Academic Details:
Name: Mulrajsinh Gohil
Roll No: 23
Enrollment No: 5108250016
Sem: 1
Batch: 2025-27
E-mail: mulrajsinhgohil100@gmail.com
Assignment Details:
Paper Name: Literature of Romantics
Paper No: 103
Paper Code: 22394
Unit: 1 - Pride And Prejudice By Jane Austen
Topic: Beyond Convention: How Elizabeth Bennet's Growth Redefines the "Marriage Plot"
Submitted To: Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University
Submitted Date: 6th November 2025
The following information, numbers are counted using QuillBot:
Images: 2
Words: 3644
Characters: 23360
Characters without spaces: 19756
Paragraphs: 40
Sentences: 156
Reading time: 14 m 35 s
Abstract
This essay argues that Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice subverts the conventional "marriage plot," transforming it from a "business-like" (Magee, p. 201) social transaction into a rigorous "instrument of growth" (Magee, p. 198) for its protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet. The novel's central concern is not simply her path to marriage, but the profound moral and social education she must undergo to become worthy of a rational union. This "growth" is twofold. First, this paper analyzes her social development, drawing on James Sherry’s "limits of society" framework to demonstrate how she must learn the "limits of sociability" and the corresponding value of "reserve" and "propriety" qualities she initially despises in Darcy. Second, it traces her moral and intellectual development, using Joel Weinsheimer’s "hierarchy of marriages" to argue that she ascends from the "dominion of chance" (prejudice, first impressions, "illusory omniscience") to the "rational and deliberate choice" of an evidence-based worldview. This dual transformation, which is mirrored by Darcy's own parallel growth, ultimately redefines their marriage. It is not a "storybook romance" (Magee, p. 201) or a submission to the "marriage lottery" (Weinsheimer, p. 407), but a new convention: a "dynamic growing relationship" (Magee, p. 205) forged by two equals who have earned self-knowledge.
Keywords
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet, Mr. Darcy, Marriage Plot, Instrument of Growth, Sociability, Reserve, Propriety, Chance, Rational Choice, Hierarchy of Marriages, Moral Development, Social Criticism, Epistemology
Research Question
How does Elizabeth Bennet's dual journey learning the value of "propriety" (Sherry) and moving from "chance" to "rational choice" (Weinsheimer) transform Austen's "courtship and marriage plot" (Magee) from a social convention into a process of moral and intellectual growth?
Hypothesis
This essay hypothesizes that Pride and Prejudice redefines the conventional marriage plot as an "instrument of growth." It argues that Elizabeth's journey is a dual education in social "propriety" (learning the "limits of sociability") and moral "choice" (overcoming "chance" and prejudice). This parallel growth, mirrored by Darcy, elevates their union from a "storybook romance" to a "rational" marriage of equals, which stands at the top of the novel's "hierarchy of marriages" as the antithesis of the "designed chance" that defines the matches of Charlotte Lucas and Lydia Bennet.
Introduction: The Plot as an Instrument of Growth
Jane Austen
Image Source: Wikipedia
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice opens with one of the most famous and cynical lines in English literature: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" (Austen, Ch. 1). This sentence immediately establishes the novel's preoccupation with the "courtship and marriage plot." For most of the society depicted in the novel, this "truth" is not a romantic aspiration but a socioeconomic reality, the "business" of Mrs. Bennet's life. Marriage is a "business-like" transaction (Magee, p. 201), a "marriage lottery" (Weinsheimer, p. 407) where daughters are paraded and estates are secured. This conventional view is most starkly embodied by Elizabeth's own friend, Charlotte Lucas, who, in her "pure and unadulterated" desire for a "settlement" (Austen, Ch. 22), pragmatically accepts the insufferable Mr. Collins. Charlotte's philosophy is the thesis of the conventional plot: "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance" (Austen, Ch. 6). She sees her new life as the best "chance" of security she could hope to obtain, a "pretense" of choice that is, in reality, a full surrender to the lottery (Weinsheimer, p. 408).
If this were the novel's final word, it would be a bleak satire indeed, a simple confirmation of the "truth universally acknowledged." But as William H. Magee argues in his study of Austen's narrative technique, her true artistic achievement was her "gradual enlargement of the courtship and marriage plot into a variable pattern for detailing the growth of successive heroines" (Magee, p. 198). In Pride and Prejudice, this plot is transformed from a simple framework for a "storybook romance" (Magee, p. 201) into a rigorous "instrument of growth." This instrument is applied with surgical precision to its protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet. The novel is not simply the story of how Elizabeth finds a husband; it is the story of how she forges the intellectual, moral, and social character necessary to deserve a partner and to recognize him when she finds him.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Image source: Gutenberg
Her journey redefines the conventional marriage plot, elevating it from a social game of "chance" to a profound moral and epistemological quest for "rational choice" (Weinsheimer, p. 404). This growth is twofold, a parallel journey of social and moral education. First, as James Sherry argues in "Pride and Prejudice: The Limits of Society," she must grow socially, learning the "limits of sociability" and the corresponding value of "reserve" and "propriety" qualities she initially despises (Sherry, pp. 612, 618). Second, as Joel Weinsheimer contends in "Chance and the Hierarchy of Marriages," she must grow morally and intellectually, learning to transcend the "venture" of prejudice and first impressions to achieve a state of "rational and deliberate choice" (Weinsheimer, p. 413). Through this dual transformation, Elizabeth’s journey, and Darcy’s parallel one redefines the ideal marriage not as a happy accident or a financial transaction, but as a conscious, earned, and rational union of two equals who have both struggled toward self-knowledge.
The Limits of Sociability: From Meryton to Lydia's "Impropriety"
When we first meet Elizabeth Bennet, her character is defined by a "gregarious and social" bias (Sherry, p. 612). She is a creature of "lively, playful" wit, whose greatest pleasures are company, conversation, and the observation of "follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies" (Austen, Ch. 11) which "divert" her. Her worldview is governed by "sociability," which, as James Sherry defines it in this context, is not an abstract social structure but the lived, felt experience of "company" and "companionship" (Sherry, p. 611). Her judgments of others are based almost exclusively on their performance in this social arena. It is this bias that dictates her initial, fateful reactions to the novel’s two central men. She is charmed by George Wickham almost instantly, precisely because he possesses all the external markers of sociability: an "agreeable" manner, a "happy readiness of conversation," and an "unreserve" that she mistakes for candour (Austen, Ch. 15-16). He plays the social game to perfection, presenting himself as a wronged victim and allowing his claims to be "publicly canvassed" (Sherry, p. 618). Elizabeth, whose values are "almost completely social in [their] bias" (Sherry, p. 614), is an eager audience. She accepts his narrative because it aligns with her socially-derived assessment, and she is "pleased with the preference of one" (Austen, Ch. 36).
Conversely, her repulsion from Mr. Darcy is just as immediate and just as rooted in her social values. At the Meryton ball, he comprehensively fails her test of "sociability." He is "haughty and reserved," he "declines being introduced," and he talks only to his own party (Sherry, p. 613). His refusal to dance, and his infamous slight that she is "tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me" (Austen, Ch. 3), are not just personal insults. To Elizabeth, they are profound social failures. He has refused to contribute to the "company," and she, "offended by the neglect of the other" (Austen, Ch. 36), finds it "easy to believe" him a "charmingly group’d" member of the "proud and conceited" Bingley sisters (Sherry, p. 613). Her prejudice is thus solidified; she sees his "reserve" not as a character trait but as a moral failing, a willful and arrogant rejection of the "sociability" she holds dear. This initial judgment is so powerful that it colors all her future interpretations. She actively seeks to "despise" him, and his subsequent attempts at conversation at Netherfield or at Charlotte's home are interpreted not as awkward attempts at "sociability" but as further evidence of his prideful, "unsocial" (Sherry, p. 613) character.
Elizabeth’s journey of "growth," therefore, must be a painful education in the "limits of sociability" (Sherry, p. 612). She must learn that "sociability" and "reserve" are not simple virtues and vices, and that a pleasing social manner can, in fact, be a mask for profound moral deficiency. The first instrument of this education is Wickham himself. His "general unreserve" about his private history with Darcy is the very quality that endears him to Elizabeth. Yet, as she is forced to realize later, this act is a "breach of such discretion and privacy," a profound "impropriety" that should have been her first warning sign (Sherry, p. 618). Wickham’s "sociability" is a weapon, used to "expose" Darcy and canvas his own claims "publicly."
The true turning point comes, of course, with Darcy's letter, delivered after his disastrous first proposal. Here, Elizabeth is forced to confront the concept that Sherry terms "propriety," a word that, in the 18th-century context, meant not just stuffy convention but a "respect for the individuality and reputation of other people" (Sherry, p. 618). Darcy’s letter is an exercise in this very "propriety." It is a private communication that "lays his private actions open" (Sherry, p. 621) only to her, giving her the evidence she needs. In it, he re-frames his "reserve." His objection to Jane and Bingley’s match was not just snobbery, but a legitimate concern for his friend, based on the "total want of propriety" (Austen, Ch. 35) displayed by her family particularly her mother's loud boasts and her father's public indifference. He reveals Wickham’s true character, a man who, in his attempted elopement with Georgiana, demonstrated the ultimate "impropriety."
This letter shatters Elizabeth's social framework. She is forced to re-evaluate her entire system of judgment: "Till this moment I never knew myself" (Austen, Ch. 36). She realizes that her father, in his "impropriety... as a husband," constantly "exposing his wife to the contempt of her own children" (Sherry, p. 618), has created an environment where "sociability" is unmoored from all morality. Her father's wit, which she shares and admires, is a form of "reserve" that has become a cynical, "indolent" (Weinsheimer, p. 412) withdrawal from his social "responsibility" (Sherry, p. 622) as a father. The catastrophic climax of this theme is Lydia’s elopement. This is not just a family scandal; it is the complete and logical collapse of a worldview built on "sociability" with no "reserve." Lydia, who has been "loud and forward" her entire life, is the novel's symbol of pure, unchecked "impropriety" (Sherry, p. 619). Her elopement is the ultimate act of "general unreserve," a total disregard for her "respectability in the world." For Elizabeth, it is a moment of profound shame and clarity. She sees in Lydia’s disgrace the true "limits of sociability" and the terrible price of her father’s failure to instill "propriety." This event, as Sherry notes, brings Elizabeth "closer in spirit to Darcy than ever before" (Sherry, p. 620). She has now learned, through the most painful lesson possible, that the "reserve" and "pride in, one's own name and character" (Sherry, p. 618) which she once despised in Darcy are not social vices, but essential moral safeguards.
From Chance to Choice: Escaping the Marriage Lottery
Elizabeth's social education runs parallel to a more profound intellectual and moral one. As Joel Weinsheimer argues, the novel presents a "hierarchy of marriages" ranked by the characters’ "responses to chance" (Weinsheimer, p. 406). At the bottom of this hierarchy are those who are "domination by chance," while at the top are those who achieve "rational and deliberate choice" (Weinsheimer, pp. 406, 404). Elizabeth's "growth" (Magee) is fundamentally a journey up this hierarchy, an escape from the "marriage lottery" (Weinsheimer, p. 407) that traps every other woman in her family.
The novel provides a clear spectrum of "imperfect responses to chance" (Weinsheimer, p. 406). At the very bottom is the union of Lydia and Wickham, a marriage "only brought together because their passions were stronger than their virtue" (Austen, Ch. 50). It is a marriage of pure, blind "chance", the "chance" of the regiment being posted in Meryton, the "chance" of Lydia's "self-willed" carelessness (Weinsheimer, p. 417) meeting Wickham's predatory designs. It is the "over-probable" (Weinsheimer, p. 417) outcome of two characters "fixed" in their flaws, an accidental collision of two self-willed, thoughtless individuals.
One step above this, though perhaps more pathetic, is the marriage of Charlotte Lucas and Mr. Collins. This is the illusion of choice. Charlotte, the novel’s pragmatist, believes she is making a rational decision, but her philosophy that "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance" (Austen, Ch. 6) is a "pretense" (Weinsheimer, p. 408). By "designing" to catch "any husband" (Weinsheimer, p. 408), she is not making a choice but rather surrendering to the "lottery" (Weinsheimer, p. 407). She is playing the odds. Her "plan" to "meet him accidentally in the lane" (Weinsheimer, p. 409) is a perfect metaphor for her philosophy: it is a designed chance. Her "choice" is simply a "willful self-deception" (Weinsheimer, p. 409) that masks her complete capitulation to a system of "chance." She has gambled that the "chance" of securing a home is worth the certainty of being married to a fool.
A step above this, though still flawed, is the "storybook romance" (Magee, p. 201) of Jane and Bingley. They are kind, selfless, and genuinely in love, but they are also utterly passive. Jane’s "benevolence of... heart" (Weinsheimer, p. 412) and her refusal to see ill in anyone make her incapable of "judgment." Bingley’s "caprice" in choosing Netherfield on an "accidental recommendation" (Weinsheimer, p. 410) extends to his romance. His reliance on Darcy’s opinion makes his "choice" merely an "unacknowledged determination... by chance" (Weinsheimer, p. 411). Their happiness is, therefore, "governed by chance" (Weinsheimer, p. 412). They are separated by the "chance" of Darcy’s interference and reunited by the "chance" of his confession. They are good, but they are not agents of their own destiny; they are "fixed" in their benevolence (Weinsheimer, p. 412) and thus do not truly "grow" (Magee).
Elizabeth begins the novel trapped in this same system of "chance." She believes she is a "studier of character" (Austen, Ch. 9), a person of rational judgment. But Weinsheimer rightly argues that "her prejudice originates in the coincidence of her being near enough to overhear Darcy’s snub" (Weinsheimer, p. 414). This is pure "chance." Her "daring as to risk" (Weinsheimer, p. 413) her judgment on Wickham’s story is not a "certainty" but a "venture" (Weinsheimer, p. 413) a gamble based on his pleasing appearance and her own wounded pride. Like a gambler, she has "courted prepossession and ignorance" (Austen, Ch. 36), and in doing so, she has "driven reason away" (Weinsheimer, p. 414). She is just as much a creature of "chance" as the other characters; she is simply blind to it, believing her "illusory omniscience" (Weinsheimer, p. 413) to be rational thought.
Once again, Darcy’s letter is the catalyst for her "growth." It is the moment, as Weinsheimer puts it, that "chance yields to pattern" (Weinsheimer, p. 411). The letter is a flood of new data, and it forces Elizabeth to do something she has never done before: "re-examine events" and, most significantly, begin "determining probabilities" (Weinsheimer, p. 414). This is the very definition of moving from "chance" to "rational choice." She is "released from the dominion of chance" (Weinsheimer, p. 414). Her "growth" is this painful intellectual awakening. She must dismantle her entire "illusory omniscience" and rebuild her worldview based on evidence, reflection, and the difficult, deliberate process of "determining probabilities." She is, for the first time, becoming an agent of "rational and deliberate choice."
Forging a New Convention: The Synthesis of Growth in Both Heroines
Elizabeth’s social and moral education culminates in her visit to Pemberley, a setting that symbolizes the novel's ultimate synthesis. The "courtship plot," as an "instrument of growth" (Magee, p. 198), has done its work. At Pemberley, Elizabeth is not just visiting a house; she is encountering the physical manifestation of Darcy’s true character, and in doing so, she sees the perfect union of the values she has struggled to learn.
Pemberley is the resolution of the "sociability vs. reserve" dialectic. The estate is not a reserved, "fastidious," and exclusive fortress, as she might have imagined. It is a place where "reserve" and "propriety" (Sherry, p. 618) form the foundation for a healthy, functioning, and social community. The house is built with "taste and elegance," not "ostentatious," and it is "uniting" (Austen, Ch. 43) with the landscape. His "propriety" is not snobbery; it is the responsible stewardship that makes him a "kind and attentive" landlord and the "best of masters," adored by his servants (Austen, Ch. 44). This is the "positive need for qualities like pride and discretion that Darcy possesses" (Sherry, p. 619).
Crucially, this synthesis is not one-sided. Darcy has been on his own parallel journey of "growth." As Magee points out, the ideal Austenian marriage is "an union that must have been to the advantage of both" (Magee, p. 207, quoting Austen). Elizabeth’s fiery rejection at Hunsford serves as the "instrument of growth" for him, just as his letter serves for her. He, too, was a creature of "chance," his character formed by the "circumstance" (Weinsheimer, p. 404) of his privileged upbringing, which taught him "to be selfish and overbearing" (Austen, Ch. 58). His first proposal, in which "he spoke of apprehension and anxiety" but his "countenance expressed real security" (Weinsheimer, p. 415, quoting Austen), was an act of arrogant "chance," assuming her acceptance as a given. Her refusal forces him into the same self-examination she undergoes. He must learn her value: "sociability." Thus, at Pemberley, he is "actively 'practicing' sociability" (Sherry, p. 621). He is "desirous to please" (Sherry, p. 620), he introduces his sister "with the greatest civility," and he goes out of his way to be agreeable to the Gardiners people who are "in trade" and whom his former self would have dismissed. He is learning her "sociability," just as she is learning his "propriety." They are, as Sherry notes, "meeting in the middle" (Sherry, p. 621).
This meeting is also the culmination of her journey from "chance" to "choice" (Weinsheimer, p. 404). At Pemberley, Elizabeth is actively "determining probabilities," gathering new evidence from Mrs. Reynolds's testimony, from Darcy's own altered "countenance," and from Georgiana’s "gentle" manner. She is building a case, piece by piece, based on "rational choice." The "growth" (Magee) is evident. She has moved from a "needless precipitancy in decision" (Weinsheimer, p. 414) to a state of careful, humble observation.
The final test, which solidifies this new union, is Lydia’s elopement. By the rules of the old, conventional plot, this event should be the end of their story. The "impropriety" (Sherry, p. 619) of the Bennet family, which Darcy had cited in his first proposal, is now irrevocably confirmed. The "chance" of this disaster should, by all logic, make their marriage impossible. But it is here that both characters demonstrate their "growth" and redefine the plot. Darcy’s intervention is the ultimate act of "rational and deliberate choice" (Weinsheimer, p. 404). As Sherry argues, he recognizes his own "responsibility" (Sherry, p. 622); his "reserve" and "pride" in remaining silent about Wickham had "enabled Wickham's character had been so misunderstood" (Sherry, p. 622). He now acts with "propriety," risking his own reputation ("exposing his family name to... scandal" (Sherry, p. 621)) to save the family of the woman he loves. This is not a "chance" act; it is a "deliberate choice" rooted in a new, social sense of responsibility.
When Elizabeth learns of his intervention, her own "growth" is complete. She has learned to see beyond the superficial "sociability" of Meryton and the "chance" of first impressions. She now understands his act for what it is: a profound moral choice, made by a man of "rational" "propriety." Their final proposal is, therefore, not a "conventional climax" (Magee, p. 199). It is a quiet, "sensible" conversation between two people who have been "educated" (Magee, p. 205) by their own failures. As Elizabeth herself admits, "by her... his mind might have been softened, his manners improved, and from his judgment... she must have received a benefit of greater importance" (Austen, Ch. 50, cited in Magee, p. 207). They have become equals through the "instrument" of the plot, which has forced them both to grow.
Conclusion: A Marriage of Rational Choice, Not Convention
The conventional marriage plot, as practiced by Charlotte Lucas, is a "business-like" (Magee, p. 201) submission to the "marriage lottery" (Weinsheimer, p. 407). It is a "choice" that is really "chance," a pragmatic surrender that offers security but no "growth." Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice seizes this convention and transforms it. The "courtship plot" becomes, in William H. Magee’s words, a powerful "instrument of growth," and Elizabeth Bennet is its primary subject. Her story is a painful but necessary journey toward self-knowledge.
This "growth" is a dual transformation. Socially, she must learn, as James Sherry illuminates, the "limits of sociability." She must evolve from a "gregarious" girl, charmed by the "unreserve" of a Wickham, to a mature woman who understands the moral necessity of "reserve" and "propriety", the very qualities she once despised in Darcy. Intellectually and morally, she must, as Joel Weinsheimer demonstrates, ascend the "hierarchy of marriages." She must "release" herself from the "dominion of chance", the "venture" of prejudice and the gamble of first impressions, and learn to wield the difficult, evidence-based tool of "rational and deliberate choice."
This redefined plot, with its emphasis on "growth," "propriety," and "choice," is what makes the final union of Elizabeth and Darcy so profoundly satisfying. It is not a "storybook romance" (Magee, p. 201) or a "chance"-driven happy ending like that of Jane and Bingley. It is a new kind of literary marriage: a union of equals, earned through mutual struggle, self-reflection, and rational choice. This synthesis of her "sociability" and his "reserve," of her "liveliness" and his "judgment" (Magee, p. 207), creates a final marriage that is not an end, but a "dynamic growing relationship" (Magee, p. 205). It is the novel’s ultimate, and most unconventional, achievement.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Project Gutenberg, 2013, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1342/1342-h/1342-h.htm.
Magee, William H. “Instrument of Growth: The Courtship and Marriage Plot in Jane Austen’s Novels.” The Journal of Narrative Technique, vol. 17, no. 2, 1987, pp. 198–208. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30225182. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
Sherry, James. “Pride and Prejudice: The Limits of Society.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 19, no. 4, 1979, pp. 609–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/450251. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
Weinsheimer, Joel. “Chance and the Hierarchy of Marriages in Pride and Prejudice.” ELH, vol. 39, no. 3, 1972, pp. 404–19. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2872192. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
0 Comments