Adam Smith and Jane Austen: On Love and Resentment?

Adam Smith

Resentful but not Judgmental?

(Image from Adam Smith Institute)

I've finished the first draft of my article, which I've titled "Darcy’s Ardent Love and Resentful Temper in Pride and Prejudice," so here's my introduction:

In 1759, Adam Smith wrote in Part 3 of his Theory of Moral Sentiments that "Love does not judge of resentment, nor resentment of love. Those two passions may be opposite to one another, but cannot, with any propriety, be said to approve or disapprove of one another" (192). Kenneth Moler has argued that Smith's work on the sentiments exerted an influence on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, written some 40 years later (567-9). Similarly, Peter Knox-Shaw examines Elizabeth Bennet's query, "Is not general incivility [toward others than the beloved] the very essence of love?" and finds in it an echo of Smith's observation in Moral Sentiments (Pt. 1) that "though a lover may be good company to his mistress, he is so to nobody else" (87-88, n. 44). On the incivility of lovers, Smith and Austen would seem to agree, but influence by one writer on another can be found as readily in disagreement as agreement. Despite her apparent agreement with Smith on some points, would Austen accept Smith's views on love and resentment, namely, that neither can judge the other?

I'll leave you wondering about that (though you surely know the answer!). By the way, my three sources are:

Knox-Shaw, Peter. Jane Austen and the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Moler, Kenneth L. "The Bennet Girls and Adam Smith on Vanity and Pride." Philological Quarterly 46 (1967), 567-9.

Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by Knud Haakonssen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Those are for any readers who themselves might wish to follow up on this issue. Sorry that this is short and possibly tantilizing -- though more likely boring -- but I slept late and need to get on with proofing and touching up this first draft.

Adam Smith: On Love and Resentment

Adam Smith

Etching by Cadell and Davies (1811),

John Horsburgh (1828),

or R.C. Bell (1872)

(Image from Wikipedia)

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the famous Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith makes an interesting observation upon love and resentment:

"Love does not judge of resentment, nor resentment of love. Those two passions may be opposite to one another, but cannot, with any propriety, be said to approve or disapprove of one another." (Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by Knud Haakonssen, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Part III, Chapter V, page 131)

I'm not certain what Smith intends by this. My hunch is that he means to say that the moral sentiments are fundamental and thus have to be acknowledged and taken as the brute facts upon which to base moral theory and to ground moral action.

I don't know that Jane Austen was aware of Smith's observation, but she might well disagree, for her novel Pride and Prejudice could as well have been titled Love and Resentment since the novel seems to be about the power of love to overcome even a "resentful" temperament like that of Darcy. Austen might rather appeal to I Corinthians 13: 4-7 for St. Paul's views on what love is and does:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (New International Version, italics mine)

I'll have more to say of this another time.

Why does Darcy love Elizabeth?

Darcy and Elizabeth

C. E. Brock Illustration

Not as I imagined them . . .

(Image from Wikipedia)

Although readers will naturally -- through Austen's artifice -- identify with the lively, intelligent Elizabeth Bennet from the outset of Pride and Prejudice and liberally detest the proud, insufferable Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, the discerning reader will find distraction in the question as to why Darcy falls for Elizabeth.

He mentions her lovely eyes, which succeed in drawing his attention, and he implicitly acknowledges her intelligence in deigning to speak with her, for he expects a woman to have cultivated her mind with the reading of good books.

Yet, she has so much to dissuade love from Darcy. Her lack of fortune. Her lower status. Her embarrassing family. Her indifference to him. Nevertheless, he falls.

Which raises a second question: Why does he continue to love her?

By Darcy's own account, he should not love her at all. Recall his admission to Elizabeth of what some might consider a character flaw:

"I have faults enough, but they are not, I hope, of understanding. My temper I dare not vouch for. -- It is I believe too little yielding -- certainly too little for the convenience of the world. I cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I ought, nor their offences against myself. My feelings are not puffed about with every attempt to move them. My temper would perhaps be called resentful. -- My good opinion once lost is lost for ever."

"That is a failing indeed!" -- cried Elizabeth. "Implacable resentment is a shade in a character. But you have chosen your fault well. -- I really cannot laugh at it; you are safe from me." (Chapter 11, Pride and Prejudice, from Republic of Pemberley Website)

Elizabeth later calls this to mind as she dances with but distances herself from Darcy at the Netherfield ball:

"I remember hearing you once say, Mr. Darcy, that you hardly ever forgave, that your resentment once created was unappeasable. You are very cautious, I suppose, as to its being created."

"I am," said he, with a firm voice.

"And never allow yourself to be blinded by prejudice?" (Chapter 18)

One cannot hope for much softening of judgement -- much less any softening of character -- from Mr. Darcy. And given his response at being so harshly jilted by Elizabeth after his proud and ill-expressed proposal! For Elizabeth says:

"In such cases as this, it is, I believe, the established mode to express a sense of obligation for the sentiments avowed, however unequally they may be returned. It is natural that obligation should be felt, and if I could feel gratitude, I would now thank you. But I cannot -- I have never desired your good opinion, and you have certainly bestowed it most unwillingly. I am sorry to have occasioned pain to any one. It has been most unconsciously done, however, and I hope will be of short duration. The feelings which, you tell me, have long prevented the acknowledgment of your regard, can have little difficulty in overcoming it after this explanation."

Mr. Darcy, who was leaning against the mantle-piece with his eyes fixed on her face, seemed to catch her words with no less resentment than surprise. His complexion became pale with anger, and the disturbance of his mind was visible in every feature. (Chapter 34)

Darcy's resentment at Elizabeth's words should occasion an implacable dislike of her, given what he has so earnestly and honestly stated. Even Elizabeth has no doubt of that after recounting to her older sister, Jane, the details, whereupon Jane replies:

"His being so sure of succeeding, was wrong," said she; "and certainly ought not to have appeared; but consider how much it must increase his disappointment."

"Indeed," replied Elizabeth, "I am heartily sorry for him; but he has other feelings which will probably soon drive away his regard for me." (Chapter 40)

Likely, she means his resentment, which she expects will drive away his love. Yet, Darcy's feelings take an opposite course, for he treats Elizabeth with great civility when they meet by chance on his estate of Pemberley. Later, after he has proposed a second time and been accepted, he explains his transformation of character, which she had not failed to notice and consequently wondered about:

"My object then," replied Darcy, "was to shew you, by every civility in my power, that I was not so mean as to resent the past; and I hoped to obtain your forgiveness, to lessen your ill opinion, by letting you see that your reproofs had been attended to. How soon any other wishes introduced themselves I can hardly tell, but I believe in about half an hour after I had seen you." (Chapter 58)

How do we explain this? Love? Or Darcy's principles? Darcy explains in his way through a confession expressed some lines earlier:

"I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son (for many years an only child), I was spoilt by my parents, who, though good themselves (my father, particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable), allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond my own family circle; to think meanly of all the rest of the world; to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own. Such I was, from eight to eight and twenty; and such I might still have been but for you, dearest, loveliest Elizabeth! What do I not owe you! You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous. By you, I was properly humbled. I came to you without a doubt of my reception. You shewed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased." (Chapter 58)

Love's reproof has taught Darcy a lesson about pride . . . and apparently about overcoming resentment. But there is much to be excavated here, perhaps in 18th-century views on resentment and love, and I may have to do some more digging in texts on ethics, e.g., Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.