Considering Jane Bennet – and her Sisters

JaneJan
What better way to start the year that to focus on one of Jane Austen’s most beloved characters? Join Austen Variations as we spend January looking into the lovely Jane Bennet.


pnpcebrockbw38
Writing a Jane Bennet story the other day (“In the Shrubbery”) naturally made me think about this remarkably sweet secondary heroine, and I hope you will not mind my sharing thoughts with you, even though they do not take the form of fiction.
 
I was wondering, how did Jane Bennet become so nice?  She is so sweet, she is in danger of being insipid, the thoroughly good girl type exemplified in literature by such as Amelia in Vanity Fair or Melanie in Gone With the Wind. She is very unlike her sister Elizabeth, or indeed, any of her sisters. Of course sisters, in life and in books, may have widely differing personalities, so Jane Austen was not creating unnatural, unlifelike characters when she made this “pair” of close-in-age sisters so different. Jane is steady, kind, always thinking well of people, fond of children, and possesses a host of virtues. By contrast, Elizabeth, while in no way a “bad sister,” is a much spicier personality, capable of doing an impulsive act or saying a sharp thing. These apparent flaws in Lizzy’s character not only make her far more interesting than Jane, but they also make her much more human. “Pictures of perfection make me sick and wicked,” Jane Austen wrote, and while Jane Bennet’s sweetness and modesty keep her from being priggish or the dreaded “perfect,” there is no doubt that Lizzy is deliciously imperfect. 
 
Lizzy had to have flaws, for otherwise, it might have been difficult to believe in the reality of a girl, not yet one and twenty, who could deliver speeches with aplomb and sophisticated phraseology, stand up to a Lady Catherine de Bourgh like a defense attorney, and turn down a Mr. Darcy with cool contempt. Lizzy, though so young, already has all the self-possession that might be expected in an Oxbridge educated woman of forty, but at least we can guess where some of these personality traits derive from:  She is her father’s daughter, and Mr. Bennet is a man whose leading characteristics are his great bookishness, and his scalding sarcasm. He is also irresponsible, hardly less so than his flighty wife, as he does nothing to take control of her excesses or to repair their shaky family situation. Jane Austen may have wanted us to consider that these troublingly undesirable characteristics in both parents are prime influences that shaped both Jane’s and Lizzy’s superior characters. In reacting to their parents’ faults, they both strove (in their different ways) to behave in just the opposite manner from their parents. Both of these older sisters could acutely see the results of their parents’ failings, as the three younger girls, either less intelligent, less mature, or too self-absorbed, never seemed to do.
 
Lizzy’s resemblance to her beloved father may be obvious, but we do not see who, if anyone, Jane resembles. With her quiet good sense and prudence, her dislike of making a show, and no fondness for noisy rackety enjoyments, she is completely unlike her mother. Yet she resembles her father even less, if anything, for Jane, not to put too fine a point on it, is not a wit, and having witnessed her father being hurtfully sarcastic to her mother all her life, she recoils from ever using sarcasm in any form herself. Jane is a gentle, quiet, placid sort of girl by nature, but also rather thoughtful. She may seem dull compared to Lizzy, who is so brilliantly scintillating, but Jane has little taste for the bon mot (like Edmund Bertram), and has considered well all the pain that barbed jesting can inflict.
 
Lizzy, as her father’s favorite, and her mother’s least favorite (precisely because of her resemblance to him), has clearly had her intellect formed by Mr. Bennet’s influence. She, of all five sisters, benefited from the family’s haphazard educational system the most, as being left to roam free in her father’s library exactly suited her. Not only did she thrive with what was the ideal education for her quick mind, but reading also kept her in closer contact with her father. Jane may appear pale beside her brilliant sister, but like Fanny Price in Mansfield Park, who was “silent, but not blind,” Jane sees what is going on. At the same time, she is an optimist who tries to shut her eyes to what is unpleasant. The discomforts and embarrassments of her parents’ unhappy marriage bring her great pain. She tries to make the best of things, not to see their hurtful conflict, to hope that her parents are really good people and worthy of the respect she is bound to give them. She is by no means blind to their imperfections, though she does not complain of them except in extremis. In one rare instance she says unhappily to Lizzy “Oh! that my dear mother had more command over herself! she can have no idea of the pain she gives me by her continual reflections on him.” [Mr. Bingley]  It emphasizes how very great her pain is at that moment, for Jane Bennet to say such a critical thing about a parent.
 
Yet Jane is no fool, and in her quiet way is in fact an astute judge of character. While the intellectually brilliant Lizzy frequently jumps to wrong conclusions, Jane does not argue (after seeing her parents’ arguments all her life, arguing is not a thing she does), but though saying little, she thinks rightly all along, showing some perspicacity. She is right about Charlotte’s seemingly foolish marriage, which Lizzy speaks about with excited harshness: 

 “My dear Jane, Mr. Collins is a conceited, pompous, narrow-minded, silly man: you know he is, as well as I do; and you must feel, as well as I do, that the woman who marries him cannot have a proper way of thinking. You shall not defend her, though it is Charlotte Lucas. You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavour to persuade yourself or me that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger security for happiness.”

Jane’s answer is understated and simple: “I must think your language too strong in speaking of both, and I hope you will be convinced of it by seeing them happy together.”

Jane is also right about Mr. Darcy. When Lizzy tells her about Mr. Darcy’s first proposal, Jane’s reaction is to pity him, saying, “Dear Lizzy, only consider what he must have suffered. Such a disappointment! and with the knowledge of your ill opinion too! and having to relate such a thing of his sister! It is really too distressing.” And when Lizzy observes that Darcy has “got all the goodness” and Wickham “all the appearance of it,” Jane says, “I never thought Mr. Darcy so deficient in the appearance of it as you used to do.”  We may notice that all her sister’s persuasive, even exaggerated words never change Jane’s own impression of Mr. Darcy as a good man, worthy even of being her beloved Bingley’s friend. Later, when Lizzy tells her of her engagement, Jane quietly observes, “I always had a value for him.”  And she has, though she never argued or insisted upon it, or tried to change her sister’s mind.

One reason for the serene temper and beautiful nature of Jane may be that she is a first child, born early in the Bennets’ marriage, perhaps before they were thoroughly at odds with one another. They doubtless both doted on this pretty, placid first child, and this love in turn fortified her sunny nature.  Lizzy, perhaps a more restless, troublesome baby, born when her parents were starting to clash with one another, was adored by her father for her bright quickness, early showing mental powers superior to Jane’s, of the very sort he appreciated. Her mother consequently rejected her, and found fault with her. It is obvious throughout the book that there is not much love lost between this mother/daughter pair. By the time Mary came along, indifference was probably what the parents felt for each other, and Mary is indeed the child of indifference, so out of sync with everyone else in the family, that it’s clear no one has ever paid much attention to her development. Like Lizzy she was left to run through books, but probably with no guidance from her indifferent father, and she came to her own ill-thought-out, half-baked intellectual ideas that bore everyone.  Kitty, the next child, was plainly a child of neglect. Girl children were becoming too abundant in the family, and if Mary had no beauty Kitty had few brains, and little of what Jane Austen called “resources.”  Lydia, the last, the family baby, was too strong a personality, too vital an animal nature to be ignored, and she was so much like Mrs. Bennet that she became her mother’s favorite, her spoiled darling, while her father’s disapproval could do nothing to improve her mind or manners, but only made Mrs. Bennet support her more.

Mrs. Bennet admired and was vastly proud of her oldest daughter’s looks (“I knew you could not be so beautiful for nothing!”), but the flamboyant, loud, flighty personality of Lydia was actually much more to her taste than the prudent, judicious, quiet Jane.  Jane, I think, did benefit from the early attention and devotion of both her parents, in her position as oldest child. Her manners, values and behavior were largely drawn from quietly grieved observations of her parents’ sad acrimony, which to her gentle sensitive nature, was infinitely painful.  Lizzy being on her father’s “side,” and much more in sympathy with him, took a much harsher view of her mother, than Jane, who pitied Mrs. Bennet. The sisters’ opinions lasted even to the end, when Jane Austen writes that Mrs. Bennet “visited” Mrs. Bingley but only “talked of” Mrs. Darcy.

In portraying influences on children Jane Austen seems to be allowing for both “nature” and “nurture.” Jane, she implies, came by her “super-excellent disposition” naturally. But where did she acquire her “delicate sense of honour”?  Neither parent seems to be rich in this characteristic, so who or what influenced her? Where did she learn to honour both parents, to never speak evil, or to betray confidences? Perhaps Mrs. Bennet spent time with her in early childhood, reading her the little conduct and prayer books written for children at that period, and they fell on more receptive ears in Jane than with more rebellious Lizzy, with her exposure to the worldly books in her father’s library. Both sisters seem also to have been influenced by their closeness to Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, Mrs. Bennet’s brother and sister-in-law, who would have been well able to teach them, by precept as well as the example of their own gentle behavior. From them both might have learned morality, as well as acquired some worldliness, so that Darcy, early in his acquaintance with Lizzy, was able to exclaim, “But you can not have lived always at Longbourn.”

It inevitably occurs to us to wonder if this wonderful portrait of two close sisters, Jane and Elizabeth, is based on the real sisterhood of Cassandra and Jane.  Jane Austen may have taken some of her examples of confidence, of sympathy between sisters, from her own experience, but that does not mean that Cassandra “was” Jane Bennet, or Jane Austen “was” Lizzy (though we must feel that there is a good deal of similarity between Lizzy’s cleverness and Jane Austen’s).  From what we know of Cassandra, her personality does not sound much like that of Jane Bennet. Her nephew once wrote, “Cassandra had the merit of having her temper always under command, but…Jane had the happiness of a temper that never required to be commanded,” and that hardly sounds like a description of the Bennet sisters. For that matter, were Elinor and Marianne in Sense and Sensibility like the Austen sisters? It’s possible to imagine that Cassandra may have had the judiciousness and rationality of an Elinor, and Jane Austen may have possessed some of the romantic, emotional, and sometimes wrong-headed qualities of Marianne at some time in her youth; but drawing on traits and stages, both felt and observed, is not a slavish copying, and Jane Austen firmly insisted that she did not put her family and friends in her books.  In her artistic method, rather than taking herself and her sister as models in creating her fictional sisters, Jane Austen might have used some traits, some memories, some sisterly feelings to color her palette, appplying them where they would make psychological sense and literary effectiveness.

Thus, Jane Bennet does not seem to personally resemble what we know of the firm, strong minded Cassandra Austen, but to be a more “reactive” personality, a sweet natured person who is shaped by her family circumstances.  Above all, that sweetness of Jane’s is what is abundantly clear, from first to last, up to and including the moment of her long-hoped-for engagement, when she exults, “Oh! Why is not every one so happy!” Here at the height of her own joy, she is thinking, as always, of others. And that, in the end, might be Jane Austen’s tribute to sisterhood.

 

41 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Aww! Brought tears to my eyes. A lovely tribute to the much overlooked Jane Bennet, Diana! Also, a brilliant examination of the Bennet family dynamics. Very well done indeed!

    1. Oh, Monica – how wonderful and how kind! Thank you so very much. (And thanks for tweeting too. You are a Pearl of Great Price – like Jane B., but wittier!)

    • Rosa on January 29, 2016 at 3:30 am
    • Reply

    Brilliant! I had always wondered how Jane Bennet could be such a perfect character with such parents. You answered all my questions and other. Thank you!

    1. Thank you, Rosa, I am so very glad you enjoyed this!

    • Madenna on January 29, 2016 at 6:42 am
    • Reply

    Wonderful post! Thank you.

    1. Aw, thanks! 🙂

    • Kristine Dhore on January 29, 2016 at 7:35 am
    • Reply

    I agree that the birth order and the disappointment over the lack of heir must have affected the quality of parenting with the girls. Mary and Kitty were ignored because they were once again, not male. By the time Lydia was born, Mr and Mrs Bennett may have been informed that further successful pregnancys were unlikely and this would cause Mrs Bennet to dote on her youngest, regardless of sex.

      • Ann Garland on January 29, 2016 at 5:22 pm
      • Reply

      And the fact that Mrs. Bennet sees Lydia as her mini-me.

    1. I hadn’t thought of that – but yes, Mrs. Bennet does treat Lydia like the youngest child when she knows there will be no more. Like Mrs. Price with her bratty youngest daughter in Mansfield Park. Thanks for your comment.

    • Michelle on January 29, 2016 at 9:00 am
    • Reply

    Brilliant summation of the Bennets. Thank you

      • Ann Garland on January 29, 2016 at 5:27 pm
      • Reply

      Thank goodness for the influence of the Gardiners! It is presumptuous of Mrs. Bennet to expect the Gardiners to contribute to the money to save Lydia from the daughter’s folly…especially when there are four children of the Gardiners.

    1. Thank you, Michelle – I’m so pleased you liked it!

    • rae on January 29, 2016 at 11:03 am
    • Reply

    Jane is much more than most readers give her credit for. Being an optimist and seeing good in people is not a bad thing unless it has already proven to be undeserved.

    I agree with your theory that Jane, being the first born, was probably adored by both parents who were still in the ‘honeymoon’ years of their marriage and over the moon that they had delivered a healthy baby. I think that the growing neglect with the following sisters was a product of the growing disappointment that they were not born boys. I can just hear it, ‘not another girl!’. Try again. Another girl. Try again. Another girl. Finally in Lydia Mrs. Bennet saw herself and grabbed onto that. Kitty, Mary and Lizzy were, to Mrs. B., just reminders that they had no heir for Longbourn.

    1. You’re right – I was relating in my post to the different stages of the Bennets’ marriage and how it made them treat their children, but I left out the Elephant in the Room: the fact that they wanted a BOY. Thanks for your good comment.

    • Carole in Canada on January 29, 2016 at 11:17 am
    • Reply

    I thoroughly enjoyed your post on Jane Bennet and the whole family dynamics. I would agree that Jane at times was the wiser in her reaction/feelings of others. She knew her sister well enough to know that arguing was not going to win the day in changing her opinions despite the fact that she (Jane) didn’t like conflict. Thank you!

    1. Glad you enjoyed it, Carole. And yes, don’t you think that sometimes the calmer one is able to think more clearly!

    • Carol on January 29, 2016 at 1:42 pm
    • Reply

    Wonderful post on the Bennet family, particularly Jane. She was almost too sweet to be real, almost saintly. How she managed to remain cool, calm, and collected within the Bennet family’s chaos is a miracle. Loved your insights into the Bennet family.

    1. Thank you, Carol, I’m glad my thoughts resonated with you. And you raise a point I hadn’t thought of, how very remarkable it is that Jane should be so cool, calm and collected in THAT family. The sane center.

  2. A very interesting post. I too was thinking that the Gardiners must have had a part. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Jane and the Bennets.

    1. Thanks for your comment, Reina. Definitely, Jane Austen wanted to show the “civilizing” influence of the Gardiners, because she needed something to explain the way Jane and Lizzy were!

    • John Karlsson on January 30, 2016 at 5:20 am
    • Reply

    A brilliant and beautifully written essay, Diana! Reminds me a little of the sibling dynamics in my own family!

    1. Thank you so much, John – and now I’m wondering in what ways your family resembles the Bennets! I was an only child, myself, and my son is an only child, so I’m only working from imagination here (smile).

  3. I don’t see Jane as having a serene temperament in the sense that I think she works for it. She has in her the perception of people as hard and mean and unloving and unfriendly and mercenary as Elizabeth has; what she says to Elizabeth when Elizabeth presses her is important. Yes at first she says Elizabeth is not balanced. But when they talk again and again and especially after her visit to London, she tells Elizabeth not that Elizabeth is wrong but that it pains Jane too much to have to live with such a perception however true it might be. That is, she represses her insight because it makes her deeper self unhappy. That’s far from bland. It accounts for how Mrs Bennet’s continual harping on the hypocritical behavior of the Bingley’s is so disturbing to her it makes her sick. So Mrs Gardiner removes her. It accounts for why she rushes from the room when her father makes a joke about how the mother harps (she must be grateful to have this ever brought up) and how Mr Wickham will jilt Elizabeth creditably. In fact he does. Mr Bennet’s vision is vindicated by the novel.

    Jane is not Cassandra Austen; she is a compound drawn from Jane Austen’s own complex motivations for writing her books the way she did. Your blog has brought me to dialogue with you over this. I’ve only heard one reader do justice to Jane: Irene Sutton (I believe was her name) in an old Cover-to-Cover reading of an unabridged text.

    1. Thank you for your comment, Ellen. Yes, I’d agree that Jane is certainly a person of great sensibility, who strives and struggles for serenity. But that’s not something Elizabeth would ever strive for. I don’t recognize the Irene Sutton or Cover to Cover reference, is it lit crit, or a performance?

      1. I guess I’m questioning whether she is serene and not from trembling inability to cope with the truths she does see, but from a judgement that what she sees suggests an awful world. She presents a holding firm against it.

        I see here a clue to much of our debates: the double life of Austen, the two different perspective; is this collusive fiction or fiction which exposes. The line of social life that Jane Bennet chooses is not quite the same as Elinor. Elinor says she will keep her genuine thoughts to herself, not repeat cant. Jane is saying she deliberately obscures her thoughts from herself to get through life.

        This might enable the writing of such books which are seen as so positive by some and not by others.

        I see as much Austen in Jane as I do Elizabeth Bennet — the way her brother, James, said there was as much of his sister in Marianne as Elinor Dashwood.

        We have said in previous older threads how there is far far more about Jane and Elizabeth’s relationships, debates presented through them than there is at all of Darcy and Elizabeth. and it’s ditto for Elinor and Marianne in Austen’s book.

        Sutton’s is a dramatic reading of P&P – a performance if you will.

    • Irene on January 30, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    • Reply

    Really enjoyed your thoughts about Jane which set me thinking that perhaps she was surrounded by wise and loving grandparents. Because of their age and experience they might have been more serene and secure with their first grandchild. The nervous young mother may have gratefully sat back while they doted on and cared for Baby Jane. When Baby Elizabeth arrived they may have kept Young Jane frequently in their company leaving (nervous) Mrs. Bennet free to practice motherhood.

    You mention Cassandra’s and Jane’s personalities and are they Jane and Elizabeth. I just finished reading, again, Fay Weldon’s “Letters to Alice on First Reading Jane Austen”. She quotes a female cousin’s comments on both young sisters: “Yesterday they all spent the day with us, and the more I see of Cassandra the more I admire – Jane is whimsical and affected.” Sometimes a younger sister has to try harder.

  4. Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Irene. I confess I never took the grandparents into consideration in my thinking, as Jane Austen didn’t have them appear in P & P – but of course, even if they were gone by the time the girls were grown up, the grandparents (at least some of them) may certainly have been a great influence on their granddaughters in their early years, just as you conjecture. I remember the quote about JA being “whimsical and affected,” it’s wonderful, and no stretch at all to believe that a girl with her mental qualities might not be playing parts and trying out attitudes in girlhood: something very natural about that!

    • Kathy on January 31, 2016 at 2:12 am
    • Reply

    I liked this post very much, and the description of how the Bennets’ evolving marriage may have formed Jane’s personality. Jane is often described as not as overtly “clever” as Lizzy in terms of being witty and well-read, but your post points out to me how Jane is sometimes more astute than Lizzy in how she navigates the personalities in her family. By being a calm, serene, gentle person, and looking for the better in people, she probably gets along with her family members, and doesn’t herself create more chaos in what seems to be a family that is often at odds, if not just boisterous and lively. Her personality lends itself to more family harmony, than Lizzy’s, who probably was quicker to criticize and judge.

    1. Jane Austen so wonderfully presents Lizzy as brilliant and Jane as merely sweet, that we scarcely notice that sometimes, when Lizzy is being wrong headed, it is Jane, in her quiet way, who is in the right. You make a good point, too, that her serene presence probably was a very good coping (and soothing) mechanism in such a chaotic family, while Lizzy was more abrasive. And these are reasons why we always see more and more in Jane Austen! Thank you for commenting, Kathy, and I’m glad you liked the post.

    • junewilliams7 on February 1, 2016 at 12:24 am
    • Reply

    I remember that – in the end of the tale – ‘Jane was not deceived’ by Miss Bingley, and that even Jane could not tolerate her mother’s frequent visits to Netherfield, thus forcing the Bingleys to move north. So she is not one for confrontation. I agree with you about her being the firstborn child in responsibility, but I also think she and Lizzy were able to visit often with the Gardiners as young children, something that decreased in frequency as the Gardiners started having their own babies.

    And then there is always the ‘switched at birth’ scenario. XD

    1. True – I wasn’t taking into consideration how much Jane did resist being a doormat. This is all testimony to her having good intelligence and not being a pushover, despite her being a softer, more forgiving character than Lizzy. And yes, that’s an excellent detail, that the Gardiners did obviously have great influence on their nieces but it would have lessened as their own family grew! Thanks for the insightful comment…and the “switched at birth” is a whole novel in itself, isn’t it!

    • Deborah on February 2, 2016 at 7:03 am
    • Reply

    I enjoyed this look into Jane’s character. I found it very interesting how the birth order of the sisters and the devolving of the Bennett’s marriage affected each of them. I have thought about it in the past, but never in such depth. Thank you for sharing.

    1. Glad you enjoyed it, Deborah. It is true with Jane Austen, the more you examine the more there is to find!

    • Sheila L. M. on February 3, 2016 at 11:20 pm
    • Reply

    My experience in working with Children, Youth and Families, in being a teacher for a few years and in rearing my own three is that each child is born with certain personality traits. Now the parents have to guide and mold those traits and some parents are better with some, some are better with all but you MUST know of adults reared in the same home environment with fair and equal treatment who turn out so differently. As a caseworker we all adhered to the case of peer group pressures causing a great many surprising behaviors. Jane’s calm, Elizabeth’s quick wit, etc. to me are inborn traits.

    1. Interesting and intelligent comment, Sheila – thanks so much. I’m in agreement with you, because even our cats had their distinct personalities as kittens! I’ve always thought nature is responsible for the largest share of people’s traits. You don’t see this said very often but I think it’s true. And I think Jane Austen thought so too.

  5. I have posted this very cool column on my Jane Austen Fan Club Page for all to enjoy.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/2210708105/

    1. Thank you so much for sharing my post, Samuel! Much appreciated. And it gave me an opportunity to find out about YOUR page, and join! Be seeing you around, methinks!

      1. Your welcome and thank you! Yes, my page allows me an outlet for my love of Jane Austen and her stories. It is also pretty fun to “hang out” with like-minded individuals.

        Interestingly, I discovered Jane Austen from the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice with Kiera Knightley. All of the females at my work were going on and on about it. I love a good Chick-Flick so off I went- and I was hooked. I have since learned that that version is inferior to the Six Hour BBC version with Colin Firth. And, of course, the book is superior to them all.

        I love your little article about Jane Bennet and I am sure my Janeite friends will too. I have also enjoyed the conversation going on in this comment thread.

        1. I was so pleased you liked my article! And it’s a delight to discover your lively page. Reading it, I can tell we see eye to eye on a lot of things. Well met, Samuel!

    • Sallianne Hines on February 10, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    • Reply

    As one of three sisters, I also think Jane and Lizzy would have greatly influenced each other’s development. With different inborn personalities, they sort of balanced each other out, in their different ways, and supported each other in a family where there really appeared to be no guiding force of wisdom from the parents. They could share and modify each other’s view of the world and offer each other comfort and hope for making their own lives different, perhaps more like the Gardiners.

    1. Absolutely, Sallianne. That’s a very thoughtful and sensitive comment, born of experience. This is wisdom you have that I don’t possess – as an only child, and mother of an only child! You give me food for thought. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.