Advertisement

Property and Propriety in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century England: Burney, Austen, Eliot

  • Sally A. Livingston
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)

Abstract

The progressive economic disenfranchisement of women from the Middle Ages through the nineteenth century was supported by changing cultural norms that transformed the woman who once could control property into a submissive, financially unstable creature. In this chapter, I look at literary representations of perfect womanhood and trace the growing opposition to women’s plight, which finally resulted in the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882. Finally, I analyze three women writers (Frances Burney, Jane Austen, and George Eliot) to show how they critiqued marriage while still being trapped in its economic consequences. While making the marriage plot central to their novels, they nonetheless find ways to subvert its traditional authority.

Keywords

Eighteenth Century Marriage Market Female Character Woman Writer Conduct Book 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For a full discussion of jointure, see Susan Staves, Married Women’s Separate Property in England, 1660–1833 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 95–118.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee Holcombe, Wives and Property: Reform of the Married Women’s Property Law in Nineteenth-century England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983), pp. 38–39. Although originally intended to avoid paying feudal dues, this type of trust was viewed by the early lord chancellors as a possible cause for trustee abuse since the beneficiaries were not named. The Statute of Uses of 1535 barred the courts of equity from enforcing trusts of this type.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A lively debate ensued after the publication of Lawrence Stone’s book The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), which concluded that these separate estates showed that women had increased vale. He posited that the family underwent an emotional change in the eighteenth century: the patriarchal family was replaced by the “affective” family held together by love. For a rebuttal to this argument, see Eileen Spring, Law, Land, and Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England, 1300 to 1800 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), pp. 150–183. In fact, Spring argues, female inheritance declined during this period.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Susan Moller Okin, “Patriarchy and Married Women’s Property in England: Questions on Some Current Views,” Eighteenth-century Studies 17(2) (1983–1984), 133.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Virginia M. Duff, “Woman and Property, Woman as Property: Woman, Property, and Law as Imagined by British Female Novelists, 1680–1740” (PhD Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1994), pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Virginia M. Duff, “Early English Women Novelists Testify to the Law’s Manifest Cruelties against Women before the Marriage Act of 1753,” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 29.5 (2000), 585.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Writings, ed. Stefan Collini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 147.Google Scholar
  8. As Carole Pateman has pointed out, contract theory involves not only property of material goods, land, and capital, but also the ownership of “property in the person,” that is, the right to enter into contracts. Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 5.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Many of the members of the Married Women’s Property Committee were writers. Cheri Lin Larsen Hoeckley argues that they were seen as challenging the idea of separate spheres for men and women because they earned money from their writing: “Unlike family inheritances or gifts, which might give a woman property while still subsuming her under a familial economy, female literary earnings indicated an economic independence that belied the principles of domestic ideology.” Cheri Lin Larsen Hoeckley, “Literary Ladies in Anomalous Positions: Victorian Women Writers and the Married Women’s Property Act” (PhD Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1997), p. 3.Google Scholar
  10. For a broader picture of the growing concern over working women, see Julie Hipp Schuetz, “Women, Property, and the Estate: Fiction and Legal Reform in Nineteenth-Century England, 1857–1882” (PhD Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 2001).Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    J. G. A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 103–104. It is interesting that “propriety,” as used by Pocock, means “that which is proper for a person or situation.” The word is also used to mean “conforming to the customs of polite society.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 19.
    Catherine Ingrassia, Authorship, Commerce, and Gender in Early Eighteenth-Century England: A Culture of Paper Credit (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 5.Google Scholar
  13. 21.
    Mona Scheuermann, “Women and Money in Eighteenth-Century Fiction,” Studies in the Novel XIX (1987), 311–313.Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    April London, Women and Property in the Eighteenth-century English Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 23.
    Mary Poovey, The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 5.Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 150.Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    Nancy Armstrong, Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 8.Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    Tim Dolin, Mistress of the House: Women of Property in the Victorian Novel (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  19. 29.
    Janet Todd, introduction to Female Education in the Age of Enlightenment, vol. I (London: William Pickering, 1996), p. vii.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966), p. 60.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    Thomas Gisborne, An Inquiry into the Duties of the Female Sex in Female Education in the Age of Enlightenment, vol. 2 (London: William Pickering, 1996), pp. 215–216.Google Scholar
  22. 34.
    James Fordyce, “On the Importance of the Female Sex,” in Female Education in the Age of Enlightenment, vol. 1 (London: William Pickering, 1996), p. 24.Google Scholar
  23. 37.
    This view has been articulated by several critics, including Françoise Basch in her early analysis of Victorian fiction, Relative Creatures: Victorian Women in Society and the Novel (New York: Schocken Books, 1974).Google Scholar
  24. Joseph Allen Boone, Tradition Counter Tradition: Love and the Form of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), among others.Google Scholar
  25. 38.
    Ruth Bernard Yeazell, Fictions of Modesty: Women and Courtship in the English Novel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 35.Google Scholar
  26. 39.
    Katherine Sobba Green, The Courtship Novel 1740–1820: A Feminized Genre (Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1991), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  27. 41.
    Julie Shaffer, “Not Subordinate: Empowering Women in the Marriage-Plot—The Novels of Frances Burney, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Austen,” Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts 34.1 (1992), 53–57.Google Scholar
  28. 42.
    Judith Lowder Newton, Women, Power, and Subversion: Social Strategies in British Fiction, 1778–1860 (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1981), p. 26.Google Scholar
  29. 43.
    Frances Burney, Evelina, ed. Kristina Straub (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997), p. 55. All subsequent references will directly follow quotations in parentheses.Google Scholar
  30. 45.
    Julia Epstein, The Iron Pen: Frances Burney and the Politics of Women’s Writing (Bedminster: Bristol Classical Press, 1989), p. 96.Google Scholar
  31. 47.
    Susan Fraiman, Unbecoming Women: British Women and the Novel of Development (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
  32. 50.
    Claudia L. Johnson, Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 6.Google Scholar
  33. 53.
    William H. Magee, “Instrument of Growth: The Courtship and Marriage Plot in Jane Austen’s Novels,” Journal of Narrative Technique 17.2 (1987), 198.Google Scholar
  34. 55.
    Charles H. Hinnant, “Jane Austen’s ‘Wild Imagination’: Romance and the Courtship Plot in the Six Canonical Novels,” Narrative 14.3 (2006), 294–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 58.
    Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility (New York: Dover Publications, 1996), p. 7; emphasis in the original. All subsequent references will directly follow quotations in parentheses.Google Scholar
  36. 59.
    Julie A. Shaffer, “The Ideological Intervention of Ambiguities in the Marriage Plot: Who Fails Marianne in Austen’s Sense and Sensibility?” in A Dialogue of Voices: Feminist Literary Theory and Bakhtin, ed. Karen Hohne and Helen Wussow (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), p. 145.Google Scholar
  37. 60.
    Laura Mooneyham White, “Jane Austen and the Marriage Plot: Questions of Persistence,” in Jane Austen and Discourses of Feminism, ed. Devoney Looser (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 78.Google Scholar
  38. 61.
    Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 1. All subsequent references will directly follow quotations in parentheses.Google Scholar
  39. 62.
    Karen Newman, “Can This Marriage Be Saved: Jane Austen Makes Sense of an Ending,” ELH 50 (1983), 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 68.
    George Eliot, Middlemarch (New York: The Modern Library, 2000), p. 1. Page citations will hereafter be in parentheses.Google Scholar
  41. 69.
    Sherry L. Mitchell, “Saint Teresa and Dorothea Brooke: The Absent Road to Perfection in Middlemarch,” The Victorian Newsletter 92 (1997), 32–33. St. Theresa, she argues, directed the spiritual development of her nuns and engaged in prohibited theological discourse because of her privileged position in the convent. During her canonization, she was celebrated as a “virile woman” and a “manly soul.”Google Scholar
  42. 71.
    Here I differ from others who have investigated the Casaubon reference, who have not made the Hermetic link. For a synopsis of the argument, see Daniel Tyler, “Dorothea and the ‘Key to All Mythologies,’” The George Eliot Review: Journal of the George Eliot Fellowship 33 (2002), 27–32.Google Scholar
  43. Michelle Faubert, “A Possible Source for George Eliot’s Edward Casaubon,” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, & Reviews 18.2 (2005), 46–54.Google Scholar
  44. 73.
    Margaret Homans, Bearing the Word: Language and Female Experience in Nineteenth-century Women’s Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 144.Google Scholar
  45. 74.
    J. Hillis Miller, “A Conclusion in Which Almost Nothing is Concluded: Middlemarch’s ‘Finale,’” in Middlemarch in the Twenty-first Century, ed. Karen Chase (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 142.Google Scholar
  46. 75.
    Jenni Calder, Women and Marriage in Victorian Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 140–141.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sally A. Livingston 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sally A. Livingston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations