Jane Austen's Themes: Recurring Sibling Dynamics

The Pattern of Older Siblings Being Overshadowed by Younger Ones 

Jane Austen frequently explores the dynamic of older siblings being overshadowed by younger ones, using it to reveal deeper insights into family dynamics, societal expectations, and individual character development.

Sense and Sensibility

·        Elinor vs. Marianne Dashwood
Elinor, the elder Dashwood sister, embodies sense, rationality, and emotional restraint. In contrast, Marianne’s passionate, dramatic personality often takes centre stage, overshadowing Elinor’s personality. Despite Elinor’s reliability and wisdom, she is forced to give way to Marianne’s impetuous actions that drive much of the narrative and attract the most attention. Their mother's insistence that Elinor not try to correct her younger sister turns her into an enabler for her sister's poor behaviour.

·        Anne vs. Lucy Steele
Anne Steele, though older, is overshadowed by her younger sister Lucy, whose cunning and manipulative nature gives her a calculated charm, a semblance of good manners, and the appearance of intelligence when compared with Anne’s silliness and inappropriate conversation. Anne's reliance on Lucy's stubbornness and cunning to be accepted into other's company also makes her and enabler to her sister's ways.

·        Lady Middleton vs. Charlotte Palmer
Lady Middleton’s composed and decorous demeanour is overshadowed by her younger sister Charlotte Palmer’s lively, talkative personality. While Lady Middleton adheres to social propriety, Charlotte’s vivacious nature draws more notice from the characters and readers alike. Charlotte's friendliness only adds to the image of her sister's coldness.

·        Edward vs. Robert Ferrars
Edward Ferrars, the elder brother, is well-mannered and reserved, while Robert Ferrars is superficial and self-absorbed. Despite Edward being the more principled sibling, Robert’s arrogance and superficial charm often garner attention especially from their mother and sister.

Emma

• Isabella vs. Emma Woodhouse
  Isabella, the elder Woodhouse sister, is overshadowed by Emma’s confident and headstrong personality. "At ten years old, she had the misfortune of being able to answer questions which puzzled her sister at seventeen. She was always quick and assured: Isabella slow and diffident. And ever since she was twelve, Emma has been mistress of the house and of you all." Isabella (28) and John Knightley (31) have only been married for seven years, which means they married when Emma was fourteen, yet she is said to have "been mistress of the house" since she was twelve implying that her assertiveness and control overpowered not only her governess but also her sister's authority in their family.

Persuasion

·        Anne vs. Mary Elliot
Anne, the middle daughter, is overshadowed by her younger sister Mary, whose self-centred and dramatic tendencies draw more attention. Despite Anne’s thoughtfulness and intelligence, Mary’s constant craving for attention and need for validation often places her at the forefront of social interactions. Anne's tendency to allow herself to fade into the background also makes her an enabler for Mary's stronger personality.

·        Henrietta vs. Louisa Musgrave
Henrietta Musgrave, though older, is overshadowed by her livelier sister Louisa. Louisa’s flirtatious and spirited nature makes her more noticeable, while Henrietta’s quieter disposition places her in the background of the narrative.

Pride and Prejudice

·        Jane vs. Elizabeth Bennet
Jane, the eldest Bennet sister, is often overshadowed by Elizabeth’s wit and liveliness. Elizabeth’s outspoken and confident nature positions her as the protagonist, while Jane’s reserved and gentle demeanour makes her less prominent despite her beauty. She may the first sister noticed, but her single state shows that her suitors don't stay long enough to follow through. It's possible that her insistence on seeing only the good in people and the world is what enables Elizabeth to justify her quick, and often negative, opinions of people.

·        Catherine vs. Lydia Bennet
Catherine ("Kitty") is often overshadowed by her younger sister Lydia, whose bold and reckless behaviour disrupts the family. Kitty’s more subdued personality is overshadowed by Lydia’s dramatic actions. The neglect and abuse Catherine receives from her family causes her to fade into the background and—with her mother's favouritism towards Lydia—turns Kitty into an enabler.

·        Caroline vs. Louisa Bingley
Though it is never explicitly stated, Austen's patterns and the fact that Louisa is already married imply that Caroline Bingley is the younger sister. Caroline’s sharp tongue and competitive nature draw more attention than Louisa’s quieter, more reserved presence. At the same time, Louisa is also a proactive enabler for her sister's poor behaviour.

·        Mrs. Bennet vs. Mrs. Philips
While, like the above siblings, it is never explicitly stated that Mrs. Bennet is younger than her sister Mrs. Philips, her more prominent and memorable character—due to her excitable and dramatic personality—show that they have been meant as a parallel to the above and would also mean that Mrs. Bennet's favouritism may have been a learned behaviour.

·        Lady Catherine vs. Lady Anne
Again, it is never explicitly stated that Lady Catherine is the younger sister of Lady Anne (Darcy’s mother). However, Lady Catherine’s domineering nature and absurd arrogance, making her a more noticeable figure in the story, could fit this pattern. If we assume Fitzwilliam's reserve and/or Georgiana's timidity to be reflections of their parent's natures, then Lady Anne would likely have been overshadowed by Lady Catherine. This would mean that Lady Anne's part in the plan to have Darcy marry Anne might have been nothing more than her being subdued by her sister's strength of character.

---

The Pattern of Older Siblings with Eccentricities that Highlight the Younger Siblings’ Normalcy

Jane Austen also explores another sibling dynamic where older siblings with strong or eccentric personalities serve to highlight the more composed or responsible nature of their younger siblings. This dynamic, while less prevalent, provides further insight into Austen's nuanced portrayal of family relationships and individual growth. Some of these pairings overlap with those above as the younger siblings are not only of a stronger character, but the older siblings are made to look foolish to benefit the image of the younger.

Sense and Sensibility

• John and Elinor Dashwood
  Despite being younger, Elinor’s maturity, selflessness, and sense of duty consistently overshadow her older half-brother John’s selfishness. His agreement with his wife to refuse financial support to his stepmother and stepsisters and to expect that those ladies should rather do something for him highlights his lack of sense, further emphasizing Elinor’s wisdom and compassion.
• Anne and Lucy Steele
  Anne Steele’s silliness and lack of sophistication emphasize Lucy’s relative composure and sense. While Lucy’s conduct and manner of speaking are far from proper, Anne’s absurd behaviour and unacceptable conversation topics make her seem more acceptable.

Northanger Abbey

• James and Catherine Morland
  James Morland’s naivety and susceptibility to Isabella Thorpe’s manipulations highlight Catherine’s growing discernment. Catherine manages to see through John Thorpe’s inconsistencies and avoids falling for his schemes, showing her increasing independence and maturity.
• Frederick and Henry Tilney
  Frederick Tilney’s flirtatious and unprincipled behaviour contrasts with Henry’s kindness, wit, and integrity. Frederick’s actions make Henry’s virtues even more apparent, casting him as the respectable sibling. While Frederick had relations with Isabella which left her reputation in ruins, he refused to take responsibility and marry her. This strongly contrasts with Henry’s proposal to Catherine due to the perceived damage to her reputation because of his father’s manner of sending her off unaccompanied in the middle of the night. He took responsibility not only for his flirtation with her but also for his father’s mistreatment of her which strongly contrasts with his brother’s behaviour.
• Henry and Elinor Tilney
  Henry’s charm and wit make him a compelling character, but when compared to his sister Elinor, his playfulness borders on irresponsibility. He admits in his proposal to Catherine that he had originally known that she liked him and was humouring her for his own vanity. Meanwhile, Elinor has been steadfast in her feelings for her secret lover while her level-headedness, kindness, and emotional depth position her as the true moral centre of the Tilney family.

Persuasion

• Elizabeth and Anne Elliot
  Elizabeth Elliot’s vanity and shallow nature contrast sharply with Anne’s thoughtfulness, composed demeanour, and inner strength of character. While Elizabeth clings to social status and appearances, Anne quietly embodies grace and maturity, standing out as the more admirable sibling.

Mansfield Park

·        Tom and Edmund Bertram
Tom Bertram’s reckless, indulgent lifestyle serves to highlight Edmund’s more steady and responsible behaviour. Tom’s irresponsibility positions Edmund as the more admirable and reliable brother.

·        Maria and Julia Bertram
Maria’s entitlement and ambition overshadow Julia’s relatively milder flaws. Julia’s less dramatic nature positions her as the more tolerable of the two sisters, even though both lack morals. Julia’s elopement with John Yates is only overlooked as the repercussions of her poor decision pale in comparison with her sister’s.

Emma

• Isabella and Emma Woodhouse
  Isabella, like her father, constantly fears illness and injury—similar to a hypochondriac. Meanwhile, Emma calmly stands by and acts as the more rational sister. Emma’s assertiveness and self-assurance make her the more compelling sister.

Pride and Prejudice

• Lady Catherine and Lady Anne
  While it’s unclear who was older, Lady Catherine’s arrogance and domineering personality contrast with the implied grace and refinement of her sister Lady Anne (Mr. Darcy’s mother). Lady Anne’s legacy highlights Lady Catherine’s absurdity and lack of self-awareness.
• Fitzwilliam Darcy and George Wickham
  Although not blood siblings, Darcy and Wickham were raised closely together, making their differences more striking. Darcy’s reserved and stoic nature contrasts with Wickham’s charm and ease in social situations, making Wickham initially appear more trustworthy and amiable. However, Wickham’s true character ultimately proves Darcy’s moral superiority.
• Elizabeth and Mary Bennet
  Though subtle, Mary Bennet’s adherence to propriety, her seemingly moralizing nature, and her quiet existence serve as a foil to Elizabeth’s wit, liveliness, and frequent disregard for social norms. Mary’s traits remind readers that Elizabeth, while engaging and intelligent, is not without faults, particularly in her lack of care for her younger siblings’ emotions as well as her refusal to act with propriety as she believes that, since her behaviour is better than that of her younger siblings, she is doing nothing wrong.

---

Conclusion

Through these sibling dynamics, Austen reveals her keen insight into familial relationships and individual character development. The recurring patterns—whether a younger sibling overshadows an elder or an elder sibling’s eccentricities highlight a younger one’s virtues—encourage readers to explore the complexities of sibling roles, societal expectations, and personal growth within her novels. These patterns also prompt reflection on Austen’s own life, particularly her relationship with her sister Cassandra. While their surviving letters provide glimpses into their bond, it remains unclear whether their closeness stemmed from a deep mutual understanding and affection for each other’s nature or simply from the circumstances of familial duty and shared proximity.

Jane Austen’s Themes: Sibling Ages and Character Archetypes

Jane Austen’s works often explore themes of sibling age gaps and reusing character archetypes. 

---

In the first case, most of Austen’s characters have a two-year, three-year, or seven-year age difference with their siblings. However, in families with five or more children, one-year differences become more common.

Persuasion:

The clearest case of age themes is in Persuasion, where the dates of birth for the four Elliott children are listed. Elizabeth was born in 1785, Anne in 1787, a stillborn son in 1789, and Mary in 1791. This shows a consistent two-year gap between the living siblings (Chapter 1).

Similarly, Sophie Croft is 38 years old, while her younger brother Frederick is 31, showing a seven-year age gap (Chapter 4). However, the age of their brother Edward is not mentioned, as he is only a background character briefly mentioned in the story. This reflects Austen’s tendency to omit ages for minor characters, as seen with the older Price brothers, John and Richard, in Mansfield Park. While the younger Price siblings' ages are explicitly given, John and Richard’s are not, underscoring their lesser importance to the story.

---

Sense and Sensibility: 

In Sense and Sensibility, the Dashwood sisters are introduced as being 19, 16, and 13 years old at the beginning of the story (Chapter 1). By December of the same year, after their father’s death, they are 20, 17, and 14. This reveals a consistent three-year age gap between the sisters.

Lady Middleton is 26 or 27 years old, while her younger sister Charlotte Palmer is the same age as Miss Dashwood. By the new year, Lady Middleton is 27, and Charlotte is 20, creating a seven-year difference between the siblings (Chapter 6).

Similarly, the Steele sisters follow the pattern. Lucy is 29 or 30, while Anne is 22 or 23, demonstrating another seven-year age gap (Chapter 21).

---

Emma: 

In Emma, Emma Woodhouse is 21 years old, while her older sister Isabella is 28, showing a seven-year gap (Chapter 8). George Knightley is 37 or 38 years old, while his younger brother John is 31 (Chapter 12). Isabella and John Knightley, meanwhile, have a three-year age difference and have been married for seven years (Chapter 11).

Notably, the only characters whose birthdays and exact ages are mentioned in this novel are Harriet Smith and Robert Martin. This detail suggests that Harriet and Robert are intended as the true heroine and hero of the story, contrasting with Emma and George Knightley, the anti-heroine and anti-hero.

---

The Bennet Sisters: 

Pride and Prejudice is fascinating in how it incorporates Jane Austen’s themes, including age gaps, while also presenting some exceptions. Jane Bennet is introduced as being 22 years old, and in the second week of May, Lydia mentions that Jane is "almost three-and-twenty" (Chapter 39). This suggests she will turn 23 during the second year of the story. Similarly, Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine in April that she is "not yet one-and-twenty" (Chapter 56). This establishes a two-year difference between Jane and Elizabeth.

Catherine (Kitty) is introduced as being 17, while Lydia is 15. Lydia turns 16 in June, just before eloping with Mr. Wickham (Chapter 47). Since it is stated that there are two years between them, Kitty must turn 18 in the following year, although her exact birthday is never mentioned.

However, Mary Bennet’s age is never stated, making her an enigma. There are three years between Elizabeth and Kitty, so Mary does not fit the usual mold. This is similar to the Bertram siblings in Mansfield Park, where there is only one year between Tom and Edmund but four years between Edmund and Maria, who is followed by Julia a year later. In both cases, the timelines fit within the broader patterns of sibling relationships in Austen’s works, even if the specific gaps are not consistent.

Mary is neither a background character, like the older Price brothers in Mansfield Park, nor central to the story, yet she receives little narrative focus. Her existence primarily highlights the selfishness and lack of empathy shown by all four of her sisters. While many readers see Mary as a pedantic, annoying character, her portrayal reveals her neglect and the verbal abuse she endures from her family. Even Jane and Elizabeth, often seen as kind and virtuous, are guilty of mistreating Mary.

Mary’s role allows Austen to explore the flaws in the Bennet family, showing that even the most admired characters, Jane and Elizabeth, are not without fault. This contrasts with the common view of Mary as merely a comic figure or a foil to her more outgoing sisters. The most interesting thing is that she otherwise adds little to the story and can be removed without creating any change to the storyline.

---

Thematic Parallels: Repeating Character Archetypes

One of the most striking aspects of Pride and Prejudice is how Austen builds multiple characters from the same base archetype. This can be seen when cross-referencing her other works as well, but in P&P, we have five variations of the same foundational character in one story: Mrs. Bennet, Elizabeth Bennet, Lydia Bennet, Caroline Bingley, and Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

If you struggle to see the similarities between Elizabeth, Lydia, and Mrs. Bennet, it may be harder to recognize this pattern. However, Austen uses status, wealth, education, and the influences of nature (environment) and nurture (family position) to transform a single archetype into distinct personalities.

For example, Mrs. Bennet’s "mean understanding" is not what many think as meaning "low" as when her intelligence is compared to that of other characters (minus Mr. Bennet, Elizabeth, and Mr. Darcy) her intellect is on par with them which shows that the "mean" here means "average". While the assumed "low understanding" which is hinted at is actually more fitting as a description for Lydia. In fact, most of what is assumed of Mrs. Bennet's character introduction is a crude and harsh view of her that sadly fit her youngest daughter much better. Elizabeth’s wit and independence emerge from her sharper intellect and slightly higher status as the favored daughter of her sarcastic and witty father; however, she also shares her liveliness and poor manners with her mother and youngest sister. Caroline Bingley’s snobbery and high-handedness was shaped by her wealth and education while Lady Catherine’s domineering nature and haughty dignity is shaped by her by her wealth and social standing.

---

A Challenge for the Reader

While I will explore these characters in greater detail in a future post, I encourage you to examine their similarities and differences. Consider how Austen uses status, wealth, education, environment, and familial dynamics to create distinct yet interconnected characters. Look for how these traits influence their actions, relationships, and the roles they play in the story.

Information on Money and Incomes in Austen's Time

Many believe the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice was "poor," but this is a misconception. It depends on how one defines "poor." If you mean the Bennets had a low income, that is incorrect. If, however, you refer to a lack of savings, that may be true, though debatable given Mr. Bennet's secretive nature.

It’s plausible, though not confirmed, that Mr. Bennet may have saved money without his family knowing. This possibility might come into play during marriage negotiations for Jane and Elizabeth, as any personal savings could remain undisclosed in their official dowries. Although there’s no way to confirm this in the text, it is implied that the Bennets live within their means, and indeed, it would be hard for them to overspend.

With an income of £2,000 per year, the Bennets are relatively well-off. For context, the average estate income in the 1790s was around £600 to £700 annually. While I can’t locate my source for this at the moment, it is findable with some research. Austen's only mention of an average estate income in her novels is Combe Magna, owned by John Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility. Longbourn’s income, however, is more than double the average for estate earnings at the time, so the Bennets were by no means poor.

For a better understanding of what this income would mean for their lifestyle, refer to A New System of Practical Domestic Economy (Henry Colburn & Co., 3rd Edition, 1823). On page 405 (PDF version), you’ll find expense guidelines for various income ranges. The book divides expenses into three parts based on annual income: part I (from pg. 405) has incomes under £100, part II (from pg. 431) has incomes between £100-£750, and part III (from pg. 443) has incomes between £1,000-£5,000. For the Bennets' approximate income, see pages 452 and 453, and for a higher income level of £4,000, see pages 456 and 457. Comparing these entries offers insight into the Bennets' lifestyle compared to other Austen families, like the Dashwoods.

The book provides the information that the costs for children are the assumed costs of adult children which means that expenses would be lower, and savings higher, before their birth and for several years after. It also list the number of servants, carriages, etc.

For Jane Austen fan fiction (JAFF) writers, these resources also reveal period-appropriate costs for essentials like food, candles, soap, and luxuries, such as servants, wardrobes, and education. This insight into domestic economics provides a valuable foundation for accurately understanding or writing about characters in Austen’s time.

Jane Austen's Themes: The Trifecta

 The Trifecta

While I believe I’ve now addressed the theme of first impressions as just one aspect of getting to know someone, there’s another important theme in Pride and Prejudice that I’d like to explore: the trifecta for the perfect spouse.

The trifecta refers to the three qualities consistently highlighted in Austen’s novels as essential in choosing a partner—qualities that were valued then and are still often sought after today: wealth, status, and education.

Wealth

Wealth played a significant role in raising one’s social position, as seen with the Bingley family. Contrary to Caroline Bingley’s beliefs, their family is lower in society than the Bennets and many of their neighbors. However, their wealth allows Caroline and her brother to aim for marriages above their station (though attempting to marry a Darcy is reaching too high, as neither Darcy nor his sister need the fortune). Caroline would be more likely to marry a man of Mr. Bennet’s or Mr. Collins’s station, a titled commoner (such as a knight or baronet), or a nobleman in need of her dowry. However, her dowry is not impressive enough to attract a nobleman unless he is either desperate or debauched, especially given her tradesman background unless there was love or a personal attraction to her person.

Sophia Grey in Sense and Sensibility has a substantial dowry of £50,000, which is implied to be from trade. As she lives with "her guardians," it’s likely that her parents have passed on, and this sum is all the wealth she will ever have. On the other hand, Georgiana Darcy and Emma Woodhouse each have £30,000. Georgiana, however, comes from a wealthy estate and has aristocratic connections, being the granddaughter of an earl. Emma is one of only two children from a small but wealthy estate. As Austen writes in Emma, “The landed property of Hartfield certainly was inconsiderable, being but a sort of notch in the Donwell Abbey estate, to which all the rest of Highbury belonged; but their fortune, from other sources, was such as to make them scarcely secondary to Donwell Abbey itself, in every other kind of consequence.”

Mary Crawford’s £20,000 in Mansfield Park seems substantial, but this sum may include additional inheritances she received after the death of her parents. Mary Edwards, in The Watsons, has a dowry of £10,000, and though this may seem modest, being an only child means she stands to inherit even more, such as her family’s house in town and her mother’s dowry upon her passing.

Dowries were not the only financial consideration in marriage. Many men married women who were expected to inherit estates or money upon the death of their relatives. If a gentlewoman by birth had only one brother who was still unmarried or without children and the estate was not entailed to heirs male, she also had a good chance of marrying well as there was some hope of her inheriting should her brother not produce an heir (similar to the expectations General Tilney has for Catharine to potentially inherit the Allens estate or fortune even at the end of Northanger Abbey.) 

Miss Bingley has a £20,000 dowry, but a potential suitor cannot expect more unless he believes her brother will generously support her husband financially. By contrast, if Jane Bennet were to inherit Longbourn, an estate valued at £2,000 per annum (double the average estate income of around £6-700 per annum in the 1790s), she would be quite an heiress. Longbourn would equate to a dowry of around £30-40,000, making Jane a prime candidate to marry into the nobility. Though many of the dowries mentioned in Austen’s novels are high, they were not the norm, and social status played an even bigger role in most noble marriages. The lower your status, the higher your dowry should be to marry well.

Status

Status in Jane Austen's novels encompasses not only an individual’s position in society but also their connections. Mr. Darcy, despite being a gentleman farmer like Mr. Bennet, belongs to a higher social echelon due to the vast income of his estate, placing him in the top 10% or higher of society. Although Darcy lacks a title, his family’s wealth and connections allow him to marry into nobility, as his father did by marrying Lady Anne Fitzwilliam, the daughter of an earl. While this gives him access to prestigious social circles, Darcy himself has no direct claim to any title, being descended from the female line.

In fact, the real Fitzwilliam earldom of that period was heavily mortgaged, and the 4th earl had to sell smaller estates to pay off debts. Of the four sisters who lived to adulthood, only one is known to have married. This suggests that Austen’s Lady Anne Fitzwilliam and her sister Catherine, who married commoners, may have done so due to a lack of dowries, with their husbands valuing their connections more than wealth.

In contrast, the Bingley family lacks both status and connections, further reducing Caroline Bingley’s chances of marrying someone like Darcy. The Bingleys can only claim connections through Mr. Hurst, and while Darcy is a close friend, this does not extend to Bingley’s family.

The Bennets are at a similar disadvantage, having few notable connections. They are linked to an uncle who is a solicitor in Meryton and another involved in trade. However, a solicitor or attorney was still considered a respectable position for the younger son of a gentleman, on par with being a clergyman or an officer in the army. It’s likely that Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Philips, though involved in trade, came from gentry backgrounds. Tradespeople could raise their children to gentry status by sending sons to university or securing apprenticeships. This means the Bennets might have distant, though still relevant, connections to other landed families.

Given that Mr. Gardiner provided Mrs. Bennet with a dowry of £4,000, it’s reasonable to assume he was financially stable and likely provided a gentleman’s education for his son, Mr. Edward Gardiner. Such wealth suggests that the family had some inherited money, and Mr. Gardiner himself may have been the younger son of a good family. Even though Edward Gardiner chose to enter trade, this was not uncommon for younger sons seeking to make their fortune. The clergy and army, though genteel, didn’t provide much wealth, and the navy was risky. Many families, such as the Eltons and Barings, continued to profit from trade even after acquiring landed estates, welcoming successful traders back into the fold.

The Netherfield party’s disdain for the Bennets due to their trade connections seems unfounded. It’s possible that Caroline Bingley’s comments are more malicious than they appear. Repeating negative remarks about a subject the listeners undervalue could subtly manipulate them, fostering insecurities. People often accept repeated statements without question if they don’t care enough to challenge them. Despite Caroline’s claims being largely false, her audience may passively accept them due to a lack of attention or interest.

Education

Education, the third component of the trifecta, plays a pivotal role in how Austen’s characters view their societal worth. Caroline Bingley, for example, frequently boasts about her superior education compared to the Bennet sisters, having attended a seminary. However, this boast underscores her misunderstanding of the societal norms regarding education in that era.

For men, formal education was crucial. Attending university, even without the expectation of graduating, was a status symbol. It demonstrated that a man had the financial means (wealth), family legacy (good breeding), or sponsorship (connections) to afford such an education. This was integral to being recognized as a well-educated gentleman.

Women’s education, however, followed a different path. Most young women from gentle families were educated at home. Seminaries and schools were more common for daughters of the lower gentry, who sought to “refine” their daughters rather than provide them with a robust education. Thus, Miss Bingley’s attendance at a seminary didn’t automatically make her superior to the Bennet sisters, who, raised on an estate, would have learned skills that Caroline, with her seminary training, likely lacked.

For example, while Caroline could probably set a fine table, she would not have acquired the practical knowledge needed to manage a large estate, such as tending to tenants, overseeing still rooms, and fulfilling duties to parishioners. She aspires to be the wife of Mr. Darcy, a wealthy landowner, but she seems unaware of the responsibilities such a role would entail. Her education better suits her to marry a tradesman or a politician who lives exclusively in town, rather than the wife of a landed gentleman who must manage both household and estate affairs.

On the other hand, the Bennet girls, who did not attend a seminary, have no reason to feel embarrassed. It wasn’t uncommon for women to be educated at home, especially in a family with five daughters where hiring a governess would likely be cheaper than sending them all to school. Hiring a governess would have been the more typical arrangement for wealthier families, but the Bennet's situation wasn’t unheard of, especially in a rural setting. Lady Catherine’s criticism of Mrs. Bennet educating her daughters likely reflects her own experience as the daughter of a peer receiving an education not at a school or seminary but at home from a governess and tutors. There may also have been an assumption that a woman with a background in “trade” could not adequately teach her children if they were raised as gentlewomen. However, basic reading, writing, and arithmetic were often taught by nurses or other staff before governesses even came to take over their education. In country homes or smaller estates, mothers might frequently take on the role of teacher for their children, especially if neighboring families did the same.

Caroline Bingley’s condescending attitude toward the Bennet family regarding education ultimately highlights her own lack of understanding about what truly constitutes a well-rounded and suitable education for women of their social standing.

Conclusion

The trifecta of wealth, status, and education plays a significant role in all of Austen’s novels, but perhaps none more so than in Pride and Prejudice. These three attributes not only shape how characters view themselves and others but also influence their decisions regarding marriage and societal standing. Throughout my analysis of Pride and Prejudice, I will frequently refer to these factors as they are essential to understanding the characters and plot.

***

Notes: Real-life examples of large dowries provide context to the importance of wealth in securing advantageous marriages during this period. Anne Johnson, the daughter and only surviving child of a tradesman and shipowner, married an earl in 1711 with a dowry of £60,000. Similarly, Mary Liddell, the daughter of an estate owner and great-granddaughter of a baronet, brought £60,000 and her father's estates into her marriage with a marquess in 1752. Jane Owen, another example, married a viscount in 1731 also with a dowry of £60,000 though she later married a Welsh gentleman after the death of her first husband. These women demonstrate how large dowries could elevate a family’s status through marriage into the nobility.

Smaller dowries could still offer significant opportunities. Sarah Price, the daughter of a colonel and landowner in Jamaica, had £5,000 for her dowry, while Catherine Shorter, the daughter of a wealthy merchant whose father--another merchant--had served as Mayor of London, married an earl in 1700 with only £20,000—a sum that meant a lot more 100 years before P&P takes place. Anne Tylney, the daughter of a gentleman and parliamentarian, married a baron in 1721 while brining  £4,000 per annum into her marriage. These real-world examples mirror Austen’s depictions, where wealth, status, and connections were critical factors in securing marriages and improving social rank.

However, even exceptional dowries could not always guarantee a successful marriage. Some women, like the infamous Lady Worsley with her reported £70,000, married far below what they might have been able to expect, sometimes to their own detriment. This highlights the risks and complexities of marrying for wealth and status, a theme Austen frequently explores.

In Pride and Prejudice, as in life, wealth, status, and education are not merely individual attributes but critical components in the social dynamics of marriage and relationships. Austen masterfully weaves these elements into her narrative, making the trifecta a crucial lens through which her characters' motives and decisions can be better understood.

An Understanding of Pride and Prejudice: First Impressions

Due to my ADHD and my changeable nature, my train of thought tends to jump around, and forcing myself to focus on one topic often leads to avoiding it entirely. So, I’ll be switching topics occasionally, as I don’t want to write these entries half-heartedly.

---

For those unfamiliar, the original title of Pride and Prejudice was actually First Impressions. I think it’s a shame that Jane Austen changed the title. The reason for the change isn’t entirely clear, but there are two main theories.

One theory is that she changed the title because she changed the story; however, this is unlikely. As far as we know, Austen generally stuck with the original premise of her stories, even though she edited them over many years. Moreover, the characters are shown at the end of the book to have been drastically misunderstood based on first impressions.

For example, at first glance, Lizzy appears as a loving sister and Darcy as an arrogant, proud man, while Wickham comes across as a handsome, misused hero. But by the end, it becomes clear that Elizabeth is rather resentful and vengeful, always trying to ‘get back at’ Darcy for his initial insult. Darcy, on the other hand, is more of an introvert with poor social skills, often sticking his foot in his mouth because no one has ever corrected him. Wickham turns out to be a liar, thief, and seducer of underaged and unprotected women. This transformation in character perception shows that First Impressions was indeed a fitting title.

The second theory is that Austen changed the title because, in the early 1800s, another book titled First Impressions was published under the pseudonym “A Lady.” Although this other book had illustrations of birds and nature (which may seem unrelated), the title and author being the same could have caused confusion. Out of these two options, this explanation seems the most plausible.

Regardless of the reason, Austen’s decision to change the title led many readers into a trap—the trap of sticking to their own first impressions of the characters.

Since Austen’s first published book was called Sense and Sensibility (originally titled Elinor and Marianne), readers assumed Pride and Prejudice would follow a similar pattern. We’re told from the start that Elinor represents “sense” and Marianne “sensibility,” so readers often assume Darcy represents “pride” and Elizabeth “prejudice.” Some even suggest both terms refer only to Darcy, as they prefer to overlook Elizabeth’s flaws.

However, both characters embody both pride and prejudice. By the end, readers should recognize that the issue between Darcy and Elizabeth was not caused by Darcy’s pride, but by Elizabeth’s. It was her pride that was wounded by Darcy’s insult.

Much of the confusion stems from people who claim to be Austen fans but are really fans of the adaptations. While it’s possible to love both, many “Austen fans” I’ve spoken with clearly lack knowledge of the books themselves, confusing scenes or quotes from the adaptations with the original texts.

Take the 1995 Pride and Prejudice adaptation, for example. While it’s often hailed as being “exactly like the book,” the opening scene, in which Darcy is depicted as involved in Bingley’s decision to leave, is entirely made up. In fact, given that Darcy was likely rescuing his sister at the time, it’s improbable he was even consulted. Additionally, Darcy’s lines in the first scene are based on Caroline Bingley’s words from the book, making Darcy seem pompous from the start and prejudicing viewers against him before he properly appears.

The BBC drama also paints Darcy in a bad light by having him nod along or outright agree with Miss Bingley’s rude remarks in Meryton, which never happened in the book. Darcy only agrees with her when her comments are, in fact, true—the Bennet family is often ill-behaved and vulgar, and their lack of fortune makes it difficult for them to find respectable suitors. Still, Miss Bingley and Lady Catherine also behave poorly, which Darcy overlooks, likely because he’s grown accustomed to their behavior.

Another example of misrepresentation is the assembly scene. In the show, Colin Firth as Darcy says, "I certainly shall not. In an assembly such as this? It would be insupportable.” This seems to suggest that Darcy is disdainful of the people there. However, in the book, Darcy actually says, “I certainly shall not. You know how I detest it, unless I am particularly acquainted with my partner. At such an assembly as this, it would be insupportable.” This line shows that Darcy’s issue is not with the people, but with his discomfort in dancing with strangers.

In Volume 2, we get a further glimpse into Darcy’s reluctance: “I certainly have not the talent...of conversing easily with those I have never seen before.” Elizabeth dismisses this, claiming he just needs practice, but for someone who struggles with social awkwardness, no amount of practice can change that. Yet, readers seem to accept Jane and Georgiana’s shy behavior but not Darcy’s, which is hypocritical.

Readers are often so caught up in Elizabeth’s perspective that they miss her own faults. She can be prideful, vengeful, and blind to basic manners, but she delivers her insults in a joking manner, making her seem more likable.

Now, don’t get me wrong—Elizabeth Bennet is one of my favorite characters, but I’m not blind to her flaws. She embodies many traits she despises in others, including pride and a tendency to manipulate. For example, she pushes Jane towards Mr. Bingley just as much as their mother does. Even after Bingley leaves, Elizabeth decides on all the particulars of Jane’s pursuit, disregarding her sister’s feelings.

In conclusion, Elizabeth may be a favorite, but she is far from perfect. However, these complexities are what make her such a fascinating and beloved character.

An Understanding of Sense and Sensiblity: Sir John Middleton

If you have read my previous posts in this series on understanding Sense and Sensibility, we can now examine Sir John, Lady Middleton, and Mrs. Jennings’s treatment of the Dashwood ladies. Many readers dismiss these three as nothing more than fools for comic relief, or see them as meddlesome, rude, or obnoxious characters. However, there is much more to them than that. I want to discuss their treatment of the Dashwood ladies—treatment that was far above what was necessary—and how it shows that they were not meant to be regarded as vulgar busybodies, but as truly kind-hearted and caring people (though this may be debatable with Lady Middleton).

---

Sir John Middleton took on the role of ‘guardian and protector’ of the Dashwood ladies, a responsibility their brother refused to fulfill. I know that such ideas might irk many women today, but we must remember that the times were different, and so were societal expectations for women. Many readers either misunderstand or overlook the fact that Sir John could have simply offered them the cottage at a normal rent. He could have let them live there without further assistance, leaving them to fend for themselves. Worse, as the man who had taken them into his care, he could have abused or exploited them, as was accepted and allowed in those days. He could have sold them off as playthings to other men, forced them into service, or married them off to the highest bidder. Yet he did none of that. Instead, Sir John went out of his way to care for them, treating them as much closer family than they actually were, and never once looked down on them or treated them poorly despite their drop in social status.

Not only did Sir John offer the Dashwood ladies a “comfortable” cottage that “had not been built many years and was in good repair,” but he also took on the expense of preparing it for them. The day after their arrival, Sir John visited “to offer them every accommodation from his own house and garden in which theirs might at present be deficient… he said much of his earnest desire of their living in the most sociable terms with his family, and pressed them so cordially to dine at Barton Park every day till they were better settled at home…” Many readers interpret these offers as attempts to intrude on the Dashwoods’ lives or to use them as entertainment. But those assumptions are based on how Elinor and Marianne perceived the actions, rather than what they actually were. If you read Sheryl Craig’s article that I referenced in my first post, “The Background,” you’ll already have some idea of where this is headed.

Sir John’s invitations to dine and his offer to provide anything the Dashwoods needed from his house and garden were ways of easing their financial burden. The Dashwoods were now living on the interest of their £10,000—a meager allowance. Sir John’s “kindness was not confined to words; for within an hour after he left them, a large basket full of garden stuff and fruit arrived from the park, which was followed before the end of the day by a present of game.” His immediate delivery of food was not meant to offend or go beyond civility; rather, it proved that his offer of help was genuine. “He insisted, moreover, on conveying all their letters to and from the post for them, and would not be denied the satisfaction of sending them his newspaper every day.” (Ch. 6) Marianne saw this as an attempt to gather gossip, but it’s more likely that Sir John was simply trying to reduce another expense for the Dashwoods. The cost of sending letters was significant, and he may have assumed they had left many friends behind when they moved to Devonshire.

“The friendliness of [Sir John Middleton’s] disposition made him happy in accommodating those, whose situation might be considered, in comparison with the past, as unfortunate. In showing kindness to his cousins therefore he had the real satisfaction of a good heart…” (Ch. 7) If there was any ulterior motive, it may have been to ensure there was nothing inappropriate (such as secret correspondence with gentlemen) that could lead to slander or gossip, which might harm both their reputation and his own. However, given Sir John’s overall character, it seems unlikely that he would even suspect such a thing. He appears to be one of those truly good-natured people who cannot imagine the despicable things others might do because he would never engage in such behavior himself.

An Understanding of Sense and Sensiblity: Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood

 Many people miss the fact that Jane Austen was using Sir John and Lady Middleton, Mrs. Jennings, and Mr. and Mrs. Palmer’s treatment of the Dashwood women as a reference to be compared to how Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood treated them. John Dashwood is the brother (even if “only half blood” Ch. 2) of the girls and the step-son of Mrs. Dashwood. The family and blood ties between them were, therefore, much closer than the ties to the Barton family of whom only Sir John Middleton, a cousin of Mrs. Dashwood, was known to them before their move having “formerly visited at Stanhill, but it was too long for his young cousins to remember him.” (Ch. 6) It was, therefore, expected by society that Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood had a greater responsibility to care for the Dashwood ladies. We can see, by the fact that even the Middletons and their friends and relations do not look down on John and Fanny Dashwood for their lack of care and civility toward the Dashwood ladies, the little they have done has filled society’s expectations of them.

***

As stated above, John Dashwood is the older, half-brother of the Dashwood sisters. His father requested that he assist his step-mother and sisters, but “his assistance extended no farther than their maintenance for six months at Norland.” (Ch. 5)

At first, John suggests three ways in which he might help his sisters and step-mother financially, but all of his ideas are shot down by his wife. At first, he suggested giving them £3,000, but his wife claimed he “would be impoverishing” their son of his future inheritance. He then halves the amount to which his wife answers, “What brother on earth would do half so much for his sisters, even if really his sisters?” She not only rejects the idea, but she uses their status as half-siblings to manipulate her husband into thinking that the relationship is really too insignificant to consider the need to help them. Finally, he suggests giving an annuity of “a hundred a year” “for their mother while she lives.” To this his wife hesitates before telling him that “people always live forever when there is an annuity to be paid them,” and she convinces him that they might end up losing even more money than if they gave a set amount. (Ch. 2) After that, John did not give any amount of money or an annuity to the ladies then or in the future; however, “he so frequently talked of the increasing expenses… and of the perpetual demands upon his purse… that he seemed rather to stand in need of more money himself than to have any design of giving money away.” (Ch. 5)

Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood’s worries about money are just excuses to be stingy and greedy. We know this because in Chapter One, it is stated that John “was amply provided for by the fortune of his mother, which had been large, and half of which devolved on him on his coming of age. By his own marriage, likewise, which happened soon afterwards, he added to his wealth.” While it was not mentioned until the end of the book, we learn about Fanny’s dowry when it’s stated “nor was anything promised [Edward] either for the present or in future, beyond the ten thousand pounds, which had been given with Fanny.” (Ch. 40) Meanwhile, Mr. Henry Dashwood had “only £7,000 in his own disposal; for the remaining moiety of his first wife’s fortune was also secured to her child, and he had only a life-interest in it.” Which means that John Dashwood was already quite wealthy, and, upon his father’s death, his fortune increased in more ways than one. He not only received “the remaining moiety of his [mother’s] fortune” but also the yearly income of Norland Park and all that it entailed.

However, the widowed Mrs. Dashwood “had nothing” (Ch. 1) referring to her lack of property or any dowry. When Old Mr. Dashwood—the uncle of Mr. Henry Dashwood—died, “he left [the three girls] £1,000 a-piece.” So, when Mr. Henry Dashwood passed away, “ten thousand pounds, including the late legacies, was all that remained for his widow and daughters.” (Ch. 1)

To be honest, John Dashwood is not necessarily a bad brother on his own. “His attentive behaviour to [Mrs. Dashwood] and his sisters convinced [the former] that their welfare was dear to him, and, for a long time, she firmly relied on the liberality of his intentions.” John was not unkind to his family, and his MIL was sure that he would be generous in helping them with finances and anything else. Had he been single, or married to a better person, this may have been the case since he originally intended to give them £3,000 which, while not a lot, he probably assumed was a fair amount since it was equal to his late great-uncle’s gift to the girls. Such and amount would have provided the ladies more than £100 more per annum, along with better dowries. It was his wife, Fanny, who manipulated him and convinced him that any such monetary aid was unnecessary. However, there was much more that he could have done to help his sister’s than just speaking of their finances. He has a large country house now. He could have made them feel welcome, offered them a cottage, prepared other living arrangements for them, offered to host them in London during the next season, introduced them to young gentlemen, etc. In the end though, he did not, and, had he tried, his wife probably would have put a stop to any such plans.

***

Fanny Dashwood is the wife of John Dashwood; this makes her the (step) daughter-in-law of Mrs. Dashwood. The two have met before, and do not get along. “Mrs. John Dashwood had never been a favourite with any of her husband's family; but she had had no opportunity, till the present, of showing them with how little attention to the comfort of other people she could act when occasion required it.” Fanny seems to feel that her only obligation to her mother-in-law is to disoblige her whenever opportunity arises. This is shown when, “No sooner was [Mr. John Dashwood’s] father's funeral over, than Mrs. John Dashwood, without sending any notice of her intention to her mother-in-law, arrived with her child and their attendants. No one could dispute her right to come; the house was her husband's from the moment of his father's decease; but the indelicacy of her conduct was so much the greater, and to a woman in Mrs. Dashwood's situation, with only common feelings, must have been highly unpleasing.” (Ch. 1)

Fanny Dashwood is shown from the start to be an unpleasant woman, not just from her husband’s family’s opinion of her but through her own words and actions, and she does not at all improve on acquaintance. Not only is she a greedy, selfish, snob, but she also seems to think very highly of herself. For instance, it is unlikely that Fanny has the experience of running an estate. As far as we know, Fanny’s family has a much smaller estate than Norland which is “the Norfolk estate, which, clear of land-tax, brings in a good thousand-a-year.” (Ch. 37) It seems to be their only family holding as Mrs. Ferrars is constantly using it as a bargaining chip to gain her sons’ compliance to her will. Meanwhile, her family always seems to be in London (or Plymouth); therefore, it is likely they are leaving the running of their estate in the care of a steward. Even if Fanny has some experience in helping her mother with their home, she would not have the experience of running an estate even half the size of Norland, yet she still does not even pretend to request help or advice from her mother-in-law, disregarding her experience and knowledge entirely. This shows us that she is likely too full of conceit for her own perceived intelligence in such matters.

Fanny’s treatment of the Dashwood women is as poor relations that are simply hanging about and trying to get ‘more than they deserve’. However, due to her horrible personality and greedy nature as shown from her first entrance into the story, many readers are so busy loathing her and assuming that it is only her own wicked personality which causes her actions that they miss the facts. The truth is that she acted with the bare minimum of civility that was required of her by society; therefore, socially there was nothing wrong with her treatment of the Dashwood ladies, it is only her moral and ethical behavior that is in question; but what is that to society?

Fanny’s treatment of the Dashwood girls is, for the most part, polite—at least on the outside. However, actions speak louder than words. When her brother, Edwards, arrives and shows too much attention to the poor Miss Dashwood, it happens “to make her uneasy, and at the same time, (which was still more common,) to make her uncivil. She took the first opportunity of affronting her mother-in-law on the occasion, talking to her so expressively of her brother's great expectations, of Mrs. Ferrars's resolution that both her sons should marry well, and of the danger attending any young woman who attempted to draw him in, that Mrs. Dashwood could neither pretend to be unconscious, nor endeavor to be calm. She gave her an answer which marked her contempt, and instantly left the room, resolving that, whatever might be the inconvenience or expense of so sudden a removal, her beloved Elinor should not be exposed another week to such insinuations.” (Ch. 4) Fanny basically declares Elinor a fortune hunter and accuses her indirectly of using her ‘arts and allurements’ to try and catch Edward. Fanny knows that Elinor is a very good girl and would make her brother a very good and useful wife, but, since Elinor has no connections or fortune, Fanny is vicious in chasing her off from him.

***

While there is much more that can be said about Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood, I feel that this is more than enough for us to fully understand their characters.

 

Which other Jane Austen characters do you think share characteristics or character archetypes with these two? Give reasons and examples why.

An Understanding of Sense and Sensiblity: The Background

In England, in the year 1794 and 1795, the British people suffered from food shortages due to crop failures caused by poor weather conditions. This was around the time when Jane Austen was the same age as most of her heroines. The economic hardships of this time were reflected in her first published novel, Sense and Sensibility. If one is unaware of the economic and political climate of the time, one is likely to miss much of the subtext of the story (as, I must admit, I did until I began my research). However, if you would like to learn more about the economy of the time and get a good grasp on the political satire that is hidden behind the story of three young ladies and their widowed mother after the death of their father, you can start by reading “Wealth has much to do with it: The Economics of Sense and Sensibility” by Sheryl Craig.

Sheryl Craig has done a wonderful job of clearly explaining information that most people today are unaware of. So, I won’t reiterate what she has already explained so perfectly; however, I would like to discuss what this means for some of the characters in the story and the misconceptions that people have about them.

---

When Mr. Henry Dashwood died, he requested that his son John take care of his stepmother and his three younger half-sisters. However, as we know, his wife rebutted his every suggestion of how to give that aid to the ladies. In the end, “his assistance extended no farther than their maintenance for six months at Norland.” (Ch. 5) The Dashwoods accepted a cottage on the estate of Mrs. Dashwood’s cousin, Sir John Middleton, that was offered for their use with “the rent so uncommonly moderate.” (Ch. 4)

In order to understand what follows, you need to understand that, with the death of Mr. Henry Dashwood, the Dashwood ladies became ‘pariahs’ in society. One thing we can gather is that, though Norland Park has a very good income, it does not seem to have a dower house. If and when John Dashwood refuses to take over his father’s position as their caregiver and guardian, they also lose their standing as ‘gentlewomen’ in the eyes of society. Since the current landed male of their family has basically thrown them off, they are no longer able to claim that standing (i.e., they are no longer ‘the Dashwoods of Norland Park’). If they had not received an offer from Sir John Middleton, they would likely need to take up professions, going into service as companions, governesses, or worse, as their income was not enough to support them unless they were willing to ‘lower themselves further.’ It is likely that they would only have been able to afford life in a tenant’s cottage, but without a man to work the land, even that might be hard to secure. Sir John Middleton’s offer saved them from that fate.

You also need to understand that, due to this, the treatment they received by those who were looking down on them was actually the treatment that their new position in society allowed, according to the beliefs of the times. Many readers missed this because even the main characters, Elinor and Marianne, were partially— in the case of the former— and completely— in the case of the latter— insensible to their reduction in status. It is important to keep this in mind while reading. The treatment they received from the Middleton set was over and above what society of that time considered due to them after they lost their home and male ‘protector,’ and we can understand this more when we come to understand the legitimacy of Mrs. Bennet’s (Pride and Prejudice) fears should Mr. Bennet pass away before their daughters were married and provided for (which I will discuss more in a later post). With that in mind, we can form a better understanding of Jane’s characters.

Diagnosing and Understanding Austen Characters

One thing I’ve noticed when talking to other Jane Austen fans or reading fanfiction is how often characters are misunderstood due to a lack of awareness of the culture, societal expectations, and manners of Austen’s time. While I’m no expert on the period, I’ve done enough research to grasp the basics. More importantly, I have a deeper understanding of psychology than many Austen readers, which allows me to pick up on the subtle nuances in her characters’ words, actions, and reactions—often overlooked—that provide a clearer picture of how Austen intended them to be seen.

Some might think that analyzing fictional characters psychologically, as if they were real people, is unnecessary. However, those in psychology or behavioral studies, who are also avid Austen readers, can tell you that Austen had an unusually modern understanding of human behavior. In fact, her characters are often so well developed that modern psychologists can diagnose them based on the information in her novels. In her article “Jane Austen in the Nursing Classroom: A Tool to Expand Psychiatric Assessment Skills,” Tawny Burgess discusses how she uses Austen’s works to teach her students.

While I don’t entirely agree with Burgess’s assessment of George Wickham as having Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), I understand her reasoning. My issue is twofold: first, I reject the term ASPD as a misnomer, and second, I feel there’s not enough evidence to definitively diagnose Wickham as either a clinical psychopath or a narcissist. Burgess’s key argument for labeling him a psychopath is his lack of guilt or remorse after running off with an underage girl, knowing full well he had no intention of marrying her. This act, which could have ruined her and her family’s reputation if not for Mr. Darcy’s intervention, is something any "normal" person would feel guilty about. Wickham’s lack of remorse when confronted by Darcy, however, doesn’t conclusively point to psychopathy.

The reason? Darcy is one of Wickham’s victims.

Narcissists, in particular, don’t show guilt or remorse when facing someone they’ve wronged, especially if they believe they hold the upper hand. There’s a common misconception in psychology that narcissists can feel guilt, but only if publicly exposed and shamed—often referred to as “public guilt.” However, guilt and shame aren’t the same. Narcissists don’t feel guilt in the traditional sense because guilt implies an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a desire to avoid repeating harmful behavior. Narcissists, on the other hand, feel shame only when they’re caught. Their shame stems not from remorse but from a belief that they are superior to others, and getting caught makes them feel embarrassed for failing to outsmart those they consider inferior.

When a narcissist apologizes, saying something like, “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again,” what they really mean is, “I’m sorry I got caught, and I’ll try harder not to get caught next time.”

Wickham’s lack of guilt or shame when confronted by Darcy isn’t a clear indicator of his inability to feel these emotions. Wickham knows Darcy already understands his true nature and that exposing him would jeopardize both Lydia Bennet and Darcy’s own sister. Knowing this, Wickham has no reason to feel ashamed in front of Darcy. Additionally, by marrying Lydia, Wickham believes he’s restored his standing in society, so there’s no public shame either. Therefore, Burgess’s diagnosis of Wickham as a psychopath based solely on his lack of remorse is questionable. While he might indeed be a psychopath, there isn’t enough evidence to definitively say whether he’s a psychopath or a narcissist.

Differentiating between a clinical psychopath and a narcissist often comes down to the nature of their "god complex." Narcissists believe themselves to be superior to others—more intelligent, deserving, and powerful. Psychopaths, on the other hand, see themselves as gods or even higher. They feel no shame, even when caught, because they believe they have the right to control life and death, just as a god would. For them, any action they deem acceptable is justified.

Other characters in Austen’s works, like Lady Susan and George Knightley, can also be analyzed through this psychological lens. While Lady Susan’s diagnosis is more widely accepted, Knightley’s might surprise or anger fans. But I’ll discuss Emma in a future post.

One thing we can take away from this analysis is that it’s possible to assess the personality disorders of Austen’s characters as if they were real people.