Or, The “Who Is Holding The Shotgun” Problem
To preface, I totally understand why writers use the compromise trope: it’s a basic forced proximity set up. It can be very fun to read. What I’m addressing here is problems with the execution and why it doesn’t make much sense in historical context.
————————–
We all know the trope: a man and a woman are found kissing, hugging, or just alone in the dark in a library (why so often a library?). Someone screams, “Compromise!” and they are forced to get married. It is similar to the concept of a shotgun marriage. It has happened so many times to Elizabeths with twisted ankles and Caroline has been attempting it with Darcy since 1995 at least, but does this trope have any historical backing? And how would it have worked?
Depiction of a “shotgun wedding” in The Simpsons
In Jane Austen Fan Fiction, the problem I encounter the most is story writers forgetting that in a shotgun wedding, someone has to hold the shotgun. In Austen’s works, Edward Ferrars is holding his own shotgun because he’s an honourable man in Sense & Sensibility, but he was not compromised, he became engaged to Lucy Steele on his own free will. Captain Wentworth also holds his own shotgun with Louisa Musgrove until she becomes engaged to someone else in Persuasion. He is bound by a personal sense of honour as well. I mention these because we never actually see someone forced to marry someone else by an external force that isn’t just their own honour in Jane Austen’s collected works, except Wickham, who was both broke and far less powerful than the shotgun-wielding Darcy.
Because of this who holds the shotgun problem, a woman like Caroline Bingley would never dare compromise a man like Fitzwilliam Darcy. Charles Bingley doesn’t have more power or better connections than Darcy, so he could hardly force Darcy to marry his sister. I really doubt someone like Lady Catherine or the Earl of — would want to force Darcy to marry a woman below his status, even if they could. Darcy is independently wealthy, there is very little anyone can do to force him to do anything! He can refuse without being diminished in either wealth or social clout. Even if the Prince Regent was to order him, he could just run away to Italy until everything blows over (Like Lord Byron, or the main male character in Shakespeare’s All’s Well that Ends Well.)
We actually see this problem play out between Willoughby and Marianne Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility and to a lesser extent in Pride & Prejudice with Jane Bennet and Charles Bingley. Willoughby has said Marianne’s Christian name, he rides with her to Allenham alone, and leads everyone at Barton to believe that they are engaged. While we know that Mrs. Jennings can overreact, she feels confident enough to spread a rumour that Willoughby and Marianne are indeed engaged in London, the very rumour that Lady Catherine fears in Pride & Prejudice! And yet when Willoughby becomes publicly engaged to Miss Grey instead, nothing happens. And why would anything happen? There is no one to hold a shotgun! Marianne is fatherless and Willoughby has no one in his life holding him responsible for anything. Marianne is out of luck. With Jane & Bingley, Mrs. Bennet can rant and storm that Charles has used her daughter ill, but again, there is nothing to be done. It’s just words.
Now I hear someone about to bring up reputation, while that may matter for women, it doesn’t for men. Jane Austen mourns this herself in Mansfield Park after Henry Crawford and the married Maria Rushworth elope:
That punishment, the public punishment of disgrace, should in a just measure attend his share of the offence is, we know, not one of the barriers which society gives to virtue. In this world the penalty is less equal than could be wished – Ch 48
Henry Crawford walks away socially fine from a scandal that ruins and banishes Maria for life. I am sure women are even still lining up to marry him, he’s rich! Oscar Wilde also addressed this difference in social retribution in his play A Woman of No Importance, published in 1892. A rich young man ruins a young woman, his mother even tries to persuade him to marry her, but he refuses. The woman and her eventual son fall into disgrace while the man goes on without any social consequences.
(Spoilers! Don’t worry, the ruined woman eventually gets to slap the guy, illustrated above, and it’s very satisfying.)
Now, as to the characters in Pride & Prejudice themselves. Darcy is often extremely angry at Elizabeth for compromising him but still agrees to marry. But why? He is an honourable man, but if he believes that Elizabeth has done a dishonourable thing I don’t think he’d feel any obligation to marry her. He’s far too powerful for the matter to touch his reputation, and I think we all know too well that society would blame the woman. As a secondary point, Darcy also has great self control: he was furious at Hunsford but managed to hold it in. I always have trouble seeing him doing anything to compromise Elizabeth unless he was severely impaired.
As for Elizabeth, I guess it depends when the compromise happens, but if she believes that Darcy cheated Wickham, knows that he separated Jane and Bingley, and now she knows that he’s capable of assaulting her… why would she ever agree to marry him? I really think she’d rather accept the consequences of being ruined than enter into a life with a man she cannot trust and might even fear. I can’t see Mr. Bennet picking up a shotgun to force Elizabeth to marry a man who hurt her or to attempt to make Darcy marry her. After all, Elizabeth has very few rights within marriage and very few escape routes, ruin is a far safer and logical option.
And lastly, Caroline Bingley. I really doubt she would ever attempt compromising Darcy because firstly, he seems to enjoy spending time with her at the beginning of the novel so she thinks it’s going well, secondly, she doesn’t have the power or connections to force him into a marriage, and lastly, she wouldn’t want the risk of marrying a man who hates her! Caroline isn’t stupid; she would know that marrying a man who disliked her would be incredibly dangerous. Divorce in this era was nearly impossible, running away from abuse was considered disgraceful (check out The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Brontë for an account), and husbands had almost complete legal control over their wives. So no, I don’t think she’s trying to sneak into his room at night or catch him alone in or out of the library.
Besides, if it was really as easy as tripping into a man’s arms to compromise him, you know women would have turned that into a weapon a long time ago! Every member of the nobility would be married by compromise, it would be madness!
I don’t think these problems aren’t insurmountable as an author. Having someone like a father or Mrs. Smith in Sense & Sensibility who holds power over the man in question is an easy way to make a compromise realistic. Mrs. Smith threatened to disinherit Willoughby if he didn’t marry the ruined Eliza Williams and he really needed money, though he found a way to wiggle out by marrying the heiress Miss Grey instead… these men can be hard to pin down!
As for the woman, she needs to know that the man she’s being forced to marry isn’t dangerous. I think with Elizabeth, it works better if the compromise was a genuine mistake and she knows that.
How do you feel about the compromise trope? Let me know below!
And if you want to know what might have happened with Caroline Bingley, check out my novel, Prideful & Persuaded:
Leave a Reply to cindie snyderCancel reply