Marriage, Money, and Manner: the 18th century socialite's perfect disguise

First Off: the zombies

I really couldn’t believe it. From among the pristine archives of English literature, Seth Grahame-Smith chose the prim and proper world of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to infect with those horrid, drooling zombies. In his Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (PPZ), Elizabeth Bennet fights against those putrid undead for her life as well as her heart. Despite the obvious departure from the original, I think Grahame-Smith may have unwittingly stumbled upon an intriguing similarity between Austen’s pristine world and our own . . . basically, the zombies.

In PPZ, the zombies—rotting, crawling, and hunting—are literally there to affect the characters, but in early novels like Frances Burney’s Evelina and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, I think the zombies are there too, just somewhat disguised. Like the theatrical opera singers the Branghtons laugh at, those disguised zombies comically flop about in “out-of-the-way postures” but aptly depict the Real World, where social protocol easily masked the emotions on the inside. That said, I think the overall zombie of Burney and Austen’s novels is Society itself—the pretentious persons, the public disguises, the illogical faux pas—who endlessly preys upon life and liberty. I saw it most when the characters faced situations involving marriage, money, and manners.

• Marriage

In 18th century England, marriage had little to do with love. The sole “business of [Mrs. Bennet’s] life was to get her daughters married,” and business it was. After being groomed to “paint tables, cover screens, and net purses” for 16 or 17 years, ladies were expected to catch a “single young man in possession of a good fortune” within 2 or 3 seasons. However, women like Charlotte Lucas who, at the ripe old age of 27 and with hardly any fortune, usually settled for what they could get (i.e., stupid Mr. Collins) because Society looked coldly upon independent, single women. So, when Elizabeth rejected Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy, she risked complete censure from Society and, maybe more importantly, the assurance of financial security. Tough cookie, huh?

http://blogzombie.edublogs.org/files/2014/02/pride-and-prejudice-and-zombies-game-3-2-s5s6ac.jpg

• Money

As so we come to the money. Any advantageous marriage needed bribing by a nice fortune. Elizabeth and Evelina got lucky, but most times, puny fortunes and low connections “very materially lessen[ed] their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world.” With the Bennet estate entailed away, Elizabeth and Jane’s chances waned further though connection to their Uncle Gardiner, a resident of Cheapside who made his living in trade (of all things!). Society just could not forbear such mixing between the wealthy and the hard-working. When Lady de Bourgh hears the rumor of Darcy and Elizabeth’s engagment, she cries, “Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?” Family connections in high society were kept pure, with long lineages of wealthy, noble members. That’s why Mr. Villars worried about Evelina. A innocent, handsome girl without fortune or name was simply . . . brains to flesh-eaters like Sir Clement Willoughby and Lord Merton.

• Manners

The name of the game was propriety, or at best, the appearance of it. 18th century England was the age of sensibility, the reign of the fop. Following le bon ton (meaning, “in the fashionable mode”), conversation could be “so arranged, as that [people] may have the trouble of saying as little as possible.” Yet, what they did say and do mattered.

Pride and Prejudice revolves around this. Darcy divides Jane and Bingley because of the Bennet’s low social status and, largely, for their “total want of propriety.” In light of Darcy’s own conceit and “selfish disdain for the feelings of others,” Elizabeth rejects his proposal, only later to see her blinding prejudice towards him.

In Evelina, our dear girl is haunted by that ridiculous Mr. Lovel, who she accidently snubbed at a dance, and constantly imposed upon by the Branghtons, Captain Mirvan, and Madame Duvall. Her reputation, “the most beautiful and most brittle of all human things,” constantly comes into question because of her ignorance of Society’s insanely intricate protocol. It’s the ever-polite, ever-graceful Lord Orville who seems the voice of reason in a world where betting on a race between two 80-year-old women is the best alternative to racing phaetons.

https://janeaustensequelsblog.wordpress.com/category/regency-dancing/

However, big money and a weighty title could often override Society’s marble eye. When Evelina meets the forward, but popular, Lord Merton, she’s extremely surprised that “a nobleman…can possibly be deficient in good manners, however faulty in morals and principles!” In other words, this lord could get by with rude behavior, but lower people could not. So, even British high society had its contradictions . . . and favoritism, perhaps?

So What Do We Care?

For those long-dead people Burney and Austen mixed with, Society was a way of life, the ultimate drama performed in front of the world’s stage. The wealthy were pressured to marry for money or prestige, ridiculed for a wage well earned, and ostracized for “the appearance of evil.” Yet, for all that, many of them saw the consequences and still accepted that way of life, convinced they had no other choice. Mr. Villars captured this perfectly when he wrote: “[A]las, my dear child, we are the slaves of custom, the dupes of prejudice, and dare not stem the torrent of an opposing world, even though our judgments condemn our compliance!” Like tottering zombies in PPZ, those “slaves” and “dupes” thrive on forfeited freedom and mindless obedience to however the world tells them to act.

http://www.intravenous-sugar.com/2010_11_01_archive.html

On the other hand, women like Elizabeth Bennet and the satirical Mrs. Selwyn decided to live for themselves. They choose to act within the boundaries of Society while not becoming slaves to it. That’s why I think Society—not the people/characters—is the real zombie. Zombies have no choice. They’re driven to violence and depravity, but as humans, they did have a choice. We still do today. Society still has a set of illogical rules, but it’s our decision whether we fall prey to its demands or not. We can choose to be like Elizabeth, or like Charlotte, meekly submit our happiness to the fools of this world.

Isn’t that the process of becoming an individual anyways? Finding our unique balance between what’s required/expected of us and what our hearts lead us to do? Falling prey to Society’s plague or just playing along? What do you think?

(click on last two pics for links)