p. 174.

Joel Weinsheimer 409

 Thus withthemostcarefuldevotion
Thus withpreciseattention
To detail,interfering
preparation
Of that whichis alreadyprepared
Men tightentheknotofconfusion
Into perfectmisunderstanding.
Reflectinga pocket-torch
of observation
'Upon each other'sopacity. ...16
Althoughall the charactersin the novel get what they want,
their designs do not effecttheir felicity. Contrivanceis either
the ignorant"preparation of that which is already prepared,"
or else it is simplyirrelevantto the outcome. The most explicit
instance of the folly of design occurs in Mrs. Bennet's self-
applause forkeepingJane and Bingley togetherat Netherfield:
"'<This was a lucky idea of mine, indeed!' said Mrs. Bennet,
more than once, as if the creditof makingit rain were all her
own" (31). Design and chance are allied in Pride and Prejudice
because Jane'smarriageand the rain are equally ofMrs. Bennet's
devising.
While Jane Austen validates Darcy's claim that "whatever
bears affinityto cunningis despicable" (40), she does not con-
clude that its opposite is more laudable. Mr. Bennet's indolent
detachmentfrom his wife and daughters increases their vul-
nerability,and signalshis moral deficiency.And Bingley,though
not at all cunning,is fitforno betterthan Jane. The marriage
of Jane and Bingley, like that of Charlotte and Collins, also
disclosesa dual perspectiveon a singlepositionin the hierarchy
of marriages,and, as we noticedin the parson and his wife,their
placementin this moral scale resultsin part fromtheir similar
responsesto chance.
It is the chance involved in Bingley's spontaneouslypicking
Netherfieldas a home that initiates the novel's action. "Mr.
Bingley had not been of age two years, when he was tempted
by an accidental recommendation to look at NetherfieldHouse.
He did look at it and into it forhalf an hour,was pleased with
what the ownersaid in its praise,and took it immediately" (16).
But his capriceis moreestimablethan that of Mr. Collins,since
by thismethodBingleychoosesa house,Collinsa wife. Bingley's
" needlessprecipitance" is furtherdevelopedin his replyto Mrs.
T. S. Eliot, The Complete Poems and Plays 1909-1950 (New York, 1952), pp.
230-31.

410 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marmage8

Bennet's inquirywhetherhe will stay long at Netherfield:
"' WhateverI do is donein a hurry. . . and therefore ifI should
resolveto quit Netherfield, I shouldprobablybe offin five
minutes'" (42). However,Darcy remainsunconvinced of his
friend'sresoluteness;such decisivenessis merefantasy.On the
contrary, Darcy informs him,"'Your conductwouldbe quite
as dependenton chanceas that of any man I know;and if,as
you weremounting yourhorse,a friendwereto say, " Bingley,
you had betterstay till nextweek,"you wouldprobablydo it,
you wouldprobablynot go-and, at anotherword,mightstay
a month'" (49). What Darcy clarifies forus is thatcapricious
choiceis not the affirmation of individualpoweror of freedom
fromexternalrestraint; ratherit is therelianceon an immediate
cause (the nearbyfriend, Darcy) whosepresenceis accidental.
Capriceis no morethan the unacknowledged determination of
choiceby chance.
Bingley'sunconsciousdependenceon chanceparallelsthat of
Jane,and therebypreparesus fortheirmarriage.Like Bingley,
Jane is withoutdesign. Quite the opposite,she nearlyfulfills
Charlotte'sprophecythat her reservewill not sufficeto hold
Bingley.The complement of Jane'srestraintin the displayof
affectionis herrestraintin censure,and the basis of bothis her
responseto that ignorancewhichproducesthe appearanceof
chance. Jane'srecognition thatshe does not knowthe degreeof
Bingley'saffection accountsforherunwillingness to entraphim.
Because of the same self-acknowledged ignoranceshe suspends
judgmentwhenElizabethrepeatsWickham'sversionof Darcy's
duplicity.NothingremainedforJaneto do " but to thinkwell
ofthemboth,to defendtheconductof each,and throwintothe
accountofaccidentor mistake,whatevercouldnototherwise be
explained" (85). Jane'ssancta simplicitasis thuspreservedbv
herremaining in a cocoonofignorance.In one sense,Janeis the
personificationof the comichopeof Pride and Prejudice. Of all
the characters, she most consistently expectsthat all will end
well (287). But thisprognosis is undermined as thereadercomes
to realize that the c"account of accident or mistake" will not
sustain the new data continuallybeing unfolded. And as chance
yieldsto pattern,we understandmoreclearlythat the " sanguine
hope of good" whichmakes possibleJane's favorableinterpreta-
tions of the presence of evil does not result froman accurate
observationof her world,but is merelythe projected " benev-

Joel Weinsheimer 411

olence of her heart" (287). Our reaction thereforeis twofold:
we reverenceher benevolence,and deprecate her fixationin it.
Jane's " angelic" responseto chance is initiallyadequate. She
humblypresumesthe possibilityof ignoranceand error.But her
benign skepticismproduces no knowledge,and thus becomes
its own caricature stultifiedand incapable of adapting to the
flux of the sublunary world. Her control is diminished,her
choice incapacitated,and in their absence Jane is governedby
chance. Both Bingley and Jane are characterizedby a perse-
verance in self-deception like that of Charlotteand Collins,but
their unscheminggood nature elevates them above the parson
and his wife. Of Bingley's ductilityand Jane's petrification, we
are forced to say (as does Elizabeth describingDarcy and
Wickham), " ' There is but such a quantity of merit between
them;just enoughto make one good sort of man'" (92925).
Jane's fixationis not unique within the Bennet family. In
the marriageof Mr. and Mrs. Bennet the reader discoversthat
both " neglect and mistaken indulgence" (280), both detach-
ment and design, are manifestationsof internal necessity or
fixation.Elizabeth upbraidsher father'sindolenceby illustrating
its effecton his children: if he will not bestirhimself,she says,
"' Lydia's characterwill be fixed,and she will, at sixteen,be
the most determinedflirtthat ever made herselfand her family
ridiculous' " (231) . Nor is even Lydia's flirtationfree; it is
fixed on a scarlet coat (64). That the parents' fixationwill
contributeto the child'sfixationis probableand natural. What is
surprisingis that any of the Bennet daughtersescape " the dis-
advantages of so unsuitablea marriage" (236) as that of their
parents. How Elizabeth does so is the centralconcernof Pride
and Prejudice. And her liberationinvolvesa responseto chance
that raises the moral value of her marriageabove that of the
others.
A significantform of verbal irony in the firsthalf of the
novel17 is Elizabeth's perversionof metaphorsof chance: "' Mr.
Bingley's defenceof his friendwas a very able one I dare say,
but since he is unacquainted with several parts of the story,
and has learntthe rest fromthat friendhimself,I shall venture
still to think of both gentlemenas I did before'" (96; my
"7For a convincingargumentthat "irony is more totallyverbal in the firsthalf
of the novel than in the second,"see JosephWiesenfarth,
The ErrandofForm (New
York, 1954), pp. 683ff.

412 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

italics). Ironically, the limitations of Bingley's defence of Darcy
are identical to the defects in Elizabeth's defence of Wickham.
Yet Elizabeth is unaware that her evaluation of Wickham is a
" venture," not a certainty. Similarly, while trying to penetrate
Mr. Collins' deafness, Elizabeth assures him, "' I am not one of
those young ladies (if such young ladies there are) who are so
daring as to risk their happiness on the chance of being asked a
second time'" (107; my italics). Elizabeth knows that to refuse
Collins' offerdoes not " risk" her happiness since the chance of
any is nil: "' You could not make me happy, and I am con-
vinced that I am the last woman in the world who could make
you so '" (107). The similarity of this rebuff of Collins to
Elizabeth's rejection of Darcy is striking: "' I had not known
you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the
world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry '" (193). This
parallel phrasing in Elizabeth's two refusals of marriage suggests
one facet of her fixation. To refuseDarcy does risk her happiness,
but Elizabeth denies the gambling metaphor by presuming an
omniscience of Darcy like that she possessed of Collins. In the
first half of the novel Elizabeth's continual repetition of the
metaphors associated with the marriage lottery indicates that
while she seems unaffected by it, her attempt to deny chance
proves it real and threatening.
If Collins is often impenetrably deaf to Elizabeth, the reverse
is also true. " 'My dear Miss Elizabeth,'" he remarks to her at
the Netherfieldball, " 'I have the highest opinion in the world
of your excellent judgment in all matters within the scope of
your understanding,but permit me to say . . .' " (97). Disguised
in Mr. Collins' flatulence is Elizabeth's unawareness that the
scope of her understanding is too small, that it has gathered too
little data, to evaluate circumstances accurately. These limita-
tions of self-knowledgemust become conscious if she is to escape
entrapment in her owvnillusory omniscience. What Elizabeth
must learn, among other things, is that chance is predicated on
ignorance, and insofar as ignorance can be under one's control,
to that extent is chance capable of regulation. The paradigm
of her awakening occurs in Rosings Park. " More than once did
Elizabeth in her ramble within the Park, unexpectedly meet Mr.
Darcy.-She felt all the perversenessof the mischance that should
bring him where no one else was brought; and to prevent its ever
happening again, took care to informhim at firstthat it was a

Joel Weinsheimer 413

favoritehauntof hers.-How it could occura secondtimewas
veryodd!-Yet it did, even a third" (182). At least one critic
has notedthatit is a "series of incidentsoverwhichElizabeth
has no controlthatreunites " ' herwithDarcy. And in Rosings
Park onlyby an involuntary empiricismdoes Elizabethdiscover
a patternemerging fromwhat seemedto be fortuitous in his
actions.
On the possibility
of Darcy's knaveryJaneis in a quandary:
"'It is difficultindeed-it is distressing.-Onedoes not know
whatto think.'" But Elizabethretorts, "'I beg yourpardon;-
one knowsexactlywhatto think'" (86). Throughout thenovel
Elizabethrecognizes, as Janedoesnot,thenecessity ofjudgment
in the presenceof evil. But Elizabethheremanifests the same
needlessprecipitancy in decisionthatcharacterizes Bingley,and
is thus to a similarextentdirectedby chance. Her prejudice
originatesin the coincidenceof her beingnear enoughto over-
hear Darcy's snub. And onlywhenElizabethcomesto under-
stand that she has perservered in willfulself-deception,has
" ' courted prepossessionand ignorance,and driven reason
away'" (208), is she releasedfromthe dominionof chance.
Her perspective is thenbroadened,and she becomescapable of
" giving way to every variety of thought,"of " reconsidering
events,"and, mostsignificantly, of " determining probabilities"
(209).
AlthoughReuben Browerfindsit " an odd, ratherlegalistic
process,"19" determiningprobabilities"is,nevertheless,
themost
appropriate of the responsesto chancedramatizedin Pride and
Prejudice,and Elizabeth'scapacityto determine theprobabilities
ofpossibleeventsvalidatesthenovel'splacementofhermarriage
above thatof Janein the moralhierarchy.If one musthave a
fixation,Jane's fixationin the suspensionof censureis more
praiseworthy than Elizabeth'sin prejudice.But because Eliz-
abeth escapesherself, she achievesthe highermoralstatus. If
Jane superficiallyaffirmschance but ultimatelydeniesit, the
reverseis true of Elizabeth. She finallycreditschance and
attemptsto cope withit.
For a gambler, determining is relatively
probabilities easy. He
'1Wiesenfarth,p. 83.
19 Reuber A. Brower, " Light and Bright and Sparkling: Irony and Fiction in
Pride and Prejudice," in The Fields of Light: An Experiment in Critical Reading (New
York, 1951), pp. 176-77.

414 Chanceand the Hierarchyof Maniages

knows the dice and how they are marked. But Elizabeth and
Darcy must discover while blindfolded how the dice are con-
structed. They are forced -todefinetheir world inductively before
deciding the probability of a given outcome. The possibility of
error in this process destroys the self-assurance with which
Elizabeth had judged Darcy and Wichkham. And had Darcy
known the difficultyof determining probabilities when he first
proposed, his countenance would not have "expressed real
security" while " he spoke of apprehension and anxiety " (189).
Such security only causes vexation. As Jane comments "'His
being so sure of succeeding, was wrong . . . and certainly ought
not to have appeared; but consider how much it must increase
his disappointment' (224). That by the time of his second
proposal Darcy has been educated in the vagaries of mischance is
shown by the " more than common awkwardness and anxiety of
his situation" (366). And here his humility is rewarded with
success because it presumes that Elizabeth is free either to accept
or reject him. Likewise, when Darcy returnsat last to the Bennet
home, Elizabeth acknowledges the possibility of a variety of
motives and distrusts what appears to be simple cause and effect
relationship. She hopes that his returnmeans " that his affection
and wishes must still be unshaken. But she would not be secure"
(334).
The anxiety of Elizabeth and Darcy demonstrates that their
reappraisal of the operation of chance does not make them
capable of molding the world to their satisfaction. Whatever
additional control the recognitionof chance gives them is dwarfed
by their glimpse of the far greater chaos beyond their direction.
Nor does Jane Austen lead us toward the pride of Stoicism. The
inner world, like the outer, is susceptible of only small (though
significant) control. " Health and temper to bear inconveniencies
-cheerfulness to enhance every pleasure-and affectionand in-
telligence, which might supply it among themselves if there were
disappointments abroad " (240) characterize the Gardiners as a
couple high in the moral scale; but these qualities are rare and
can be generated only in a naturally fertilesoil of which there is
very little on this earth.
It is true that for Jane Austen self-knowledgeand self-control
crown the moral hierarchy,and where her characters fail in these
respects they fall under the lash of her wit. The art of self-
manipulation to prevent the deception of others is laudable and

Joel Weinsheimer 415

difficultof mastery.But the qualms one has about the value
of completeself-consciousness resultfromits persistent tendency
towardknavery;or froma more Romanticperspective,self-
consciousness mightbe imagedas the wearingof a truemask,
a personaidenticalto thepersonbehindit. But whattheviewer
of such a mask alwaysrealizesis that thisdualityis perilously
close to the duplicityof suchas Wickham.
JaneAustencircumvents theproblemsinvolvedin over-ration-
alizingbehaviorby reminding us of the operationof the uncon-
sciousevenin themostconsequential choices.Reasonis parodied
in Mary's windymoralizing and in Mr. Collins'formulaic pro-
posal to Elizabeth.But,moreimportant, thecentralmarriageof
Prideand Prejudiceis basednotaloneon reasonand thegrowing
mutualunderstanding betweenDarcy and Elizabeth,but also
on a thoroughly spontaneous affection-one whichflowers entirely
contrary to theefforts and expectationsofthecharacters. Bingley
and Jane"consideredit, we talkedof it as impossible"(373).
One reason why the marriageof Darcy and Elizabeth seems
impossible is that" it has beenmostunconsciously done" (190).
Elizabethcan takeno creditforhavingknowingly elicitedDarcy's
addresses,yet " it was gratifying to have inspiredunconsciously
so strongan affection"(193). Elizabethcannotsay how long
she has loved Darcy: "'It has been comingon so gradually,
that I hardlyknow when it began'" (373). And similarly
Darcy, whenElizabethasks him to describethe originof his
love,replies," ' I cannotfixon thehour,or thespot,or thelook,
orthewords,whichlaid thefoundation. It is too longago. I was
in the middlebeforeI knewthatI had begun" (380). Finally,
thereis no immediatecause-not even consciouswill-for the
affection of Darcy and Elizabeth,and this freedomconstitutes
theirpeculiarfelicity.
Elizabeth wondersat one point "how far it would be for
the happinessof boththat she shouldemploythe power,which
herfancytoldhershe stillpossessed,of bringing on the renewal
of [Darcy's]addresses" (266). Luckilyshe neverhas the op-
portunityto do so, for this would bringher to the level of
Miss Bingley. As we have seen,it is superfluous or worseto
arrangewhatis alreadyarranged.This inefficacy of the willin
mattersofaffection is foundnotonlyin the" simple" characters,
as Mudrickcontends,but in " complex" charactersas well.20
20Mudrick, p. 104. We may note that Elizabeth equates the inefficacyof Darcy

416 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

Ratherthan attempting to snareDarcy,Elizabethacts toward
himas sheresolvesto act towardBingley.It is hard,shethought,
"'that this poor man cannotcome to a house,whichhe has
legallyhired,withoutraisingall thisspeculation!I will leavehim
to himself "' (332). Such is.Elizabeth'sresponseto the " truth
universallyacknowledged " that governsthe novel. What she
hereclarifies forus is thatwhenleftalone by the Mrs. Bennets
ofthisworld,the individual'sselfemergeslucidly,withoutbeing
falsifiedby the patternimposedby other'swishes.
The unpredictability of eventsin Pride and Prejudiceresults
fromthefactthat,fromthecharacters' pointofview,all manner
of improbability is discovered. Wickham'sknaveryteaches
Elizabethto " drawno limitsin the futureto the impudenceof
an impudent man" (317). Andat theotherextreme, shefindsin
"
Darcy's assistanceof Lydia an exertionof goodnesstoo great
to be probable" (326). Even determining probabilities is in-
adequateif we are not preparedforthe unlikely.
On theotherhand,whenprobability of actionor motivation is
too easilycalculated,JaneAustenputs us on ourguard. Justas
sheportrays theimprobable, so also do we findtheover-probable,
and sometimes bothsimultaneously:
Never,sincereading Jane'ssecondletter, had IElizabeth] entertained
a hopeofWickham's meaning to marry [Lydia].No onebutJane,she
thought, couldflatterherself withsuchan expectation. Surprisewas
theleastofherfeelings onthisdevelopement....Butnowit wasall
toonatural.Forsuchan attachment as this,shemight havesufficient
charms;and thoughshe did not supposeLydia to be deliberately
engaging in an elopement, without theintention ofmarriage, shehad
nodifficultyin believingthatneither hervirtuenorherunderstanding
wouldpreserve herfromfalling an easyprey. (279-80;myitalics)
Here the over-probable becomesa sourceof pity or aversion
becauseit impliesan involuntary entrapment by an exterior and
mechanicalcause. Lydia falls an " easy prey" to Wickham
becausehe is thoroughly self-conscious, and she is not. And she
is a prey to herselfby her self-willand carelessness(213).
Here, as elsewhere,Wickhamfalls victimto his own contri-
vance. Nevertheless, they do surprisingly marry,contraryto
Elizabeth'sexpectations, and at thesametimefulfill hersuspicion
with that of Miss Bingley in attempting to separate Jane and Bingley: "'And this
*. . is the end of all his friend'sanxiouscircumspection!
of all his sister'sfalsehood
and contrivance!the happiest,wisest,and most reasonableend!"' (347).

Joel Weinsheimer 417

that little" permanent happinesscould belongto a couplewho
wereonlybroughttogether becausetheirpassionswerestronger
than theirvirtue" (312). Likewise,the over-probable and im-
probableare combinedwhenMiss Bingleyteases Darcy about
hispleasurefromElizabeth'sfineeyes: " ' I am all astonishment.
How longhas she been such a favorite?-andpraywhenam I
to wishyou joy?' " To whichDarcy replies," ' That is exactly
the questionI expectedyou to ask'" (27). Miss Bingley's
commentis completely predictableand thereforeinane;yet ulti-
matelyit is justified.
Samuel Kligerhas observedthat in Pride and Prejudicethe
eighteenth century's"rationalisticquest of the mean between
two extremesrequiresthat the probabilitiesfor the heroine's
behaviorbe set up betweentwo alternatives, neitherof which
is acceptablealone. . . .' 21 Justsuch a quest forthe mean is
completedin Jane Austen'sreconciliation of the over-probable
and the improbable,the inevitableand the impossible.In-
deed thisunioninforms the wholeof Pride and Prejudicesince
it is the basis of the "truth universallyacknowledged, that a
singleman in possessionof a good fortune, mustbe in wantof
a wife." We wouldassumeany truthuniversally acknowledged
in a Jane Austennovel to be eitherfalseor trite;yet,as one
criticconcedes,"by the end of the novel we are willingto
acknowledgethat both Bingleyand Darcy were 'in want of
a wife.'"a 22
The ignoranceof this truthoccasionsthe most significant
illusionof chancein Pride and Prejudiceand, perhaps,in all
Jane Austen'snovels. It is an illusionthat appears in the
frequent,but repressed,
responsethattheimpossibly happycon-
clusionofthenovelis, afterall, fortuitous.
This responsesprings
fromthe onlypartialawarenessof a cause neitherProvidential
norphysical,but rathermoral.Prideand Prejudice,takenas a
whole,enforcesourrecognition thatan unmarried manor woman
is incomplete.Not onlyis theurgeto matea physicaldrive,but
it is a moralnecessityif one is to becomemorethan the sum
ofthemultipleidiosyncrasiesthatcomposetheindividualperson-
ality. JaneAustensees the individual"not as a solitarybeing
21 " Jane Austen'sPride and Prejudicein the EighteenthCenturyMode," UTQ, 16
(1947), 360.
22A. Walton Litz, Jane Austen: A Study of Her ArtisticDevelopment (London,
1965), p. 107.

418 Chance and the Hierarchyof Marriages

completedin himself,
but onlyas completedin society."23 The
" complex" individualis not isolatedby his freedom,as Mudrick
quite the opposite. If anyone,only the " simple,"
contends,24
myopic,and fixatedindividualsare isolated,sinceforthemother
peopleneverbecomereal. Darcyincreases thescopeofhisfreedom
by enlarginghis societyto includenot onlyElizabeth,but her
familyas well. And in Wickhamhe createsa brother.By his
freedom Darcy establishesand vindicateshis positionin society.
The truthuniversallyacknowledged that humarnitas cannot
be achievedalone is sometimeslost amongthe welterof socio-
economicinterpretations
of the novel's marriages,but the driving
forceofPrideand Prejudicecannotbe explainedby reference to
the pocketbook.Rather,JaneAusteninvitesus to examinethe
possibilitythat an individualcan meritand achievehappiness
in a community thatbecomesvaluableby hisjoiningit. "' With-
out schemingto do wrong,or to make othersunhappy,there
may be error,and theremay be misery.Thoughtlessness, and
wantof attentionto otherpeople'sfeelings,and wantof resolu-
tion,will do the business (136). The sourcesof miseryare
various;but wheninformed by thoughtfulness,sympathy, and
commitment, fulfillment
in marriageis not a matterof chance.
Ohio University

23Richard Simpson, rev. of the Memoir, North British Review (April, 1870), rpt.
in B. C. Southam, Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage (New York, 1968), p. 249.
24 Mudrick,pp. 124-25.

Joel Weinsheimer 419