Law and Propriety, Sense and Sensibility Austen on the Cusp of Modernity

7/16/2019 Law and Propriety, Sense and Sensibility Austen on the Cusp of Modernity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/law-and-propriety-sense-and-sensibility-austen-on-the-cusp-of-modernity 1/25

Law and Propriety, Sense and Sensibility: Austen on the Cusp of Modernity

Author(s): David KaufmannSource: ELH, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 385-408Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873348 .

Accessed: 28/05/2013 11:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

ELH.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 11:41:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873348?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873348?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



LAW AND PROPRIETY, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY:AUSTEN ON THE CUSP OF MODERNITY

BY DAVID KAUFMANN

The term propriety," ith ts etymologicalinks o propertyndthe notion ftheproper, macks foppressionnd ideological bfus-cation, foutmoded dealsandoutdated estraints.ccordingly,s apiece of ollateral amage, ense nd Sensibilityeemsdeeply, fnotat timesdesperately,onservative. ence perhaps he indifferenceand discomforthat ritics ave shown owardshis ext inceMarvin

Mudrick's ispeptic ismissal f ts pparentlynsatisfyingnd.' A fewrecent ommentators,ost otably ulia rewitt rown,usanMorganand ClaudiaJohnson,ave tried oredeemSense nd Sensibility,uttheyhave tended o emphasizeknowledge, ot ethics.2 roprietyntheir iscussions asconstitutedsideshow, derivative fthe epis-temology hich omesto serve s the main ttraction.n this ssaywill try o recast he question. want o ask why t is thatAusten'sfictionan anddoesmake claim n tsreaders. will ffern accountof roprietynAusten's irstublished oveln hehopeof ecuperating

both tsdiscursive ontextnd itsemancipatoryotential.To write bout Senseand Sensibilityntailswrangling iththe

problematicentralityfElinorDashwood.To take henovel eriouslymeans hat neshouldnotfollowMudrick nd championMarianne tElinor's xpense.To get purchase n this ext, willbeginbyscru-tinizing linor t what ritics ave found o be her mostvulnerablemoment, hatfatefulnterview ithJohnWilloughby.3linor,whohas mistrusted illoughbyormost f henovel nd oathed im ince

hisrejection f hersister, oftens owards imwhen, n the middleof his rake's onfession,herealizes hathe in fact ovesMarianne.4She hardens erheart gainwhenWilloughby entionshesadstoryofEliza Williams,hegirlhe has seducedand abandoned316),buther oldresolveweakensnew few ages ater. hatweshould nowhow Elinorfeelsduring his nterviews significant,or hechapteris almost xclusively iven ver to thecall-and-responsefdialogue.Austengoes out of her way to chartElinor's hiftingeactions ndallegiances,o showus howheremotions aver in thecourse f his

extraordinaryonversation"319).Elinor s facedwith dilemma.One can see her difficultyhen

ELH 59 (1992)385-408? 1992byTheJohns opkinsUniversityress 385








she says o Willoughby:Youhaveprovedyourself,n thewhole, essfaultyhat hadbelievedyou.You haveproved our eart esswicked,much esswicked.But I hardly now-themiseryhatyou have n-

flicted-I hardly nowwhatcould havemade itworse" 323). Herrepetitionsnd theemotions ignaled yherbrokenyntaxhow hatshe s torn etween errespect or is sentimentsndherdistaste orthe unhappiness e has caused.WhenWilloughbyinallyeavesandElinor allsntomeditation,herealizes hat er egardor is motionsis based on causesthat oughtnot n reason o have weight"326).And yetshe pitieshim.She calls him"poorWilloughby"nd taxesherself or he harshnessfher previous houghtsbouthim: [She]nowblamed,nowacquitted erself orhavingudgedhim oharshly

before"327;emphasisdded). We should ay pecial ttentiono theuse ofthe anguage fthe awhere. Her sense of usticecomes ntodirect onflict ithher feelings fbenevolence.

ThatElinorshouldfallprey o such a conflicts no surprise, orAusten stablishest the beginningfthe novel hat hehasboth nexcellent eart nd strong eelings42). Norshould tbe a surprisethat linor s more hanusta tad udgmental.n anargumentboutWilloughbyarlynthebook,Mrs.Dashwood erates linor or eing

toosuspicious.Mrs. Dashwood peaks n theyoungman's defence,"andhopesthatWilloughbys"acquitted."106-7).AccordingoMrs.Dashwood, hen, linorwants o putWilloughbyntrial.Her daugh-ter's ropensitytodoubtwhere she]can" 105)makes judgment"-usuallymeant s thepower fdiscrimination-auasi-legal acultyfmind.For Elinor, t signals call before tribunalf nformalocialjustice.Sucha viewof Elinor s notunwarranted.fter ll, she con-stantlyurveysndcondemnshose round er.LadyMiddleton,Mrs.JohnDashwood nd LucySteele are all arraigned,ried nd found

guilty.Elinor erves s the novel's entinel fpropriety. hilethis s an

undoubtedlyrue funsurprisingtatement,t does nottell us whyElinor nd hermother hoose o describewhat reessentiallyrivatejudgementsn terms hat ome fromhepublicrealm f aw. Whatthen s therelation etween ropriety-theomain fmanners-andthe aw?

John rewerhas maintainedhat n theeighteenthentury,En-glishmenxperienced overnmentnd understood olitics hroughtheir ealingswith he aw. 5 There s more omplexityothis laimthanmight irstppear.The eighteenth-centuryurisprudentialon-sensus-an odd sitewhere othWhigs nd Tories greed-had itthat

386 Law and ProprietynAusten








the purposeof government as to protect roperty nd to insurejustice.6Here is a short lorilegium.or Sir WilliamBlackstone,hesolidEstablishment hig, ivil ociety-the onjunctionf ndividual

families ho oin togethern order o fulfillhe physical eeds theycannotmeet n their wn institutes overnmentto preserve nd tokeep that ociety n order."7Government'suty ccording o Black-stone s to make aw.8Hume,as conservatives Blackstonen somerespects, utperhapsmore keptical, oncurs: We are, therefore,olookuponall the vast pparatus fgovernment,s having ltimatelyno other bject rpurpose ut hedistributionfjustice."9ndfinally,that adicalWhigTom Painemaintainswith haracteristiclarity)hat"societysproduced yourwants,ndgovernmentyourwickedness;

theformerromotesurhappiness ositivelyyunitingur ffections,the atter egativelyyrestrainingurvices."'10n short, hen, ocietycomes irstomeet urneeds ndgovernmentollowsuicklyoprotectourrights, pecificallyurrightsoproperty.

Thuswhat amcalling heeighteenth-centuryurisprudentialon-sensus rgued or fairlytrict emarcationetween ivil ocietyndgovernment,etween herealm fsociabilitynd thesphere f us-tice.11 he publicrealm rovides rotectionor ivil ociety:tpatrolsandprotects he imits fthe private. ut even this private" phereof ivil ociety, ewly reed rom hetrammelsfgovernment,eedsregulation.Many tensions nd abrasions n civil society annotbereduced o disputes ver real property.f theroleofgovernmentsgenerallyimited o theprotectionfgoods, and nd ife, henwhat-orwho-will regulate heother nteractionshatdistinguishivil o-ciety?Hume is quite explicit n this core:

Asthemutualhocksn ociety,nd he ppositionsfnterestndself-loveave onstrainedankindoestablishhe aws fustice,in order opreservehe dvantagesfmutualssistancendpro-tection:n ikemanner,he ternalontrarieties,ncompany,fmen's ride nd self-conceit,ave ntroducedherules fGoodManners rPoliteness,norder ofacilitatehe ntercoursefminds,and an undisturbedommercendconversation.'2

Just s men nstituteusticeto overseetheworkingsfsociety s awhole, othey stablish oodmannersn the mallerpheres f riend-ship hatHume callscompany. otethat orHume mannersre anal-ogousto ustice:theyperformsimilar unctionn a similarwayforsimilar nds. tmakes erfectense, herefore,hat linorDashwoodshoulduse the languageof law when she meditates n propriety:manners re the form hatfrontierustice takeswhen t enters he

DavidKaufmann 387








drawingroom. We can thusqualifyBrewer'spoint about the relationbetween law and politics n the eighteenth entury.English menandwomen understood government n terms of law because justice wasthe primary are of government.But they also understood mannersin terms f awbecause inthe divisionbetween society nd governmenttheyneeded an analogy hat xplained how society, reedfrom xternalincursion, ould regulate tself.Law became thegoverningmetaphorforsocial relations:both the mandatory nes of government nd thevoluntary nes ofsociety.

Manners,then, re the aws thatgovern he face-to-facenteractionsthatconstitute ivil society.They are a necessarysocial lubricant hatallow, as Hume says,"the intercourse f minds,and an undisturbed

commerce and conversation."But ifwe insist hatproprietywas mod-eled on property nd mannerson law, we should also note that forsome eighteenth-centuryocial theorists,manners act as an origin,supplement, and corrective o the law. Burke, who, comes from hecommon law tradition,has a richerand more organic conceptionofmanners han Hume, forwhom law is a necessary,formal onventionthat has nothing to do with equity.13 For Burke law has a definitecontent nd so do manners, s he argues here, towardsthe end ofhislife:

Manners re ofmoremportancehan aws.Upon them,n a greatmeasure,he awsdepend.The awtouches s buthere ndthere,and now and then. Manners re whatvex or soothe, orrupt rpurify,xalt rdebase,barbarize rrefines, by constant,teady,uniformnsensible peration,ike thatof theairwe breathe n.Theygivetheirwholeform nd color oour ives.'4

Law depends on manners,not because civilsocietyprecedes govern-ment eitherhistorically r logicallybut because, forthe tradition n

whichBurke is writing, ll the law in England is really common awthat, in turn,is "common custom, originatingn the usages of thepeople and declared, interpreted nd applied in the courts.15 Thelaw, then, articulates ustomin and over time: it is nothingmoreorless than the formal odification f manners. But the law does notencompass all manners,formanners cast a wider net thanlaw, and,in the end, are more inclusive.

We can get a sense ofthe deep importanceofmanners forBurkein his somewhat urid (and oftenparodied) encomium to the "mixedsystem fopinionand sentiment" fchivalryn his Reflectionsn theRevolution n France:

388 Law and Proprietyn Austen








It wasthis,which,withoutonfoundinganks, adproduced nobleequality, nd handed tdownthroughll the gradationsf sociallife. twas this pinionwhichmitigatedingsnto ompanions,ndraisedprivatemen tobe fellowswithkings.Without orce r op-

position,tsubduedthefiercenessfpride ndpower; tobligedsovereignsosubmit othe soft ollar f ocial steem, ompelledsternuthorityosubmit oelegance, nd gave domination,an-quisher f aws,to be subduedbymanners.'6

Burkeis here, ofcourse,discussingthe importance orpoliticsof thissettled systemof manners. Chivalry-with its emphasis on "socialesteem"-effects a numberof mportant hiasticreversals n everydaylife. The psychological ffects foppressionare lessened, ifnotover-come, when lords can become companions of their vassals. Under

chivalry, ocial differentiationoes not disappear. Rather,the stingthatcomes from ubordinations salved bychivalry's tresson honor.Manners supplementthe constitution nd make itwork: they ocatepower less in actual domination han in mutualregard.

We can say,therefore, hatBurke'snotionof manners ngagesbothconservative nd radicalenergies: t s a prescription or ocial stabilitythatmasks real relationsofpowerwiththe filigree-workfgood be-havior. By the same token, it enjoins recognition fevery subject'sneeds. Itpromisesnot an equalityofgoods or ofpower but s a demandmade on the enfranchised y the disenfranchised or an equality ofrespect. Furthermore, t serves as a protectionforthe poor and thepowerless. If honor demands the regardof the poor, then the poorare rendered strongby virtue of theirabilityto refuseto give thatregard.Thus thepowerful re dependenton the poor and must servethem in their turn.While Burke's concept is conservative, t servesthe interests fthe disempowered, if n an apparently imitedway.

We can draw severalconclusionsfrom hetwo passages fromBurke

I have just cited, conclusions thatcan be supportedby reference oothermoments nBurke'swritings.17Mannersprecede law andcorrectitsseveritiesbyrestoringquitytoprecedence. 8 n so doing,mannersattemptto mediate the apparentlymutual exclusion that separatesjustice and benevolence in the civic urisprudential radition.19 an-ners are negative in thattheyrepress, socialize, and markmine offfrom hine. But they are also positive: theyshape and refine he self,and render selves equal before he bar of mutualregard.Theyoverseeaesthetic ducation,supervise self-creationnd acttoprotect hepow-erless againstthe depredationsof theirmasters.20

Hume and Burkecome fromdifferentegal traditions nd so con-struct he law fromdifferentremises. But we can adduce a concur-

David Kaufmann 389








rencebetween hem ndthus emarcate field or he ate ighteenth-centuryonception f manners: he law stands ver andabovecivilsociety; t protects ropertynd rights, nd thus ensurespeace involuntaryommercialssociations.

anners, hich esembleaws, rethe rules hat overn ocial nteractionsot overed ythe aw.Theyallow ociety o exist, ree rom he nterventionfgovernment.heyprotect he ndividual ithin company" nd fromt, and in sodoingthey llowthat ompany o work omfortably.

Ifwhat have aid s an accurate econstructionf certain omplexof deas, we cansee thatElinor's eactionoJohnWilloughby'son-fession, erdiscomforthen he s caught etween isdebatablemeritandhis call forhersympathy, arks he residual ensionwithinhe

notion fmannersetween heprinciples f ustice ndbenevolence,between he anguage frightsndthedemands f ympathy.ust sthe lawdetermines hat s each person's ight,o propriety akessure hat very erson etshisdue. For xample:whenEdward omesto Devonshire hefirstime,Elinordecides otemper er nnoyanceat hiscoldness. he resolves toregulate erbehaviour ohimbythepastrather han hepresent"nd treats im s she thinkshe oughtto be treated romhefamilyonnection"115).This connection e-termines hat he owes him:he deserves eferencend carebecausehe is thebrother fElinor's ister-in-law. hatEdward allsElinor's"planofgeneral ivility"s, as Elinorpoints ut tohersister, wayofpreservingne's ownopinionsndfeelings, hilemakingure hatothers'needs and deserts re accounted or 119).WhenMarianne,sickened nddepressed y Willoughby'spparent ismissal, ants oleaveLondon mmediately,linor eplies hat t s impossibleoquitthecapital o soon: "We oweMrsJennings uchmore han ivility;andcivilityf hecommonestindmust reventuch hasty emoval

as that"202).Thebarest oodmannersnsisthatheDashwood isterstakeMrs.Jennings'slans ndfeelingseriously.ut heyoung omenare n a positionhat emandsmore hanustbaregoodmanners:heyowe her a debt.Andmanners,ikethe aw,commandhatdebtsberespected.

Ofcourse,with he fullnessftimeMarianne omestorecognizethevalues hat linor epresents.When hefinallyecants ndagreestopracticethecivilities,he esserduties f ife,with entlenessndforebearance"338),Marianne cknowledgeshat toevery ommonacquaintanceven, she]hadbeen insolentndunjust;with nhearthardenedgainstheirmerits"337).Marianne,nher elfishness,asnotgranted thers heir ue.









Ifproprietyntails ttentiono others, close and sometimeson-flictingalculus ftheirneeds and their eserts, t also guardswithdeep jealousy he needs and deserts f the self.When, early n the

novel,Elinor ensuresWilloughby'sendency o slighttooeasily heformsfworldly ropriety,"he s in fact riticizingimfor is "wantof aution"80). Similarly, henElinor uggeststheproprietyf omeself-command"o Marianne n her attachmento Willoughby,he isnottelling er younger ister o feeldifferently.he onlywishesherfeelings ere "lessopenly hown"84).

Circumspections doublynecessary n Sense and Sensibility.tmilitates gainst he moreharmfulffectsf gossip.As JaneNardinhas argued, roprietysneeded n a socialwhirl hat s constitutedy

selfish,tupid runmannerlyeople.21 urthermore,t is importantin a worldwherewe have no immediate ccess to thesoulsofotherpeople:we do not knowwhat hey re thinkingorwhat heyhavedone.ClaudiaJohnsonasnoted hat othMariannendElinormakemistakesboutWilloughbyndEdward errars, ot ecause heyoungwomenmisconstruehedatathey avebeforehem, utbecausetheydonothave ufficientata.22Marianne oes notknow hatWilloughbyis a rake nd Elinordoes notknow hatEdward s secretly ngaged.

The soul's opacity o the gaze ofotherpeoplecreates space inwhichhypocrisy,hatgreatbugbear f eighteenth-centuryhought,can flourish. nunprotectedincerity,uch s Marianne's,eavesonevulnerable o the machinationsf others. o, proprietyllowsforprotectiveecrecy. linor ies toLucy Steelein order oprotect erdignity,norder ocircumventucy'sprotractedssault n herfeel-ings.Elinor s practicingform f motionalikido: hedeflectsucy'sattacksyprotectingheprivacyfher ffections.usts lawmaintainstheprivate ealm f hoice allowingonetodispose fone'sproperty

as one wishes-so proprietyllowsone the privacyfsentiment.23I would ike to makethe mplicationsf my rguments clear aspossible.For all Austen's tress n thesocial spects f ife, hestartsfromhepremisehatwebegin s and remainndividuals ith eelings,needs and desires hat reessentially ersonal.ndividualityntailsdanger nd a challenge:we cannotknowwhatgoeson insideotherpeople'sheads nd hearts.We must egin, sElinor oes,with oubt.Suchradicalndividualityakes ocial nteractionsminefieldf on-flictingnterestsndrequireswhat have alled heprotectiveecrecyofprivacy. ythesametoken, heessentially rivatenature f theindividual akes ertain ormsf andorbsolutelyecessary.tmakespublicadmissionsmperative.f we cannotread others'minds,we

David Kaufmann 391








have to be able to trust heirwords nd their ctions.Hence theimportancen Senseand Sensibilityf cknowledgment.

Mrs.Dashwoodmakes n important istakewhenshe takesWil-

loughby'sctions s a signof hisengagement.he says, I have notwanted yllableswhereactionshave spoken o plainly" 107). ButElinor s not o easily onvinced-andrightlyo,as it turns ut. Shesays, I confess . . that very ircumstancexcept ne is infavor ftheir ngagement; ut thatone is the totalsilence of both on thesubject, ndwithme italmost utweighs very ther"107).Silenceabout ttachments onething, ut aboutcommitmentn an event fsuchpublicmportancesmarriage,ssomethinglseentirely. ustendepicts society nwhichwomen's dentitys determinedyfamilialand maritalonnection.hepresents worldwhoseorganizationndreproductionependonconnections aintainedymarriage.n sucha world, romisesmadeby mento women re ofdeep social nterest.Propriety,nthis ight, pholds he ocial rder nd ndividualignity:it shieldsvulnerable motion rom ublic crutinynd makespublicwhat s ofgreatest otefor ocial oherence. oput hematter lainly:those legant ecorums fElinor'splanofgeneral ivilitymake urethat very ndividual ossesses heknowledge ecessaryor hat dd

conjunction f emotionalttachmentnd social commitmenthat smarriage. hey also protect he individual f thatknowledge s, forwhatever eason,notforthcoming.ivility howspeople how theyshouldbehave. It also provides meansofprotectinghemselvesagainst therswho do notconduct hemselvess they hould.

IfElinorpresents programor egotiatingworld onstitutedyessentiallybscure ndividuals,henwe canbegin ounderstandhecontrast etween he two isters.Marianne eels hat hecongruenceoftaste hatbindsher toWilloughby ivesher an immediate ccess

toknowledgebouthim.Sheassumes hathis heart stransparentoher. She seeks himout becausethey re, she feels, imilarnd,asanyreaderof the novelknows, he disdains hosewho are differentfrom er. She feels he knows uchpeople-especiallyColonelBran-don-well enough odisregardhem.She thusbelongs o thatrichtraditionfeighteenth-centuryhoughthatwe call sentimentalism,which ought oovercomeheatomisticndrationalisteductions fsocial ife n post-Hobbesian hilosophy ypositingn unmediated

intersubjectivityased onfeelingndsympathy.linor, n theotherhand,doubts.But heroften riggishkepticismlsomeans hat hepays ttentiono thedifferencesetween ndividuals-hence er re-

392 Law and ProprietynAusten








evaluation of Mrs. Jennings,whose heartwins her over even thoughher manners are lacking. Elinor is thus a fine proof of Adorno's

aperqu that tact "is the discrimination f differences."24

Difference s not ust a norm n and for tself. t is the ground andguard of happiness. Austen s involved n an argument,mediated anddisseminatedby the literarymarketplace, bout the natureofotherminds, of propriety nd ultimately, f the possibilitiesforhappinessin this ublunaryworld. Suchanargumentsovertly hematizedwithinthe novel itself. f the reader gets too involved in character nalysis,he or she is likely oforget hathappinessis an obsessioninthisbook.Chapter 17 contains livelydiscussion of the relationbetween wealthand happiness:what onstitutes emalefelicity; owmuchdoes a house-

hold need? Chapter 19 begins with a conversation bout Edward'sneed for profession.Mrs.Dashwood aversthathe "wouldbe a happierman f he] had any profession o engage [his] time and give an interestto [his] plans and actions" 127). In theodd Horatianism fthisbook,male happiness, be it Edward's, Willoughby's rSirJohnMiddleton's,depends noton the otiumof ndependence and country ursuits,buton thenegotium fcommerce inall itsdesignations) nd professionalactivity.But let us not seem to claim thatmale happiness is withoutitsdomestic element. The last chapter ofthe novel providesus witha somewhat surrealspectacle offelicity: veryoneends up happy intheirmarriages, ven Lucy Ferrarsand JohnWilloughby.

Happiness is a topicof onversationnthisbook because itsdefinitionisupfor rabs nd stillneeds to be determined.On therisk f dealizingconversation n this novel and in Austen's other works, I want todisagreewithFranco Morettiwho sees in Austen not "discussion" bywhich he seems to mean "rational public debate") but the desire tomakeoneself agreeable in company, s Hume might ay.25 ense and

Sensibility oes not avoid revolutionary ractures ny more than theconfrontationsetween Elizabeth Bennet and FitzwilliamDarcyavoidunpleasant social distinctions:both novels write fromwithinovertconflictnd try o make sense of the world these conflictseave. Andthe discussions ofhappiness-of what the characters an hope for-are located indaily conversation,not,as in Voltaire rJohnson,n theabstractedforms ftheconte philosophiqueor the Eastern Tale. Rea-soning on happiness is not abstruseor abstract: t is the verystuff fthe everyday.

Iffemale happiness themainsubject ofthenovel, itseems) can belocated in domesticity nd can be debated in everydaylife if its

David Kaufmann 393








boundariesnd ts ontent anbe derived rom ommononversationand canbe achievedn the prosecutionf common"ctivities-thenhappinesss resolutelyecular n theonehand ndfiercelypoliticalon theother.Twenty ears goGilbertRylenoted hatAustenwasin essencea secularnovelist.26or all her religious onviction,ernovels o notgroundheir ctionn thewill f heAllmighty.reviousnovelistsquatevirtuend happiness, utalwayswith nod towardsheaven, ithern ermsf xplicitheologyrprovidentiallot-devices.Senseand Sensibility ight ontain dd coincidences, utthey reneverreferred ackto God. The norms he derives re this-worldlyand dependfor heir eterminationnhuman xperience, otdivinerevelation.

The location f hope in thisworld nd in thesocialspherethatis, in the realmofeconomic nd sexualreproduction-hasts ownhistory, hosetracecan be foundn what earlier alledAusten's"odd Horatianism."he Horatianismfherforebears,heAugustans,is firmlylignedwith hat raditionf thought,xcavatedwith uchbrillianceyJ.G.A.Pocock, alled civic epublicanism."nresponseto thegrowthf commercialWhigorder n the first ecadesoftheeighteenthentury,eo-Harringtonianoliticalheoryenewed theidealofthe citizen, irtuousn his devotion o the publicgoodandhisengagementnrelationsfequality, . . but virtuouslso inhisindependencef nyrelationhatmight ender im orrupt."27 or-ruptionn thisbranch fthoughts theresult fdependence. fthecitizen ets nvolvednexchangerpatronageelationshatmakehimvulnerableo thevagaries fothers r fhe hiresmercenariesofighthiswars,he will nevitablyall nto orruption.nglishMachiavelli-anism marks protest gainst heWhigorderthat succeededtheGloriousRevolution. ut civicrepublicanism,houghtrong,s only

one voicein the debate overpolitics fter 688 and is marred y aserious onceptual eakness. hought hadgreat ormativeorcendpersuasive ower n England nd America,ts analysiss bynaturecompletelyegative.'Whigmodernity,ith tsmercenaries,tandingarmies, ebts ndplacemen,ould ignal othingmore han hecom-plete corruptionf the state. Commerce ouldonlyreek ofmoraldecay.

We canaccount or he riseofa counter-discourseo civicrepub-licanism, hen, n twoways.Whiggismeededan ideology,nethatcould find an adequate normative ubstitutefor virtue.29 ut a dis-cursiveshiftwas necessaryas well because civic republicanideologyhad a limited descriptivepower. It could only condemn temporal









change n Polybian erms, ut could notdiscuss henew except smoral egradation. he counter-discoursehat rose n theface f hisdeficiency,omesfrom he anguage fnaturalurisprudencend thatarea of tudy hatwe have cometo calleconomics.30 hisnewfangledcivic urisprudence eveloped historicalociology hat egitimizedtheradical oveltyf he ommercialrder.31 he egitimationfWhigmodernityepended n a change f mphasis. he telos f hehumanno longer esided n political irtue as it does in the anguage ftherepublicans) ut n socialmanners;t moved romommitmento thepublicgood to thepursuit fprivate appiness.32

I have shown bove how urisprudentialhoughtivided hesocialfrom hepolitical,herealm f ociety rom he phere fgovernment.

The notion frights elped determine he proper imits f bothdo-mains.The civic urisprudentialroject ttempted o prove hat hecommercialrder ontainedwithintrealutopian otentialndnotjust moraldegradation.his meantreversingherepublican alori-zation fthe public. t alsomeant hatnew attentionad tobe paidto civil ocietyn all itsdivisions nddeterminations.herehad to bea scienceoftheeveryday.

It is not ust chancethenthat makes the development fcivicjurisprudencenthemiddle ecades f he ighteenthenturyoincidenicelywith heriseoffemale onductiterature. he ideology fdo-mesticityouldeasilybe accommodatedo theideology f the neworder. n fact, omesticityasnecessaryor henew order.The em-phasison domesticndprivate appiness erved s thebasisfor helegitimacyfcommerce, nd the legitimationf commercewouldnecessarilyntail he ionizationfthedomestic. would hus iketoaddawrinkleoNancyArmstrongrecent iscussionf he ignificanceofdomesticdeology. heargues hat onduct ooks chematizeden-

derdifferentiationn order o launch n attack n establishedtatushierarchies,nd therevolutionaryourgeoisiehenorganizedtselfaround hesegenderdivisions.'

There is a slightdiscomfortn Armstrong'sccount: he middleclasses reconstitutedya discourse hat heyhaveoriginated. ucha claim s less a theoreticalautologyhan tfirstmay seem,but itlacks certain orce, ecause,as is often he case in suchaccounts,thebourgeoisies its own cause. Pocock,withhis usual anti-Marxistfervor, as arguedon theotherhand that hesupposedly ourgeoisideology fpossessive ndividualism asnot, nfact, ourgeoistall,butratherhe expression fthe nterestsftheWhigmagnatesftertheGloriousRevolution.34e canturn his laim o marxisantnds

David Kaufmann 395








bymaintaininghat hehegemonizingaskofdefendingommercialcapitalismwas takenoverby the aristocracy.n the name of thisaristocracydiscourse eveloped hat, yexfoliating,efendingndregulatinghe spheres f economic nd sexualreproduction,ouldconstructhegender efinitionsecessary or he nterpellationf hemiddle lasses. f one uses theslightly orehumanisticanguage f"appropriation,"ne can see that omesticdeologylike happiness-was up forgrabs: ts anguage ould be adoptedby thebourgeoisie,bythegentry,rbythearistocracy.

Ittherefore akes erfectensethatAusten, scion f hegentry,whosereception ouldmakeherthespokespersonor middle lassto which hemostprobably id not belong, hould nvokemanners

and a secularnotion fhappiness hat sfirmlyocated n civil ocietyandthedomesticphere.Hers sthe ogic f hecivicurisprudentialtradition. er location f happinesswithin ivilsociety akeson anadded historicalimension, orn thewakeof heFrenchRevolution,such placement tands npolemicalppositiono the allfor oliticalreform:ope, Austen eemsto ndicate,s locatednot npolitics, utinthehome.

I have hereforergued hat nSense ndSensibilityusten resentsproprietys a contemporaryorm, erived romawbyanalogy, sonewayofprotectingsecularnotion fdomestic appiness gainstthe stresses f a society hat s marked y selfishness,rofit,ndvulgarity.he thus urnsmanners,he telospresented ycivicuris-prudence,gainst heprofit-orientedehavior hat ivicurisprudencewasdeveloped odefend.ButAusten's ositions notself-defeating:she is notattacking money conomy er se, but certain ormsfaction hatrise nsuch neconomy. necould rgue hat,ikeBurke,Austen nderstandshat certain ivilitys necessaryf apitalisms

to work.35Ifwe can thusplace Austen n a certain iscursive ield ndcan seeher anguage s thecrossing ointbetween ristocraticdeologyndmiddle-classegemony, e can also see herethics s the product fa similar onjunction. dorno's iscussion f thehistoryf tactcanhelpus understandhe sociohistoricalhift hatmakesthe contrastbetweenMarianne ndElinor ocompellingoAusten.AccordingoAdorno, hebourgeoisndividual rees imselft theendof heeigh-teenthenturyromthe bsolutistompulsion,"hatnEngland ouldbemore ccuratelyescribed s"aristocraticompulsion."nthis ravenewworld,however, he socialconventionsied to hierarchical i-visions onotdisappear:hey ecomedemocratized,r rather,pread









out toa more nclusivesphereofprivilege."The precondition f tact,"Adorno writes, "is conventionthat is brokenwithin itselfyet stillpresent."36 his emancipatedtact, no longerthe acknowledgement faristocratic rivilege,tries to reconcile the claims of an assertive n-dividuality nd the demands of the social totality. t should be quiteclear, then,thatwhat Adornomeans by tact, Elinor Dashwood meansby civility.But thiscivility nlyhas a positivenormative ontent-therecognition f a substantive ndividuality-at one moment n history.It soon dissolves into eitheran emptyformality r an intrusive nti-macy.37 act, that all-importantmomentwithinpropriety, ontainsakernel of utopian promise,a promisethat s made explicit n Burke'sdefense of chivalry.Tact entails a visionof society n which the in-

dividual is protectedand recognizedwithin and by the whole. Theutopian space created bytact s fragile nd historically ontingent.Tous itmight eem to cost too much, might eem like the productofaviciousrepression.To Austen, s to Goethe,it seems like theguarantorof freedom. t not only signalsthe emancipationof classes but it alsorepresents he iberation f he ndividual.Tactprotects he mediationsbetweenthenewly-derived ubjectand thetotalityhatboth ncludesand stands over it.

We can take this argument ven further. he apparent repression

to which Elinor submitswith such tenacity an be seen as an odd formofautonomy-that is, of self-regulation. et us take the example ofher refusal o tell herfamilyf hedisappointmenthehasbeen handedby Lucy Steele: Edward Ferrars s secretly ngaged to thatunworthygirl.Elinor explainsherprolonged ilence byexpounding nherduties:

Mypromise o Lucy, obligedme tobe secret. owedit toher,therefore,o avoidgiving nyhint fthetruth;nd I owedittomy amilyndfriends,ot ocreate nthem solicitudeboutme,

which t could notbe in mypower o satisfy.263)She has no power to satisfyheir olicitudebecause she cannot ctivelyintervene n or subvertthe odd triangle n which she findsherself.She can only be passive because her attachment o Edward does notconstitute ny legitimateclaim againsthis prior engagement.Givenherpowerlessness n relation o Edward and Lucy, she can onlyexertcontrolover herself.

Such self-regulationeems deeply masochistic o our atetwentieth-century otions f mancipation, s well itmight.But talso constitutesthe only autonomy readily open to the disenfranchised.One couldcompareAusten to Kantwithoutdoingviciousdamage to either. Forour purposes, however, it is worthcomparingElinor to Goethe's

David Kaufmann 397








Werther. n an early etter,Werther xpatiates n the deep restrictionswhich nhibit nd overcome"theactive,and inquiring owersofMan."In the face ofa recalcitrantworld, onlytwo forms fhappiness andfreedom re possible:retreat ntotheimaginationnd suicide."'Whenimagination ailshim and both social and emotionalrestraints orbidhim the "active" lifehe seeks,Werther an onlyfind utonomyn self-destruction.

Such an odd notion of self-regulationould be writtenoff o thepeculiaritiesof Werther's overheatedmind (and Goethe, ofcourse,would like us to do just this),but to do so would be to ignore thestrong urrent f stoicism hatrunsthroughEuropean thoughtn theeighteenthcentury. Let me offer, s anotherinstance,this passage

from chiller:The highest deal towhichwe aspire s to remain n goodtermswith hephysical orld s theexecutrixfourhappiness,withouttherebyeingobliged ofall utwith he moralworld hat eter-mines urdignity. ow t swellknown owrarelynecan succeedin serving womasters.... Let himbe happyfhe has earned obear whathe cannot lter, nd tosurrender ith ignity hathecannot ave! ases anoccurnwhich ateurmountsll the ampartsuponwhichman baseshissecurityndnothinglse remains ut

for im oflee nto heacred reedomf he

pirit-casesn which

theres no other ecoursen order o placate he ustforife hantowillthatfate . . and bya freerenunciationf all sensuousinterestokilloneselfmorally.39

Schiller swritingwithin Kantian modelwhere the subjectis caughtbetween the imperative promise of moral autonomyand the actualheteronomy mposedbythephenomenal,time-riddenworld. Schiller,who publishedthesewords n 1801, liststhe shipwreck f historyndof revolutionary xpectation s a signofthe tyranny fthe physical.

We mightwell be self-regulatingubjects, he claims,but we are alsosubjectto the vagariesofan environmentwe cannot control.We mustthereforeearn towill what we are unable to avoid. That is, we mustlearn to killourselveswhen necessary.

This versionofamorfati signalsa historicaldilemma. On the onehand, it registers he desire for autonomyand the strength f self-determination s a norm.On theother, t admitsthat such autonomyis not possible, either as Schillerwould argue)because we are caughtineluctablybetween the noumenal and the phenomenal, or (as wemight are tomaintain)because the demandfor utonomyhas not yetfoundits historicaloutlet. Thus amorfati expresses both a protestagainsta historical ituation nd a sign of the subject's weakness in









relation o t: trebels gainst nunavoidable eteronomyhat tmustalso accept.ThatElinor,Werthernd Schiller xtol self-destructivemasochisms without doubt.But thismasochisms itself helast

instance fpower pen to thepowerless, e they he representativesof a revolutionaryourgeoisie r the disinherited aughters fthecountry entry. elf-abnegations the shadow ftheir elf-assertion.

We can say thenthatthe insistence n proprietyn Sense andSensibilityxpresses utopian ope and a historicalear.Thehope sfor ecognitionnd a kingdomf nds.40 The fear isesfrom hesensethat majordisjunction astaken laceand that he norms hathavedetermined ehavior n the pastno longerhold. It has becomeacommonplacehatAusten's ovelsnarrate crisis nauthority,othpaternal-whichs seen as inadequate-andfeminine-whichs dan-gerous nd mustbe hidden.41 he genealogical recision f the firstpages of Sense and Sensibilityanblindus to their hematicignifi-cance: paternaluthorityanno longer rovide or he femaleDash-woods because its norms annotdirect heselfish ehavior fJohnDashwood, heheir.John ashwoodspreciselyneof hose ophistersand economistshatBurke nveighs gainstnhis Reflections,manwho, once freefrom he manners f the past,will be guided bya

purely elf-seekingationality.t sagainstuchmen hat urke nvokes"the spirit f gentleman"nd the egacy fchivalry. ut t sworthconsideringhatElinordoes not use thepastas herauthority:he,unlikeBurke,does notappealto precedent.Her mores,herplanofgeneral ivility, ave no modelwithin he book. In fact, enseandSensibilitys remarkableor he venality r improprietyf ts char-acters, specially ts olderones. JaneNardinhas pointedout thatproprietys necessarynthisnovelbecause tprotectshe ntelligentindividualgainst societyhat sblisteringlyediocre.42ut t s also

worthnoting hatwhile civilitys an antidote or hatsociety, henorms ivilityresentseem to arisepreciselyromhe needs ofthatsociety. n short, roprietys not figured ere (as it is perhaps nMansfieldark) s theprecious ecausefragilenheritancef hepast,but as theproduct fthat ast's nabilityoreproducetself.

I want, herefore,omake stronglaim:proprietyn Sense andSensibilitys not the atavistic utcroppingftradition ut the ex-pression fan experience f radical hange.Proprietys invoked o

protecthe newly elf-consciousubject gainst he anti-socialnter-personalmanifestationsfthesocioeconomichiftshat reated hatsubject n the first lace.43 o discussSenseand Sensibilitynthesetermsandthusto sidestep he usual questions boutAusten's on-

David Kaufmann 399








servatismndher subversiveness)s to try o see heras a writer fand aboutmodernity.

A caveat s necessary ere: do notwant o engagethe questionofwhenmodernityctually egins.A structuralescriptionndde-lineation f hemodernsnotwhat satstake.Having utlined bovehowAusten's ovel sdeterminedythediscursivehanges hat ccurwith he dvent f ommercialapitalismnd how he deology f actarisesfrom shift n social powerthat ccompanies hat dvent,would ikenowto stress heway hatAusten egistersheexperienceofmodernity.

Followinghework fKosellecknd others, would ike o suggestthat eginningn theearly ighteenthentury,modernityas we saw

in our discussionfthe derivation fthe discourse fcivic urispru-dence) s experienceds a qualitative reakfrom he past." Blastedoutof herepetitiveontinuumhathad markedheself-presentationof history p to thatpoint, he modern indstself, orbetter r forworse, reed romhe rammelsf raditionaluthorityndexample.45Modernity arks n openness o a futurehat s itself pen nthat tisfreedromschatalogy.46t signals presentmomenthatsconsciousof tselfs suchbut,paradoxicallynough, ees itselfs empty, ran-sitoryndpotentially eaningless. odernitysthus ttended ybothfear nd utopianhope. Its orientationoward he future,hesense,born n theEnlightenment,hathuman nstitutionsre historicallyderived nd thereforeusceptible o reform,nd theconcommitantpossibilityf ecular rogressllmean hat, or hefirstime, topianhopecouldbe anchoredn the ublunaryorldwithout eedofdivinesanction.47hisutopianisms also madenecessaryythefear hat hepotentialmeaninglessnessf napparentlyormlessresent roduce.Hence the fear, hefree-floatingnxietyhatmodernitynspires e-

quires s its ntidotes opeandpredictability.he shock fthenew,the xperiencef uddenness hatmarksmodernity,enders ecessaryboth hecollectiverientationfutopia nda science fprobability-that s,a sociological rognostichat an foreclosegainst heunpre-dictabilityf the future.48have triedto show howAusten's extregistershematicallyhe experience fmodernity.enseand Sensi-bility odies forth he discomforthat risesfromhe breakwith u-thorityndthepast, ocates new-foundorizonfhope ncivil ociety(using he anguage fcivic urisprudence hich s itself theory f

themodern)ndgivesvoice toa rugged ndskepticalmpiricism,tenacious ackoffaithnthings ot ctuallyeen.

Butmodernitys inscribednthestructuref henovel swell, n









itsplay ofaffect.ModerateWhigwriters fthe 1790sused empiricismto redirect he utopianenergiesunleashed by the FrenchRevolutiontowardreformistnds. The same could be argued forSense and Sen-

sibility.The novel uses as a pedagogical device the disappointmentdealt tohopeby the sheerrecalcitrance f he externalworld. tteachesthe reader to indulge in a mobile and moderatehope. It signals thisteaching nMarianne'spainful onversion ocivility. imilarly, linor'splot line moves fromhope to disappointment o hope fulfilled.Butdisappointment s notmerelythematic. t recurs n visceralreactionsto the text. Most criticshave complained about the book's ending,about Austen's apparentlycavalier treatment f Marianne. But thereader's lack of satisfactionn thismarriageseems to be the whole

point:theworld willnotallowus to havewhatprecisely t is we want,especially whenwhatwe want-a unionwithWilloughbyperhaps?-is marked by the dream of an all-too-easy and improbable, Rous-seauistic and thereforeJacobin") ransparency.Marianne'smarriageto Brandon, this union of second loves, has not felt ike much of aconsolationfor the inevitabledisappointments hat"reality"as it isconstitutedby Austen'snovels doles out withsuch regularity.fwemoveaway from he usual discussionsof theepistemology f Austen'sworks inwhichthemoralworthof a character s determinedbyhowcorrectly hatcharacter can understandhis/her resent and predicthis/her uture)we can see the important ffect hatthe reader's un-avoidablemistakeshave. The reader, ikeMarianneand Elinor, skeptin the dark. And manyofthe hopes raised, the book is then carefulto dash. We are tendered back to a limited and limitingworld.

It is thustempting o see Austenas an antiutopian, s a clear-eyedempiricistwagingwaragainsttheseductionsofan emancipatorymag-ination. Indeed, Sense and Sensibility s assiduous in its redirection

ofutopian energies away fromrevolutionary pheaval. The utopianconcentration n the new, the cathexisonto a qualitative break withthepast is notdirectedagainst n obduratephysicalworld.Ratherthedesire tobreak with repressivepastfinds tsoutlet nthe shiftswithinthe notionof identity,withincharacter tself.Marianne's swift ndcompleteconversion likeDarcy's) is a novumthatthe textunleashes.The pathos ofreform s locatednotin the image of a redeemedworldbut in a chastenedheart. The comicmarriageplot requires the char-actersto change. The plot can thusappear to serve as the agentof astiff-necked orld which cannot be transformed.But the plot alsoarguesthattheworlddoes not need to be changed,thatthe fault ieswithour hearts, notour stars.The comic plot structure ears within

David Kaufmann 401








it the prognostication,hepredictabilityfhappiness. o rail gainstthe constitutionf society, hen, s to mistake t, tomiss he oppor-tunities t contains. he recalcitrant orld, een as external o the

characters,s presenteds containing ithint theproper ngredientsfor appiness, or roper ope.Happiness oesnotdemand evolution,but ndividualmoral epair.

And yet, such a deeplyconservativemessage, uch a resolutelycounterrevolutionaryedagogy, nly ells half hestory, or heap-parent ictoryf the world ver the ndividual s playedoutbytheplotdoes not acrificehe ndividual'slaim gainsthatworld.Whilethe scrutinynactedbythe use ofstyle ndirecteibre ndicates henovel'ssubmission f ts main characters o thatmediocre iece of

societyhat ttropes s the social otality,usten's tyle lsodeploysthe full orce f ts ronies gainst he follies fthat otality.

One of the mostfamous et pieces of Senseand Sensibilitys, ofcourse, ts econd hapterwhereMrs.John ashwood alksherhus-band outofofferinginancial elpto "thewidow nd childrenfhisfather"47). She does so by nvokingheverygenerosityhe meanstostranglen tscrib "Whatbrother nearthwoulddo half omuchfor is isters,ven f eally is isters! nd s it s only half lood!-

Butyouhave such generous pirit!"44]).AndJohn ashwoodbuysit. He forgoes is originalntentionompletely:

This rgumentas rresistible.tgave o his ntentionshateverof ecision aswantingefore;ndhefinallyesolved,hattwouldbeabsolutelynnecessary,fnot ighlyndecorous,odo more orthewidownd hildrenfhis ather,han uch indfneighbourlyacts s hisownwife ointedut. 47)

The irony fthispassage ies in its assumption hat he readerwillrecognize he bad faithfJohn ashwood's onclusions.What ould

be lessdecorous hannothelping isfather'selativelympoverishedfamily? ohnDashwood,we are toldearlier n, "conducted imselfwithproprietynthedischarge fhis ordinary uties" 41).The un-voicedcriticism ere s thathe does notbehave properlynthedis-charge f xtra-ordinaryuties.He wouldbe moreworthyfrespect,Austen ells hereader,fhe had married more miablewoman.Butthewomanhe hasmarrieds "a strongaricature fhimself;morenarrow-mindednd selfish"41). She isan imperfectopy-a literallymorehumorous ersion-ofherhusband, ndthus he reduceshimtoa poor opy fherself, r rather, fhimself. hemirroringelationbetween he two turnsJohnntothe mereoutline fa respectableman.Theirrespectabilitysvitiated ytheir elfishness,utthey re

402 Law andProprietyn Austen








unable osee themselvesnthese erms;nstead hey loak heir elf-seekingn the garb ofbenevolence nd decorum.The wit of JohnDashwood's apitulationohiswife's ersionfhisownworst nstincts

thus ies nthedistance etween cceptednorm nd actualbehavior.One of thenovel'sgreatrhetoricaltrengthss its ability o deploythesenorms acitlyswellas discuss hem xplicitly:tpreemptshereader's isagreementyaligninghereader gainst haracters hosubscribeobutcannotive ccordingo dealsofgoodmanners,hatis, ofdecorum nd propriety.ollowinghe ead Adorno as given s,we can saythatAusten's ronys both he ry f n angryndividualityand thenegativemageofthatutopiawhosetraceswe canmakeoutin the concept nd practice f propriety.his irony huscarriesradical ritiquewhichmodifieshe pparent onservatismfherplot.

To takeAusten's ision f proprietyeriously,hen,would be tosee her as a rather ifficultriter bout classical iberalism.49on-centratingn the promise fhappinessocated n civil society, heworks romhe premise f a radical ndividualitynduses a domes-ticated otion frightshere roped spropriety)o mediate etweenthe laims f he ssertiveubject ndthe ocial otality.hecentralityofwomen whoare notand cannotbe economic ctors)n herplots

underscoreshe mplicit niversalityhat he notion frightsntails(even n Burke's ccount, hough urkewould imit heuniverse othenation)nd underlineshenecessityfthisglobalnotion frightsfor heorderly unctioningfcapitalistociety.Her plotsshowtheconflictshat eem nevitablyoarisewhenthe economic onditionswhichbring he anguage f rights o theforefrontome nto onflictwithbasic respect or heserights.

She is perhaps he first ovelist fclassical iberalismecauseshehas metabolized he situationfpostrevolutionaryodernitynd has

thematizedtwhiletryingo tame tsmoredisruptivenergies.Wecan speculate hathercanonizationad towaitfor everaldecadesafter erdeathbecause t wasonly hen hat heproblemhesoughtto solve could be recognized. utbythen, tseems, twas too ate,for heutopian romise f tact-the interpersonaleconciliationffiercely-guardedutonomy ith heexigencies f socialexistencenan marketconomywas no longer sufficientrogramorwhathaddeveloped nto fully, elf-consciouslass society.50

Theemancipatory oment f act nd proprietyas therefore ostprobably assed, nd Austen anonly ppeartousas a conservative.But she can still hockus with he unexpected stringenciesfhertone. would iketo contend hat here s stillgreat ritical ower n

David Kaufmann 403








Austen's novel. Sense and Sensibility onfronts s with the as-yetunsolved project ofour modernity. t presents us with the demandthat we reconcile our behavior withour norms, our actionswiththeminimalutopianhope forrespect and autonomy.To readAustennos-talgically s therefore temptationwe should resist,for o do so is tomisunderstandhefractures hatmark hetemporality f her texts. tis to mistakeher irony nd to see it aimed at the past,when in factthe insistentdisjunctionsbetween tenorand vehicle thatscar Senseand Sensibility an only be healed in the future, ftheyare to behealed at all.5'

GeorgeMasonUniversity

NOTESlHere is Mudrick'summation:Marianne, he ife nd center f thenovel,hasbeen betrayed; nd not byWilloughby"MarvinMudrick, rony s Defence ndDiscoveryBerkeley: niv. of Californiaress,1968],72.) Mudrick'sondemnationhashada longhalf-life.ts traces an be foundn A.Walton itz,JaneAusten: StudyofHerDevelopmentNewYork:Oxford niv.Press, 965), 1-82;SandraGilbert ndSusanGubar,TheMadwomann theAtticNew Haven:Yale Univ.Press, 979), 46-57; andMaryPoovey,TheProperLadyand theWomanWriterChicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress,1988),172-94.

2 Juliarewittrown, aneAusten's ovels: ocialChange ndLiteraryormCam-bridge:Harvard niv.Press, 979)), 6-60; SusanMorgan,ntheMeantimeChicago:

ChicagoUniv.Press,1980),109-31; ClaudiaJohnson,The Twilight fProbability:Uncertaintynd Hopein Sense nd Sensibility,"hilologicaluarterly2 1983):171-86,andJaneAusten:Women, olitics nd theNovel Chicago:Univ. fChicago ress,1988), 9-72.

3 See Mudricknote1), 83-84; Marilyn utler, aneAustennd theWarof deas(Oxford: xford niv.Press, 975), 91-92,D. A.Miller,Narrativend tsDiscontents(Princeton:rinceton niv.Press,1981), 6-77.

'JaneAusten, ense and Sensibility,d. TonyTannerHarmondsworth:enguinBooks, 969), 15. Allfurthereferences illbe included arentheticallyn the text.

'JohnBrewer,TheWilkites nd theLaw,1763-74," nAnUngovernableeople,ed. John rewernd John tyles New Brunswick:utgers niv.Press,1980),133.

6 H. T. Dickinson,ibertynd PropertyNewYork:Holmes ndMeier, 977), 23-60. ThisWhig-Toryonsensus efines tselfnopposition o theCourt-Countryon-troversy, here t tends o takethe Court ide.Thus what amcalling consensusheremarks he urvivalnto he ighteenthenturyfurisprudencend not he ivicrepublicanradition.he theory f ivicrepublican irtue id nothave toaccount orthefoundationfgovernment:herepublicwas theground nd medium fvirtue. herepublic as ts wn eward. he naturalaw radition,owever, ad nthe eventeenthcenturyeveloped tsownhistoricalociologyndanthropology.t soughto accountfor he minimumevelopmentalonditions or he thecreation f the state.Thehistoricalontingencyfgovernmentresents differentroblem or he ivicrepub-licans han tdoes for he urists: istory,hich hreatensherepublican onstitutionwith orruption,s the veryground f the urisprudentialerivation fthe state.

Jurisprudentialrgumentsboutgovernmentouldprovide descriptivemodelforthefoundationf ocietywhereas herepublicansouldonly ind normativene. Inshort,urists ould showhowgovernmentomes bout;republicansouldonly howwhy t should.

404 Law and Propriety n Austen








7SirWilliam lackstone, ommentariesn the awsofEnglandPhiladelphia,803),1:2:47, 8.

8 Blackstone, :2:48,53.9 ForHume'spolitics,ee DuncanForbes,Hume's hilosophicaloliticsCambridge:

Cambridge niv.Press, 975), 25-230.David Hume, Of heOrigin fGovernment,"in EssaysMoral,Political nd Literary,d. Eugene F. Miller Indianapolis: ibertyPress,1987),37.

I?TomPaine, Common ense," n The Thomas aine Reader, d. Isaac Kramnickand MichaelFoot Harmondsworth:enguin, 987),66.

" In David Hume's EnquiriesConcerning umanUnderstandingnd ConcerningthePrinciples f Morals, d. L. A. Selby-BiggeOxford: xford niv.Press,1975),183-83, ustice nd benevolence eemtocomplementachother.Justice-the ro-tection fproperty-is orn fthe apparently atural carcityfgoods nd seemstosubstituteor hat arefor thers hichwecallbenevolence. ollowinghe ame ogic,a completelyenevolent acewould haveno need forusticeeven inconditionsfscarcity. ustice ompensatesor lackofbenevolence: enevolence endersustice

unnecessary. ut usticeand benevolence an also be seen to conflict.n Hume'sdescriptionf state fpurebenevolence, ropertyirculatesccordingoneedandthere s no division fwealth.Justice,n the otherhand,being "cautious,ealousvirtue," revents his irculationy making ight akeprecedence verneed.Benev-olence scentrifugal;ustice, entripetal.heWhig iscoursefhumanisturisprudenceandthepoliticalconomics hat tspawned an be said todevelopout ofthetensionbetween hedemands fpropertynd the laims fbenevolence,utof he onflictinglanguagesf ndividual ightnd socialgood.

12 Hume note11),261.13 For an elegantdescriptionf Hume's theory f ustice, ee Knud Haakonssen,

The Science fa LegislatorCambridge: ambridge niv.Press,1981), -41.'4

EdmundBurke, Letters n a Regicide eace," n TheWorks f theRightHon-orableEdmundBurke, 2 vols. Boston: ittleBrown, 871),5:310.15J.G. A. Pocock, Burke nd theAncient onstitution,"nPolitics, anguage nd

Time Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress,1989), 209.16 Burke note14),3:332.17 See, fornstance, urke, :320-40.18 For therelation f quity oprecedence n eighteenth-centuryommonurispru-

dence, see David Lieberman, he Province f Legislation eterminedNewYork:Cambridge niv.Press,1989),75-87, 131-32,135-36.

'9For he onflictetweenustice ndbenevolencenHume note 1), eeparagraphs145-63.ForAdam mith,ee TheTheory fMoralSentiments,d. A. L. MacFieandD. D. Raphael Oxford: xford niv.Press,1979), 9-82. See also Haakonssennote

13), 10-11,85-86.20 ThusPocockcan ee the deology fmanners ut orwardy he ivicurisprudential

traditions an answer othe ivicrepublican otion fvirtue.Where herepublicanssee corruptionncommercend virtue nly nan activepublic ife, heWhig uristslocatevirtue n mannersndderivemanners rom e douxcommercefsocialandfinancialnteraction.Where Pocock s excellent t seeingthepositive oalofself-refinementhatmannersregiven ythe pologistsfWhigmodernity,e seemstoignoreheregulatory,negative"reedomhatmannerslsoentail. ee J.G.A.Pocock,"Virtues, ights nd Manners,"n Virtue, ommerce,nd HistoryNewYork:Cam-bridgeUniv.Press,1985),37-50,see especially 8-50.

21 JaneNardin,ThoseElegantDecorumsAlbany: tateUniv. of New YorkPress,

1973),24-25.22 Johnson,TwilightfProbability"note2), 172-80.23Thisprivacy f entimenthouldnotbe confused ithWilloughby'sndEdward

Ferrar'snsistentecrecy bouttheir revious ttachments.heirprevious ommit-ments ave social s well s an emotionalmpact:heirctionsre, neffect,romises

David Kaufmann 405








that hange heworld nwhich hey ive. Theyhave contractedbligationsnddebtsthatdo not allow them he freedom hat hey eemto profess heyhave.To put tbluntly,hetwomenget secrecywrong nd nvert ropriety.

24 TheodorAdorno,MinimaMoralia, rans. . F. N. JephcottLondon:Verso, 974),37.

25 FrancoMoretti, he Wayof the World London:Verso, 987), 8-52.26 Gilbert yle, JaneAusten nd the Moralists,"n Critical ssays nJaneAusten,

ed. Judith 'Neill London:GeorgeAllen nd Unwin, 970),117.27 Pocock,Virtuenote20),48.28See J.G. A. Pocock, heMachiavellian omentPrinceton:rinceton niv.Press,

1976), 23-552.29 ocock,Virtuenote20), 48-50.30 See Richard uck, The modern' heory fnaturalaw," nd IstvanHont, The

language f ociabilitynd ommerce:amuel ufendorfndthe heoreticaloundationsofthe Four-Stages heory,'" n The Languages fPolitical heorynEarly-ModernEurope, d. AnthonyagdenNew York: ambridge niv.Press, 987), 9-122, 53-

76.31 See Pocock, The Mobility f Propertynd the RiseofEighteenth-Centuryo-

ciology," n Virtue note20), 103-24, nd"Cambridge aradigmsnd ScotchPhilo-sophers, n Wealth nd Virtue, d. IstvanHontand Michael gnatieffCambridge:Univ.Press,1983), 35-52.

32 Pocock,Virtue, 8; M. M. Goldsmith,Liberty,uxurynd thepursuit fhap-piness," n Pagden note30),251.

3NancyArmstrong,esire nd Domestic iction NewYork:Oxford niv.Press,1987),3-95.

3 Pocock, Authoritynd Property,"nVirtue,1-72.3 Pocock, ThePolitical conomy fBurke'sAnalysisf theFrenchRevolution,"

in Virtue, 98-211;C. B. Macpherson,urkeNewYork:Oxford niv.Press,1984),39-49, 66-69.36 Adornonote 4), 36. I havemodified ephcott'sranslationere:he has added a

pun thatAdornowouldhave ikedbutwhich heGerman oes not uthorize.37 Adorno,7.38 Buthe whoperceivesn all humility here hiss leading,who eeshowprettily

the happyburghermakes Paradise fhis ittle arden nd how eventheunhappymanpursueshis waywillinglynderhis burden . . yes,he is quietand constructshisworld rom ithin imselfndis alsohappy, ecausehe ishuman.Andthen,nomatter owconfined e might e, he alwaysmaintainshe sweetfeelingffreedom,and thathe can leave thisprison,whenhe wants o" JohannWolfgangonGoethe,

Werke, 4vols. Munich: . H. Beck, 1981],6:13-14;my ranslation).39Friedrich onSchiller, aive nd SentimentaloetryndOntheSublime,rans.Julius lias New York: rederick ngar, 966), 08.I havemodifiedhis ranslation.

40The Kantian cho mightwell seema presumptionere, an overburdeningfAusten's extwith heheaviness fGerman hilosophy.nmydefense willuxtaposetwo uotations.hefirsts Austen's.Robert errars as ustmarried ucySteeleandas far s the elf-seekingndself-importantohn ashwood sconcerned,nebrotheris as good as theother: Certainly,here anbe no difference;orRobertwillnowtoall intents ndpurposes e considered s the eldest on;-and as toany thing lse,they re bothvery greeableyoungmen, do not know hat ne is superior otheother"294).Elinor olds erpeace,butwemay uess hat he ronyfJohn'statementrests n the reader'sknowledgea knowledge hatwe supposedlyharewithElinor)that ne brothers superior otheother, hat ven wealth annotmake hem qualorexchangeable. ere,now, s Kant:

"In the realm f endseverythingaseither price Preis]or a dignityWiirde].Whatever as a price an be replaced y omethinglse as its quivalent; n theother









hand,whatevers above all price, nd thereforedmits f no equivalent, as a dig-nity..

Now moralitys thecondition nderwhich lonea rational eing an be an end initself. . . Thus moralitynd humanity,o far s it s capableofmorality,lone havedignity. kill nd diligence n work ave a market alue;wit, ively magination,nd

humorhave an affectiverice; but fidelityn promises nd benevolence . . haveintrinsic orth"ImmanuelKant,Groundworkf the Metaphysicsf Morals, rans.Lewis WhiteBeck Indianapolis: obbs-Merrill,959],53).

Ofcourse,John ashwood s not moralman:heviews eople s means, ot nds,and cannot nvision world hat onsists f ruedignity,hat s, a worldnwhich heworth f a person annotbe reduced o a market alue. That Edward Ferrars asdignitynd should ommand espect ecause he, like Elinor, s faithfulnpromisesand benevolent rom rinciple,s an intuitionhatJohn ashwood s constitutionallyincapable ffeeling nd s a conclusion hat hereader,we must ssume, s supposedto reach. Like Kant and ike Adorno), usten'smoralitys based on thecategoricaldistinctionetweendignityndprice,between espect Acht/Achtung)nd there-

duction fthetruly uman o merereturnableoods.4' Gilbert nd Gubar note 1), 154; Poovey note 1), 204, 208, 237-40; DeborahKaplan, Achieving uthority:aneAusten's irst ublishedNovel,"Nineteenth-Cen-tury iction 7 (1983):203-18.

42Nardin note21), 24-25.43Tact and proprietyn Austen's ase servenot as a demand hat ocialrelations

should hangebut rathers a recognitionhat hey lready ave.Proprietys meanttoprotect hedaughtersf gentryhat asfallennhard imes.But o reduceAustento her lasspositions to misunderstander ppeal. ThoughAustenmight ellbe thespokespersonor beleaguered ountryentry,he has cometo speak languagehatis comprehensibleoother lasseswhose nterestsrenotnecessarilyhe ame s thoseofgentry.n otherwords, class onthewaydownmight xpress tselfn a way hatmakes ense to a class on the wayup. But we can go even further.erhapswe cansee in theapparent nxieties xpressedn Austen'snovels, moreuniversalizableinterest hich s "propped" n that f heRegency entry.orthenotionfpropping,seeJean aplanche, ife ndDeath nPsychoanalysisBaltimore: ohns opkins niv.Press,1976),15-18.

44Reinhart oselleck,utures ast, rans. eith ribe Cambridge: ITPress, 985);Jurgen abermas,The Philosophical iscourse f Modernity,rans. rederick aw-rence Cambridge:MIT Press,1987);HannahArendt,TheConcept fHistory,"nBetween ast and Future New York:Penguin, 968),41-90; ErnstBloch,NaturalLaw and HumanDignity, rans.DennisJ.SchmidtCambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1986). na more omplicated ay,my ommentswea debt o Paul deMan, Literary

HistoryndLiteraryModernity"nd"Lyric ndModernity,"lindness nd Insight(Minneapolis: niv.of Minnesota ress,1983),142-65,166-86.45 Kosellecknote44), "HistoriaMagistra itae," 1-38;Habermasnote 4), 7.46 Koselleck, Modernitynd thePlanesofHistoricity,"-20; "Historical riteria

ofthe ModernConcept fRevolution,"1-38; "Neuzeit," 31-266.47 Koselleck,7-18.48Arendtnote 4), 76-86, Koselleck,OntheRelation fPast ndFuture," 4-15,

"Neuzeit," 62-66.49 Mary vans makes similar oint sing differentrgumentnJaneAusten nd

theState London:Tavistock, 987),2, 69-70.50 Austen's elatedVictoriananonizationndicateshe omplexityfhertexts.Her

acceptancemacks fnostalgia. s Andrew angwritesn 1886: Ah,madam,whatrelieft s tocome back oyourwitty olumes,ndforgethefollies f odayn thoseofMrCollins ndMrsBennet!" o forgetheunspecifiedut pparentlyverbearinglunacies fthepresent or he imited umors f ndividualharacterseemsto entaildreaming nachronisticallyfa societywhoseproblems an be located npersonal

David Kaufmann 407








relations ith asily dentifiableharacter-types.tmarks yearningor heuniversalityof certain lass and gender osition nce thevalidityfthat niversalitys seen tohave been eliminated y history.t is to want olive n the parsonagewhen n factone lives n thecity, o tend the souls of one's cure whenone is an engineer r abusinessman. usten husrepresentsn easierpast towhich tis always leasant o

return.n a similar ein,NancyArmstrongnote 3)writes fAusten: It was not hisparticularegment fsociety hat he idealized, hen,butrather he anguage hatconstitutedhe nuances femotion nd the ethical efinementshat eemedto arisefrom ithin omodifyhepoliticalmeaning f igns, new anguage fkinshipelationscapableofreproducinghisprivileged ommunityn a personal cale withinocietyat arge" 160).One should erhaps eadthis laim orratherhis etofrelated laims)in uxtapositiono RaymondWilliams's ritique fAusten's mission fclassesotherthan he ower ristocracynd middle entryrom erworks. he deologicalmomentin Austen'swork hen s a complex ne: herfascination ith ne class seemsto givethat lass position universal alidity hilestressinghepersonal spectsof socialreproduction.o put tbluntly,he ppealofAusten's ictiono theVictorians ight

have restedon its substitutionf humor nd personalityor he larger nd moreintransigenttructuresf lassconflict.ee RaymondWilliams, heCountryndtheCity NewYork:Oxford niv.Press,1973),112-19.

51 Thanksre due to theJaneAusten ociety fNorth merica nd theWashingtonAreaRomanticists'roup,which oth ent generousnd riticalyeto arlier ersionsof hework. would lso ike o xpressmy ratitudeoPatriciaMeyer packs, eborahKaplan,Neil Fraistat, rrinWang nd Adrienne onald for heirnsights.

408 Law and Propriety n Austen

Law and Propriety, Sense and Sensibility Austen on the Cusp of Modernity

Documents

Transcript of Law and Propriety, Sense and Sensibility Austen on the Cusp of Modernity