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.