The Importance Of The Emotional Appeal Of Money In Pride And Prejudice And Persuasion In The Light Of This Statement.

The pursuit of money as spendable income in Pride and Prejudice (Austen, 1813) and Persuasion (Austen, 1818) is represented as unemotional and mercenary. It can be argued that Austen reflects in these novels the changing societal attitudes and events of the early nineteenth century, progressively advocating marriage-for-love and questioning the emotional importance of money. Yet ultimately, the financial love-tipped arrow (Copeland, in 2011, in Watson, 2015, p.167) demands the reader returns to the status quo, and is merely used to highlight her characters reliance on money for security and independence.

Contestably, Jane Austen s personal views are at the core of both these novels. Through the use of narrator, narrative and characterisation she is able to display her strong points of view on contemporary life. Throughout the texts, Austen foregrounds the impossible positions women are faced with in the pursuit of financially secure marriage. She underlines the lack of personal spendable income, particularly through primogeniture (Jones, 2004, in Austen, 1817, p.215) and focuses on the emotional worry women face of not being able to support themselves after the loss of domestic income and the fear of the inability to enter into the safety of marriage.

Austen presents both narratives as hard and unsentimental love stories, moderated by money with characters continually fiscally assessing each other (Copeland, 2011, p.129). Austen openly reveals her characters social and financial standing (Copeland, 2011, p.129) through bold statements such as Mr Bingley being a single man of large fortune four or five thousand a year (p.1), and drawing attention to financial signifiers, for instance, the size of Netherfield and Pemberley (Copeland, 2011, p.129). She demands that female readers must consider their financial future through a good marriage and as Copeland states, the heartbeat of romance lies in a good income (Copeland, 2011, p.129) and that it becomes the bottom line for romance (Copeland, 2011, p.130). Interestingly, Watson paraphrases W.H. Auden s comments that what is truly sexy in Austen s fiction is money (Watson, 2015, p.167).

Debatably, Austen subtly offers an ambiguous view of the financial nature of marriage. Reflecting the progressive attitudes in the nineteenth century in favour of a romantic marriage (Watson, 2015, p.171), Austen advocates a choice for prudency over financial need, characterised in Jane and Mr Bingley, and moreover, shown in Elizabeth s indignation at Charlotte Lucas decision to marry Mr Collins. Arguably, Austen does not totally advocate this point of view, her characters are financially well placed at the end of her novels, and she tempers the marriage-for-love fantasy by suggesting that an emotional marriage is not always what it is expected to be for example Lydia s marriage to Wickham.

Austen infuses her feminist point of view through her use of a female third person omniscient narrator and often parodying toned and insightful free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice, leading to a deeper understanding of the narrative as a whole. It can be argued through Austen s use of free indirect discourse that we are presented with a reliable narrator who shares a humorous and often ironic view particularly on marriage and emotional appeal of income. The narrator is able to steer the narrative through a focal character to give the reader clarity as to reported events and a character s true feelings. For example, as the novel progresses, the narrator guides the reader to view Elizabeth as the centre of consciousness we understand her judgments and view the psychological progress in her feelings towards Darcy such as her feelings as she read were scarcely to be defined (p.156).

However, there is a difference in tone in the narrator s simple telling of the action that could be considered as sharply contrasting with the characters: subtly offering an emotionless tone to the narrative, merely reporting the events, dialogue and character s opinions. It is interesting that whilst the narrator remains third person throughout the novel, she brings herself into the narrative as a first person at the end to offer her own view that I wish I could say, for the sake of her family that the accomplishment of her earnest desire produced so happy an effect (p.295). Perhaps this is Austen s personal last word that succumbing to money through marriage does not solve every problem.

This pessimism towards the theme of marriage and money is characterised in Elizabeth Bennet. Initially depicted as being wholly prejudiced towards the idea of marriage, she believes that marriage can only be happy if both parties are on an equal footing, such as class and intelligence. Certainly, it can be seen that Elizabeth does not make an effort to get married and gain financial security - turning down both Mr Collins and Mr Darcy without compunction. It is conceivable that her views on marriage stem from her parents that had Elizabeth s opinion been all drawn from her own family, she could not have formed a very pleasing picture of conjugal felicity She had always seen it with pain (p.180) exemplifying the first-person narrator s final warning.

For this reason, it could be argued that Elizabeth resolutely argues for her progressive independence of mind as to not consider me now as an elegant female but as a rational creature (p.83). Yet, her vehement opposition to marriage has blinkered her to the realities of becoming a penniless spinster. Elizabeth is aware that Mr Collins represents her staying at Longbourn, giving her financial independence and is very sensible of the honour of your proposals (p.82). Mr Collins contrasts this bullish characterisation. His inner character represents the contemporary conservative and financially mercenary marriage attitudes. Typifying the power of primogeniture, he highlights that marriage to him would reduce the loss to them (p.81) as her portion is unhappy (p.83), and he displays a disbelief that Elizabeth does not share his values as it does not appear my hand is unworthy or the establishment I can offer [is] highly desirable (p.83). It can be seen that in his pompous speech his proposal reads like a financial contract (Watson, 2015, p.170), listing his reasons as first secondly and thirdly (p.81), producing a desperate tone.

Charlotte Lucas, who is depicted as attempting to ensnare any available man so as to avoid destitution, shares this desperate tone. She accepts Mr Collins solely for the pure and disinterested desire of establishment (p.93), and as Harris states she represents the Charlotte Lucas Syndrome (2007, p.141) of the age. Arguably, it is not a syndrome Charlotte is the voice of reason, aware of the realities of women s financial precariousness in the nineteenth century and merely expresses her pragmatism. For example, whilst she recognises that Jane and Bingley are in love, Jane must be secure of him, [and] there will be more leisure for falling in love (p.15).

However, Austen creates a nuanced argument for and against a money-orientated grab for marriage, highlighting the need for a financially secure marriage for independence, as it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune (p.94). Yet the narrator s descri ption of the rapid courtship and proposal exudes a bitterly ironic commentary on Charlotte s mercenary behaviour. Describing how she instantly set out to meet him accidentally (p.93), and doing injustice to the fire and independence of [Mr Collins ] character (p.93). This is foregrounded by Charlotte s contrasted characterisation with Elizabeth. Whilst she gave Charlotte credit for the arrangement (p.129), Elizabeth is horrified at Charlotte s alarming and rapacious decision, acidly replying to Charlotte s reasoning as Undoubtedly (p.96) whilst inwardly believing that Charlotte the wife of Mr Collins, was a most humiliating picture! (p.96). Indeed, one could argue that she is hypocritical when she sees Pemberley, deciding that becoming its mistress clinches her wish to marry Darcy. The serious implication of marriage is juxtaposed by Lydia s characterisation. Her elopement and eventual forced marriage acts as a warning to readers that it isn t just very good fun (p.240) and has ruinous possibilities. Her ignorant attitude towards a secure monetary marriage, or, indeed, marriage at all, is evident in the pleading idiolect within her letter to Elizabeth that she is sure Wickham would like a place at court very much, and I do not think we shall have quite money enough to live upon without some help. (p.296).

The seriousness of finance in marriage theme is as important within Persuasion. Whilst Pride and Prejudice concerns the future, Austen looks to the past within the narrative of Persuasion to assert and criticise the contemporary importance and emotional appeal of money. Conceivably considered as a considerably more nuanced and progressive novel, Austen frames the narrative around a realistic depiction of the domestic world for example, the Napoleonic Wars and its effect on the British economy. Indeed, she equally acknowledges the rise of the pseudo-gentry and it s changing of the economic terrain (Harris, 2007, p.141) and the inevitable altering role of the aristocracy (Harris, 2007, p.131). However, it has been argued that Austen is narrow in her domestic focus thought to be comfortable, safe and tamed (Harris, 2007, p.139), yet it can be argued that whilst she returns to the safe societal status quo, she repeatedly attempts to subvert the ideology of fiscal marriage, class and societal advancement.

Austen again chooses to use a third person omniscient narrator, focalising on Anne Elliot, demanding the reader follow her thoughts and views as the narrative unfolds. However, the narrator eventually brings herself into the novel as first person at the denouement, perhaps bringing psychological realism, she comments on the narrative which I believe it to be the truth (p.199). This realism suggests an unerring opinion on marriage. Spinsterhood is suggested as a freezing out of society, Anne feels she did not belong (p.185) when hearing of others engagements, and furthermore, Elizabeth Elliot is aware of the years of danger (p.12). Arguably, this is irrespective of a woman s place in society encroaching spinsterhood is still seen as unacceptable even if she is mistress of Kellynch (p.12).

Austen blames this issue on women s reliance on the need for a financially secure marriage. Anne s marriage to Captain Wentworth is denied as he had nothing but himself to recommend him, and no hopes of attaining affluence (p.27). Copeland argues that perhaps Anne should have taken him on credit (2011, p.139), yet the law of primogeniture would have rendered this insecurity impossible and was considered a youth killing dependence (p.27) by Lady Russell. Indeed, Anne is persuaded out of this insecurity exerted on the side of safety, not of risk it was to duty (p197). She is virtually induced into marriage with apparent financial security to William Elliot that would enable material advancement and maintaining her position in society.

Austen s depiction of partnership marriages (Copeland, 2011, p.139) such as the Musgrove s, are represented as a marriage of equals, yet this is only because they each had money (p.63) and merely emphasises the characters beliefs that love equates to insecurity. Income represents sexual inequality: married women were in charge of the domestic economy for example, Lady Elliot promoted method, moderation, and economy (p.14) and this is further highlighted by the free indirect speech of they must retrench (p.16). Austen expands upon female agency, critiquing the patriarchal prejudice of keeping women in domesticity as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures (p.60) and unable to grow mentally and emotionally. Austen attempts to revise female financial priorities, depicting women as having more complex relations to money (Copeland, 2011, p.128), particularly evident in the prudent characterisation of Anne, and Mrs Croft s assessment of the taxes on Kellynch (Harris, 2007, p.136). Equally, she highlights the social irony (Copeland, 2011, p.133) that by law women were unable to own money themselves (Copeland, 2011, p.133). However, it could be considered that Austen s true authorial progression is shown in her continued subtle damnation of fiscal marriage over love, perhaps representing her own views on this, she characterises Anne as having been forced into prudence in her youth, she learned romance as she grew older (p.30).

Nevertheless, decisions of domestic economy define the heroine and the hero (Copeland, 2011, p.129), men within these novels equally present hypocritical points of view about mercenary marriages. Men are neither subject to the female social pressure nor ruined by the lack of marriage, yet there is a necessity for being moneyed to enable marriage and retention of social standing. The ironic it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife (p.1) represents a humorous yet underlying mercenary tone for the novel as an unromantic statement of necessity at the opening of Pride and Prejudice.

This is particularly characterised by the brutal honesty of Colonel Fitzwilliam, he must marry to keep in habits of expense (p.141) as money makes us too dependent (p.141). His characterisation openly highlights the desperation in the upper class and pseudo-gentry (Copeland, 2011, pp.128-129) that not many in my rank can afford to marry without some attention to money (p.141) keeping their expected male independence. This is contrasted with the characterisation of Darcy whose fortune enables him the ultimate freedom of doing what he likes (p.140). Nevertheless, Austen depicts the dark side of fiscal marriage. Represented as of indeterminate character, Wickham is a stereotypical rake who cherished the hope of more effectually making his fortune by marriage (p.245), seducing both Georgiana and Miss King in the hunt for money. Indeed, his marriage to Lydia only occurs in his belief that he would gain financial security. However, he is depicted with ambiguity in both a favourable and mercenary light, seen as being in distressed circumstances (p.118) yet marriage had never been his design (p.245) and only paying Miss King attention when she becomes mistress of this fortune (p.118).

Equally, Austen depicts the characterisation of William Elliot as calculating and mercenary. In choosing to not marry Elizabeth he instead purchased independence (p.13) with another woman however, it is only at the denouement do we understand his true nature conniving to marry Anne for a better financial independence. For example, Anne s engagement deranged his best plan for domestic happiness (p.201) and we realise how double a game he had been playing (p.201).

Interestingly, it is Austen s juxtaposed characterisations of Sir Walter and Captain Wentworth that embody the importance of money in the contemporary age. Sir Walter, whilst prideful of his title is depicted as in debt, disgraced and vain of person and situation (p.10) and mortgaging of Kellynch represents the change in the aristocratic economic status quo (Harris, 2007, p.132). Leaving him no option other than to retrench without the decencies even of a private gentleman (p.17). Arguably, Sir Walter represents the past rural elite who were maintaining prejudices on the side of ancestry, yet were facing a forceful brave new world (Harris, 2007, p.130) with the rise of the moneyed pseudo-gentry, criticising it as being the means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction (p.22). Persuasion can be considered as heavily weighted (Harris, 2007, p.130) on the side of the naval class that was leading this rise of fortune through own endeavours (Harris, 2007, p.138) - working was now seen as a better way to uphold move up the ranks (Harris, 2007, p.138). However, money is still shown as imperative, we learn through free indirect speech, Sir Walter s cold toned without actually withholding his consent (p.27) turns away Wentworth as he had no fortune (p.27) and no hopes of attaining affluence (p.27). However, upon gaining his fortune, Wentworth is hypocritically now esteemed quite worthy (pp.199-200) to marry Anne.

Austen realistically reflects the pressures of societal ideology and world events throughout Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion to present her characters unemotional and ruthless attitude towards a reliance on money. Whilst Austen attempts to be subversive in advocating romance above fiscal dependency, ultimately, it is hard spendable income that enables her characters marriage, security and independence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austen, J. (2004 [1818]) Persuasion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Austen, J. (2008 [1813]) Pride and Prejudice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Copeland, E. (1997) Money in Copeland, E. and McMaster, J. (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-143.

Harris, J. (2007) Revolution Almost Beyond Expression: Jane Austen s Persuasion, Newark, University of Delaware Press.

Towheed, S. (2015) Reading Austen s Persuasion (1818) in Towheed, S. (ed) Austen and Romantic Writing, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.193-224.

Towheed, S. (2015) Persuasion: language, readerships, publication in Towheed, S. (ed) Austen and Romantic Writing, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.225-246.

Watson, N. J. (2015) Pride and Prejudice: literary contexts and financial techniques in Towheed, S. (ed) Austen and Romantic Writing, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.131-160.

Watson, N. J. (2015) Pride and Prejudice: then and now in Towheed, S. (ed) Austen and Romantic Writing, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp.161-192.