Fanny Price is often criticized as a weak heroine in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but this paper argues she undergoes a remarkable transformation and is a worthy heroine. It summarizes that Fanny starts as a poor orphan but grows to be cherished by the Bertram family. While critics argue she is too passive, the text shows her acting with courage, restraint, and moral fortitude. Through subtle changes, Fanny transforms from a timid girl to a courageous woman who asserts her independence and morality, making her a complex and progressive character.

1. 1
Cristine Faiello
Dr. Kathleen Oliver
Jane Austen Literature
March 3, 2016
Gardener of Morality: Why Fanny Price is a Worthy Heroine
Not much contention would arise from the statement that Jane Austen remains
one of the most influential authors of the nineteenth century. She advanced the purpose of
the novel during its critical, early stages into a genre that still thrives today. Austen’s
power to portray the mundane as alluring-- from a walk in the park to a family dinner--
has placed her among an infamous rank of writers throughout literary history. Yet,
amongst all of the commendation she receives, one black mark has been cited on her near
perfect career: Fanny Price. Few characters receive the negative criticism that Austen’s
heroine of Mansfield Park conjures among readers and critics alike—seemingly, a stigma
of the authoress’s own creation. Amis Kingsley in his book What Became of Jane
Austen? And Other Questions verbally assaults Fanny as a character, calling her
“untiringly sycophantic,” “a monster of complacency,” and a character that “lacks self-
knowledge, generosity, and humility” (Kingsley 16). Although his words are extreme, his
sentiments are not uncommon; however they are unwarranted and unjustifiable upon
contemporary analysis. The litany of “problems” cited in association with Fanny
includes: her inability to grow and change as a proper heroine, her extreme morality and
goodness, and her passivity, just to name a few. However, Austen’s creation of Fanny
Price and the obstacles to her heroism not only support the underlying thematic structure
of this novel but also gives birth to one of the most unique and evolved characters of all

2. 2
her previous works. Fanny undergoes a remarkable yet underappreciated metamorphosis,
and it happens indirectly, subtly. Within this story, Fanny transforms from the orphan to
the heiress, from a marginal interest to the central moralist, from a cowardly girl to a
courageous woman, and from “sister” to wife. These changes indicate a powerful and
progressive, albeit controversial, person and how Austen demonstrates these changes that
take place are as unique as the character she has created.
The “Fanny Wars,” as Linda Troost calls them, have been waging since the
inception of Mansfield Park. Troost says: “although literary critics acknowledged the
great artistry of the novel, they most definitely did not care for Fanny Price,” especially
since she appeared after one of Austen’s most beloved characters of all time: Elizabeth
Bennett (15). The shadow that Eliza’s enigmatic character cast over Fanny can explain
much of the initial disappointment that readers experienced. However, Pride and
Prejudice encompassed a much different thematic blueprint—one that centered on
individual characters, a plot that rewards the worthy with their ultimate desire which is an
affectionate, prosperous marriage. Tess O’Toole argues in “Becoming Fanny Bertram”
that the plot of Mansfield Park differs because it revolves around adoption rather than
marriage. The end reward, as Austen’s abbreviated ending would suggest, is Fanny’s
integration into the Bertram family and the Bertram’s gaining a daughter worthy of their
name, not her marriage to Edmund. O’Toole says: “It is her gradual enfranchisement as a
daughter of the house that constitutes the central drama of the novel” (55). Therefore,
comparing the two novels and, especially, comparing Eliza and Fanny is irrational and
unfair. Yet, critics such as Kingsley fail to consider these differences in their criticisms.
The vast array of controversy, the strong feelings either for or against this heroine, proves

3. 3
her complexity and worthiness in itself. There is not much merit to the war against
Fanny, which really gained momentum at the turn of the century with the rise of
feminism.
“In the 1830’s, Mansfield Park is widely considered the best of Austen’s novels,”
says Troost (21). Regency England accepted the moralistic views it presented because it
still aligned with their own values. However, the response from critics regarding Fanny
was quiet and, in some cases, even non-existent; it was a much different reception than
Austen was used to. These sentiments heightened into an avid dislike as “a cultural move
towards active and outspoken women” emerged due to the feminist movement, which
began much sooner in England than in the United States (Troost 28). The modern world
sought a heroine with strength and vigor that could help carry the cause of a new type of
woman. Troost explains that in these times, “to lack physical vigor…. is to lack
modernity”(25). So, the war against Fanny rages on. The complaint escalates: “to many
modern readers, Fanny is too moral and too perfect” during a time of declining morality
and increasing desire for self-fulfillment following the repressed Victorian era (Troost
19). All of these impediments further damaged the reputation of a character that actually
deserved much praise.
Austen created Fanny as a perfect fit for her novel. Critics such as John Halpern
even assert: “Fanny Price…stands in for Jane Austen” (138). Like the author, “it is Fanny
who sees what the others are up to when they themselves do not understand their own
actions” (Halpern 138). And it is through her that Austen creates the thematic landscape
of her story. Fanny represents what the gentry in England needed to redeem their
depleting values. The Crawford’s, Henry and Mary, exemplify what the Bertram’s would

4. 4
eventually resemble without intervention: amoral, insensible, and mean people.
Therefore, Austen has to create a character that can sufficiently complete this binary, one
that has strong morals, acute sensibilities, and kindness of spirit. And Austen cleverly
uses the poetry of Cowper to assure her readers that Fanny is indeed the perfect character
to accomplish this. Emma Spooner in her article “I Sing of the Sofa, of Cucumbers and of
Fanny Price: Mansfield Park and The Task; Or, Why Fanny Price is a Cucumber” says:
“[her] morality echoes Cowper’s famous celebration of cucumbers as nature’s spiritual
counter to the prevailing immorality of urban centers” (Spooner n.p). This might sound
far-reaching and fantastic, but to Cowper, gardens were a serious business. In fact, one
needs only to think back to Goethe’s Faust to realize that gardens have represented
morality throughout much of literary history, and that Cowper and Austen are not alone
in this analogy. It is no surprise then that Fanny quotes the poet throughout the story. It
also follows that she loves gardens and landscapes; she conjures lines from Cowper in
response to Henry’s suggestion that Mr. Rushworth cut down the avenue at Sotherton:
“Cut down an avenue! What a pity! Does not it make you think of Cowper? ‘Ye fallen
avenues, once more I mourn your fate unmerited’” (Mansfield 44). What she actually
expresses is moral outrage about tearing apart God’s creation for human “improvements,”
suggesting: how could humanity ever better God’s work? Spooner goes on to say:
“Cowper grows cucumbers in order to recreate Eden in a fallen world,” and this is
Fanny’s purpose at Mansfield Park (n.p). Surely this benediction would not be given to a
weak character.
The language that Austen uses throughout the novel in association with Fanny
further proves she is not a feeble character. On the contrary, the scene in Sotherton that

5. 5
many assert demonstrates her passivity actually reveals her tenacity. After Edmund and
Mary are gone for far longer than they should, the narrator says: “[Fanny] resolved to go
in search of them” (82). These two strong, active verbs in this line reveal her anger at
being left, and she doesn’t just sit and speculate; she seeks to solve the problem. Both the
tone and the language hint that she will not likely be full of kindness and patience should
she intercept them. Austen employs other strong verbs in association with this event, such
as “astonished….angry…roused” (79). She describes Fanny as “engrossed” in the
thoughts of where her two friends could be (81). This does not resemble passivity. In
addition, she is altogether engaged throughout the day at Sotherton. She seems to be the
only person that truly appreciates the beauty of the place or at least the only person
capable of expressing her satisfaction of the scenery. The rest of the characters are too
caught up in interpersonal conflict and drama to romanticize. Kerrie Savage says:
“sublimity and rapture are not passive responses to nature; rather they show a spiritual
and mental depth in direct contrast to the superficial glee” (n.p.).
Mental depth and clarity demonstrate what Julie Park describes as “the strength of
Fanny’s interiority—her imagination, and its pains and illusions” (172). Austen extracts
this aspect of Fanny’s character through those around her. The theatrics that take place at
Mansfield Park represent on a small scale what is happening on a larger measure within
the novel. Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram’s house has been overrun and reclaimed while
they are both absent—the former physically and latter mentally. The lack of
accountability produces an opportunity for the Bertram’s and the Crawford’s to indulge
in ideas beyond their typical moral boundaries. Only Fanny remains in charge of herself
enough to not participate. However, the “actors” argue amongst themselves and struggle

6. 6
with their parts. They need someone to hold the fabric together where it seems to be
splitting apart, and they look to Fanny for this support. Although unwilling to act herself,
she helps to call out lines, stitch costumes, and rehearse parts or fill in for roles that are
missing. Just like her actual role in the house, she is the only constant amidst all of the
chaos. This constancy, the great strength of being unmovable despite the strength of
opposing forces, has been criticized in her as snobbery when it actually should be
attributed to her as merit. Park says that for a heroine to remain steadfast “in a world that
is unprincipled requires a courage that few heroines in Austen’s other novels have been
required to exert” (177). Yet, Fanny exerts it brilliantly. Park goes on to say that Fanny
choosing not to be a part of the theatrics, by choosing to watch and wait instead, “requires
the less-common courage of restraint and reflection” (179). The other characters have no
restraint. They are beyond courageous-- they are reckless; the contrast between their
recklessness and Fanny’s restraint makes her appear boring and dull. However, a careful
reader would notice this is not the case, especially upon examining how the characters
rely on her and, more importantly, respond to her as the story progresses. The evolving
appreciation of Fanny by the others significantly indicates her growth.
A heroine must change and grow, yell critics of Fanny. But there can be no
greater change than what takes place in this young woman’s life. Her story begins in
childhood for a reason; Austen wants to show the full dynamic of her physical and
spiritual progression. Fanny is at first an orphan who Sir Thomas claims will never be a
“true Miss Bertram” (Mansfield 9). Fanny herself believes that “[she] can never be
important to anyone” (21). Upon first arriving at Mansfield, she is terrified to even stand
before Sir Thomas without shaking. Furthermore, Mrs. Norris constantly reminds her that

7. 7
the status and rank of an orphan is unalterable. Mary Crawford wonders after first
meeting Fanny if she is even “out” or not (39). If this character persisted throughout, then
the critics would be justified. However, the opposite it true. Tony Tanner says that Fanny
begins as an object of charity and ends up “cherished as the indispensable mainstay of the
Mansfield family” (143). The first crucial moment of change for her comes when Sir
Thomas returns from Antiqua and notices her improved looks and hears of her abstinence
from the theatrics. The next major progression occurs when Maria marries and Julia
moves with her to London. Now Fanny is the only “daughter” of the house. In the
absence of her cousins, she receives new attention from Mrs. Grant, even being invited to
dinner. Lady Bertram’s shock over this invitation proves that things with Fanny have
changed in the eyes of the other characters. More shocking, however, is Sir Thomas’s
response to his wife’s outrage: “Mrs. Grant’s shewing civility to [her], to Lady Bertram’s
niece, could never want explanation. The only surprise I can feel is that this should be the
first time of its being paid” (Mansfield 171). Then Sir Thomas hosts a ball, the first one
ever at Mansfield, in the absence of his actual daughters, for Fanny. And in Cinderella
fashion, she comes dressed in an enchanting, new gown and her neck donned with two
golden necklaces from two different and consequential men. Austen shows through Sir
Thomas the growth of her heroine, although indirectly. However, this does not yet yield
the full proof of her metamorphosis. She denies marriage to Henry Crawford, a man of
considerable wealth who has done her favors, and she defies Sir Thomas’s wishes as
well. The little girl that once trembled to even speak in front of her uncle now says: “If it
were possible for me to do otherwise…but I am so perfectly convinced that I could never
make [Henry] happy, and that I should be miserable myself” (250). And finally, the true

8. 8
mark of her agency arrives in her discourse with Miss Crawford regarding Henry’s
proposal: “I cannot think well of a man who sports with any woman’s feelings; and there
may often be a great deal more suffered than a stander-by can judge of” (285).
The omniscient narrator, sometimes seeming to be Fanny and other times
Austen, says: “Fanny knew her own meaning, but was no judge of her own
manner…[which] was incurably gentle and …it concealed the sternness of her purpose”
(256). Steadfast, stern, immovable, grounded. These are all words to describe Fanny. In
the moral garden of Mansfield, “[her] staying-put is a small gesture of moral tenacity
while the others dangerously roam” (Tanner 162). Thankfully, despite previous
generation’s harsh regard for her, a small trickle of contemporary reviews leave hope for
an improved perspective. Anna Keesey’s review in the Los Angeles Review of Books
(online) illustrates this hope. She says that Fanny “embodies civil disobedience, peaceful
protest,” and that “she is the power of the non-violent no” (Keesey 2014). She argues that
the turbulent moral atmosphere of the twenty-first century could, like the characters of
Mansfield Park, need Fanny’s moral steadfastness more than ever. In this regard,
Austen’s creation of this character appears to be a prophetic insight into the continued
moral instability of her own present world and the need for a heroine who can restore
values-- re-cultivate a garden overgrown with weeds. Austen hopes that Fanny will be
able to win her readers over, rescuing them from the thorns, just as she did Edmund.
Words: 2428

9. 9
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park. New York: Oxford Press, 2008. Print.
Halperin, John. "The Novelist As Heroine In Mansfield Park: A Study In
Autobiography." Modern Language Quarterly: A Journal Of Literary History
44.2 (1983): 136-156. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Keesey, Anna. “Simple Girl: The Improbable Solace of Mansfield Park.” Los Angeles
Review of Books. 17, Aug. 2014. Web.
Kingsley, Amis. What Became of Jane Austen? And Other Questions. London: Trinity
Press, 1970. Print.
O'Toole, Tess. "Becoming Fanny Bertram: adoption in Mansfield Park." Persuasions:
The Jane Austen Journal 36 (2014): 54+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1
Mar. 2016.
Park, Julie. "What The Eye Cannot See: Interior Landscapes In Mansfield Park."
Eighteenth Century: Theory And Interpretation 54.2 (2013): 169-181. MLA
International Bibliography. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Savage, Kerrie. “Attending the Interior Self: Fanny’s “Task” in Mansfield Park.”
Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal 35:1. (2014). Web. 3 Mar. 2016
Spooner, Emma. “I sing of the Sofa, of Cucumbers, and of Fanny Price: Mansfield Park
and The Task; Or, Why Fanny Price is a Cucumber.” Persuasions: The Jane
Austen Journal 35:1. (2014).Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
Tanner, Tony. Jane Austen. “The Quiet Thing: Mansfield Park.” Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1986. 142-175. Print.

10. 10
Troost, Linda, and Sayre Greenfield. "A History Of The Fanny Wars." Persuasions: The
Jane Austen Journal 36. (2014): 15-33. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 2
Mar. 2016.