Marriage and the Marketplace in Jane Austen’s Emma and Mansfield Park (Part II)
Reputational Goods
If there were a model of correct judgment and behavior in Mansfield Park, it would appear that Edmund would fit that role: “he was not pleasant by any common rule, he talked no nonsense, he paid no compliments, his opinions were unbending, his attentions tranquil and simple” (52). He is kind and considerate to Fanny when she first arrives at Mansfield Park and later befriends, advises, and protects her as they both mature. At first glance, Edmund would appear to be the antithesis of Mrs. Norris, Maria, and Mary with his commitment to virtuous principles and Christian ethos of caring for others.[15] Yet a closer reading reveals that Edmund suffers from the marketplace mentality, too, in reducing relationships to a monist character. The only difference between Edmund and Mrs. Norris, Maria, and Mary is that he favors the incorporeal at the expense of the corporeal.
This reductionism is first shown by Edmund’s blindness to Mrs. Norris’s greed for money, not to mention her constant exploitation of Fanny. When Fanny is informed that she would have to live with her aunt because of Sir Thomas’s “recent loses on his West India Estate,” Edmund’s positive reaction exhibits his ignorance about Mrs. Norris’s true character (19). Knowing that she had never received any kindness from Mrs. Norris, Fanny immediately turns to Edmund for counsel and comfort. Instead of accurately evaluating the situation, Edmund sees only the benefits of the move, believing that his aunt’s “love of money does not interfere” with the proposal (21). He mistakenly believes that Mrs. Norris will change her conduct “when [Fanny is] her only companion, [she] must be important to her” (21). In fact, Edmund views this move as an opportunity for Fanny to shine: “Here [at Mansfield Park], there are too many whom you can hide behind” (21). Although Mrs. Norris adroitly avoids having to take Fanny into her residence, Edmund’s reaction reveals his ignorance about the true relationship between Mrs. Norris and Fanny.
Edmund’s disregard of corporeal concerns also accounts for his love for Mary, although he repeatedly has been informed of her disdain for the clergy and desire for her husband to have a large income. It is important to note that Edmund falls in love with Mary when she is playing the harp, which adds “to her beauty, wit and good humour” (51). Edmund falls in love not with Mary as she truly is, a person who perceives relationship in terms of monetary self-interest, but the appearance of Mary as the embodiment of incorporeal goods.[16] The neglect of the material dimensions of Mary as a person leads to Edmund’s inattention of Fanny’s genuine physical need of exercise when he trades Fanny’s horse for winning Mary’s favor: Fanny’s mare is to be given to Mary “for a longer time – for a whole morning in short. She has a great desire to get as far as Mansfield common” (55). In order to impress Mary with his generosity and expose her to the grandeur of Mansfield Park, Edmund must engage in a type of transaction that is similar to his aunt’s and sister’s but uses the currency of reputational goods.
Edmund’s concern for reputation is such that he decides to participate in Lovers’ Vows in spite of his earlier objections to the theatrical being performed at Mansfield Park. In his rationalization to participate in the play, Edmund tells Fanny that the situation would become a public scandal if an outsider, such as Charles Maddox, were to join the cast: “It does appear to me an evil of such magnitude as must, if possible, be prevented” (121). He further decides to assume the role of Anhalt, who plays opposite of Mary’s character, citing that “nothing else will quiet Tom” (121). Although he may not be conscious of it, Edmund is pursuing his own corporeal desires under the appearance of reputational integrity, for even if he did want to avoid public scandal, Edmund does not have to play Anhalt. There is no reason why he could not exchange roles with Tom, Yates, or Mr. Rushworth.
When Edmund departs, Fanny reflects about him: “Could it be possible? Edmund so inconsistent! Was he not deceiving himself? Was he not wrong? Alas, it was all Miss Crawford’s doing” (123). Edmund was deceiving himself but he was not inconsistent. Because he perceives relationships in terms of reputational goods, he is able to rationalize his self-interest behavior as a series of transactions. The price of his reputation among his family is the cost to avoid a public scandal, even though the actual motive behind it is to pursue Mary Crawford’s favor. Whereas the currency of material goods for Mary is money, the currency of immaterial goods for Edmund is reputation. Although they both appear fundamentally different in their values, Mary and Edmund actually share the same underlying understanding of relationships as one-dimensional and commensurate.
Edmund eventually recognizes that this monist approach to relationships is futile and turns to Fanny for refuge: “Fanny’s friendship was all that he had clung to” (361).[17] However, Edmund only reaches this conclusion after Tom’s illness, Maria’s elopement, and Mary’s callous and insulting behavior towards him. But after a prolong period of unhappiness and suffering, Edmund is restored to his normal temperament and finally is aware of his love of Fanny. Although Austen does not delve into the details of Edmund’s transformation from unhappiness to happiness, she suggests that Fanny had a morally restorative effect on him, with Edmund “after wandering and sitting under trees with Fanny all the summer evenings” (363). Characterizing the domestic bliss of Edmund and Fanny as “true merit and true love, and no want of fortune or friends,” Austen discloses the importance of understanding relationships as both immaterial – “true merit and true love” – and material goods – “fortune and friends” (372). Under Fanny’s tutelage, Edmund understands that relationships consist of multifaceted and incommensurate goods rather than monist and commensurate ones.
Imagination and Irony
Seeing Fanny as a moral teacher of Edmund, much less playing an active role in the novel, is contrary to most interpretations, as scholars portray Fanny as passive and insipid, albeit principled and religious.[18] For feminist interpretations, like Poovey’s, the best one can hope for is that Fanny embodies the principle of feminine service: Lady Bertram claims she cannot do without her; Edmund feels guilty when he neglects her; Sir Thomas discovers her beauty and values; and Henry Crawford admires “the deep interest, the absorbed attention” with which she listens to her brother talk about himself” (184).[19] But, as Wallace observes, the success of this type of feminine service is limited with authority figures unreliable in judgment and quickly finding substitutes when she disappears: Sir Thomas embraces Fanny only after his own daughters utterly disappointed him and Lady Bertram adopts Susan Price as Fanny’s replacement.[20]
A closer look at Fanny uncovers a more active character than initially perceived. Fanny is the only one to resist participating in Lovers’ Vows on the principle of decorum and even withstands the requests of Edmund who had asked her to play the cottager’s wife.[21] Fanny’s steadfastness stands in stark contrast to Edmund’s behavior, who is often portrayed as the model of principle and virtue. More revealing is Fanny’s refusal of Henry Crawford’s marriage proposal in spite of pressure from Edmund and Sir Thomas, the latter who removes Fanny from Mansfield Park not so she could see her family but to make her realize that the luxury of living at Mansfield is dependent on Sir Thomas’s good will. No other member of the Bertram household directly defies Sir Thomas except Fanny.[22]
Fanny also plays an active, facilitating role in the promotion of her brother’s career as well as soliciting her sister, Susan, to stay at Mansfield Park; and she consents to Edmund’s marriage proposal, a union which Sir Thomas initially feared at the beginning of the novel but now recognizes that “Fanny was indeed the daughter that he wanted” (371). By being shown that her decisions ultimately were correct, Fanny’s principled behavior changes the mind of Sir Thomas to the point where he permits her into his immediate family. Such a change is not possible if Fanny were passive and insipid as critics claim. Although Fanny does engage in a form of feminine service, she is also an active participant in resisting wrong when no one else does and facilitate the fortunes of her immediate familial members when possible and deserving.
When compared to the other female characters in the novel, Fanny’s behavior falls in the middle between those who are entirely passive (e.g., Lady Bertram, Mrs. Grant) and those who are too active (e.g., Mrs. Norris, Maris, Mary). In contrast to Lady Bertram and Mrs. Grant, the former who submits to Sir Thomas in all matters and the latter who defers to Mary, Fanny’s resistance to Sir Thomas’s commands is certainly not passive. But, unlike Mary or Maria, the former who speaks too directly about the heir of Mansfield Park and latter who elopes with Henry Crawford, Fanny refrains from directly defying Sir Thomas and therefore does not overshoot the mark in her actions. Rather than functioning as a template of feminine service, Fanny is a model of feminine resistance that acts as the situation demands: neither too active nor too passive but just right.[23]
As a woman in nineteenth-century Britain, Fanny is restricted in her behavior when compared to her male counterparts. But this constraint is not necessarily morally limiting as Fanny must rely upon her imagination and irony to navigate her way in the world of Mansfield Park. Almost all the ironic moments in the novel are portrayed from Fanny’s perspective, such as Edmund’s participation in Lovers’ Vows or the duplicitous behavior of Henry Crawford towards the Bertram sisters and herself. Fanny’s ability to see the discrepancy between explanation and action – her irony – is due to her rejection of monist relationships. By recognizing that relationships consist of multiple, incommensurate goods, Fanny is able to adopt an ironic stance to evaluate situations accurately and correctly.
However, the irony of these scenes for the reader is modified by Fanny’s imagination which often empathizes rather than judge people’s motives and feelings. For instance, when Julia is unhappy because Henry has selected Maria over her, Fanny has sympathy for her cousin, even though “Julia made no communications and Fanny took no liberties . . . [but they were] connected only by Fanny’s consciousness” (128). Fanny’s imagination, to speculate about what could be possible as opposed to merely observing what is, makes her empathic to other people’s perspectives. Instead of adopting a stance of satire, Fanny’s irony becomes soften by her imagination, thereby making her, and the reader, empathic for them. In fact, with the exception of the early scenes that involve Mrs. Norris, Fanny is the only perspective that permits irony and imagination to be recognized by the reader in the novel.
This ability to imagine and consequently to empathize with people permits one to recognize the faults of monist relationships. Fanny is the only one who is able to perceive past the appearances of Henry Crawford because her imagination and irony comprehends that Henry’s values do not correspond to his proclamations of love. Whereas Henry, Mary, Sir Thomas, and others see marriage as a commodity that can be transacted like any other currency, Fanny views marriage as a relationship that cannot be transacted because matrimony consist of multifaceted, incommensurate goods. From a monist perspective, Fanny should accept Henry Crawford’s marriage proposal as it would guarantee material security in exchange for Fanny’s reputation of virtue; but from Fanny’s imaginative and ironic perspective, material security and virtue are not exchangeable goods, although both are required for a successful marriage. The failure of Henry Crawford to understand this difference accounts not only for Fanny’s refusal to marry him but also explains his affair with Maria as a type of transaction that equates Fanny’s honorable denial to a satisfaction of his sexual desire.
Like Henry Crawford, Edmund perceives relationships one-dimensionally, too, but in terms of reputational goods; unlike Henry Crawford, he is able to change his perspective under the guidance of Fanny. Austen does not delve into the details of this moral education of Edmund, but it clear that Fanny had a positive effect on him over the summer when Tom was regaining his health. But even before the shock of Tom’s illness, Maria’s elopement, and Mary’s callousness, Edmund recognizes Fanny’s correct judgment: she is the model of principle and right judgment that his reputation claims him to be. Edmund possesses imagination but it is stunted by his marketplace mentality. He requires the corrective education of both the example and words of Fanny.
Thus, Fanny is not as passive and unironic as critics claim. Fanny’s imagination, irony, and empathy allow her to perceive past the appearances of characters to their actual values. Because of this capacity, Fanny is able to see beyond Henry Crawford’s appearances to discover his true character, Edmund’s misplaced love for Mary, and Maria’s and Mrs. Norris’s selfishness. It is not by accident that Fanny is the only character in the novel that correctly diagnoses people’s relationships. Unlike the male characters, who lack both imagination and irony but nevertheless are placed in positions of authority, Fanny presents an alternative perspective of family, community, and politics that is based on imagination, irony, and empathy. This community and politics would be based on both corporeal and incorporeal values that are incommensurate with one another, thereby voiding any transactions of relationships. Although such a vision is only alluded to at the end of the novel with Fanny and Edmund moving to the Mansfield Parsonage, it plays a more central role in Austen’s other novel, Emma.[24]
Notes
[15] Some scholars have interpreted Austen’s novels as a form of virtue ethics and advocating religious principles and sentiments. My interpretation is compatible with these schools of thought, although it does rely upon them for my argument.
For Austen’s account of virtue, refer to Duckworth, Improvement of the Estate; Allan Bloom, “Austen, Pride and Prejudice,” in Love and Friendship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 191-208; Ruderman, The Pleasure of Virtue; Michie, “Austen’s Powers,” Sarah Baxter Emsley, Jane Austen’s Philosophy of Virtues (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Tarpley, Constancy & The Ethics of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park. For the role of religion in Austen’s works, refer to Irene Collins, Jane Austen and the Clergy (London: Hambledon Press, 1993); Michael Giffin, Jane Austen and Religion: Salvation and Society in Georgian England (Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); Laura Mooneyham White, Jane Austen’s Anglicanism (Surrey: Ashgate, 2011). For more about the Enlightenment’s influence in Austen’s novels, refer to Peter Knox-Shaw, Jane Austen and the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) and E.M. Daldez, Mirrors of One Another: Emotion and Value in Jane Austen and David Hume (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
[16] Edmund recognizes this only later when he turns to Fanny for moral guidance: “I had never understood her [Mary] before, and that, as far as related to my mind, it had been a creature of my own imagination . . . And what an acquaintance has it been! How have I been deceived! Equally in brother and sister deceived!” (360-61).
[17] Edmund ,“Even in the midst of his late infatuation [of Mary] . . . had acknowledged Fanny’s mental superiority” (370).
[18] For more about Fanny’s passivity constituting a type of authority, refer to W.A. Craik, Jane Austen: The Six Novels (London: Meuthen, 1965); Marilyn Butler, Jane Austen and the War of Ideas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975); Bernard J. Paris, Character and Conflict in Jane Austen’s Novels: A Psychological Approach (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1978); Marylea Meyersohn, “What Fanny Knew: A Quiet Auditor of the Whole,” in Jane Austen: New Perspectives, ed. Janet Todd (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1983), 224-30; Mary Poovey, The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer: Ideology as Style in the Novels of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984); Paula Marantz Cohen, “Stabilizing the Family System at Mansfield Park,” ELH 54.3 (Fall 1987): 669-93; Paul Pickrel, “Lionel Trilling and Mansfield Park,” SEL 27.4 (Autumn 1987): 609-21.
For those who challenge this interpretation of Fanny as a form of passive moral authority, refer to Avrom Fleishman, A Reading of Mansfield Park: An Essay in Critical Synthesis (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967); Nina Auerbach, Communities of Women: An Idea in Fiction (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978). Fleishman sees Fanny simply as a weak woman, while Auerbach views Fanny’s silence as a type of “obstructive power” of “potent control over action” (45 and 211 respectively).
[19] Poovey, The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer, 217-18. Johnson alludes to the same principle when she writes about Fanny as the “heroine ideologically and emotionally identified with the benighted figures who coerce and mislead her” (Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel, 96). Wallace sees Fanny’s service as embracing the social system, “to catch the best manner of conforming,” because she wants a secure position in the Bertram family (Jane Austen and Narrative Authority, 17).
[20] Wallace, Jane Austen and Narrative Authority 73-74.
[21] Julia also does not participate in the play but out of spite, envy, and jealousy, as Henry Crawford has picked Maria over her for his affections.
[22] Tom is the only other one who directly defies Sir Thomas. However, his fate is less uncertain at the novel, whereas Fanny’s happiness is assured.
[23] The critics who subscribe to Austen as a writer of virtue ethics contend that various characters exhibit virtues like prudence. I agree with their interpretation except that I argue it is the female characters, like Fanny, that demonstrate these traits and not the male characters, as they claim.
[24] Another example of this alternative form of politics can be found in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Auerbach, Communities of Women, 38-54. Also refer to Anna Despotopoulou, “Fanny’s Gaze and the Construction of Feminine Space in ‘Mansfield Park,’” The Modern Language Review 99.3 (July 2004): 569-83.