Cousins in Love, Etc.: Unspeakable Desire and Transgressive Endogamy in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park.
"You are thinking of your sons--but do not you know that of all things upon earth that is the least likely to happen; brought up, as they would be, always together like brothers and sisters? It is morally impossible. I never knew an instance of it. It is, in fact, the only sure way of providing against the connection." (6-7)
Mrs. Norris's assertion of the "impossibility" of romantic and sexual desire between children raised as siblings parallels the hypothesis of sociologist Edvard Westermarck "that there is an innate aversion to sexual intercourse between persons living very closely together from early youth, and that, as such persons are in most cases related by blood, this feeling ... naturally [displays] itself in custom and law as a horror of intercourse between near kin" (368). For both Westermarck and Mrs. Norris, incestuous desire between individuals raised "closely together from early youth" or those "brought up ... together like brothers and sisters" is something that "never" occurs due to the "natural" and "innate aversion" that people have towards sexual intercourse with their siblings. Despite this assertion, and despite Mrs. Norris's and Sir Thomas's being "sure" in the steps that they take "against the connection" between cousins, Austen's novel ends with the "morally impossible" union between Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram, two cousins raised in the same household.
While critics such as Glenda A. Hudson and R. F. Brissenden have pointed to Mrs. Norris's speech as establishing the presence of the incest taboo in Mansfield Park? critics have yet to examine the ways in which a potentially incestuous relationship is presented within this scene in terms of its unspeakability. Mrs. Norris replies to both the "stated" and "unstated" objections that Sir Thomas has to the adoption of Fanny Price, attempting to assuage both the speakable and unspeakable concerns surrounding the potential for endogamous marriage between Fanny and one of her relatives. Mrs. Norris's euphemistic "that" and Sir Thomas's aposiopetic et cetera both treat the potential union between cousins as though it is beyond the realm of what is representable in language. From the beginning of the novel, the romantic desires that Fanny eventually develops for Edmund are characterized as being outside of what is permissible, and even what is expressible, within the social environment of Mansfield.
This article will examine the way in which Fanny's endogamous desire for her cousin Edmund is made inexpressible and rendered taboo throughout Mansfield Park. I argue that Fanny's capacity to express her own desire is repressed at the level of language by a patriarchal system, embodied most prominently in the confederacy between Sir Thomas and Henry Crawford, in which women are treated as objects of exchange within exogamous marital alliances. In pursuing her love for Edmund and rejecting the advances of Henry Crawford, Fanny disrupts the patriarchal constraints of her social surroundings at Mansfield and creates a space for herself in which her transgressive desires can be fulfilled.
For Johanna M. Smith, the ending of Mansfield Park represents a "dismal failure" (1). The novel's final "incestuous marriage," Smith explains, is designed to expose both the "constrictions of family" and "crippling effects of sister--brother love within a hierarchical family structure" (1). Smith argues that, by conforming to nineteenth-century ideals of domesticity in which "the exaltation of sister-brother love ... ultimately bound siblings within the family," Fanny and Edmund's endogamous marriage "is emblematic of this paralyzed retreat within the family, and proleptic of the nineteenth-century inescapable family" (1-2). In also reading the narrative's ending as pessimistic, Claudia Johnson argues that any potentially "disruptive oedipal energies" within the novel are made safely "domestic" through Edmund and Fanny's eventual marriage (119). Though she views the text as a critique of paternalistic authority and Burkean conservative ideology, Johnson states that the novel's "concluding assertion of familiarity that could look like righteous good sense at last is really only a retrenchment [of the patriarchal family], not an alternative" (119). (2) Hudson, in response to critics such as Smith and Johnson, whom she describes as viewing Austen's "incestuous marriages as static and debilitating," instead proposes a reading of the novel's ending as "therapeutic and restorative" (Sibling Love 34-35). The marriage between Edmund and Fanny, Hudson argues, "stresses the bonds of family love, the sanctity of the ideal home and family life, and the need for moral and religious reform in order to maintain stability" (41). For Hudson, Austen's "endogamous unions" work to "safeguard the family circle and its values" (35). They do so by "drawing in the bonds of the family tighter and tighter" in order to "[expel] or [remove] menacing intruders" and "[preserve] and [revivify] the home and family" (35). (3)
These critics, though they diverge in their reading of whether Austen is celebrating or criticizing family structures, are consistent in characterizing the union of Fanny and Edmund as a form of conservative endogamy, "conservative" both in the sense of "traditional" and "conservational." Their marriage is presented as a return, or a retreat, to a restrictive and self-contained familial unit that reinforces nineteenth-century ideals of domestic morality and familial closeness. (4)
What this theory of conservative endogamy does not take into account, however, is the way in which Fanny's choice of husband works to challenge the patriarchal restrictions of the Bertram household. Throughout the novel, the entirety of Fanny's familial support structure becomes mobilized in an attempt to enforce her exogamous marriage to Henry Crawford. Fanny contradicts the wishes of both her adoptive "father," Sir Thomas, and "brother," Edmund, in her rejection of Henry as a marital partner. Edmund defends Henry's claim to Fanny, telling his cousin to '"let him succeed at last'" (401). In a more virulent castigation of Fanny, Sir Thomas represents her refusal of Henry as being a direct affront to her responsibilities to her family:
"you have now shewn me that you can be wilful and perverse, that you can and will decide for yourself, without any consideration or deference for those who have surely some right to guide you--without even asking their advice. You have shewn yourself very, very different from any thing that I had imagined. The advantage or disadvantage of your family--of your parents--your brothers and sisters--never seems to have had a moment's share in your thoughts on this occasion. How they might be benefited, how they must rejoice in such an establishment for you--is nothing to you. You think only of yourself." (367)
Sir Thomas characterizes Fanny as "perversely" prioritizing the individual "you" over the collective "they" in her failure to submit to the "right" that her family possesses in "guiding" her behavior. Fanny's "wilful" assertion of agency is depicted by Sir Thomas as an abandonment of her responsibilities to her family structure, which would "benefit" from the marriage between herself and Henry.
Sociological discussions of the incest taboo by theorists such as Emile Durkheim and Michel Foucault draw attention to the role that family plays in organizing exogamous marriage and enforcing the taboo of incest. (5) In discussing the moral restraints of familial structures, Durkheim states:
Everything concerning the life of the family is dominated by the idea of duty. Our contracts with our brothers, our sisters, our parents, are strictly regulated by morality; there is a network of obligations that we are able to perform with joy if we are healthily constituted, but which cannot be imposed on us with that imperious impersonality which is characteristic of the moral law. (100) (6)
The strict moral regulations of familial duty that Durkheim describes are exhibited in Sir Thomas's judgment of Fanny. In violating her contract with her "brothers," "sisters," and "parents," Fanny has failed to "perform" her proper duties to her family and, instead of being "healthily constituted," is described as being "perverse." In response to this perceived violation of "moral law," Sir Thomas endeavors, with "imperious impersonality," to enforce Fanny's sense of moral duty towards her family.
Fanny's sense of "duty" to the Bertram family is not only invoked in Sir Thomas's accusations of '"ingratitude"' and '"violation of duty and respect'" (368) but is consistently brought up by the members of the Bertram household. Mrs. Norris, from Fanny's first arrival at Mansfield, stresses "the extraordinary degree of gratitude" that Fanny should have towards the Bertrams and states that she '"shall think [Fanny] a very obstinate, ungrateful girl, if she does not do what her aunt and cousins wish her'" (14, 172). Lady Bertram, in possibly "the only piece of advice" that she gives to Fanny, tells her niece that '"it is every young woman's duty to accept such a very unexceptionable offer"' as the one that she receives from Henry Crawford (384). Fanny herself, constantly reminded of her indebtedness towards the Bertrams, "grieve[s] because she could not grieve" the departure of Sir Thomas for Antigua and accuses herself of "shameful insensibility" and "ungrateful" feelings (37). Fanny, under the strict regulation of the Bertrams, is brought up with an overdeveloped awareness of her duty and obligations towards the familial structure in which she lives.
In his examination of the incest taboo, Foucault expands upon the theories of Durkheim and argues that the family represents "the interchange of sexuality and alliance: it conveys the law and the juridical dimension in the deployment of sexuality" (108). This regulatory role of family is displayed in Sir Thomas's attempt to regulate Fanny's "deployment of sexuality" through the enforcement of an exogamous "alliance" with Henry. Sir Thomas tries to convince Fanny that Henry Crawford is a suitable marital partner by describing his own willingness to give up one of his daughters in marriage to Henry:
"Gladly would I have bestowed either of my own daughters on him. Maria is nobly married--but had Mr. Crawford sought Julia's hand, I should have given it to him with superior and more heartfelt satisfaction than I gave Maria's to Mr. Rushworth.... And I should have been very much surprised had either of my daughters, on receiving a proposal of marriage at any time, which might carry with it only half the eligibility of this, immediately and peremptorily, and without paying my opinion or my regard the compliment of any consultation, put a decided negative on it." (368)
Sir Thomas's comments here parallel Foucault's claim that, within familial structures of alliance, "parents and relatives [become] the chief agents of a deployment of sexuality" (110). In his attempt to establish an exogamous alliance with Henry Crawford, Sir Thomas's own daughters become interchangeable to him; Sir Thomas states that he would have given "either of his own daughters" in place of Fanny in order to secure an alliance with someone as "eligible" as Henry. His daughters become objects of exchange, the Bertram sisters being described as "hands" that are "given" to or "bestowed" on their husbands by Sir Thomas.
The patriarchal confederacy between the Bertram and Crawford families is furthermore manifested in Henry Crawford's attempt to marry Fanny. Henry's pursuit of Fanny itself seeks to repress and override Fanny's own capacity for independent agency. Henry is said to be determined "to have the glory, as well as the felicity, of forcing [Fanny] to love him" and sets out, as he tells his sister, to '"mak[e] a small hole in Fanny Price's heart'" (376, 267). In order to achieve this desired control over Fanny, Henry enters into alliance with Fanny's male relatives. This association is represented not only in his relationship with Sir Thomas but also in his work to support the career of Fanny's brother William. While attempting to convince Fanny to accept Henry's marriage proposal, Edmund makes reference to the work that Henry has done in promoting William's naval career, telling Fanny, '"I cannot suppose that you have not the wish to love [Henry]--the natural wish of gratitude'" (402). Henry manipulates Fanny's sense of duty towards her family, using her familial bonds and her feelings of responsibility towards William as a means of securing a marriage with her by way of "gratitude." Rather than being perceived as "menacing intruders," the Crawfords integrate themselves into the pre-existing family structure of Mansfield, using it to their advantage in their attempts to form exogamous unions. (7)
Within Mansfield Park, Fanny's desire for Edmund is brought into the position of taboo by the patriarchal alliance structures that surround her. While thinking over her relationship with Edmund, Fanny expresses the impossibility of entertaining romantic desires for her cousin:
To think of him as Miss Crawford might be justified in thinking, would in her be insanity. To her, he could be nothing under any circumstances--nothing dearer than a friend. Why did such an idea occur to her even enough to be reprobated and forbidden? It ought not to have touched on the confines of her imagination. She would endeavour to be rational. (307)
Fanny's incestuous desire is so "forbidden" that it should not have even "touched on the confines of her imagination" or existed within her mind.8 Fanny is denied even the possibility of thinking about an endogamous union with Edmund. Her desire is pathologized, described as being "insanity" and outside of what is "rational." Fanny's appeal to the "rational" parallels Edmund's later claim that Fanny's refusal of Henry Crawford is "'not like [herself], [her] rational self"' (402). Within the constraints of "rational" behavior, Fanny should dismiss the possibility of an endogamous relationship with Edmund in favor of an exogamous relationship with Henry.
Just as Fanny's desire for Edmund is "forbidden" at the level of thought, the possibility of endogamous union between the cousins is made taboo on the level of language. The euphemistic treatment of "cousins in love, &c." in the text's opening chapter emerges again during Sir Thomas's condemnation of Fanny's rejection of Henry:
"This is beyond me," said he. "This requires explanation. Young as you are, and having seen scarcely any one, it is hardly possible that your affections--"
He paused and eyed her fixedly. He saw her lips formed into a no, though the sound was inarticulate, but her face was like scarlet.
That, however, in so modest a girl might be very compatible with innocence; and chusing at least to appear satisfied, he quickly added, "No, no, I know that is quite out of the question--quite impossible." (365)
The aposiopetic interruption at "affections--," the euphemistic use of "that" and the assertion that it would be "impossible" for Fanny to direct her "affections" towards her cousin all directly parallel the conditions of the opening scene between Mrs. Norris and Sir Thomas. The potential existence of incestuous desire is represented indirectly and euphemistically, depicted in terms of its very unspeakability. Fanny herself is rendered speechless; the "no" that she attempts to put into language is silent and "inarticulate." Fanny, it is later said, "would rather die than own the truth" of her "impossible" desire for her cousin, expressing her secret desire only in an embarrassed blush (365). Sir Thomas becomes "easy on the score of the cousins" again only after making reference to the likelihood of marriage between Edmund and Mary Crawford, stating that Edmund '"lately ... has seen the woman he could love'" (366). The uneasiness surrounding the topic of "cousins" is suppressed by an appeal to the certainty and stability of an exogamous alliance between the Bertram and Crawford families.
The implicative "that" used by Mrs. Norris and Sir Thomas reoccurs in a discussion of Henry's pursuit of engagement with Fanny. Henry, Austen writes, "knew not that he had a pre-engaged heart to attack. Of that, he had no suspicion" (376). The "that" in question is double in meaning, referring not only to the fact that Fanny has a "pre-engaged heart" but also to the potential union between cousins that the italicized "that" has come to represent. Fanny's desire is depicted through a doubling of meaning earlier in the text when it is said that Fanny "loved to hear an account of [her cousins' gaieties], especially of the balls, and whom Edmund had danced with; but thought too lowly of her own situation to imagine she should ever be admitted to the same" (40). The second half of this sentence potentially refers both to the fact that Fanny is unable to imagine being "admitted to" the balls that her cousins attend and to the fact that she cannot imagine being "admitted to" the opportunity of dancing with Edmund. Later on in the novel, Fanny and Edmund are said to have danced together "with such sober tranquillity as might satisfy any looker-on, that Sir Thomas had been bringing up no wife for his younger son" (324). When Fanny's potential to become "wife" to the "younger son" of Sir Thomas surfaces, it is presented as a negation of its own possibility: "any looker-on" would be convinced of the impossibility of marriage between the two. Fanny's desire for Edmund is made taboo, described as an impossibility, and positioned as unrepresentable throughout the text.
The way in which Fanny's taboo desire for Edmund is silenced and made unspeakable is characteristic of the repression and silencing of Fanny's will by her family structure. Fanny's position within the Bertram household is illustrated by the role that she is offered during the Mansfield social circle's attempt at private theatrics. In venturing to stage the play Lovers' Vows, the group offers Fanny '"a nothing of a part, a mere nothing, not above half a dozen speeches altogether, and it will not much signify if nobody hears a word you say'" (171). The members of Fanny's social framework attempt to coerce her into becoming a participant in their arrangements, while placing her into the position of "nothing" and remaining indifferent as to whether or not her voice is to be heard by anyone. Fanny's position of silence is enforced by the continual chastisements of Mrs. Norris, who tells her:
"I do beseech and intreat you not to be putting yourself forward, and talking and giving your opinion as if you were one of your cousins--as if you were dear Mrs. Rushworth or Julia. That will never do, believe me. Remember, wherever you are, you must be the lowest and last; and though Miss Crawford is in a manner at home, at the Parsonage, you are not to be taking place of her." (257-58)
Mrs. Norris, in her reprimands of Fanny, seeks to restrain her ability to speak, "give her own opinion," and assert her agency in any way, placing her comprehensively, "wherever" she is, in the position of "the lowest and last." Mrs. Norris's admonition also, however, foreshadows Mary's eventual displacement by Fanny from her position as Edmund's potential wife at Thornton Lacey. In being told not to express herself, Fanny is also warned against "taking" the "place" of Mary Crawford within her parsonage "home." Fanny's ability to enact both her individual agency and her incestuous desire for Edmund is denied to her within the context of her Mansfield surroundings.
In rejecting a union between herself and Henry, Fanny undermines Sir Thomas's attempts to assert authority over her will and transgresses the limits established by her family structure. She rejects the system of alliance to which Sir Thomas and the Crawfords belong and goes on to assert control over the deployment of her own sexuality by directing her desires towards Edmund and away from Henry. Austen describes the development of Fanny and Edmund's relationship in the novel's final chapter: (9)
Timid, anxious, doubting as she was, it was still impossible that such tenderness as hers should not, at times, hold out the strongest hope of success, though it remained for a later period to tell him the whole delightful and astonishing truth. His happiness in knowing himself to have been so long the beloved of such a heart, must have been great enough to warrant any strength of language in which he could clothe it to her or to himself; it must have been a delightful happiness! But there was happiness elsewhere which no description can reach. Let no one presume to give the feelings of a young woman on receiving the assurance of that affection of which she has scarcely allowed herself to entertain a hope. (545)
The fulfillment of Fanny's transgressive love for Edmund, a love for which she had not even been allowed "to entertain a hope," is once again represented as beyond what is describable in language, beyond what any author can "presume" to write. Since Fanny's incestuous desire has been made taboo within language, she has achieved her "happiness elsewhere," outside of the "reach" of the textual limitations placed upon desire. Austen refrains from imposing definite limits upon the actions of Fanny and Edmund, choosing instead to describe the feelings that Edmund "must have" had and the language that he "must have" used. The endogamous union between Fanny and Edmund opens up a space in Austen's novel beyond the social and linguistic restrictions that govern sexuality and desire.
In her closing chapter, Austen chooses to give an unfixed and indefinite representation of Fanny and Edmund's relationship, apparent in her description of the shift in Edmund's attraction from Mary to Fanny:
I purposely abstain from dates on this occasion, that every one may be at liberty to fix their own, aware that the cure of unconquerable passions, and the transfer of unchanging attachments, must vary much as to time in different people--I only intreat every body to believe that exactly at the time when it was quite natural that it should be so, and not a week earlier, Edmund did cease to care about Miss Crawford, and became as anxious to marry Fanny, as Fanny herself could desire. (544)
Austen asks her readers to determine for themselves the amount of time that it would take for Edmund to "naturally" shift his attentions from Mary to Fanny. Austen's appeal forces her readers to re-negotiate what they would consider "natural" in regard to the "varying" and uncertain realm of "passions." As Westermarck's hypothesis of "natural" aversion to incestuous union has been disrupted, Austen's text makes space for a new description of what is "natural" regarding human desire and sexuality. The final consummation of Fanny's taboo desires opens up the possibility of a sexuality that defies social restrictions and exists beyond what is representable within language.
(1.) See Hudson, Sibling Love 35-36; Brissenden 166-67. Wolf uses these lines from Mrs. Norris to introduce his discussion of the Westermarck hypothesis (28-29).
(2.) Along with these critics, Julia Prewitt Brown claims that the novel "is a deeply pessimistic and enervating work" and argues that Austen, "([a]nticipating Freud, ... implies that for the woman, the classic sex partners are father and daughter" (99-100).
(3.) Brissenden advances a similar viewpoint in his argument that the Crawfords "pose an unmistakable threat to the continuing life and stability of the world that Mansfield Park represents," and that "the Bertram family is revitalized" by the marriage between Edmund and Fanny (169). George Haggerty, though he argues that Fanny and Edmund "are left to reconfigure erotic desire" at the end of the novel, goes on to claim that the two cousins, in their marriage, "can climb over the detritus of family life--both the slovenly grease of the lower class and the moral corruption of the upper class--and determine a new domesticity that is constructed of reduced aspirations and a readiness to accept the simple pleasures of a love that shares the intensity of fraternal relations" (186). For Hudson, Brissenden, and Haggerty, the novel's ending is a "revitalization" or "revivification" of a "reduced" or more closely bound domestic environment, one that has shut out the threats of "menacing intruders" and "moral corruption."
(4.) Ellen Pollak troubles Hudson's purely celebratory reading of Mansfield Park's ending by examining the novel's treatment of incest against early nineteenth-century discourses of race and abolitionism. Pollak states that "discourses of incest and domestic liberty as they were constituted in the early nineteenth century were always already inflected by racial thinking, so that when Mansfield Park deploys those discourses, it also mobilizes their racial implications" (182). For Pollak, the marriage between Edmund and Fanny, in cutting out the "somehow not-English" and "culturally Other" Crawfords, works to consolidate conservative notions of family, race, and nationhood in a comparable way to the anti-miscegenation ideology of Austen's cultural surroundings (182). Although these critics take different stances on the ideological underpinnings of Austen's use of incest, they all present the structure of Mansfield Park in a similar way. The Crawfords, variously characterized as "strangers" (Smith 3), "menacing intruders" (Hudson, Sibling Love 35), and "embodiments of what is foreign" (Pollak 182), represent a disruptive external threat to Mansfield's closed-off interior family unit. The marriage of Edmund and Fanny represents a return to a "traditional system" (Hudson, Sibling Love 42) and a movement inward away from the morally corrupting external world.
(5.) While Joanna Aroutian has examined Mansfield Park within the context of Foucault's theories of "deployment of alliance" and "deployment of sexuality" (229-30), she does not fully consider the extent to which incestuous desire is disruptive to systems of familial alliance within Mansfield Park.
(6.) The incest taboo, Durkheim argues, stems from "the obscure feeling of the populace that if incest were permitted the family would no longer be the family, just as marriage would no longer be marriage" (99). The concept of incest acts, then, as a threat to the stability of both exogamous marriage and conventional domesticity. Since marriage and incestuous desire "violently repel each other," Durkheim states, "we must repel also with horror the idea that they can combine into an unnameable mixture, where they would lose all their distinctive qualities and out of which they would emerge, equally unrecognizable" (103). The threat of incest has the potential of rendering traditional marital conventions "unrecognizable," embodying itself in a way that is "unnameable."
(7.) In seeking exogamous love with Fanny, Henry attempts to usurp the endogamous bond that she has with her brother William. In observing Fanny and William's reunion, Henry sees, "with lively admiration, the glow of Fanny's cheek, the brightness of her eye, the deep interest, the absorbed attention, while her brother was describing any of the imminent hazards, or terrific scenes, which such a period, at sea, must supply," and reflects that it "would be something to be loved by such a girl, to excite the first ardours of her young, unsophisticated mind!" (274). Henry desires to be in William's position and is said to have "wished he had been a William Price" (275). Observing the relationship between the siblings stimulates Henry's desire to be the recipient of the brotherly love and affection that Fanny directs towards William.
(8.) As Freud states, when defining the social limits imposed upon taboo subjects, anything "that leads the thoughts to what is prohibited and thus calls forth mental contact is just as much prohibited as immediate bodily contact" (38).
(9.) Although Edmund's statement in a letter to Fanny that he misses her "more than pie] can express" (491) may, as Hudson argues, "hint that his unconscious feelings for his cousin rival and even exceed those for his intended spouse" (Sibling Love 39), Edmund's romantic interest in Fanny is not made apparent until the end of the novel.
Nathan Richards-Velinou is a Ph.D. student at McGill University in Montreal. His research seeks to uncover new approaches to the study of gender and sexuality in the long eighteenth century. His current doctoral project explores representations of masculinity within Restoration adaptations of the works of Shakespeare.
Aroutian, Joanna. "The Sexual Family in Mansfield Park." European Romantic Review 17 (2006): 229-35.
Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park. Ed. John Wiltshire. Cambridge: CUP, 2005.
Brissenden, R. F. "Mansfield Park: Freedom and the Family." Jane Austen: Bicentenary Essays. Ed. John Halperin. Cambridge: CUP, 1975. 156-71.
Brown, Julia Prewitt. Jane Austen's Novels: Social Change and Literary Form. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1979.
Durkheim, Emile. Incest: The Nature and Origin of the Taboo. Trans. Edward Sagarin. New York: Stuart, 1963.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Trans. Robert Hurley. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage, 1990.
Freud, Sigmund. Totem and Taboo. 1918. Trans. A. A. Brill. New York: Vintage, 1961.
Haggerty, George E. "Fanny Price: Is she solemn?--Is she queer?--Is she prudish?'" The Eighteenth Century 53 (2012): 175-88.
Hudson, Glenda A. "Incestuous Relationships: Mansfield Park Revisited." Eighteenth-Century Fiction 4.1 (1991): 53-68.
--. Sibling Love and Incest in Jane Austen's Fiction. New York: St. Martin's, 1992.
Johnson, Claudia L. Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel. Chicago: UCP, 1988.
Pollak, Ellen. Incest and the English Novel, 1684-1814. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2003.
Smith, Johanna M. '"My Only Sister Now': Incest in Mansfield Park." Studies in the Novel 19 (1987): 1-15.
Westermarck, Edvard. The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan, 1917.
Wolf, Arthur P. Incest Avoidance and the Incest Taboos. Palo Alto: Stanford UP, 2014.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal|
|Article Type:||Critical essay|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2018|
|Previous Article:||Astonished at Amelia: Amelia Wildenhaim's Salutary Influence on Fanny Price.|
|Next Article:||Persuasive Precedent: Austen Rewrites Edgeworth.|