How Pride and Prejudice Portrays the Influence of Family on Romantic Relationships
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction: Family Dynamics and Romance in Austen’s World
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, published in 1813, offers one of English literature’s most penetrating examinations of how family influences romantic relationships. While the novel is celebrated primarily as a love story between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy, it is equally a study of how family background, parental behavior, sibling relationships, and familial reputation shape romantic prospects and choices. In Regency England, marriage was never merely a private arrangement between two individuals; it represented the merging of families, the transmission of property and status, and the reflection of family character and breeding. Austen demonstrates throughout Pride and Prejudice that family influence operates on multiple levels: families can obstruct or facilitate romantic relationships, family behavior can attract or repel potential suitors, and family dynamics profoundly shape individual character and romantic choices (Kirkham, 1983).
The Bennet family stands at the center of this exploration, providing the novel’s primary example of how dysfunctional family dynamics affect daughters’ romantic prospects. Mrs. Bennet’s vulgarity, the younger sisters’ wildness, Mr. Bennet’s irresponsible detachment, and the family’s general impropriety create significant obstacles for Jane and Elizabeth’s romantic happiness. Conversely, Darcy’s protective relationship with his sister Georgiana, his loyalty to family friend Bingley, and his sense of familial duty demonstrate how positive family influences can shape admirable character. Through multiple families—the Bennets, the Darcys, the Bingleys, the Lucases, and the de Bourghs—Austen constructs a comprehensive portrait of family influence that acknowledges both its constraining power and the possibility of individual transcendence. This essay examines how Pride and Prejudice portrays family influence on romantic relationships, revealing Austen’s sophisticated understanding of the tension between familial obligation and individual desire, between family reputation and personal merit.
The Bennet Family Dysfunction: A Liability to Romance
The Bennet family’s dysfunction creates the novel’s central obstacle to successful romantic relationships, demonstrating how poor parenting and family impropriety can damage daughters’ matrimonial prospects. Mr. Bennet’s failure as a father and husband establishes the foundation of family dysfunction: having married for superficial attraction and discovering his wife’s intellectual limitations, he retreats into sarcastic detachment, abdicating his responsibilities for managing the household, controlling his younger daughters, or providing financially for his family’s future. His treatment of his wife with public contempt, his mockery of his daughters (except Elizabeth and Jane), and his failure to save money or impose discipline create a household lacking proper guidance and authority. Mrs. Bennet, meanwhile, contributes her own brand of embarrassment through her vulgarity, her loud obsession with marrying off her daughters, and her complete lack of discretion or social awareness (Johnson, 1988).
The consequences of this family dysfunction for the Bennet daughters’ romantic prospects are severe and repeatedly emphasized throughout the novel. When Darcy first encounters the Bennet family at social gatherings, he observes Mrs. Bennet’s vulgarity, Mary’s pedantic performances, and the younger sisters’ wild behavior with disgust and alarm. These observations become central to his decision to separate Bingley from Jane, as he explains in his letter to Elizabeth: “The situation of your mother’s family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison to that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father” (Austen, 1813, p. 198). This frank assessment reveals how family behavior directly impacts romantic opportunities: even Jane’s beauty, sweetness, and personal merit cannot overcome the liability of her family’s impropriety. The Bennet family’s dysfunction thus operates as both obstacle to romance and test of character, distinguishing those suitors who can see beyond family embarrassment to individual worth from those who cannot (Brown, 1979).
Parental Influence: Mrs. Bennet’s Matrimonial Schemes
Mrs. Bennet’s aggressive matrimonial scheming represents one form of direct parental influence on romantic relationships, albeit one that Austen portrays as counterproductive and often harmful. Mrs. Bennet’s single-minded focus on marrying off her daughters drives much of the novel’s plot: she manipulates circumstances to throw Jane and Bingley together, she schemes to have Elizabeth marry Mr. Collins, and she celebrates Lydia’s disastrous elopement as a successful marriage. Her famous opening declaration—”If I can but see one of my daughters happily settled at Netherfield, and all the others equally well married, I shall have nothing to wish for”—establishes her primary life goal and motivation (Austen, 1813, p. 8). However, her methods consistently undermine her objectives: her loud discussions of Jane’s beauty and Bingley’s fortune embarrass everyone present, her obvious scheming makes the family appear mercenary and desperate, and her complete lack of subtlety or dignity repels the very suitors she seeks to attract.
The novel demonstrates that Mrs. Bennet’s brand of parental influence—controlling, mercenary, and indiscriminate—damages rather than helps her daughters’ romantic prospects. Her insistence that Elizabeth accept Mr. Collins’s proposal, despite Elizabeth’s clear aversion to him, shows her willingness to sacrifice her daughter’s happiness for economic security. Her encouragement of Lydia’s frivolous behavior and her permission for Lydia to accompany the militia to Brighton directly enable the elopement that nearly destroys the family’s reputation. Most significantly, her embarrassing behavior at every social occasion makes gentlemen like Darcy question whether any connection with the Bennet family is worth pursuing. The contrast between Mrs. Bennet’s frantic, counterproductive meddling and Mr. Bennet’s negligent indifference suggests that neither extreme of parental involvement serves children’s romantic interests well. Austen advocates instead for a middle path: parental guidance that protects children from disastrous choices while respecting their judgment and emotional needs, as exemplified by Mr. Bennet’s eventual support for Elizabeth’s refusal of Mr. Collins and his blessing of her marriage to Darcy (Nardin, 1973).
Mr. Bennet’s Failures: Negligence and Long-Term Consequences
While Mrs. Bennet’s active interference damages her daughters’ prospects, Mr. Bennet’s passive negligence proves equally harmful, demonstrating that parental influence can be destructive through absence as well as excess. Mr. Bennet’s retreat into his library and his detachment from family management stem from disappointment in his marriage, but they represent a fundamental abdication of paternal responsibility. He allows his younger daughters to run wild without discipline or guidance, he fails to control his wife’s embarrassing behavior, and most critically, he has not saved money to provide for his daughters’ futures despite knowing that the estate is entailed away from them. His sarcastic amusement at his family’s follies reveals his contempt but also his unwillingness to take the difficult actions necessary to correct them (Tanner, 1986).
The consequences of Mr. Bennet’s negligence extend throughout the novel, affecting all his daughters’ romantic prospects and futures. His failure to provide adequate dowries means that his daughters must marry for financial security, limiting their options and making them vulnerable to predatory suitors like Wickham. His inability to control Lydia directly enables the elopement that threatens to destroy Jane and Elizabeth’s romantic prospects: had he exerted proper authority, Lydia would never have gone to Brighton, and had he saved money responsibly, Wickham could not have held them ransom for payment to marry Lydia. Elizabeth explicitly recognizes her father’s culpability: “She felt all the injustice which Elizabeth had done in attributing Lydia’s present danger to Mr. Bennet’s negligence” (Austen, 1813, p. 305). The novel’s treatment of Mr. Bennet is sympathetic but critical, acknowledging his intelligence and affection for Elizabeth while condemning his failure to fulfill his responsibilities. Through Mr. Bennet, Austen demonstrates that parental influence on romantic relationships includes not only direct actions but also failures to act: the protection not provided, the guidance not offered, the discipline not enforced, and the financial security not secured all profoundly shape children’s romantic opportunities and choices (McMaster, 1996).
Sibling Influence: The Younger Bennets’ Impact on Their Sisters
The behavior of younger siblings significantly influences older sisters’ romantic prospects in Pride and Prejudice, demonstrating how family reputation operates collectively rather than individually. Lydia, Kitty, and even Mary’s conduct at social gatherings directly affects how potential suitors perceive Jane and Elizabeth. Lydia and Kitty’s loud, boy-crazy behavior at balls and assemblies, their shameless pursuit of militia officers, and their general wildness create an impression of family-wide impropriety that even Jane and Elizabeth’s exemplary conduct cannot entirely overcome. Mary’s pedantic displays and insistence on performing despite her limited musical abilities add another dimension of embarrassment. These younger sisters’ behavior factors significantly into Darcy’s initial assessment of the Bennet family as unsuitable connections for his friend Bingley (Monaghan, 1981).
The Lydia-Wickham elopement represents the extreme consequence of sibling influence on family reputation and romantic prospects. Lydia’s thoughtless action in running away with Wickham without marriage prospects threatens to destroy not only her own future but also her sisters’ chances of respectable marriages. The scandal of a daughter living with a man outside marriage would make the entire family unmarriageable in respectable society. Elizabeth immediately recognizes the catastrophic implications: “Lydia—the humiliation, the misery she was bringing on them all, soon swallowed up every private care; and covering her face with her handkerchief, Elizabeth was soon lost to everything else” (Austen, 1813, p. 278). The crisis demonstrates how thoroughly individual behavior affects family reputation and how family reputation, in turn, affects all members’ romantic prospects. Only Darcy’s expensive intervention—paying Wickham’s debts and providing Lydia’s dowry—saves the family from complete social ruin. Through the Lydia subplot, Austen shows that romantic relationships in Regency England were never purely individual affairs; they were embedded in family networks where one member’s misconduct could destroy opportunities for all (Fergus, 1991).
Darcy’s Family Loyalty: Protection and Pride
In contrast to the Bennet family’s dysfunction, Fitzwilliam Darcy’s approach to family demonstrates how protective loyalty and family pride can shape both character and romantic choices. Darcy’s relationship with his younger sister Georgiana reveals his deep sense of familial responsibility and his willingness to sacrifice personal comfort for family duty. When Georgiana was nearly seduced by Wickham at age fifteen, Darcy intervened to prevent the elopement, then maintained close supervision and protective care over his sister. His reluctance to expose Wickham’s villainy stems from his desire to protect Georgiana’s reputation, even at the cost of his own: he allows Elizabeth and others to believe Wickham’s lies rather than reveal his sister’s near-disgrace. This protective instinct demonstrates admirable family loyalty while also showing how family considerations constrain individual action (Wiltshire, 1992).
However, Darcy’s family pride also creates obstacles to his romantic happiness, demonstrating that even positive family loyalty can become excessive. His initial resistance to his attraction for Elizabeth stems largely from consciousness of his family’s superior status and his concern for how an alliance with the Bennet family would affect the Darcy name and his sister. His first proposal brutally articulates these family-based objections, mentioning “the inferiority of your birth” and the “family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination” (Austen, 1813, p. 189). Lady Catherine de Bourgh embodies this family pride taken to its tyrannical extreme: she attempts to forbid Darcy’s engagement to Elizabeth based purely on family status considerations, declaring that “the shades of Pemberley” must not be “polluted” by such a connection (Austen, 1813, p. 356). Darcy’s evolution throughout the novel involves learning to balance legitimate family loyalty with recognition that individual merit matters more than family status, ultimately defying his aunt and accepting Elizabeth’s family despite their impropriety. His transformation demonstrates that healthy family influence should guide without controlling, protect without stifling, and honor family connections without becoming enslaved to family pride (Kirkham, 1983).
The Lucas Family: Pragmatism and Social Climbing
The Lucas family provides an alternative model of family influence on romantic relationships, one characterized by pragmatic calculation and social ambition rather than the Bennets’ dysfunction or the Darcys’ aristocratic pride. Sir William Lucas’s delight in his knighthood and his family’s consciousness of their superior status to the Bennets (derived from Sir William’s successful business career) creates an atmosphere where social advancement through marriage is explicitly valued. Lady Lucas’s satisfaction when Charlotte accepts Mr. Collins stems partly from genuine relief that her aging daughter has secured her future, but also from competitive triumph over her friend Mrs. Bennet, whose daughter rejected the same man. This competitive dynamic between neighboring families reveals how family ambition and social positioning influence matrimonial choices (Spring, 1983).
Charlotte Lucas’s decision to marry Mr. Collins demonstrates how family circumstances and family values shape romantic choices. At twenty-seven with limited beauty and a small dowry, Charlotte faces diminishing marriage prospects and the likelihood of becoming a permanent burden on her family. Her practical acceptance of Mr. Collins’s proposal reflects not only her personal pragmatism but also her family’s values: the Lucases have risen through commercial success and continued social climbing, making Charlotte’s marriage to a clergyman with property a reasonable continuation of family strategy. Sir William and Lady Lucas’s approval of the match contrasts sharply with Elizabeth’s horror, revealing different family cultures and values regarding marriage. The Lucas family’s influence on Charlotte’s romantic choice is not coercive—they do not force her to accept Mr. Collins—but it is formative, having shaped her practical, unromantic approach to matrimony and her consciousness of limited options. Through the Lucas family, Austen shows how family economic position, family values about marriage, and family social ambitions all influence individual romantic decisions without necessarily involving direct parental interference (Copeland, 1997).
Lady Catherine de Bourgh: Aristocratic Family Tyranny
Lady Catherine de Bourgh represents the extreme end of aristocratic family control over romantic relationships, embodying the view that matrimonial choices should be dictated entirely by family strategy and dynastic considerations rather than individual preference. Her plan for Darcy to marry her sickly daughter Anne, formed when they were both in their cradles, exemplifies the aristocratic practice of arranging marriages to consolidate family wealth and maintain bloodline purity. Lady Catherine’s presumption that this infant arrangement constitutes a binding engagement, and her fury when Darcy shows interest in Elizabeth, reveals her belief that family heads have absolute authority over younger generation’s romantic choices. Her confrontation with Elizabeth demonstrates tyrannical family influence taken to its logical extreme: “Tell me once for all, are you engaged to him? Though I know it must be a scandalous falsehood, I want to hear you deny it” (Austen, 1813, p. 353).
Lady Catherine’s attempted interference in Darcy’s romantic life, and her spectacular failure, represents Austen’s critique of excessive family control and aristocratic presumption. Her arguments against the match rest entirely on family status and dynastic considerations: the de Bourgh family’s ancient lineage, Pemberley’s noble heritage, and the pollution that would result from Darcy marrying beneath his station. She cannot conceive that individual merit or personal compatibility might outweigh these family considerations. However, her bullying tactics backfire completely: her interrogation of Elizabeth only strengthens Elizabeth’s resolve, while her report of the conversation to Darcy (intended to horrify him) actually gives him hope that Elizabeth’s feelings have changed. Lady Catherine’s defeat demonstrates that individual choice can triumph over family tyranny when individuals possess sufficient courage and principle. Through Lady Catherine, Austen critiques the aristocratic view that family status should determine all matrimonial arrangements while also showing that such tyrannical control was losing its power even in Regency England, as individual preference increasingly challenged family authority (Duckworth, 1971).
The Gardiner Family: Positive Family Influence
Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, Elizabeth’s aunt and uncle, represent the novel’s most positive example of family influence on romantic relationships, demonstrating how supportive, sensible relatives can facilitate rather than obstruct romantic happiness. The Gardiners provide a stark contrast to the Bennet parents: they are happily married, sensible, affectionate toward their nieces, and possessed of genuine judgment and discretion. Mrs. Gardiner’s warm relationship with Elizabeth and Jane, combined with her wisdom and experience, makes her an ideal confidante and advisor on romantic matters. Her gentle warning to Elizabeth about the imprudence of becoming attached to Wickham, given his lack of financial prospects, exemplifies appropriate family guidance that informs without controlling: “You are too sensible a girl, Lizzy, to fall in love merely because you are warned against it” (Austen, 1813, p. 145).
The Gardiners’ positive influence extends beyond advice to active facilitation of Elizabeth and Darcy’s eventual union. Their inclusion of Elizabeth on their northern tour brings her to Derbyshire and Pemberley, where the crucial reconciliation with Darcy begins. More significantly, the Gardiners’ own merit—their intelligence, taste, and respectability despite being in trade—challenges Darcy’s class prejudices and helps him recognize that worth of character transcends social position. Darcy’s warm acceptance of the Gardiners, his invitations to them at Pemberley, and his evident respect for them demonstrate his growth beyond rigid class consciousness. The Gardiners thus influence Elizabeth’s romantic outcome both directly (through bringing her to Pemberley) and indirectly (through demonstrating to Darcy that the Bennet family connections include people of genuine worth). Through the Gardiners, Austen presents her ideal of family influence on romance: supportive but not controlling, protective but not stifling, offering guidance while respecting individual judgment and choice (Johnson, 1988).
Georgiana Darcy: The Vulnerable Younger Sibling
Georgiana Darcy’s near-elopement with Wickham and its aftermath demonstrate how younger siblings’ vulnerability can shape older siblings’ romantic choices and behavior. At only fifteen, Georgiana was targeted by Wickham precisely because of her fortune and her sheltered, naïve character. Her trust in Wickham—based on childhood acquaintance and his superficial charm—nearly led to disastrous elopement before her brother discovered and prevented it. This incident profoundly affects Darcy’s subsequent behavior and romantic choices: it makes him more cautious, more protective, and more suspicious of fortune-hunters. His determination to conceal Georgiana’s near-disgrace, even at cost to his own reputation, demonstrates the protective instinct that governs his family relationships (Stovel, 1991).
Georgiana’s presence in the novel also influences Darcy’s relationship with Elizabeth in multiple ways. His initial reticence to expose Wickham’s villainy to Elizabeth stems from his protective instinct toward his sister, allowing Elizabeth’s prejudice against him to continue unchecked. Later, Georgiana’s presence at Pemberley during Elizabeth’s visit enables Elizabeth to observe Darcy’s tender, protective relationship with his sister, confirming his capacity for genuine affection and family loyalty. Georgiana’s shy admiration for Elizabeth and her evident pleasure in her brother’s attention to Elizabeth also signal to both parties that the other would be welcomed into the family. The younger sister thus serves as a bridge between the lovers while also representing what Darcy seeks to protect: innocent, vulnerable family members who require mature, responsible guardianship. Through Georgiana, Austen explores how responsibility for younger family members shapes older siblings’ character and romantic choices, generally for the better (Litz, 1965).
The Bingley-Darcy Friendship: Chosen Family and Influence
The deep friendship between Charles Bingley and Fitzwilliam Darcy demonstrates how chosen familial relationships—friendships treated as family—exert significant influence on romantic decisions. Darcy’s sense of responsibility for Bingley, whom he regards almost as a younger brother, motivates his interference in Bingley’s courtship of Jane Bennet. When Darcy concludes (mistakenly) that Jane does not love Bingley, he feels obligated to protect his friend from an imprudent match with a woman who might be merely mercenary. His explanation to Elizabeth reveals this protective motivation: “I did everything in my power to separate my friend from your sister. I believed her indifferent to him, and I could not allow my friend, so deservedly dear to me, to be thrown away on an unworthy connection” (Austen, 1813, p. 197). While this interference proves wrong and harmful, it demonstrates how familial-type loyalty in friendship can influence romantic relationships.
The Bingley-Darcy friendship also affects romantic relationships through influence over each other’s judgment. Bingley’s excessive deference to Darcy’s opinion makes him vulnerable to Darcy’s mistakes: when Darcy suggests that Jane does not love him, Bingley accepts this judgment despite his own observations and feelings. Caroline Bingley’s influence over her brother—encouraging him to remain in London and forget Jane—represents another form of quasi-familial interference, motivated by her snobbery and her own designs on Darcy. The eventual reconciliation of Bingley and Jane requires Darcy to acknowledge his error and actively facilitate their reunion, demonstrating how the same friendship that obstructed the romance can also enable its success when properly directed. Through the Bingley-Darcy friendship, Austen shows that family influence on romantic relationships extends beyond biological family to include close friends and chosen family members whose opinions and actions significantly shape romantic outcomes (Mooneyham, 1988).
Family Reputation and Marriage Prospects: The Social Calculus
Pride and Prejudice repeatedly demonstrates how family reputation operates as social currency in the marriage market, directly affecting romantic prospects and matrimonial negotiations. In Regency England, family reputation encompassed not only individual behavior but collective family character: the respectability of family occupation, the propriety of family members’ conduct, the quality of family connections, and the family’s social standing all contributed to an overall assessment that shaped marriage possibilities. The novel’s characters explicitly calculate these factors when evaluating potential matches. Darcy’s friend Colonel Fitzwilliam explains to Elizabeth that as a younger son, he must “have an object” in his choice of wife—meaning money—because family position without fortune requires him to marry for financial advantage (Austen, 1813, p. 183).
The Bennet family’s problematic reputation creates concrete obstacles for Jane and Elizabeth’s romantic prospects that extend beyond personal embarrassment to affect practical marriage negotiations. When Darcy lists his objections to Bingley’s match with Jane, he mentions not only Jane’s immediate family’s impropriety but also “the defect of your relations,” referring to the Bennets’ connections to trade through the Gardiners and their lack of distinguished ancestry (Austen, 1813, p. 198). These reputation-based considerations nearly prevent two excellent matches between worthy individuals, demonstrating the power of family reputation to override individual merit. Conversely, Darcy’s stellar family reputation—the ancient lineage, the great estate, the connections to aristocracy—makes him the most eligible bachelor in the novel despite his initial proud and disagreeable behavior. Through these examples, Austen reveals the marriage market’s ruthless calculus while also critiquing its emphasis on family reputation over individual character. Elizabeth and Darcy’s eventual union represents a triumph of individual merit over family reputation considerations, but the novel acknowledges the real power such considerations held in Regency society (Perkin, 1969).
Overcoming Family Obstacles: Elizabeth and Darcy’s Triumph
The development of Elizabeth and Darcy’s relationship represents the novel’s most complete exploration of how romantic partnerships must navigate family influences, overcome family obstacles, and ultimately reconcile individual choice with family considerations. Their courtship faces family-based obstacles from multiple directions: the Bennet family’s impropriety threatens to make Elizabeth unmarriageable in Darcy’s social circle, while Lady Catherine’s aristocratic presumption threatens to prevent Darcy’s marriage to anyone not meeting her dynastic standards. Elizabeth must overcome not only Darcy’s initial pride and her own prejudice but also her justified mortification at her family’s behavior and her concern about joining a family as proud as the Darcys. Darcy must overcome not only his class prejudices but also his family pride and his protective instinct that initially makes him view the Bennet connections as dangerous contamination (Hardy, 1979).
The eventual success of their union demonstrates both the possibility of transcending family obstacles and the wisdom of acknowledging family realities. Darcy’s transformation includes learning that individual worth matters more than family connections, accepting Elizabeth’s embarrassing relations as the price of winning her, and openly defying Lady Catherine’s tyrannical family authority. Elizabeth’s transformation includes recognizing the legitimate basis for some of Darcy’s family concerns while refusing to be intimidated by social inequality. Their marriage succeeds precisely because it balances individual choice with family wisdom: they choose each other based on genuine compatibility and love, but they do so with mature awareness of the family complications they face and realistic strategies for managing them. The novel’s ending, with Elizabeth as mistress of Pemberley and the Gardiners welcomed there despite Lady Catherine’s continued disapproval, represents Austen’s vision of how healthy family relationships should work: respecting family while not being enslaved by family pride, welcoming worthy family members regardless of social position, and ultimately prioritizing individual merit and personal happiness over rigid family status considerations (Johnson, 1988).
Conclusion: The Complex Web of Family Influence
Jane Austen’s portrayal of family influence on romantic relationships in Pride and Prejudice reveals a sophisticated understanding of how families shape individual romantic choices through multiple, often contradictory mechanisms. The novel demonstrates that family influence operates both directly through parental control, sibling behavior, and family interference, and indirectly through family reputation, family values, and the character formation that occurs within family contexts. The Bennet family’s dysfunction creates obstacles for Jane and Elizabeth while enabling Lydia’s disastrous elopement. The Darcy family’s pride both elevates and constrains its members. The Lucas family’s pragmatism shapes Charlotte’s marital choice. Lady Catherine’s tyranny attempts to control Darcy’s romantic future. The Gardiners’ wisdom and merit facilitate Elizabeth’s happiness.
Through these varied examples, Austen argues that while family influence is powerful and often determinative in Regency England’s marriage market, individual character and choice retain the possibility of transcendence. The novel’s heroine and hero both refuse to let family considerations—whether the embarrassment of improper relations or the pride of aristocratic connections—entirely determine their romantic choices. However, Austen also acknowledges that such transcendence requires exceptional individuals: the courage to defy social expectations, the judgment to recognize true worth, and the character to overcome pride and prejudice. The tension between family influence and individual autonomy, between collective family reputation and personal merit, between familial duty and romantic desire remains unresolved in absolute terms, reflecting the genuine complexity of romantic relationships embedded in family networks. More than two centuries after publication, Pride and Prejudice continues to resonate because these tensions remain relevant, as individuals continue to navigate the complex interplay between family background, family expectations, and personal romantic choices.
References
Austen, J. (1813). Pride and prejudice. London: T. Egerton.
Brown, L. (1979). “The business of marrying and mothering.” In M. A. Schofield & C. Macheski (Eds.), Fetter’d or free? British women novelists, 1670-1815 (pp. 27-43). Athens: Ohio University Press.
Copeland, E. (1997). “Money.” In E. Copeland & J. McMaster (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Jane Austen (pp. 131-148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duckworth, A. M. (1971). The improvement of the estate: A study of Jane Austen’s novels. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fergus, J. (1991). “The professional woman writer.” In E. Copeland & J. McMaster (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Jane Austen (pp. 12-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardy, B. (1979). A reading of Jane Austen. New York: New York University Press.
Johnson, C. L. (1988). Jane Austen: Women, politics, and the novel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirkham, M. (1983). Jane Austen, feminism and fiction. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.
Litz, A. W. (1965). Jane Austen: A study of her artistic development. New York: Oxford University Press.
McMaster, J. (1996). Jane Austen the novelist: Essays past and present. London: Macmillan.
Monaghan, D. (1981). Jane Austen: Structure and social vision. London: Macmillan.
Mooneyham, L. (1988). Romance, language, and education in Jane Austen’s novels. London: Macmillan.
Nardin, J. (1973). Those elegant decorums: The concept of propriety in Jane Austen’s novels. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Perkin, H. (1969). The origins of modern English society, 1780-1880. London: Routledge.
Spring, D. (1983). “Interpreters of Jane Austen’s social world: Literary critics and historians.” In J. Todd (Ed.), Jane Austen: New perspectives (pp. 53-72). New York: Holmes & Meier.
Stovel, B. (1991). “Further reading for Janeites.” Persuasions, 13, 148-158.
Tanner, T. (1986). Jane Austen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wiltshire, J. (1992). Jane Austen and the body: The picture of health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.