By now we all should be well into – if not finished – Austen’s Emma. We have also spent quite a bit of time thinking about the state of the British monetary system and the controversies surrounding it in Austen’s time. A number of you have commented already on the way the language of wealth, value, rank, and so on permeate Austen’s language. On Thursday I suggested that one of the ways Austen’s novel engages with the broader philosophical debate on money is through her use of Free Indirect Discourse (style). While the bullion debates tried to foreclose or resolve the “embarrassing” question of what, exactly, guaranteed the value of money, Austen’s use of FID provides a way for us to see “behind” the subjective points of view of her main character and toward some more “objective” standard of value (namely, her narrator). But can we trust in the narrator’s controlling presence, this “narrative institution”? Or, to put the question another way, can we trust the “machine” of Austen’s prose in the same way that we trust institutions like the Bank of England?
More specifically, what do you all make of the way Austen imagines Emma’s relationship with and manipulation of Harriet? If Walter Scott was right, and Harriet circulates through the novel “like a bank bill” what does this say about the way Austen herself manipulates monetary themes and issues?
What other ways might we see Austen engaging with the broader issues of the bullion debate? How, for instance, might we compare Austen’s novel with Defoe’s? How does the concern with marriage, class (or social rank), with landscape or nationhood that we find in both novels allow us to speak about the way capitalism had progressed by the turn of the 19th century?
Some things I found interesting.
I think that throughout the novel, it is very clearly shown that the “value” of an individual is derived from their comparison to others. Also, that as the setting of the book itself is rather rural and consists of a relatively small number of families, this “social comparative value” system takes place in a quite controlled space. As a consequence, we have a bit of microeconomics going on.
We’re consistently given a “standard” for this system through Emma, who not only has high value herself in terms of wealth, social standing, and talents as an individual, but is also directly involved in the shaping (meddling in) of bonds between those around her, through friendships, marriages, and the like, according to what she deems to be acceptable matches (her standards). The flow of relationships within this community however, largely seem to occur despite her intended endeavors…she is unable to control which relationships form, or she is mistaken in her assessments, commonly both. The importance of what one does and does not know becomes critical in these social and/or monetary considerations and allocations. What Emma is and is not able to control, is also of consideration.
As a consequence, the relationship between Emma and Harriet is noteworthy. There is a level of “confidence” and “embarrassment” in their relations with one another. If Emma is indeed the representative of the expected “standard”, she seems to have largely failed in providing unquestionable support for it. If Harriet is to be viewed as a “bank bill”, circulating throughout the novel, mostly controlled and manipulated by Emma but ultimately finding liberty in her independent marriage to Martin at the very end, then Austen seems to be commentating on the futility of a bullion standard.
I wanted to leave a comment on Emma’s understanding of status/wealth, demonstrated in the way she views the Coles. From Emma: “The Coles had been settled some years in Highbury and were very good sort of people, friendly, liberal, and unpretending; but, on the other hand, they were of low origin, in trade, and only moderately genteel” (190 – my version is not the one on the class list, sorry!) . The narrator/Emma tells us that the Coles’ wealth had recently increased, and that in consequence they had bought a larger house, and now were “second only to the family at Hartfield [Emma’s home]” (ibid). And yet Emma, despite their economic similarities, sees a vast difference between herself and the Coles — she immediately imparts to the reader that going to the Coles’ for dinner is out of the question, and when she finally does decide to go it is in a decidedly condescending manner, more as a benevolent superior than a guest. Here we see the rather fickle nature of capital — on the outside, the Coles are as rich, or maybe even more so, than Emma, for Emma’s wealth most likely rests in her father’s land and property than actual cash. To borrow a phrase used frequently in class, the Coles have the wealth for respectability but what they lack is social capital, the graces, mannerisms, and etiquette of true gentility. Therefore, they can never be held in just comparison with Emma (in Emma’s mind at least), for they are the nouveau-riche versus Emma’s old money world. I’m interested in this depiction because along with this negative presentation of the Coles, it is obvious from the adjectives used to describe them (good, friendly, liberal, unpretending) that the Coles are very sweet, amiable people, who despite their “low origin” go above and beyond to ensure that Mr. Woodhouse will be comfortable at their house (191). I take this comparison, between what Emma thinks and what is presented to the reader, as more evidence of Emma’s rather unfortunate character. No wonder she is one of the least-liked of Austen’s heroines!
Oops! I’ve started to read the article and realized that I half-summed up one part. My bad! (The article does it a lot better…)
Early on in the novel, I highlighted page 61 where Emma talks about the different classifications of marriage. As an institution, this seems to be connected to the capitalist ideal of success.
To be ‘well’ married means you have a “comfortable fortune…respectable establishment…a rise in the world”. To marry someone who is in a higher social and financial circle than you could be compared to winning the lottery. In this way, it becomes the 18th century version of the American Dream (except in this case, the hard work is attracting a spouse who is well established in terms of land, status, and wealth).
Harriet lacks credit due to her questionable “birth, nature [and] education” (49). Mr.Knightley, the voice of reason in the story, says that Harriet must learn to be content with her position in society. Otherwise, the risk is that she will be always chasing, but never reaching her unattainable goal of marrying someone of high station and fortune (52).
This, I believe, is the sad truth of capitalism. Although everyone is granted the same potential to achieve wealth through hard work and diligence, this goal is not attainable for the majority of people. However, we are fed images and stories of success (as exemplified by the rags to riches motif is perpetuated by ourselves and by media.)
I think Emma’s blind optimism contrasts with Mr. Knightley’s pragmatic pessimism in order to point to the hazards of either investing too much or too little stock in the capitalist dream.
Any thoughts?
I find the concept of Emma as the failed matchmaker interesting. Whilst it highlights what we were talking about in class concerning her view of the world being iconographical as opposed to Jane’s intelligent and insightful view, I think that this inability to create a working and functional match reveals a link between Emma and the issue of value and paper money.
The fact that Emma tries to match people that simply don’t fit alludes to the inability of the people of England to produce a viable system of value for the essentially conceptual paper money. Unfortunately I’ve tried to use this as a method of attributing a certain person or company to Emma herself, but to no avail. If anyone can think of any specific thing for me to link Emma to that would be great. If there’s nothing, just comments about this idea would be great