Studying The Themes In Pride And Prejudice English Literature Essay

Two literary works, both released in the Nineteenth Century, portray strongly contrasting themes and protagonists. The main idea of this research essay was to analyse how the changing position of women in the Nineteenth Century is reflected in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ by Jane Austen and ‘A Doll’s House’ by Henrik Ibsen. The literary works are only seventy years apart, yet society’s views changed so drastically in those seventy years. When Pride and Prejudice was published, marriage was the ultimate. All that was spoken of was wedlock and how to attain it. When A Doll’s House was published, women’s rights were beginning to become more important in society. Of course, even then, there were still some old fashioned minds. Torvald Helmer was the epitome of what Ibsen disapproved of. As many people analysed, Ibsen wrote this play to make the world move forward quicker. It is unknown whether or not his play actually made a huge impact; however, women’s position in society has changed drastically since.

Even between the two publications, there was a dramatic change. Nora Helmer was an implausible character to Jane Austen. By the time Ibsen had his play performed, women were beginning to think independently and seek self-importance. Austen and Ibsen had different viewpoints of the society they lived in. Austen agreed with the basic structure of society, but wished that women would live life more than they did. Elizabeth was a woman whom Austen wished all women were like. Ibsen criticised his society. He wanted things to change – and change quickly. He created a brave woman, in order for that to happen. Both literary pieces survived thus far because of the greatness of their literary merit – one as a sparkling template for romantic comedies, the other a sharply drawn socially realistic portrayal.

Contents

Introduction

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen can be regarded as landmark literary statements about the lives and social positions of women.

Austen’s classic novel, published in 1813, depicts a snapshot of elite English society where young women and men looked eagerly towards marriage; the conclusion of her romantic-comedy was a celebratory occasion as the main characters were bound in wed-lock. Writing 70 years later, Ibsen illustrated strongly contrasting themes to these.

The brief period in history between 1813 and 1879 witnessed vast changes in the nature of European society that, in many ways, transformed traditional relationships.

It is not the subject of this essay to account for the sweeping effects of modernisation and democratisation that took part between the writings of Austen and Ibsen. This essay will rather seek to analyse each work to, as it were, establish literary ‘book-ends’ that present the values, which existed at each stage.

Two writers, both having existed in the same century, with entirely different attitudes as to how the world should be seen, in the eyes of a woman. Jane Austen believed it only natural for marriage to be on a young lady’s mind. Henrik Ibsen, however, thought it inappropriate to show marriage as always being the ultimate; the traditional destiny. Ibsen portrayed women as independent or, at the very least, seeking independence. He succeeded when attempting to portray women as more than hopeless ladies whose life goals were to be married. Both are entirely conflicting stories; both are incredibly successful.

Elizabeth Bennet compared to Nora Helmer

Elizabeth Bennet lives with her mother who pesters her five daughters about marriage. Elizabeth is a woman in the times when marriage and wealth was what a woman was expected to desire. She accepted the marriage idea evident in the society. Nevertheless, she did not believe in betrothing herself to someone she is incompatible with. Elizabeth is a unique woman; she is intellectual and cares for more than money and possessions. She still wants to marry – but marry someone with the same mind as her own. This is evident when she rejects Mr. Collins, a financially stable young man. “You could not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who would make you so,” [1] Elizabeth ensures him as he proposes. They are not alike; therefore she could not marry him, for all the money in the world. If she did, she would have to be wedded to him for life in misery. Separation was never a considered option. Hence, if you wed somebody, it would be eternity. That is why Mr. and Mrs. Bennet stayed together until now. They are not a suitable match. Mr. Bennet mocks his wife. He is an intellectual who married for youth and beauty. Yet, she could not leave him because divorce was considered an act of ungratefulness, on the woman’s part. Compatibility was not a common thought when contemplating marriage. Economic security was all that was regarded. That is why Charlotte Lucas does not hesitate before accepting Mr. Collins’ marriage proposal. She needs economic protection. Consequently, Elizabeth understands well-suited marriages. She wants someone she can spend the rest of her life with without regret. Marriage is what she wants but it isn’t the marriage her mother or society would ever understand.

Nora Helmer is introduced as a married woman living an apparently content life in a city apartment. She explains to her friend Mrs. Linde that she’s “been so happy these last eight years” [2] living with Torvald and in comparison to Mrs. Linde’s life, this seems highly likely. Nora is well-dressed, living in a comfortable apartment with delightful children and a loving husband. Although she experienced a process of taking increasing financial responsibility and doing everything in her power to support her husband’s inflated self-concept, she is deeply shocked and shaken by Torvald’s selfish arrogance when her illegal activities are exposed. In the beginning, she did not realise that Torvald and she “never exchanged a serious word on any serious subject.” [3] Nora was living the ‘dream;’ everything was developing perfectly for her. However, once Torvald reveals his true self, she realises that living with him is not the way she wants to live. He is everything that is holding her back. There is so much to see in the world; so much to learn about; and here she is, living in a doll’s house, confined to a town that is not wide enough, nor exciting enough, for her mind. Finally, she leaves her dismal life, to live her own life, to learn new things, to travel to places she’s only ever heard of. She wants to experience life, as she never had before and she could not do that whilst living under the same roof as Torvald Helmer.

Both these women are of great depth and interest. Both Elizabeth and Nora have different thoughts to the normal flow of their surroundings. Elizabeth rejected the marriage the society endorsed – marriage for economic security – unusual as it was in her time. Nora did not fancy being imprisoned in a home, which offered no excitement and no learning opportunities. Both characters are similar in that they both went against the usual course of those around them. However, they are different in the things they wanted ultimately. Elizabeth sought after marrying someone similar to her. Nora desired to learn more about the world and herself before committing to anything more. Pride and Prejudice concludes with Elizabeth and Jane Bennett celebrating their marriages to compatible husbands. A Doll’s House, on the other hand, ends with Nora walking to the world, ready to embrace whatever the world has to offer. In less than seventy years, the stories written about women and their position changed drastically. Women were beginning to be seen as more capable, more equal. Marriage was no longer the single thought occupying their minds. After all, it isn’t that women desperately want to marry – the society and the situation society put them in only made it seem that way and by the time Henrik Ibsen wrote his play, those types of thoughts were beginning to waver.

Torvald Helmer compared to Nils Krogstad and Dr. Rank

Torvald Helmer believes in particular positions for men and women. He does not approve of the thought that women should have the same status in society as men do. Torvald Helmer is stuck in times of male dominance. He sees himself as the leader, the person in charge. He provides for his family – that’s his job. If his wife were to begin providing also, the world would have turned upside-down. He is a traditional man with an outdated way of thinking, living in a society, which is rapidly changing.

In A Doll’s House there are two other male characters whose way of thinking is undeniably changing with the society. Nils Krogstad and Dr. Rank both believe in equality of the sexes. Ibsen created these two characters as a contrast to Torvald. Both Krogstad and Rank have different views. Krogstad is perfectly fine with the idea of Ms. Linde working to provide for their family. “When I lost you, it was just as if the very ground had given way under my feet. Look at me now – a shipwrecked man clinging to a spar.” [4] He also strongly believes he needs her in his life to feel complete. Torvald is his own person. Even though he loved Nora, he did not connect with her on any other ground than the fact that she was his wife and the mother of his children. Without Kristina, Krogstad fell apart; he had nothing.

Furthermore, when Rank enters the home intending to see Torvald, he does not leave when he learns he is busy. Rather, he sits with Nora and converses with her, as he would with any male. “In less than a month, perhaps, I shall lie rotting in the churchyard.” [5] Rank discusses matters of seriousness with Nora, whilst Torvald does not. Torvald never once had a serious conversation with her, which proves how little he thought of the supposed impartiality between them. It is clear that Rank has a mind like the shifting society compared to the mind of Torvald, which is clearly not moving forwards.

Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy compared to Mr. Charles Bingley

Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy and Mr. Charles Bingley of Pride and Prejudice both have distinct views on the ideas that their society lives on. Both own very large fortunes – the former slightly wealthier than the latter. The two are the closest associates; however, their views could not be more dissimilar.

Mainly, they are different in what they want ultimately. Of course, as was the tradition, they each want to marry; however, Mr. Bingley is not so finicky with who his future bride is to be. He is much quicker to label a woman as ‘accomplished’ also, which adds to the differing views of him and his friend. “It is amazing to me how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished, as they all are,” [6] quotes Mr. Bingley. Mr. Darcy, of course, scolds him for thinking such a thing. Mr. Darcy clearly disagrees. After describing an accomplished woman, Mr. Bingley listens to Mr. Darcy’s words, “All this she must possess and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.” [7] To the reader, it is obvious that Mr. Darcy, intentionally or not, is describing Elizabeth Bennet as accomplished.

When the men choose their wives, it is even more evident what their views on women are. Mr. Bingley chooses Jane for her unmistakable beauty and kind nature. His affection for her is not based on an intelligent mind or extensive reader. Mr. Darcy, on the other hand, favours Elizabeth. Although she is not so handsome as Jane, her mind is more developed. She takes pleasure in reading and intellectual discussions. By joining Mr. Darcy with Elizabeth and Mr. Bingley with Jane in matrimony in the end of the novel, it is clear what Austen wants the reader to learn: marry someone you are compatible with. Although Mr. Bingley marries Jane for her attractiveness, their marriage is compatible because each is kind natured and good spirited. The two are not intellectuals, like Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. In fact, they are quite the opposite, yet their marriage still works. When comparing the two main men of this novel, it is possible to say that Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley are the male counterparts to Jane and Elizabeth Bennet, which opens a window to their future relationships. As readers, it is easy to assume that their marriages are similarly happy, because they married women whom are like themselves.

Work in the Nineteenth Century

In Pride and Prejudice, the Bennets’ are gentleman’s daughters, therefore they are not expected to work – or have any interest in working. Even the description of an accomplished woman does not include any work experience. Comparing this with Ibsen’s play, it is evident how different the positions of women are. Nora wants to work and feels accomplished when she does.

The changing position of women is made clear as time continued from then. Women became more and more prominent in the working industry. In the beginning of A Doll’s House, it seems that the times have not changed enough when Kristina states, “A wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent.” [8] From this statement, it gives the impression that the society Nora is living in is just like the society Elizabeth Bennet was living in, where men dominated in all areas. Nora also states, “I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do.” [9] This line proposes it was atypical for women who were of middle and upper classes to work.

However, as the play develops, it is clear that what is truly sought after is independence. “It was tremendous fun sitting there working and earning money. It was almost like being a man.” [10] Nora reveals to Kristina that the three most enjoyable weeks she’s ever experienced were the three that had her working. Of course, Kristina knows exactly what feeling she is referring to, as is exposed when she explains, “All my life, as long as I can remember, I’ve worked – that’s been my one great joy.” [11] Patently, Nora and Kristina are members of a newly emerging professional middle class; that is, women were beginning to be noticed in the professional district of society. Gone was the English society that encompassed everything Elizabeth Bennett knew. In its place was a more urbanised civilisation that would continue to change and renew itself.

Writer’s Purpose

As writers, both Austen and Ibsen had distinct purposes for their publications. When reading their works, it is clear to many that each wanted to encourage the public to confront their society. Austen did agree with her society, essentially. She approved of marriage but wanted the reason for marriage to change. Ibsen, though, promoted women’s independence and ensured his audience went away with new ideas about the equality between the sexes.

In the early Nineteenth Century, women were quite restricted. They could not vote, could not engage in many legal issues, especially those in court and even had limited control over personal property once they became somebody’s wife. Women were expected to be inferior to their fathers and husbands. They did not have many occupational choices – unless they wanted to work as domestic servants or labourers. However, with the onset of industrialization and the growth of the market economy, things began to change. Women’s future was looking bright. They were voicing their opinions in the forms of literacy and politics. Women were given the right to vote, in certain places of the world. People were becoming far more informed and open-mindedness was supported. Pride and Prejudice and A Doll’s House sat at either side of this drastic world change. If views on women were not changing, Ibsen would never have been able to create a woman brave enough to challenge society.

Even though Pride and Prejudice was an extremely entertaining piece of literature, Jane Austen’s respected values shone brightly through the words on the page. One of the essential values that were presented was the idea that marrying for refuge, instead of suitability, was never the correct choice. Even though both Jane and Elizabeth married wealthy men, their motive was more the like-mindedness they shared with their partners. They married for the important fact that they connected on a higher level than the fortune their partners owned.

In the times when Austen published this novel, the thinking of Elizabeth and Jane were not glorified. Austen took this to her advantage and publicised intellectual thinking and brought compatibility into relationships. Other than the eldest Bennets’, the characters mainly consider marrying for support more than anything else. Naturally, Austen disapproved of inappropriate matrimonial matches. By creating a character like Elizabeth, the audience could understand that she found it rather improper for ill-suited men and women to wed.

However, Austen didn’t completely disapprove of women marrying for money. She understood that there are certain circumstances, which cannot be avoided. She wrote about Charlotte Lucas, who was a girl uncertain of her economic future. She married Mr. Collins for his apparent wealth and the belief that she would be financially secure with him as a husband. Although she understood her uncertain financial status, Austen used this assessment to her benefit. Charlotte and Mr. Collins’ marriage became one of comfort, not one of love and affection. Austen did not forget to remind the reader that their marriage was anything but successful because of their reason for marriage. She also disapproved of marriage based solely on attraction, as was Mr. and Mrs. Bennet’s relationship. “Her father captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour, which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and liberal mind, had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her.” [12] Their marriage was all that Austen was against.

She satirises both Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins, exaggerating their characters. She portrays Mr. Collins as a wealthy man, so desperate he will marry any woman and will go to any lengths to impress Lady Catherine. Mrs. Bennet is the main comic of the novel, especially with her frequently mocking husband. She wants her daughters to marry so urgently, she almost faints when Elizabeth rejects the pompous Mr. Collins. These two characters, Austen created to contrast against all that Elizabeth disliked.

Austen’s main purpose for forming a character like Elizabeth was to create an exemplar for women to follow. She had a strong character and her pride was enough to defend herself. “You are not entitled to know my (concerns); nor will such behaviour as this, ever induce me to be explicit,” [13] Elizabeth elucidates to Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Not even her ‘superior’ ladyship intimidates her for she is a woman who understands her position in life. Another characteristic of hers that Austen wanted women to notice was the fact that she rejected Mr. Collins, whilst he was in possession of a large fortune. Austen wanted this idea relayed to the readers: do not settle for riches. Elizabeth is most definitely the heroine of the novel and, even though she has to go through shortcomings, she proves to be a woman of her era that modern women can admire.

In the end, what could be said about Austen’s purpose to write this light-hearted novel is that she meant great things for it. She wrote to suggest that it would be better for women if they did not settle for a man who seems as though he will not make them happy. She was not criticizing society. Rather, she was trying to stretch the line a little – she attempted to change the way a woman’s life had to be; and she succeeded, because only seventy years later, A Doll’s House was performed.

Henrik Ibsen wrote his play in a time when women’s rights were starting to become noticed. Women’s right to independence played a magnificent role in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. That is essentially what he was building towards, right from the commencement of the play. The entire purpose for his writing of this play was to relay the message that women should begin thinking for themselves. He wanted women to believe they could make it on their own; that they did not need a man to help them along the way. He did not accept the way society was and wanted it to change more. Austen agreed with the construction of society but wanted life to be lived to the fullest extent, while remaining in the structure. Ibsen, however, completely disagreed with the restricting system and criticized it enough to write a play, which hoped to change the audiences’ views on women and their rights.

Henrik Ibsen wrote this play not seventy years after Jane Austen wrote her novel. Immediately as the first few pages are read, it is quite obvious that Ibsen is looking in to the future. His construction of Nora is extraordinary. Interestingly, Nora Helmer is a completely inconceivable character for Jane Austen. Never would Austen think a woman could leave her husband to learn more about herself and the world. Although she stretched the boundaries of her society, Austen couldn’t imagine a woman going to such lengths as these. Nora is an excellent model of what many women aspired to be in the late Nineteenth Century. The stories speaking of happy marriages were slowly beginning to melt away to reveal less pretty images. Marriage was slowly changing as the ultimate.

By employing the use of Kristina Linde, who worked and provided for her family for many years, Ibsen presented a woman who represented the future of the working woman. Mrs. Linde learnt more about the complex world she lived in. Evidently, it might have worn her out; however, she came out of it a more experienced woman who could take on anything and wanted to. She is a contrast to Nora, who Ibsen used to show that a woman who has been treated like a fragile porcelain doll for all her existence will not know how to think independently. During the course of the play, Nora experiences a gradual realization that her life was a shallow one. She was so happy married to Torvald but soon recognises that he is only securing her in his home – with nothing to learn, no space to grow. His egocentrism awakens her to her true self, whom she abandoned to be the wife Torvald wanted her to be.

When Torvald displayed his superciliousness, Nora saw her life projected against his. They no longer had the same dream. They envisioned different futures. Ibsen used Nora’s character for the audience to understand that never knowing truly what the world around you is about is something one should never hope for. Even though Mrs. Linde was awfully weary, Ibsen convinced the audience that this should be the sought-after life.

In Pride and Prejudice, the society that Elizabeth Bennett lived in was not one which questioned a lot of things. They did not question for fear their thoughts and beliefs would be confused and proved wrong. Desire to challenge society did not exist in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, unlike in A Doll’s House. Nora wanted to learn more about the society and world she lived in. Elizabeth and the people she knew did not trouble themselves with the affairs of the world. In A Doll’s House Ibsen made it clear that Nora wanted to see as much of the world as possible. In Pride and Prejudice, Austen only wrote about the never-ending quest to find the right person to marry. Whilst Austen showed that marriage was what all women wanted ultimately, Ibsen showed that marriage life could be limiting. Ibsen also illustrated that traditional husbands implement several restrictions on their wives, which eventually denies the women the ability to grow, emotionally. Ibsen persuaded the audience that if a man did everything for his wife and protected her, there is no possible way she would grow into a more developed, more agreeable, more accomplished person.

Conclusion

Two pieces of literature: different in purpose but equally great. Jane Austen lived in a different society to Henrik Ibsen. She agreed with the most part of her society, except the reasons women married. In her novel, marriage was still the ultimate but it wasn’t the kind of wedding typically endorsed. Women were expected to marry for security. Austen wanted to change these ideas and ensure that women considered more than wealth when searching for potential husbands. Ibsen did not agree with his society. In fact, he wrote his play in order to change society. He wanted women’s positions to change. When Nora walks to the world, it is a controversial closing scene; so controversial, in fact, that another ending had to written. However, as time went by and more performances were presented, Nora’s decision received applause and cheers. Independence, from then on, was desired and that’s what Ibsen had hoped for. Both of these classics are fantastically written and the message is printed loud and clear in each. As the years go on, it is evident that the changing position of women in the Nineteenth Century is reflected in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ by Jane Austen and ‘A Doll’s House’ by Henrik Ibsen.

References

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. England: Penguin, 1996.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. England: Penguin, 1965