So far
this week, we’ve spent a good amount of time discussing the various satirist of
Pride and Prejudice and the various
methodologies these characters utilize in their practice. We established Elizabeth, Mr. Bennet, and Mr.
Darcy as the three main satirists, with Elizabeth and her father falling into
the category of Horacian satirists and Mr. Darcy into the category of
Juvenalian satirists. I believe there is
a very relevant connection between the character’s satirical method and his or
her social / economic class. By the
society’s standard, the Bennet’s are not particularly well off, where as, most
consider Mr. Darcy to be considerably wealthy.
Darcy’s wealth and status allow him to speak bluntly because whether or
not people consider him rude or disagreeable, he will maintain a high rank in
the social order because of his economic status and social connections. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine
Elizabeth speaking in the same manor without receiving some social
backlash. When Elizabeth does speak
bluntly after Catherine announces to her engagement with Mr. Collins, Catherine
replies, “Do you think it incredible that Mr. Collins should be able to procure
any woman’s good opinion, because he was not happy as to succeed with you?”
(Austen 85). Even though Elizabeth
reacts poorly to the news of the engagement, because Mr. Collins is a buffoon,
Catherine insinuates that Elizabeth thinks that she is better than Catherine
since Elizabeth turned him down. When
Elizabeth attempts to point out the ridiculousness of the situation in a direct
format, the result is far less affective.
I agree that the societal level of each character also dictates the character of their satire. Mr. Darcy, being of high society, is aloof and harsh in his criticism, whilst Elizabeth is much more lighthearted in hers, as to be expected from people of each of their reflective classes. This, I think, allows the people of Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet's class much more freedom of expression, although, as you have pointed out, they are not always regarded with the same degree of seriousness. Yet although this may seem like a division between the classes, I think the ability to express themselves through satire, although in distinct ways, is rather uniting, something that Austen uses to prove we are all simply human beings.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the separation of classes does seem to give more seriousness to the wealthy than characters like the Bennets, I find it ironic that Mr. Darcy, who is regarded so highly in the community with his vast knowledge and fortune, through his actions, portrays himself to be somewhat immature. He initially disregards Elizabeth as a result of his own pride, and subsequently changes his mindset when he realizes he cannot have her. His actions make him seem almost childlike. On the other hand, Elizabeth, whose words are often deemed unimportant as Spencer shared, shows a sense of wittiness and maintains her justified opinions of others. It seems that money creates a sort of superficiality that shields the actual substance of the characters, or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteI find your link of the economic class and the method of satire to be intriguing and plausible, but I also think that Darcy's wealth doesn't just allow him to keep his social status. The way he was raised also contributes to how he uses his satire, as he was raised an aristocrat. He was taught from a young age that he was better than most of the commoners, while the Bennet's were never so haughty in their status as to harshly criticize others like Darcy.
ReplyDeleteI find the connection between class and type of satire to be true and interesting, but I believe the link between economic status and the traits of pride and vanity is more complex. We connected the idea of pride with the rising middle class of England. Mr. Bennett and Elizabeth, both prideful characters, are both concerned with internal improvement of the mind. However, Mr. Darcy, an aristocrat, is clearly a prideful character despite the fact that we connected aristocrats with the trait of vanity, a preoccupation with the way in which others perceive one and their social standing. Though we consider Darcy an aloof and distant character, his pride has brought him down to the level of Elizabeth, allowing the two to build a contentious, but friendly relationship.
ReplyDeleteI do think (similar to what Emily mentioned) that wealth does have something to do with the form of satire that certain characters adopt, but I also think that Austin makes a point of having characters of different social standing who are able to see the same faults in their society. However, Spencer does, in my mind, also make a good point when he points out that a character like Darcy is more free to look down upon things he deems ridiculous because of his high socioeconomic standing (although this does not prevent him from being ostracized for his views, as we see with what people tend to think of him - but I also think that if someone like Elizabeth were to adopt his mode of satire, then she would be much more severely ostracized, as both a woman and a noveau-riche type).
ReplyDeleteI agree with your connection between economic class and use of satire, however I believe there is more than simply economic that accounts for the satire of each character. Although Mr. Bennet are part of the same class, their uses of satire are completely different and originate from a different position than simply their class. We see most of Elizabeth's satire through her role as an eligible bachelorette as she makes passive comments with no harmful intent. Mr. Bennet's satire, on the other hand, mostly originates from his role as a parent looking to wed his daughters away. We see this through his neglection to see Elizabeth and Wickham's incompatability, and his focus rather to have her wed than remain alone. Austen's use of these roles allows characters to define themselves as more than just a class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that a character's wealth acts as a free pass to speak candidly--often to a fault, as in Darcy's case. However, I don't think that people without family money and aristocratic status are more reserved because of fear of societal retribution, nor are they especially looked down upon because of their status (or lack thereof). The critical characters in the book, like Miss Bingley, seem to be critical no matter what is said. To Miss Bingley, whom I think Austen tries to use as a representation of the upper-middle class audience that she is satirizing, everything that Darcy (one of the few people who is of a higher social class than her) does or says is amazing, whereas everything that the Bennets (who are a few steps lower on the socioeconomic ladder) do is repugnant. While this does free people like Darcy to do whatever they please, it seems that the people in the Bennets' position have resigned themselves to the fact that whatever they do or say will be looked down upon, so they are not under any pressure to say the "right" things. Of course, I think an exception to that is Mrs. Bennet, who is the quintessential social climber who will do anything to elevate her status, even if it means pledging her undying devotion to Mr. Collins, when earlier she was reluctant to even invite him into their home
ReplyDeleteSpencer, I applaud your insight in this post. Really, well done. I hadn't noticed this link myself, but I now realize that the text validates your convictions. Of course, this may possibly be an example of small sampling size (after all, we've only been introduced to three satirists), but the text proves your point thus far. I would agree that Austen seems to be offering some insight into the nature of discourse during her time period. Clearly, socioeconomic standing has played a major part in her era's satire, and I believe this distinction she has created is her contribution to that discussion. However, I would disagree with your distinction that Darcy would remain unaffected by his rudeness. After all, we have witnessed him denounced by the public at the ball, who proclaimed him to be less than half a match for Mr. Bingley, who makes less than half of his salary per year! In addition, his coarseness has created certain prejudices in Elizabeth (clear through her interactions with Wickham), so it has also injured him in that respect as well. Clearly, his nature has caused him no small setbacks.
ReplyDeleteI agree, as multiple people have said, that there is a connection between economic class and the freedom one has to express one's satire genre of choice. I also agree with Josh in that it depends also on one's up-bringing. I think that Darcy feels more free to express satire harshly and critically than Jane does, but I do not think that he is more free. It is important to note that in terms of public opinion, Darcy does not get away with his harshness. As we have established in class, Darcy is proud not vain; therefore, public opinion does not matter much to him, but it should matter to us when we discuss which characters are "allowed" to speak in which ways. I think it also important to bring up gender. When Elizabeth's quite blunt opinions were not taken seriously by Mr. Collins, it became clear that besides his being a self-important ass, the reason for his not listening to her was the fact that she is, you know, a young lady. Ultimately, I agree with Spencer that economic class is directly related to the form of satire one uses, and I agree with all the people who have said that a satirist's type of expression is related to a bunch of other stuff too.
ReplyDeleteJust to preface my response, sorry about being so late, just got back from a college interview in El Segundo. Regardless...
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Spencer about the roles of Elizabeth and Darcy as satirists, as we have spent quite a large chunk of time in class relating their styles to Horace and Juvenal respectively. However, I think that the most interesting facet of their satire lies in the way that their methods don't entirely seem to fit into the social mold that we've discussed in class. Darcy, being from the aristocracy, could have easily served as a symbol of aristocratic laziness and vanity. Despite all the opportunity that he as a character has had to flaunt his wealth and power, Darcy instead chooses to internalize that power in a strong sense of pride. This sets him apart from the other characters by creating a cold social barrier, as Darcy will not stoop to addressing those lower than himself. This being said, I agree with the general consensus about Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth, and I feel that they add a much needed sense of humor to the situation. Mr. Bennet is one of the most hilarious characters in the book because he married such a vain, socially oblivious woman, and as a result he has an almost endless supply of material to make fun of. While Elizabeth's humor is very pointed and critical (usually at Darcy's expense), Mr. Bennet chooses to sit back and subtly poke at the oblivious members of his family who take themselves far too seriously. This is to say, I think that Mr. Bennet points out the ridiculous while Elizabeth points out hypocrisy and personal faults.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe correlation between socioeconomic class and satirical branch employed reminds me of using Latin versus using the common vernacular during the 16th century (?); Darcy's method of Juvenalian satire parallels Latin, which was formal and dignified (a nod to his aristocratic upbringing), and Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet's Horatian style lines up with the vernacular, which was accessible to everyone (just as humor can be). On another note, Josh, there's a quote that I really like that has to do with Mr. Darcy's breeding: Charlotte Lucas says "One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, every thing in his favor, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud" (Austen 4). I thought that this was quite funny because it's so true, and I was thinking the same thing as I read the preceding passage. And one last thought: we've talked about Elizabeth being very proud (going with the definition of measuring self-value internally), so do you think that she would care if she did receive social backlash for utilizing Juvenalian satire like Darcy does? (I think that Mrs. Bennet would be more horrified by the consequences than Elizabeth would). And what would Juvenalian satire even look like on her? Austen describes Elizabeth as lively and playful, so to be abrasive in her satire would be unnatural and contrary to her character
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post, Spencer! You made some super fascinating connections. I was most intrigued by the end of your post, when you commented on how Elizabeth attempted to inform Charlotte directly of Mr. Collin's ridiculousness and how she couldn't do so without breaking decorum. However, is frankness universally recognized as wrong? Darcy will speak his mind, but I'm not sure if his justification is that he has nothing to lose but instead that he simply does not care about his position in society and that the opinions of others have no value.
ReplyDeletePerhaps candor is acquired with maturity. When Darcy criticizes Elizabeth's disposition, he almost implies that she is childish and that humor is not always appropriate. On the other hand, perhaps the ability to laugh at oneself is more indicative of wisdom and self-confidence. We would have to examine Darcy's upbringing. If he never had the opportunity to have a true childhood, perhaps he is, in fact, the stunted one.
As Emma noted, part of what makes Elizabeth more indirect in her criticisms is that she is a woman. Gender plays an important role in developing many of Austen's criticisms. It is no surprise that there are more female characters than male characters, and Austen seems to use the social standing of women as a basis for critique. For example, when Mr. Collin's proposal goes awry, he continues to believe that Elizabeth's rejection is simply a facade. He believes that it is a part of a women's nature to pretend to be coy. We, as a readers, are able to see the dramatic irony and the criticism of generalizing women's behavior.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore on Spencer's point, while he does provide a plausible theory, his evidence is still limited. I am skeptical to buy into any theories this early in the book in fear of engaging in the same prejudices that Austen is criticizing. I don't necessarily believe that socioeconomic class allows for one to be open and blunt. Darcy's comment about Elizabeth wasn't made publicly, but rather overheard by Elizabeth. I don't see the rest of Darcy's actions as necessarily criticisms of anything, but rather just simply his predispositions (such as not dancing with the other ladies, which others took offense too). Overall, I think we must wait and see before making further judgement.
I think it's hard to make assumptions based on class without further evidence because we are only working with two families. Elizabeth's form of satire could be an inherited form of humor from her father, rather than having anything to do with class. It also seems like Juvenalian and Horatian are two ways of thinking about satire, but they are certainly not rules; just because Elizabeth is a Horatian satirist doesn't mean she is never harsh or critical, and when she does speak more blatantly, she still preserves her social standing. Though the idea is interesting, I'd like further evidence before buying in to it.
ReplyDelete