This essay will discuss the extent to which spiritual and moral equality for women is claimed in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice through the comparison of female protagonist Elizabeth Bennet to male counterpart Fitzwilliam Darcy and other female characters such as Lydia Bennet and Caroline Bingley. It will discuss elements such as syntax structure, views on the importance of intelligence and the ability to state one’s own mind, or not, as may be for particular characters. Moreover, this essay will discuss the extent to which William Wycherley’s The Country Wife claims spiritual and moral equality for women including the difficulty in the claim of spiritual morality due to the play’s satiric nature, the vast level of religious register, associations with the devil, moral equality for women in an immoral sense, and a lack of moral equality based on a level of naivety in the play. This will be discussed through characters such as protagonist Horner, Lady Fidget, Mrs Squeamish and Mrs Pinchwife, also known as Margery. A comparison between these two texts is particularly interesting as although both texts include a level of satire and irony, Pride and Prejudice and The Country Wife are texts of different genres, a Domestic Novel as opposed to a play of Restoration Comedy, and therefore different writing styles. Pride and Prejudice has a third person narrator whereas The Country Wife is a script. Furthermore, these texts are written in different historical periods, Pride and Prejudice in the early eighteenth century and The Country Wife in the late seventeenth century. Additionally, Pride and Prejudice is written by a female author and The Country Wife is written by a male author. The relevance of these aspects will also be discussed.
It could be argued that Austen displays spiritual equality for women in Pride and Prejudice through the difference in syntax structure for characters in the novel. The Oxford English Dictionary Online contains a definition for ‘spiritual’, in use at the time Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice, which states ‘Of or relating to, emanating from, the intellect or higher faculties of the mind; intellectual’ (OED online, 2019b, sense 6). When comparing the voice of characters in the novel, Elizabeth’s character has a longer and more complicated syntax structure which portrays a high level of intellect for Elizabeth. This becomes evident when comparing Elizabeth’s speech to Darcy’s. An example of the difference in syntax structure is shown when Elizabeth rejects Darcy’s first marriage proposal:
From the very beginning, from the first moment I may almost say, of my acquaintance with you, your manners impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form the groundwork of disapprobation, on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry (p. 148).
Conversely, Darcy’s response begins with the syntax ‘You have said quite enough, madam.’ (p. 148). Darcy’s response is far simpler in syntax structure than Elizabeth’s. This argument is supported by Baker who maintains ‘readers attribute rambling to silly characters, complex structures to intelligent characters and bluntness to rude characters’ (2014, p. 170). This suggests that Elizabeth is a character with a high level of intelligence and Darcy is a blunt character. Baker also maintains ‘Elizabeth’s voice is structurally complicated, heavy on prepositions, and more varied [whereas] Darcy’s [voice] tends to favor nominal clauses, simplicity, and infinitives’ (2014, p. 174). As is evident in the quotes from the novel, Darcy speaks with much shorter and more concise syntax structure than Elizabeth. The claim of spiritual equality for women is convincing through syntax structure as Elizabeth is portrayed as an intelligent women, even when compared to her well-educated male counterpart Darcy.
Nevertheless, spiritual equality is not claimed for all female characters in the novel which can be seen through characters such as Lydia Bennet. Lydia is portrayed as lacking intelligence at various points in the novel. An example of this is when Mr Collins reads to the Bennets and is offended by Lydia’s interruption. Mr Collins says: ‘I have often observed how little young ladies are interested by books of a serious stamp, though written solely for their benefit. It amazes me, I confess; - for certainly, there can be nothing so advantageous to them as instruction’ (p. 52). This portrays the view that women are not interested in books of a serious nature and may suggest that they don’t have the intellect to understand them. Moreover, the characterisation of Lydia throughout the novel is a woman who is unintelligent and fancy free, or as described by Watson ‘the too-young or too-foolish Lydia’ (2015, p. 170).
Moral equality for women could be claimed in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice through protagonist Elizabeth and her ability to speak and act based on what she believes is right and wrong. The Oxford English Dictionary Online defines moral as: ‘Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong… in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.’ (OED online, 2019a, sense 1a). One example of the claim of moral equality for women is Elizabeth’s refusal to dance with Darcy at Netherfield: ‘I have therefore made up my mind to tell you, that I do not want to dance a reel at all—and now despise me if you dare’ (p. 38). Refusing to dance with a man of Darcy’s social status shows Elizabeth’s independence and ability to act as she desires, not conform to social expectations. A further example is Elizabeth’s refusal to marry Mr. Collins: ‘I am perfectly serious in my refusal. You could not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who would make you so’ (p. 82). This quote also demonstrates Elizabeth’s ability to act based upon her own morals and happiness, as opposed to in line with the wishes of male characters. Chang maintains ‘Elizabeth’s independent behavior sets her apart from the traditional women of Regency England [and] Her [Elizabeth’s] refusal to dance with a male of higher class shows her independence, illustrating that women can state their own minds’ (2014, p. 78). Austen awarding Elizabeth the ability to voice her true opinions and action these accordingly strongly suggest a claim of moral equality for women.
In contrast, moral equality is not claimed for all female characters in the novel. Although Chang claims that women can state their mind and be independent (2014, p. 78), the ability to act independently as women in Regency England was rare. Other female characters, with Caroline Bingley as an example, are more stereotypical females of this time and change themselves to suit men in the pursuit of marriage. An example of this is Caroline’s behaviour at Netherfield when there is a discussion of what makes an accomplished woman in Volume I, Chapter VIII. Caroline declares what she thinks Darcy wants to hear and lists qualities she feels she possesses in order to portray herself as an accomplished woman. This argument is supported by Chang who states ‘Caroline, seeking to please Mr Darcy, affirms his opinion by listing the many requirements for a woman to be considered accomplished by her, and what she believes to be, Mr Darcy’s standards’ (2014, p. 79). Caroline’s behaviour is a clear modification with her intention to impress Mr Darcy. After this discussion, Caroline is referred to by the third-person narrator as Darcy’s ‘faithful assistant’ (p. 29) which could be an ironic criticism by Austen of the subservient nature of Caroline and other women in Regency England. Further in the novel, Caroline chooses a book to read also influenced by Darcy: ‘quite exhausted by the attempt to be amused with her own book, which she [Caroline] had only chosen because it was the second volume of his [Darcy’s]’ (p. 41). Again, Caroline modifies her behaviour based on Darcy. There is various evidence to suggest that Caroline changes her behaviour and actions to attract the attention of Darcy, a stark juxtaposition of the characterisation of Elizabeth who is independent and divulges her mind through her speech and actions. Through female characters such as Caroline, it is evident that Austen does not claim moral equality for all women in Pride and Prejudice.
The definition of ‘spiritual’ in The Country Wife differs from that of Pride and Prejudice due to the historical period of the texts. The most likely definition of ‘spiritual’ from The Oxford English Dictionary Online that was in use at the time of The Country Wife is the definition ‘Of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities, esp. as regarded in a religious aspect.’ (OED online, 2019b, sense 1a). As stated by Canfield, The Country Wife is ‘replete with ironic religious language’ (1980, p. 391). Spiritual equality, however, can be hard to define as the play is a work of satire and as explained by Stern ‘it is difficult to say where the play’s ridicule starts and stops, it is not even obvious what – or who – it’s satirical focus might be’ (Stern in Wycherley, 2014, p. ix). The Country Wife contains a religious register of language and as stated by Canfield ‘Nearly every character punctuates his dialogue with such apparently meaning- less expletives as 'Lord,' 'For God's sake,' 'damn,' 'Hell and damna-tion,' and 'I vow,' with many variations on 'Heavens,' 'Faith,' and 'The Divel' (1980, p. 391). Throughout the play, there is repetition of the concept of ‘honour’ and in response to the mention of this, Horner uses a religious register of language: ‘For your bigots in honour, are just like those in religion. They fear the eye of the world more than the eye of heaven, and think there is no virtue but railing at vice, and no sin but giving scandal’ (iv.iii.20-23). This quote displays a satirical view of the hypocrisy of the way people act in the play. Further, the ‘virtuous gang’ pride themselves on their honour, which is a use of irony as their actions depict they are far from honourable women. Horner, again, responds to Lady Fidget’s claim of honour using a religious register of language: ‘To talk of honour in the mysteries of love is like talking of heaven or the deity in an operation of witch-craft, just when you are employing the devil; it makes the charm impotent’ (iv.iii.41-44). The vast amount of religious based lexis in The Country Wife is clear, and as claimed by Canfield ‘This religious language is, after all, largely what gives Wycherley's comedy its satiric power. For it provides a moral norm with distant - but audible - metaphysical reverberations’ (1980, p. 393). It is difficult to claim spiritual equality for women in the play as all characters seem to scheme and deceive others throughout regardless of their gender.
Nonetheless, it can be argued that spiritual equality for women can be claimed in The Country Wife, in a negative sense, through the characterisation of Horner and references to women. In the introduction to The Country Wife Stern associates the name Horner with the horns of the devil and pertains this has sexual associations as ‘whenever Pinchwife thinks of Horner he invokes “The devil!” (Stern in Wycherley, 2014, p. xi). This reference to Horner demonstrates the religious register and the threat to Pinchwife that Horner evokes. Pinchwife also makes references to the devil when talking about women: ‘Why should women have more invention in love than men? It can only be because they have more desires, more soliciting passions, more lust, and more of the devil’ (iv.ii.53–5). This once again references sexual appetite, but on this occasion, for women. Pacheco argues this is a representation of ‘the stereotypical view of women as inherently duplicitous and lascivious that was invoked for centuries to legitimise male dominance’ (2015, pp. 133-134). This is a convincing argument as both sexes are compared to the devil which, although a negative religious association, could claim spiritual equality for women.
Using the same definition for moral in The Country Wife as Pride and Prejudice, the claim of moral equality for women, although in an immoral sense, can be argued in Wycherley’s The Country Wife through characters Horner and ‘the virtuous gang’, and their equal desire for sex. This argument is supported by Kowaleski-Wallace who states, ‘Wycherley’s use of china as a metaphor for the male body establishes both the desirable qualities of the commodity and a distinctly female demand for it’ (1995, p. 156). In the ‘China’ scene, female desire for sex is demonstrated by Lady Fidget who has been ‘toiling and moiling for the prettiest piece of china’ (iv.iii.169-170). This suggests that she has been looking for the best man with whom to have sex. The female desire for sex is further established by Mrs Squeamish who states ‘O Lord, I’ll have some china too. Good Master Horner, don’t think to give other people china, and me none. Come in with me too’ (iv.iii.172-4). The female desire for sex is clearly apparent in this scene. Like Horner, who is claiming to be a ‘eunuch’ to enable him to have sex with other men’s wives, these women also use deception for their own desires. In regard to the actions of Horner and Lady Fidget, critic Payne describes ‘As many critics have noticed, however funny Horner and Lady Fidget may be, they are grotesques preying on the innocent, well suited in their predatory natures to each other’ (1986, p. 416). Moral equality, albeit in an immoral sense, is claimed for women due to the deceptive nature of both Horner and ‘the virtuous gang’. Horner and Lady Fidget equally achieve what they want: Horner, to cuckold husbands, and Lady Fidget, to gratify her desire for sex.
However, when examining different relationships in the play such as between Horner and Margery (Mrs Pinchwife), it could be argued the claim of moral equality for women is not as evident. Throughout Horner’s cuckolding of husbands, women are purely objects to Horner so he can gain control and power over other male characters. In the play Horner states:
I do hate ‘em [women] and would hate ‘em yet more, I’ll frequent ‘em. You may see by marriage, nothing makes a man hate a woman more, than her constant conversation. In short, I converse with ‘em, as you do with rich fools, to laugh at ‘em and use ‘em ill (iii.ii.14-18)
This quote pronounces Horner’s hatred and disrespect towards women. As explained by Stern, ‘conversely’ is one of the many duplicitous meanings of the play, as in addition to talk, to converse with also means to have sex with (Stern in Wycherley, 2014, p. xi). Stern contests that ‘his [Horner’s] libertinism seems focused on outwitting husbands rather than possessing their wives’ (Stern in Wycherley, 2014, p. xi). This evidence clearly supports the argument that Horner has a dislike for women and uses them to gain power over other men in the play. On the other hand, Margery, who is more naïve to the situation falls for Horner and declares ‘You [Horner] shall be my husband now’ (v.iv.191) and proceeds to tell Horner that she loves him. These quotes demonstrate the disparity between Horner and Margery’s intentions. As described by Stern, Margery ‘is the play’s most obvious victim’ (Stern in Wycherley, 2014, p. xvi). This evidence denotes that Wycherley does not claim moral equality for women as Margery is seen as a victim and Horner has the power in this relationship.
In conclusion, although Austen represents moral and spiritual equality for women through the protagonist of the novel, this equality is not portrayed for all female characters. It could be interpreted that Austen uses Pride and Prejudice to illustrate the expectations of females in Regency England, and through Elizabeth’s independence as a female, Austen is portraying a feminist attitude in regard to the dismaying inequality of men and women in Regency England. This is supported by Chang who upholds ‘Through Elizabeth, Austen provides clues to her dissatisfaction with the limitations imposed by society’ (2014, p. 76). This is further backed by Hall who states that Austen ‘uses the novel to critique the economic and social privileges afforded to men and denied to women’ (Hall in Chang, 2014, p. 77). The privileges granted to Elizabeth, Austen’s protagonist and feminine heroine of the novel, were unusual for women of Regency England. As described by Chang:
Women were subservient to men in many ways, having nearly no property rights, legal rights, or control over their own destinies… writing about female protagonists who not only had a role in their own destiny, but also impacted the lives of others was outside of the imaginative scope of most authors (2014, p. 77).
On the contrary, the same equality is not argued for women by male author William Wycherley in The Country Wife. The spiritual and moral equality in heroine Elizabeth Bennet from Pride and Prejudice is from a positive standpoint, whereas any equality claimed for women in The Country Wife seems to be negative. Lady Fidget is described as equal to Horner but only in a negative and deceptive manner. Mrs Squeamish is also represented in the same negative manner. Both Horner and women are likened to the devil in relation to sexual appetite and any proclaimed ‘honour’ is represented as hypocrisy. Also, the fact that Margery is used as an object by Horner, further diminishes any positive claim of equality for women. Although it can be argued that spiritual and moral equality is claimed for some women in these texts, whether it be positive or negative, it is clear that spiritual and moral equality cannot be claimed for all women.