Iconic Characters: Lydia Bennett and Maria Bertram

Last night our older girls decided to put on the big box office adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. As I joined them about 1/4 way through the film I was again reminded of the honesty and candor with which Jane Austen treated her characters, but especially her female characters.


BBC’s Maria Bertram

As we watched the the feral and impulsive Lydia Bennett, I was reminded of the equally unsavory Maria Bertram from one of Austen’s lesser acclaimed novels, Mansfield Park.  Maria was certainly the more offensive of the two, having married one man for security:

Being now in her twenty-first year, Maria Bertram was beginning to think matrimony a duty; and as a marriage with Mr. Rushworth would give her the enjoyment of a larger income than her father’s, as well as ensure her the house in town, which was now a prime object, it became, by the same rule of moral obligation, her evident duty to marry Mr. Rushworth if she could.

And later running off with another man -Henry Crawford- for lust. Simple propriety, not to mention social reprisals, should have dictated that Maria could never behave so shamelessly. She did however, and Austen set the stage earlier for what was to come:

When they came within the influence of Sotherton associations, it was better for Miss Bertram, who might be said to have two strings to her bow. She had Rushworth-feelings, and Crawford-feelings, and in the vicinity of Sotherton, the former had considerable effect.

Needless to say, Maria’s tale does not end well.

With Lydia Bennett, however, Austen writes a softer landing after she runs off with a handsome and caddish soldier who has no intention of making an honest woman of her. She however is wholly oblivious to this pertinent imformation:

You will laugh when you know where I am gone, and I cannot help laughing myself at your surprise to-morrow morning, as soon as I am missed. I am going to Gretna Green, and if you cannot guess with who, I shall think you a simpleton, for there is but one man in the world I love, and he is an angel. I should never be happy without him, so think it no harm to be off. You need not send them word at Longbourn of my going, if you do not like it, for it will make the surprise the greater when I write to them and sign my name Lydia Wickham.

She is rescued by none other than Mr. Darcy*, who pays Wickham to marry her, and the family is spared even greater embarrassment than they already endure.


Lydia- 2005 Pride and Prejudice

Perhaps because she was much younger (15), more impressionable, and less well raised than the character in Mansfield Park, Lydia is spared the full brunt of the natural consequences of her deplorable stunt. Her mother was loud, ill-mannered, and nosy. He father, having awakened to the reality that the woman he married in his youth was foolish and insufferable beneath her beauty,  had largely retreated from the life of the family. Lydia was certainly her mother’s daughter.

Maria and Lydia as presented by Austen, are achingly familiar and in 2016, and all too common.  Austen, like several authors of her era, effectively exposes the motivations, nature, and moral crises of her characters, male and female alike, head on. No cover is given for “extenuating circumstances” or “childhood hurts”. When her female characters do horrid things it is because they are women of horrible character. Period.

Lydia and Maria remind us that despite the seeming proliferation of wanton behavior in this post modern era, there really is nothing new under the sun.

*I realize that Mr. Darcy is the most popular male lead of all Jane Austen’s male characters, but he is not mine. Far from it in fact, as I noted before.


6 thoughts on “Iconic Characters: Lydia Bennett and Maria Bertram

  1. Elspeth says:

    Mind you, these stories are what? 200 years old? One can only laugh at the notion that the nature of a woman’s sexuality is a groundbreaking 21st century discovery!


  2. Booky McBookerson says:

    Not to mention the idealization of the past as some kind of height of human moral character and “traditional values”. People just hid it and covered it more. The question as to whether it is better hidden or out in the open I’ll leave for others to wrangle over. (Can o’ worms that one).

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Elspeth says:

    It is one of my cardinal beliefs that we (especially in the American Protestant church) are often far more concerned with propriety than true piety. It’s one of the reasons things like this were mostly swept under the rug.

    For a while I was into watching PBS’ Downton Abbey, which was set after the first world war. The lead female character of the series was one who had engaged in premarital sex and (with her mother and one of the maids in the house) covered it up so that no one would know and she wouldn’t be ruined. Along with the family name, of course, as they were nobility.

    Downton Abbey was so very unrealistic in many regards, which is why I stopped watching it, but the question of whether having it all out in the open is a good one. You could argue that the exposure to all of this makes it harder to teach children about the importance of adhering to moral and traditional values, but having it out there also serves a purpose, I suppose.


  4. Booky McBookerson says:

    I could argue either side really but since it’s not going to make any difference to what is, I can’t be bothered. I tend to just sum up by saying it’s all six of one, half a dozen of the other. In other words, taken as a whole picture, the same elements are present in every era in one form or another. It’s like energy that can’t be created or destroyed.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Bike Bubba says:

    I think you mean to say that Maria’s tale does NOT end well, no?

    I admit I enjoy a LOT of 19th century British fiction, but sometimes the sheer aristocracy of the whole deal turns me off. But the neat thing about even that–as well as Continental fiction of the same era like that of Johanna Spyri–is how people can simultaneously be SO class conscious but not care about their position on the ladder.

    Well, at least in the books. Some little events in 1848, worsened in 1917, suggest that it wasn’t THAT bucolic, I guess.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Elspeth says:

    Oh, I need to fix that. Thanks, Bike.

    The aristocratic tone is for me, one the big draws as it shows that people are people beneath all the pomp.

    I tend to believe that people in general (particularly those with no connections to nobility whatever) really didn’t care all that much about their position on the ladder because what would be the point of that?

    The revolutions of 1848 were no doubt the first evidence that a bit of that American spirit was spilling over into other places. Albeit with much less success than the colonists enjoyed.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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