Fanny Price & Fear of Poverty
I like Jane Austen. Though her works are placed in prudish English settings and her endings conventional, I like her complete mastery over the depiction of that hierarchical society. I also like her heroines - Elizabeth Bennett, Emma Woodhouse - who are just that little bit off-centre, even if they end up doing the ‘approved’ thing of the day, i.e. getting married to a man with the right amount of money and family name behind him. But I’m wondering if Fanny Price from Mansfield Park is not a more interesting heroine than the ones from the more well known novels.
It’s a long time since I read Mansfield Park, but I recently watched it on TV - the History Channel’s production. Naturally, since it was made for TV, much of the complexity of the original story was stripped away. Still, I could not help feeling that in a sense, this was a more “true” story and Fanny Price a more ‘real’ heroine. For those who haven’t read or seen it, the basic plot is: Fanny comes from a somewhat poor family, and is sent away to a wealthy aunt and uncle, the Bertrams, where she lives as part companion and part househelp. The main story deals with Fanny’s life at the Bertrams, her closeness to the saintly cousin Edmund, the antics of the cousins Julia and Maria, and the stir caused by tne entry of fashionable neighbours, the brother and sister Henry and Mary Crawford. In true Jane Austen fashion, all sorts of combinations in love are proposed (and disposed), before Fanny and cousin Edmund realise that they are meant for each other.
But - what makes it edgier than the other social novels, is Fanny’s precarious position on the social ladder. As a woman from a ‘good’ family, it is unthinkable for her to go out and earn her living. At the same time, she does not enjoy the unearned income that an Emma Woodhouse does. Even the Bennetts of Pride and Prejudice, may be somewhat hardpressed, but not poor. Perhaps the closest in circumstance is Eleanor Dashwood of Sense and Sensibility, though even there, the safety net is better. In Mansfield Park, when Fanny visits her own home, the poverty is in stark contrast to the ease with which the Bertrams live, and which Fanny has become accustomed to. For a woman in such a position, what is the only way out? Marriage, of course. Marriage in this context, is a somewhat desperate, maybe even sacrificial act - the giving up of oneself for a stable life with dignity.
Fanny rejects Henry Crawford’s advances - she has always been somewhat suspicious of his character, her suspicions confirmed when he elopes with cousin Maria (after she has married someone else). But there is no such flaw in cousin Edmund, who has always been her friend and confidante, in any case. It’s all well that ends well, and the lovers are united. But, I couldn’t help thinking. Does Fanny Price really, really love Edmund Bertram, or did the fear of descending into poverty, somewhere have a role to play?
When conversations happen about whether the world is progressing, I think we can’t forget the kind of dismal choices most women had! Today, it seems fantastic to think that earning your own living could have such a stigma attached to it, but I guess that was how women from well-off families were kept under control. Even now, in rural India, it is well known that upper-caste families pride themselves on women not setting foot outside the house. (A long but very interesting study on masculinity, violence and related stuff) In this context, I found Fanny Price a fascinating heroine, even if Jane Austen could never bring herself to give her a different sort of happiness.
- Related Posts You May Like
- The Origin of Humankind
- Never Let Me Go
- Anatomy of an abduction/V.Sudarshan
Ha, I was just thinking about this book the other day. I personally think Fanny Price is both the one of JA’s most autobiographical characters (or perhaps it’s some kind of wish fulfillment) and her most annoying. The reason I like it so much is because of all the things the book either does not concentrate on or the things that it ignores altogether.
There is that cloud of piety that surrounds Fanny for eg. When i first read it as a child I thought her the most mealy mouthed, judgmental freak ever. But later it dawned on me that she was a stereotype of that annoying character we see in Hindi films - poor in material goods but rich in virtue. She almost makes a fetish out of it.
As for the economics of the thing - that’s a pretty standard lynchpin of the romance novel, isn’t it? The hero is almost always rich. Unless the heroine is rich in which case the hero can be poor but virtuous. In fact I can’t think of anything offhand in which the lead couple waltz off to live in glorious poverty together. It’s far more likely to end up as Maupassant’s The Necklace. Didn’t Fanny’s mother marry for love and live to regret it?
I need to pick up a copy again.
Amrita, yes, Fanny Price is not the most likeable of JA characters - after all, she finds the amateur theatricals immoral, something that seems absurd to us. But the reason I find it interesting is also because the economics of it is not just another rich boy-poor girl story. At one point in the story, one gets the feeling that Fanny actually is considering Henry Crawford, inspite of gasp his flippancy - surely a huge back-down for the virtuous girl that she is…and the reason is her fear of poverty. (Yes, the mother does marry for love and regret it…perhaps more reason for Fanny to make a ‘practical’ choice)
In that sense, her (irritating) sense of morality actually makes it all the more shocking - and goes to highlight how few the choices for ‘good women’ were. The History Channel version takes it a step further, by showing Fanny as actually accepting Henry, before changing her mind - I don’t recall this bit in the book. While all the JA novels clearly acknowledge the ‘advantages’ of marriage, none of them make it seem quite as grim, not even Charlotte’s acceptance of Mr. Collins in P&P.
i found some of JA very tiresome and some of it very fascinating
have you read the other boleyn girl by philippa gregory
I read this book recently (cant believe how I missed reading it years ago!) and like Amrita, I too found Fanny Price more virtuous than intelligent. Thought that most of the blame for Fanny’s virtues could be laid on the door of her saintly (read annoyingly priggish and judgemental) cousin who instilled these ideas in her. Their romance was inevitable but I dont think it was driven by economic considerations on the part of either Edmund or Fanny. It was more of the Pygmalion syndrome - he mentored her and she consequently hero-worshiped him. He was after all the only person in the Bertram household who took the time to be kind to her. It was inevitable that she adore him in return. And he in his turn, found in her the biddable miss that the more worldly Mary Crawford was not. Of course, though she doesnt show economic motivations for her characters, JA’s fundamental economic bias does show through. Edmund Bertram isnt a good enough catch for rich, sophisticated Mary Crawford but a good step up for the poor, (pretty nearly) orphaned Fanny.
This is perhaps the most priggish and judgemental of JA’s books and the hero her most unlikeable one. I found myself in complete sympathy with Mary Crawford when she made it clear that she couldnt see herself as a clergyman’s wife! JA seems to embrace the idea of a good (especially in economic terms) marriage yet condemns poor Mary Crawford for looking out for just such! I couldnt help but admire Mary’s decision to wait and see if Tom Bertram decides to make Edmund a better catch financially, or not. (nothing but money could sweeten the bitter pill that Edmund was!)
For all its flaws, I still found Mansfield Park a very interesting read and will probably re-read sometime!
Art - I haven’t read the other boleyn girl, though heard lots about it…
Bollyviewer - you know, I always found this interesting in JA novels - the heroines (and women in general), must make good marriages of course, but not seem to be too eager about chasing money
This is where Mary Crawford falls short, her obviousness is possibly very unfeminine, in the eyes of the society of that day, though today, it does seem logical : if you have to go for money, the more the better, isn’t it!
And yes, the Edmund-Fanny romance certainly isn’t shown as being influenced by mercenary considerations - what I found interesting was that the other ‘possible’ romance - Fanny and Henry Crawford - does seem as if it could be a potential match for Fanny, for purely monetary reasons.
I sympathize with Fanny Price’s position as a poor relation in a wealthy family. But the main problem I have with her character is that she does not really grow as a character. Not really. She maintains her one-dimensional views of morality to the end. She also maintains a lack of tolerance toward the flaws of other characters to the very end. And she consistently blinds herself to Edmund’s flaws.
The main problem with approaching “MANSFIELD PARK” is that many filmmakers, critics and fans of the story never consider the possibility that there are no true villains or heroines/heroes in the story. Practically all of the characters - Fanny and Edmund included - maintain their flaws to the very end without acknowledging them.
Perhaps future filmmakers should adapt “MANSFIELD PARK” as a criticism of human nature and humans’ inabilities to acknowledge their own flaws.