Critics chide Austen for mentioning money so much in her novels...

[MsAmerica]

but it seems to me that Balzac mentions money far, far more.

Austen mostly speaks of money when mentioning someone income. Balzac does it incessantly, mentioning amounts spent on re-decorating, even the amount of a porter's tip.

Justice for Austen!

But her novels are all about the economics of being a woman. It would be weird if she didn't mention money.

In those days marriage was not about romance. It was largely a business contract among people who moved in her circles.

The men of time forbade the women of the time to own, or have access to, money.

Therefore, it was a massive issue for the women - how could it not be?

Austin showed us the impact of that particular chestnut on all the women, and indeed some of the men.

I think they were about romance @Friendlygingercat .

But - the men had to bring something to the table right? As did the women.

Austin did not believe that poverty would help romance.

A good start to a relationship in Austins world was a solid financial footing - we could do with more of that type of thing today!

Who are these critics?

The whole plot of Persuasion is based on the fact that Wentworth didn't have enough money! There'd have been no book without the mention of money. And it turns again on the fact that Sir Walter is hard up.

Jane Austen herself probably spent quite a lot of time thinking about money. It was only thanks to her wealthy brother that Mrs Austen, Cassandra and Jane were able to live as comfortably as they did.

The men of time forbade the women of the time to own, or have access to, money.

Single women and widows could have money. Married women who brought money to the marriage could have it tied up so their husbands couldn't access it.

Single women and widows could have money.

Yes and she gives us loads of iterations of both.

Married women who brought money to the marriage could have it tied up so their husbands couldn't access it.

Only if the match accepted those terms of course! I am thinking that Wickham would not accept because he cannot afford to but, Knightly would have I think. He is wealthy enough and dignified enough to accept. Darcy's sister would have hers tied up I should think!

Critics miss the whole point of Austen's novels.

Who are these 'critics' and what comparative analyses have they done on 18th-19th century literature? Dickens, for instance, and Thackeray. They mustn't have noticed how much Pepys wrote about money, or ... <reels off list going well into the 20th century>

Exactly. Her novels are all about the economics of being a young woman of a social class where marriage is the sole career available.

OP, if you mean professional literary critics, no, no Austen critic has ever negatively viewed Austen’s depiction of the way in which money absolutely interweaves with the idea of the love match in her novels. The reverse, if anything.

On the other hand, if you mean a single reference on a recent thread on here, where someone said they didn’t like Lizzy Bennet saying she’d fallen for Darcy after seeing Pemberley, that poster had completely misunderstood the irony of that line. Lizzy is both making a pretend-mercenary joke to her sister and best friend, who knows she has previously despised Darcy and turned down his proposal, to explain her change of heart, and also hinting at the more serious point Austen makes, that she did start to see him differently at Pemberley because the estate shows he is a good steward, has good taste, is a good employer, a kind brother etc, even before she sees his changed manners.

Yes, and she accepted a proposal from her friends’ rich, awkward brother, presumably on economic grounds, before rethinking it overnight and slinking away. But she never condemns Charlotte Lucas, plain, poor ish and aged out of the marriage market, for making a similarly economically-minded match. The alternative was, like Jane, Cassandra and their mother did, living as a dependent on her brothers, and the Lucas brother/s we hear from are already resentful at that prospect!

Agreed, I too would like to know who these 'critics' are. But I'd also add to your post that because Austen novels are incredibly complex and multi-layered, her characters have depth and the novels are way more subtle than just romantic froth with bonnets, so that we can consider it from this angle - Lizzie despite being the heroine of the novel and generally someone the reader sympathises with, isn't one dimensional, she had character flaws and Austen invites us to consider them - in that line we can ponder quite how much of a part Mr Darcy's social credit plays in her overcoming her prejudice - the point of Lizzie's Pemberley revelations was way more than that Darcy is rich, she knew that from the outset but what she hadn't quite appreciated before visiting was how much 'class' he has - how tasteful his house, how elegant his furnishings, how established and respected his family is in the area - in marrying him she'd not only gain money but a position in society. Austen very cleverly and wittily shows the exact extent Lizzie has self-awareness of how important all this is vs simple romance - contrast her with other characters like Caroline Bingley who's also desperate to marry Darcy, or Charlotte Lucas who only wants a respectable home or Lydia who only cares about romance and sod any economic or social considerations.

Who are these 'critics' and what comparative analyses have they done on 18th-19th century literature? Dickens, for instance, and Thackeray. They mustn't have noticed how much Pepys wrote about money, or ... <reels off list going well into the 20th century>

And to reference another thread here, the entire Chalet School series is founded on the fact that Madge Bettany needs to earn money to support herself and her sister.

Ballet Shoes is all about money too.

Married women who brought money to the marriage could have it tied up so their husbands couldn't access it.
Only if the match accepted those terms of course! I am thinking that Wickham would not accept because he cannot afford to

The likes of Wickham would not get to dictate terms. Someone like him would have to find an heiress who was of age, whose fortune was at her own disposal and who didn't listen to advice from family, friends and lawyers about having settlements drawn up before marriage.

And speaking of heiresses, A Town Like Alice is also about money. And money is the motivation in Trustee from the Toolroom.

Unless it was written into the marriage contract *which it often was with the aristocracy) a married woman could not control her own property as several posters have pointed out. The key Married Women's Property Acts in the UK were passed in 1870 and 1882, Until then not only a woman's property but also her earnings belonged to her husband.

Yes, if it wasn't for Joey, it's pretty clear Madge would have gone back with Dick after his furlough, housekept for him, and bagged herself a Raj husband.

Actually, for anyone who's interested, a book I enjoyed recently was John Mullan's What Matters in Jane Austen, which is very good, not on the essentially pointless 'How much would Darcy and Bingley be worth today?' but 'How much money constitutes "enough"'? What would a 'competence' look like? How close to the edge of gentility are the Dashwoods after they move to Barton Cottage? How much annual income would you need to run a carriage? How much do Mrs and Miss Bates have to live on per annum, and how is it that Lady Catherine de Bourgh knows enough about the Bennet income to say to Lizzy about it being odd that her sisters don't all play the piano because the 'Miss Webbs all play and their father has not so good an income as yours'?

Also chapters on age, blushing, things that happen when her heroines aren't present, card games, deaths, forms of address, proper proposal techniques, what characters look like etc.

Unless it was written into the marriage contract which it often was with the aristocracy) a married woman could not control her own property as several posters have pointed out. The key Married Women's Property Acts in the UK were passed in 1870 and 1882, Until then not only a woman's property but also her earnings belonged to her husband.

Even lower down the social scale - in my own family history, I've seen wills where farmers and businessmen leave money to married daughters in such a way that their husbands can't get at it. One concern was to ensure that if the wife died first, her money should pass to her children and not to the husband, who might spend it or leave it to a new wife.

Another precaution was to have the husband enter into a bond on marriage, whereby if he died first, the first call on his estate would be to pay to the wife her portion. In the instances I've seen this would be something like £200-£400, so not super wealthy.

Mrs Gaskell the author seems to have controlled her own money - she bought a house without her husband's knowledge.

Exactly. She's not just writing about romance it's survival.

Agree with PPs. No independent career women in those days, nor UC or benefits either.

I read the first volume of the Forsyte Saga last year, the characters think about a) money b) gossip

Until then not only a woman's property but also her earnings belonged to her husband.

And her children...

Can I also highly recommend the excellent Rory Muir’s “Gentlemen of Uncertain Fortune: How Younger Sons Made Their Way In Jane Austen’s England”. A thoroughly informed and comprehensive antidote to the received opinion that women were particularly hard done by. It was tough for everyone.

I don’t even understand why talking about money is a problem?

Mrs Bennet is often painted in a very negative light-because people forget that she was terrified that her daughters would be left destitute. Yes, she wanted them to be married. But most of all, she wanted them not to be poor.

Absolutely! Yet she is generally portrayed as stupid.

And Mr Bennet, whom everyone thinks is so witty and wonderful, does absolutely nothing for his family, except deride his wife, even though he’d assumed he’d have sons but then did the square root of all for his daughters.

I never said she shouldn't mention money!
My point is, why slam Austen for it, since it's not unique to her?