Naamah Schwartz
Free Indirect Discourse in Pride and Prejudice: Emotion and Authority
Presented to the S. Daniel Abraham Honors Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Completion of the Program
Stern College for Women Yeshiva University April 18, 2016
Naamah Schwartz Mentor: Professor Seamus O’Malley, English
Schwartz 1 Jane Austen has been credited by many as the first English author to make use of free indirect discourse as a means of presenting the thoughts and feelings of the characters in her novels. Free indirect discourse is a narrative technique that combines narrative comment with character voice by presenting a character’s thoughts or feelings within the narrative discourse. This is what Daniel P. Gunn would call “narratorial mimicry” of the character voice within her own discourse (35). Some of Austen’s uses of free indirect discourse are more obvious, in which the character’s voice is noticeable within in a large passage of narration. Other instances are more obscure, in which the narrator’s voice is dominant, and as little as a few words within the narrative discourse can be attributed (usually) to a particular character voice. Much of the scholarship surrounding Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in her novels has been centered on her use of the narrative device specifically in Emma.1 Pride and Prejudice, which was written and published before Emma, is also rife with instances of free indirect discourse; it is therefore odd that most of the scholarship on Austen’s free indirect discourse focuses on its employment in Emma and pays little to no attention to Pride and Prejudice. Furthermore, the discussion surrounding free indirect discourse in Emma is primarily concerned with the effect it has on what Gunn calls “narrative authority.” Critics have understood free indirect discourse to create a struggle between the narrative voice and the character voice, with each warring for dominance, and ultimately resulting in the defeat of the authoritative narrative voice.2 Meanwhile, few of these critics make any reference to the function of free indirect discourse as a tool for
1
Such critics who discuss free indirect discourse in Emma include Daniel P. Gunn, Casey Finch and Peter Bowen, and Kathy Mezei. See Gunn’s survey of previous scholars’ understanding of free indirect discourse and its applications to Austen and Emma. Gunn, however, emphasizes the assertion of “narrative authority” through Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in her novels (Gunn 35). 2
Schwartz 2 presenting Austen’s characters in terms of their thoughts and feelings. While one scholar, Anne Waldron Neumann, has discussed free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice as a device to present the novel's characters, she focuses primarily on its function as a tool for casting ironic judgment on minor characters. Most of the obvious instances of free indirect discourse in the novel present Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings, primarily in key scenes of the plot, such as after Darcy’s first proposal, or after reading Darcy’s letter. However, as of yet, no one has focused on the function of free indirect discourse in such instances, nor on what it adds to the reader’s understanding of Elizabeth that is not revealed through other modes of narration. In order to uncover the various functions of free indirect discourse in such instances, I will analyze obvious instances of free indirect discourse which relate Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings to the reader. Through my study of these instances, I identify five major functions of free indirect discourse when used to render Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings: First, to distinguish Elizabeth as the heroine of the novel by demonstrating her subjectivity as a character; second, to reveal those feelings of Elizabeth’s which would not be effectively represented through objective narrative discourse; third, to allow Elizabeth’s genuine and urgent feelings to emerge from beneath the narrative discourse; fourth, to allow the narrator to silently aid Elizabeth in recognizing her own true feelings; and fifth (to a lesser extent), to ironically distance Elizabeth from the narrator and reader by establishing her character’s limited perspective. All of these functions serve, to some degree, to demonstrate the narrator’s authority over the text and her characters, but mostly to bring Elizabeth’s subjectivity and robust emotions to the forefront of the novel. In Austen’s novels, free indirect discourse is generally used to present a character’s thoughts and feelings within the narrative discourse. Neumann defines free indirect discourse
Schwartz 3 as “any sentence (or clause) containing words which…could plausibly be attributed to a character by the reader but which are not explicitly attributed to that character by the narrator” (366). Free indirect discourse is commonly indicated by punctuation as well as by shifts in tone between narrative comment and character voice. As Gunn points out, focusing more on the narrator’s role in free indirect discourse, “Austen’s novels…deploy FID in conjunction with a trustworthy, authoritative narrative voice and which repeatedly intertwine FID with narratorial commentary, sometimes inside of a single sentence” (35). One such example of free indirect discourse appears in Pride and Prejudice, during Elizabeth’s stay at Rosings Park in Volume II: More than once did Elizabeth in her ramble within the Park, unexpectedly meet Mr. Darcy.—She felt all the perverseness of the mischance that should bring him where no one else was brought; and to prevent its ever happening again, took care to inform him at first, that it was a favourite haunt of hers.—How it could occur a second time therefore as very odd!—Yet it did, and even a third. (Austen 204) Here is a clear instance of free indirect discourse, most ostensibly indicated by an exclamation point, as well as by the framing of dashes around the sentence, “How it could occur a second time therefore was very odd!” This statement, which can be attributed to Elizabeth, is not explicitly introduced by the narrator as a thought, yet the exclamatory tone delineates it as more than mere narrative comment. The shift from narrative comment to character voice is gradual. The first sentence is clearly part of the objective narration as it is informing the reader of a fact in the plot. The next sentence, marked at the beginning with a dash, begins the shift toward character voice, in the description of Elizabeth’s feelings. The “perverseness of the mischance” of periodically meeting Darcy in the park is all felt by Elizabeth, but presented by the narrator, as is the “care” that Elizabeth takes to inform Darcy that she frequently walks this path. The third sentence, however, marks a tonal shift from objective narration to the character’s feelings of surprise, which indicates to the reader that
Schwartz 4 this is completely Elizabeth’s thought. The last sentence, also separated by a dash, signals the return to the objective narrative voice of fact. The gradual shifting of tone and voice, as well as the embedded nature of the character’s exclamation within the narrative discourse itself, indicates the presence of free indirect discourse in this passage. Much of the previous scholarship on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse has been focused on Emma, particularly on the subject of “narrative authority.” Finch and Bowen discuss free indirect discourse by equating it to the gossip that circulates the community of Highbury in Emma, in that both have the effect of “disseminating” and “eliding” narrative authority (3). Mezei focuses on free indirect discourse as a cause for narratorial and gender “indeterminacy” in the novel (86), as well as a “destabilizer” of narrative authority through the confusion of voices it creates (75). Gunn understands free indirect discourse to be a kind of “narratorial mimicry” of the characters’ voices (35). He argues with the previous critics that free indirect discourse does not “destabilize” or “elide” narrative authority; on the contrary it is a tool through which the narrator asserts her authority. These scholars represent the majority of the work that has been done on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse, yet their focus has been very narrow, addressing only the novel of Emma, and focusing primarily on the problem of narrative authority, to the exclusion of Austen’s other novels.3 Gunn and his predecessors do not focus much on the role free indirect discourse has in presenting the thoughts and feelings of Austen’s characters. Instead they are concerned with the effect free indirect discourse has on the narrator’s authority. Even when writing about the character’s voice in free indirect discourse, Gunn claims, “In Emma, we repeatedly 3
In his endnotes (6 and 18), Gunn refers to two papers which discuss free indirect discourse in Persuasion, but he makes no reference to any of Austen’s other novels (Gunn 51, 53). Mezei’s book, Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers, does not refer to Pride and Prejudice once, and the only chapter on free indirect discourse focuses only on Emma, of all Austen’s novels.
Schwartz 5 experience figural subjectivity…but…we never lose contact with the narrator’s authoritative voice, which is essential to the novel’s design” (42). For Gunn, clearly the importance of free indirect discourse lies in the authority of the narrator, and not in the “figural subjectivity” of the characters. Finch and Bowen write that free indirect discourse in Emma is “a technique in which the authority and existence of the narrator derive from the fact that she reveals everyone's thoughts but her own” (11). These critics are focused on free indirect discourse as it pertains to the elusiveness of the narrator’s thoughts, and what bearing that has on her authority, not on what it reveals about “everyone’s thoughts.” Although Mezei allows for the fact that free indirect discourse in Emma may encourage the reader to have an “empathetic response” to Emma as a character, she does so by focusing on how the narrator “deliberately effac[es] herself…and thus permit[s] an other and different voice to emerge” (73). For Mezei, free indirect discourse is more about the disappearance of the narrator than it is about the character’s voice which she is “permitting” to poke through. To these critics, Austen’s free indirect discourse will always be significant in terms of what it suggests about the narrator’s authority, rather than what it intimates about the character herself. However, at least one critic, Anne Waldron Neumann, has focused on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice rather than Emma, and on characterization rather than narrative authority, in her study on “double-voiced” verbs and free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice. Her essay sets her apart from the aforementioned scholars in two ways: It addresses an Austen novel that has not been previously studied by scholars on the topic of free indirect discourse, and it focuses on the function of free indirect discourse as a tool to understand the consciousness of the novel’s characters. In the introduction to her
Schwartz 6 essay, Neumann states her main claims about the function of free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice, as it relates to presenting both major and minor characters: I shall suggest that Austen uses double-voiced verbs to distinguish characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting but also to identify characters who are left to speak their thoughts and feelings for themselves. That is, by means of this single device, Austen's narrator can not only share with her heroines the responsibility for articulating their reflections at the level of thought but can also satirize lesser characters who attribute thoughts and feelings to themselves in their speech—who moralize or romanticize, for example—without the narrator's cooperation and endorsement. (365) Neumann, with these stated claims, has taken on a large and broad topic which has been, as of yet, unexplored by previous scholarship. To a large extent, Neumann succeeds in supporting her claim that Austen’s narrator uses free indirect discourse to satirize “lesser characters” who “moralize or romanticize.”4 While this is the second part of her main claim, she spends the majority of her paper exploring this idea, mostly by analyzing instances of free indirect discourse pertaining to such characters as Mrs. Bennet, Lydia, and primarily Mr. Collins. While she and Gunn both understand this satirizing to occur through the narrator mimicking the characters, Gunn is concerned with how the character voice enriches the narrative discourse, and how she “draw[s] their voices into the rich texture of her narration” (Gunn 41). Meanwhile, Neumann focuses on how the mimicry of the character reveals that particular character’s thoughts or motivations, such as in the passage in Pride and Prejudice in which Mrs. Bennet coyly conveys to Mr. Collins that although Jane is likely spoken for, her younger daughters are available for him to marry. Neumann interprets the free indirect discourse in this passage to reflect Mrs. Bennet’s deliberate indirectness and “imitation of elegant delicacy as she sets a trap for a second suitor without upsetting the snare in which she hopes an earlier suitor is about to become engaged” i.e. Mr. Bingley to Jane (Neumann 371). However I, and most likely Gunn, would argue with her claim that these “lesser characters” are presenting themselves through free indirect discourse “without the narrator’s cooperation and endorsement.” 4
Schwartz 7 Clearly Neumann’s understanding of the narrator’s imitation of characters is more closely related to the function of free indirect discourse in presenting the characters’ thoughts, as opposed to Gunn, who interprets the mimicry of characters only as it relates to the narrative discourse. But in focusing on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in relation to minor characters, Neumann’s paper largely ignores the more important role of free indirect discourse as it relates to major characters, or “heroines” such as Elizabeth. Neumann devotes very little space to analyzing free indirect discourse as a vehicle for “distinguish[ing] characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting” (i.e. Elizabeth Bennet). Her main claim about major characters such as Elizabeth is that the narrator shares “the responsibility for articulating [her] reflections at the level of thought” through free indirect discourse, yet she proves that in only one of the six paragraphs that focus on Elizabeth at the very end of her paper. Clearly free indirect discourse in relation to Elizabeth is important; otherwise Neumann would not bother addressing it at all. However, the only definitive conclusions that can be made about Elizabeth’s character based on Neumann’s sparse reading are about Elizabeth’s depth of mind (as compared to her thoughtless sisters); even this conclusion is arrived at by an analysis of a passage with little to no occurrence of “doublevoiced verbs” and free indirect discourse, which Neumann herself acknowledges. Neumann’s interpretation of the function of free indirect discourse as it pertains to Elizabeth is illsupported, both by the quantity and quality of her evidence. As it stands, there is still a need to analyze those passages which present Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings through free indirect discourse in order to more adequately understand the function of free indirect discourse as it pertains to a major character such as Elizabeth.
Schwartz 8 In my efforts to distinguish the primary functions of free indirect discourse in this novel, I will identify key obvious instances of free indirect discourse employed to relate Elizabeth Bennet’s thoughts and feelings. In addition to evaluating the mechanics of free indirect discourse and how it fits in with surrounding passages of objective narrative discourse, I will analyze individual passages of free indirect discourse through close reading. Through this analysis I will arrive at a number of claims specific to those passages, which will identify the various functions of free indirect discourse as outlined in the introduction. Free indirect discourse is often introduced in the novel by way of narrative discourse. The narrator leads with an external review of Elizabeth’s emotions, and uses free indirect discourse to more accurately represent Elizabeth’s feelings by directly relating the details of her thought process. Immediately after the infamous first proposal scene, Darcy departs and leaves Elizabeth feeling confused and overwhelmed: The tumult of her mind, was now painfully great. She knew not how to support herself, and from actual weakness sat down and cried for half-an-hour. Her astonishment, as she reflected on what had passed, was increased by every review of it. That she should receive an offer of marriage from Mr. Darcy! That he should have been in love with her for so many months! So much in love as to wish to marry her in spite of all the objections which had made him prevent his friend's marrying her sister, and which must appear at least with equal force in his own case—was almost incredible! It was gratifying to have inspired unconsciously so strong an affection. But his pride, his abominable pride—his shameless avowal of what he had done with respect to Jane—his unpardonable assurance in acknowledging, though he could not justify it, and the unfeeling manner in which he had mentioned Mr. Wickham, his cruelty towards whom he had not attempted to deny, soon overcame the pity which the consideration of his attachment had for a moment excited. (Austen 214) The narrative lead-in in this case appears in the third sentence, and introduces the rest of the paragraph, which will outline in detail Elizabeth’s “astonishment” and the course of its “increas[ing]” intensity. The rest of the passage, punctuated by exclamation points and dashes, indicates that Elizabeth’s thoughts are scattered and agitated. The increasing length of the sentences and the frantic and repetitive rhythm of her exclamations embody the
Schwartz 9 heightening of her surprise and distress as she continues to “review” all the facts of the event in her mind. The progress of her thoughts also relates her conflicting feelings for Darcy—on the one hand the flattery and surprise of his interest in her, and on the other, the disdain she feels for his “abominable pride.” The second part of her ruminations, which outline the reasons for her dislike, is contained within the last sentence. Its winding nature, its stops and starts, its verbose and unforgiving diction, convey the depth of Elizabeth’s disdain. The phrase beginning with “soon overcame the pity” is the moment when the narration slips back into the voice of the objective narrator, smoothly transitioning from Elizabeth’s direct thought. In one of the first instances of obvious free indirect discourse used to portray Elizabeth’s thoughts, the narrator uses free indirect discourse to distinguish Elizabeth from the other characters and to emphasize the limited nature of her knowledge, as well as that of the reader. The moment of free indirect discourse occurs in response to Wickham and Darcy’s cold greeting: On distinguishing the ladies of the group, the two gentlemen [Darcy and Bingley] came directly towards them, and began the usual civilities. Bingley was the principal spokesman, and Miss Bennet the principal object. He was then, he said, on his way to Longbourn on purpose to inquire after her. Mr. Darcy corroborated it with a bow, and was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth, when they were suddenly arrested by the sight of the stranger, and Elizabeth happening to see the countenance of both as they looked at each other, was all astonishment at the effect of the meeting. Both changed colour, one looked white, the other red. Mr. Wickham, after a few moments, touched his hat—a salutation which Mr. Darcy just deigned to return. What could be the meaning of it? It was impossible to imagine; it was impossible not to long to know. (107, my italics) For the most part, this passage is told purely from the objective narrator’s perspective. The only break from objective narration is the brief mention of Darcy’s internal thoughts—that he “was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth.” This is something that only an omniscient narrator would have access to, which she has also chosen to share with the reader.
Schwartz 10 However, Elizabeth is not privy to this information. All she can see is the external interaction between the two men. The narrator mentions that Elizabeth is “all astonishment” at their reaction to each other, but she cannot know what is really going on between them. That confusion and lack of information is perfectly expressed in the last two sentences, when the narrator shifts from the external viewpoint to the direct thoughts going through Elizabeth’s mind. On the one hand, this extra level of access which the reader is granted to Elizabeth’s direct thought is unprecedented at this point in the novel, and it distinguishes Elizabeth as the main character whose thoughts and feelings will remain open to readers (albeit on a limited basis, whenever the narrator chooses to grant that access).5 On the other hand, the sentiment expressed by Elizabeth, “What could be the meaning of it?” highlights her own limited access to the thoughts and backstories of the other characters. Elizabeth remains out-of-theloop for most of the novel as to the details of this particular relationship, as do the readers, until Darcy chooses to reveal them. This limited access reminds readers that while they will be able to see Elizabeth’s thoughts through free indirect discourse, and at select times the thoughts of other characters as well, ultimately the control is in the hands of the narrator to allow that access. By using free indirect discourse to give readers direct access to Elizabeth’s thoughts, the narrator also sets her in opposition to her sillier sisters, as a character who is capable of development and growth. After Elizabeth’s revelations about Wickham, she hears her sister Lydia make scathing remarks about the young woman whom Wickham has recently been courting, wondering what Wickham could see in “such a nasty little freckled thing.” Elizabeth’s reaction is told as follows: Or, as Neumann puts it, free indirect discourse “distinguish[es] characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting” (365). 5
Schwartz 11 Elizabeth was shocked to think that, however incapable of such coarseness of expression herself, the coarseness of the sentiment was little other than her own breast had harboured and fancied liberal! (236) The first clause of the sentence, ending with a comma, marks the narrative lead-in to Elizabeth’s direct thought. The italics and the exclamation point signal that the rest of the sentence is directly expressing the “shock” Elizabeth feels at the realization of her own hypocrisy. She judges her sister for the “coarseness of expression,” but now even more so comes to judge herself for having recently shared the same “coarseness of sentiment” about the young woman in question. She only now allows herself to acknowledge the ungracious attitudes that her feelings for Wickham had evoked in her only a few months previously, and feels ashamed and astonished at her prejudice. What sets Elizabeth apart from her petty sisters is the fact that she is aware of her own shortcomings, and that the narrator gives us direct access to her personal growth beyond the immaturity of her younger sisters. One of Austen’s key uses of free indirect discourse is to showcase her heroine’s subjectivity and progression of thought. When Elizabeth first becomes aware of Darcy’s involvement in Lydia’s marriage, she is told not to inquire into the matter. The narrator writes objectively that “Elizabeth was forced to put it out of her power, by running away” (324). Immediately afterward, however, she adds: “But to live in ignorance on such a point was impossible; or at least it was impossible not to try for information. Mr. Darcy had been at her sister’s wedding.” The indication that the sentence “But to live…” is rendered in free indirect discourse lies in the word “impossible.” The claim that “to live in ignorance” is “impossible” is subjective to Elizabeth. The fact that she qualifies the claim directly afterward is a further sign of her subjectivity, and indicates to the reader that he/she is witnessing the direct progression of Elizabeth’s thoughts. The last sentence is also a case of free indirect discourse, as it does not add any new information, plot-wise. The narrator has
Schwartz 12 already revealed through Lydia that Darcy was involved in the affair; therefore this reiteration of the facts must be part of Elizabeth’s direct thought, ruminating in her mind as she absorbs the shocking information and resolves to discover the details behind it. Free indirect discourse, when placed within the context of a greater narrative discourse, often allows Elizabeth’s true and unfettered feelings to respond to and clarify the narrator’s more objective statements. Elizabeth has just been informed that Wickham has most likely skipped the Netherfield ball in order to avoid meeting Darcy, and her reaction is described through narrative discourse as well as free indirect discourse. This part of his intelligence, though unheard by Lydia, was caught by Elizabeth, and, as it assured her that Darcy was not less answerable for Wickham's absence than if her first surmise had been just, every feeling of displeasure against the former was so sharpened by immediate disappointment, that she could hardly reply with tolerable civility to the polite inquiries which he directly afterwards approached to make. – Attendance, forbearance, patience with Darcy, was injury to Wickham. She was resolved against any sort of conversation with him, and turned away with a degree of ill-humour which she could not wholly surmount even in speaking to Mr. Bingley, whose blind partiality provoked her. (121, my italics). The first half of the passage relates the fact that Elizabeth’s prejudices about Darcy are only being confirmed by Wickham’s absence, and that she punishes him for the verification of her preconceived notions of his culpability in matters related to Wickham. The narrator is relaying facts from an external perspective—first Elizabeth’s feelings and then her actions in response to those feelings. The sentence preceded by a dash, “Attendance, forbearance, patience with Darcy, was injury to Wickham,” expresses the exact reasoning behind her “feeling of displeasure” toward Darcy as well as her rude replies to his “polite inquiries.” Readers are allowed direct access to Elizabeth’s exact motivations and feelings which prompt her rude behavior toward Darcy, and eventually Bingley. The brief insight into her mind explains her reaction more than the external narrative discourse does on its own. Readers now understand that Elizabeth feels loyalty to Wickham, misguided as it may be by her
Schwartz 13 prejudice against Darcy. The internal logic that politeness to Darcy would be an act of disloyalty to Wickham dictates her behavior. However, the fact that her thought is framed by external narrative discourse, and that the thought itself is mediated through a narrator, suggests that Elizabeth’s reaction may be somewhat irrational and disproportionate.6 Free indirect discourse can also be used to reveal underlying feelings of Elizabeth’s that would not be apparent through objective narrative discourse. For example, the reader is given direct access to Elizabeth’s changing attitudes toward Darcy, which result from his housekeeper’s praise: The commendation bestowed on him by Mrs. Reynolds was of no trifling nature. What praise is more valuable than the praise of an intelligent servant? As a brother, a landlord, a master, she considered how many people's happiness were in his guardianship!—How much of pleasure or pain was it in his power to bestow!—How much of good or evil must be done by him! Every idea that had been brought forward by the housekeeper was favourable to his character… (264) The sentences rendered in free indirect discourse are marked by dashes, a question mark, exclamation points, and the repetition of the phrase “How much of….” (There is only a brief moment of narrative interruption in the phrase “she considered.”) Each statement escalates in its
tone of admiration and surprise on Elizabeth’s part when she considers Darcy’s benevolence to those “in his guardianship.” Underlying the admiration for his good deeds is her apparent attraction to his “power” to “bestow pleasure or pain” and to do “good or evil.” Elizabeth seems overly excited by the control Darcy has over his dependents, such as his servants, his tenants, and even his sister. While this somewhat sinister attraction does not seem to make its way to the surface at any other point in the book, it is difficult to ignore the subtext present in this passage of free indirect discourse, and to wonder what the narrator’s motives may be in
Contrary to Mezei’s understanding that the narrator “effac[es] herself” by allowing the character’s voice to intrude through free indirect discourse, the narrator’s presence is felt even more strongly by the fact that Elizabeth’s thoughts are mediated through the narrative discourse. 6
Schwartz 14 introducing this side of Elizabeth so singularly and subtly in this instance. Perhaps in the context of viewing Pemberley and seeing the grandeur of what might have been hers, Elizabeth also comes to recognize the stateliness of the man himself whom she has rejected. In fact, when she first catches sight of Pemberley’s beautiful and extensive grounds, Elizabeth expresses in free indirect discourse that “to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!” (259). Though she later jokes to her sister that she began to fall in love with Darcy “from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley,” perhaps there is a certain level of truth to this statement after all (372). In a similar vein, Austen often employs free indirect discourse to demonstrate Elizabeth’s state of mind in a manner more effective than if the narrator had simply described to the reader how she was feeling. Such an instance occurs when Elizabeth accidentally meets Darcy at Pemberley: …Elizabeth heard not a word, and wholly engrossed by her own feelings, followed them in silence. She was overpowered by shame and vexation. Her coming there was the most unfortunate, the most ill-judged thing in the world! How strange it must appear to him! In what a disgraceful light might it not strike so vain a man! It might seem as if she had purposely thrown herself in his way again! Oh! why did she come? Or, why did he thus come a day before he was expected? Had they been only ten minutes sooner, they should have been beyond the reach of his discrimination; for it was plain that he was that moment arrived—that moment alighted from his horse or his carriage. She blushed again and again over the perverseness of the meeting. And his behaviour, so strikingly altered—what could it mean? That he should even speak to her was amazing!—but to speak with such civility, to inquire after her family! Never in her life had she seen his manners so little dignified, never had he spoken with such gentleness as on this unexpected meeting. What a contrast did it offer to his last address in Rosings Park, when he put his letter into her hand! She knew not what to think, or how to account for it. (265, my italics) Those sentences marked with italics are those which can indisputably be called free indirect discourse—they are indicated with many exclamation points and framed by dashes in certain places. The frequency and consecutive number of the exclamations cement the impression that Elizabeth is highly agitated and embarrassed to be found by Darcy in the act of exploring
Schwartz 15 his home. The narrator introduces Elizabeth’s mental tirade by saying that “[s]he was overpowered by shame and vexation.” The direct thoughts that immediately follow this statement demonstrate the degree of those emotions, as well the exact thoughts which are causing them. There are certain breaks in between her internal panicking when the narrator interrupts briefly to state objective truths, such as the evidence of Darcy just now having returned, and the fact that Elizabeth is blushing at what she perceives to be “the perverseness of the meeting.” Not only does the reader sense Elizabeth’s embarrassment over her predicament, but also her impeded perception of Darcy’s change in behavior. The intervening sentence in the last portion of the passage, beginning with “Never in her life,” marks a possible return to the narrative discourse, as it lacks the indicative punctuation, and therefore the same agitated tone as the sentences which immediately precede and follow it. The last sentence sums up, in the narrator’s words, Elizabeth’s confusion at the situation, and her inability to understand Darcy’s side of the encounter. In fact, Darcy’s emotions are only briefly considered in the narrative passage preceding this one, in which the narrator says, “Nor did he seem much more at ease; when he spoke his accent had none of its usual sedateness” (265). However, Elizabeth’s inner thoughts only address his behavior—she is not in a proper state of mind to see much beyond her own feelings of discomfort, let alone to decipher his. At such times of strong emotion, Elizabeth’s feelings burst forth in the form of free indirect discourse, often interrupting the flow of the narrative discourse in their urgency. In one example of many, Elizabeth internally expresses a seemingly involuntary emotional reaction to Mr. Collins’ proposal to dance the first two dances with her at the Netherfield ball.
Schwartz 16 Elizabeth felt herself completely taken in. She had fully proposed being engaged by Mr. Wickham for those very dances: —and to have Mr. Collins instead!—her liveliness had never been worse timed. (121) The narrative lead-in to this burst of thought expresses Elizabeth’s feelings, but from a slightly external view. The narrator is describing what Elizabeth is feeling and thinking— how this interferes with her original plans with Wickham—but from the outside, to a certain degree. The use of the words “she” and “herself” indicates the narrative distance from Elizabeth, that the reader is viewing her from the outside. The phrase bracketed by dashes and an exclamation point, however, grants brief yet direct access to her internal emotions, and the punctuation only serves to heighten the feeling of agitation that provokes this apparently spontaneous response. Elizabeth’s reaction remains internal for propriety’s sake, but the reader is made aware of her direct thought so there is no question about her feelings on the matter—that she strongly prefers Wickham and feels an aversion to spending this intimate time with Collins. While a brief burst of emotion from Elizabeth may interrupt the objective narrative discourse, the intrusion of the character voice is deliberate on the part of the narrator. While speaking to Collins about his “domestic comforts” with Charlotte, the woman in question walks in and interrupts them, eliciting this short eruption of feeling from Elizabeth: Poor Charlotte! it was melancholy to leave her to such society!—But she had chosen it with her eyes open; and though evidently regretting that her visitors were to go, she did not seem to ask for compassion. Her home and her housekeeping, her parish and her poultry, and all their dependent concerns, had not yet lost their charms. (233) The first sentence alone is rendered in free indirect discourse. As suddenly as it began, the emotional outburst breaks off and returns abruptly to narrative discourse. The second sentence in the passage appears to be from Elizabeth’s perspective, but it is very clearly distinguished from the first by its dispassionate tone, signaling the overwhelming return of
Schwartz 17 the narrator’s objectivity after the eruption of pity from Elizabeth’s consciousness. However, the narrator is still very much present in the first sentence, even though her voice seems overridden by Elizabeth’s emotional outburst. The abrupt shift in tone from emotional to detached, as well as the shift in perspective from that of character to narrator, signals the assertion of the narrator’s control over the discourse of the passage. The deliberate modulation from character to narrator voice demonstrates that even the emotional outburst is carefully calculated and controlled by the narrator.7 In this way, the passage in question conforms well with Gunn’s understanding of the assertion of the “narrator’s authoritative voice” in Emma, as opposed to the destabilization and “eliding” of authority which Mezei, Finch, and Bowen insist is the result of free indirect discourse in the very same novel. Often free indirect discourse is used to signal a moment of revelation for Elizabeth, which the narrator corroborates through her silent participation in the passage. For instance, as Elizabeth reads Darcy’s letter, she is forced to rethink her initial assessment of Wickham’s character. In an instant of astonished realization, Elizabeth expresses the thought: “How differently did everything now appear in which he [Wickham] was concerned!” (226). This sentence, a classic example of free indirect discourse, is followed by a list of Wickham’s actions which Elizabeth now reinterprets in light of Darcy’s new information. Whereas before, Elizabeth was inclined to view Wickham’s behavior favorably, her perspective has now widened as a result of her gained wisdom, and she is finally seeing him in a newer, less forgiving light. The reader, who also may not have picked up on Wickham’s hypocrisy when Interestingly, the last sentence in the passage seems to be told from Charlotte’s point of view. The definitive clause at the end, “had not yet lost their charms” are not qualified by conjecturing phrases like “evidently” and “seem to,” terms which appear in the previous sentence and imply an external perspective. Still, the narrator dominates the last two sentences, asserting her omniscience in her ability to provide both Elizabeth’s and Charlotte’s perspectives. This is a perfect example of what Gunn describes as a “trustworthy, authoritative narrative voice…which repeatedly intertwine[s] FID with narratorial commentary” (Gunn 35). 7
Schwartz 18 limited by Elizabeth’s rose-colored perspective, is now convinced by Elizabeth’s exclamatory revelation, which is silently supported by narrator, that he is not what he first appeared to be. Another moment of revelation comes when Elizabeth rereads Darcy’s explanation for separating Bingley and Jane. Now that she has allowed herself to believe his accusations against Wickham, she realizes that she may have to trust him on the first issue as well: “Widely different was the effect of a second perusal—How could she deny that credit to his assertions, in one instance, which she had been obliged to give in the other?” (227). A dash separates the narrative lead-in from the statement rendered in free indirect discourse, which details the precise “effect of a second perusal” for Elizabeth. While Elizabeth is admonishing herself for her own hypocrisy, the narrator is subtly encouraging her as well as the reader to rethink old assumptions and to trust Darcy.8 Free indirect discourse can be used to disclose feelings of Elizabeth’s that were previously unrealized or unacknowledged. When Elizabeth shares with Darcy the news of Lydia’s elopement, she observes his agitated reaction and considers how the revelation will affect their relationship. This example, though employing a more subtle form of free indirect discourse, stands out as a moment of honest introspection on Elizabeth’s part which opens her character up more fully to the reader: Elizabeth soon observed, and instantly understood it. Her power was sinking; everything must sink under such a proof of family weakness, such an assurance of the deepest disgrace. She could neither wonder nor condemn, but the belief of his selfconquest brought nothing consolatory to her bosom, afforded no palliation of her distress. It was, on the contrary, exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes; and never had she so honestly felt that she could have loved him, as now, when all love must be vain. (287-88)
This is similar to Neumann’s idea of the narrator using free indirect discourse to “share with her heroines the responsibility for articulating their reflections at the level of thought” (365). Part of that responsibility lies in (silently) supporting the heroine’s thoughts when the narrator deems them correct and worthy. 8
Schwartz 19 This is one of the first instances in which Elizabeth admits to herself, and in turn to the reader, the true nature of her feelings for Darcy, which she only allows herself to acknowledge at this point. The first sentence serves as the narrative lead-in, and the second sentences details the direct thought that Elizabeth “instantly understood.” The emphasis on the word “must” and the repetition of the word “such” signal the force of her disappointment at the realization that she must suffer as a result of Lydia’s actions. Her revelation in the last sentence also seems like a moment of free indirect discourse (although this is arguable), because of the phrase “never had she so honestly felt.” The sincerity of the words “so honestly” and the pain expressed in the phrase “when all love must be vain” open a window into Elizabeth’s mind and directly express the emotions she is finally willing to feel. There is a sort of narrative lead-in here as well—“It was, on the contrary, exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes.” In the context of the passage, Elizabeth is referring to her belief in his “self-conquest,” but it could also be looked at in terms of the narrator’s intended plan for Elizabeth—that the series of events leading up to this scene have been “exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes.” The narrator has orchestrated the plot so that Elizabeth will have to face the prospect of losing Darcy in order to admit her own feelings for him. While at times Austen employs free indirect discourse to coax Elizabeth into moments of self-knowledge, there are other instances in which she uses the narrative device to create ironic distance between Elizabeth, the reader, and the narrator. During one of their many “spontaneous” meetings in Rosings Park, Elizabeth reflects on her conversation with Darcy, trying to decode the meaning of his words: He never said a great deal, nor did she give herself the trouble of talking or of listening much; but it struck her in the course of their third rencontre that he was asking some
Schwartz 20 odd unconnected questions—about her pleasure in being at Hunsford, her love of solitary walks, and her opinion of Mr. and Mrs. Collins's happiness; and that in speaking of Rosings and her not perfectly understanding the house, he seemed to expect that whenever she came into Kent again she would be staying there too. His words seemed to imply it. Could he have Colonel Fitzwilliam in his thoughts? She supposed, if he meant anything, he must mean an allusion to what might arise in that quarter. It distressed her a little, and she was quite glad to find herself at the gate in the pales opposite the Parsonage. (205) Elizabeth is “struck” by the oddity and apparent randomness of Mr. Darcy’s questions, and attempts to read between the lines. Through the repetition of the word “seemed” and the phrase, “She supposed, if he meant anything” the narrator is emphasizing Elizabeth’s uncertainty and lack of information. Her question, which remains internal, stands alone by not making any references to herself—this is purely Elizabeth’s direct thought. It also demonstrates how ill-informed Elizabeth is, in direct contrast to the narrator and the reader, who know that Darcy has anything but Colonel Fitzwilliam in his thoughts. While his specific motives may still be unclear to readers, it is probable that Darcy’s incessant questioning may be an effort on his part to get to know Elizabeth better, just as his constant appearance in her favorite walk is not a coincidence, but a conscious effort to spend more time with her. However, Elizabeth, from her limited perspective, remains oblivious to Darcy’s feelings and therefore unable to properly interpret his interest in her. The direct access to her thoughts reveals her limitations and emphasizes the ironic distance between her and the narrator and reader. The narrator also uses free indirect discourse to ironically undercut the emotion and intent of Elizabeth’s direct thoughts. For example, when Elizabeth learns of the plan to visit Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, she reacts rather negatively: Elizabeth said no more—but her mind could not acquiesce. The possibility of meeting Mr. Darcy, while viewing the place, instantly occurred. It would be dreadful! She blushed at the very idea, and thought it would be better to speak openly to her aunt than to run such a risk. But against this there were objections; and she finally resolved
Schwartz 21 that it could be the last resource, if her private inquiries to the absence of the family were unfavourably answered. (254-5) While only a brief phrase from this passage is rendered in free indirect discourse, it is very illuminating in terms of understanding Elizabeth’s true feelings (though she may not be aware of them herself at this point). The narrator tells us that Elizabeth has given up on objecting to the scheme verbally, but that her thoughts are still in revolt. Elizabeth’s “instant” thought in response to running into Darcy at Pemberley is, “It would be dreadful!” While the thought may be considered an instantaneous emotional reaction on Elizabeth’s part, it is not immediate. Aside from the subtext underlying her blushes and tactics to avoid seeing Darcy or appearing too concerned about his whereabouts, the phrase “It would be dreadful” also requires closer consideration to unveil what is spurring Elizabeth’s strong emotional reaction. Underlying Elizabeth’s “instant” thought, “It would be dreadful!” is the narrator’s subtle undermining question—“Would it really, though?” Would it be so dreadful for Elizabeth and Darcy to meet after her attitude toward him has undergone such a transformation? Readers have been rooting for this meeting to finally take place after months of introspection on Elizabeth’s part, and are eager to see Darcy from a less prejudiced perspective. While Elizabeth dreads the discomfort she will feel at this meeting, the narrator’s depiction of her involuntary bodily reaction, as well as her agitated avoidance schemes, reveals that Elizabeth (though she may not realize it yet) is most likely hoping for their meeting as well. In addition to using free indirect discourse to indulge her own sense of humor and irony, Austen may also employ it to reveal Elizabeth’s satiric tendencies. In the following passage, Elizabeth is reeling from her confrontation with Lady Catherine, yet she still manages to inject some humor into her frazzled thoughts: The discomposure of spirits which this extraordinary visit threw Elizabeth into, could not be easily overcome; nor could she, for many hours, learn to think of it less than
Schwartz 22 incessantly. Lady Catherine, it appeared, had actually taken the trouble of this journey from Rosings, for the sole purpose of breaking off her supposed engagement with Mr. Darcy. It was a rational scheme, to be sure! (360) The first sentence of narrative discourse leads in to the second and third, introducing the state of Elizabeth’s thoughts in the aftermath of Lady Catherine’s visit. While the voice of the second sentence is slightly ambiguous, its tone of surprise suggests more character subjectivity than the first sentence, which unmistakably carries what Gunn calls the “authoritative narrative voice” (Gunn 35). The words “it appeared” convey a sense of uncertainty that does not belong to the confident narrator. The words “actually” and “supposed engagement” express Elizabeth’s disbelief at the extremity of Lady Catherine’s actions and skepticism about her motivations. The third sentence, however, is unequivocally rendered in free indirect discourse, with its exclamatory and somewhat mocking tone. Through this sentence, the narrator is allowing the reader a direct glimpse into Elizabeth’s ironic sense of humor—clearly she believes Lady Catherine’s “scheme” to be anything but rational. Adding to the complexity of this passage is the underlying satire of the narrator, who, while joining Elizabeth in her mocking of Lady Catherine, is simultaneously poking fun at Elizabeth for not considering that Lady Catherine’s concerns may not be completely unfounded. While past critics have devoted many pages to unpacking the form and function of free indirect discourse as it appears in Emma, and as it relates to the narrator’s role in the act of story-telling, the aim of this study has been to examine the function of this nuanced narrative device in the much-beloved novel of Pride and Prejudice, as it relates to the central character of Elizabeth Bennet. Unlike Anne Waldron Neumann, I have chosen to focus on the heroine of Jane Austen’s classic work, as opposed to the minor characters, and I have endeavored to offer a multi-faceted view of the function of free indirect discourse as it relates
Schwartz 23 to the thoughts and feelings of this complex character. While I cannot claim to have ignored the role that free indirect discourse plays in asserting the authority of the narrator, I believe I have effectively demonstrated the function of free indirect discourse in revealing the subjectivity and latent emotion inherent in the character of Elizabeth Bennet. Free indirect discourse does have the effect of exhibiting narrative authority over the text and characters, especially in the instances in which it reveals the limitations of the character’s perspective. However, it also works to bring the thoughts and feelings of the character to the forefront, whether it appears in bursts of emotion or in bouts of internal soliloquy, during moments of surprise, shame, revelation, uncertainty, sincerity, denial, and satire, in ways that would not be possible through objective narration alone.
Schwartz 24 Works Cited Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Ed. Robert P. Irvine. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2002. Print. Finch, Casey, and Peter Bowen. ""The Tittle-Tattle of Highbury": Gossip and the Free Indirect Style in Emma." Representations The Margins of Identity in Nineteenth Century England 31 (1990): 1-18. JSTOR. University of California Press, Summer 1990. Web. Oct. 2015. Gunn, Daniel P. "Free Indirect Discourse and Narrative Authority." Narrative 12.1 (2004): 35-54. Project Muse. Ohio State University Press, Jan. 2004. Web. Oct. 2015. Mezei, Kathy. “Who Is Speaking Here? Free Indirect Discourse, Gender, and Narrative Authority in Emma, Howards End, and Mrs. Dalloway.” Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers. Ed. Kathy Mezei. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996. 66–92. Print. Neumann, Anne Waldron. "Characterization and Comment in Pride and Prejudice: Free Indirect Discourse and "Double-voiced" Verbs of Speaking, Thinking, and Feeling." Style Narrative Poetics 20.3 (1986): 364-94. JSTOR. Penn State University Press, 1986. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
Presented to the S. Daniel Abraham Honors Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Completion of the Program
Stern College for Women Yeshiva University April 18, 2016
Naamah Schwartz Mentor: Professor Seamus O’Malley, English
Schwartz 1 Jane Austen has been credited by many as the first English author to make use of free indirect discourse as a means of presenting the thoughts and feelings of the characters in her novels. Free indirect discourse is a narrative technique that combines narrative comment with character voice by presenting a character’s thoughts or feelings within the narrative discourse. This is what Daniel P. Gunn would call “narratorial mimicry” of the character voice within her own discourse (35). Some of Austen’s uses of free indirect discourse are more obvious, in which the character’s voice is noticeable within in a large passage of narration. Other instances are more obscure, in which the narrator’s voice is dominant, and as little as a few words within the narrative discourse can be attributed (usually) to a particular character voice. Much of the scholarship surrounding Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in her novels has been centered on her use of the narrative device specifically in Emma.1 Pride and Prejudice, which was written and published before Emma, is also rife with instances of free indirect discourse; it is therefore odd that most of the scholarship on Austen’s free indirect discourse focuses on its employment in Emma and pays little to no attention to Pride and Prejudice. Furthermore, the discussion surrounding free indirect discourse in Emma is primarily concerned with the effect it has on what Gunn calls “narrative authority.” Critics have understood free indirect discourse to create a struggle between the narrative voice and the character voice, with each warring for dominance, and ultimately resulting in the defeat of the authoritative narrative voice.2 Meanwhile, few of these critics make any reference to the function of free indirect discourse as a tool for
1
Such critics who discuss free indirect discourse in Emma include Daniel P. Gunn, Casey Finch and Peter Bowen, and Kathy Mezei. See Gunn’s survey of previous scholars’ understanding of free indirect discourse and its applications to Austen and Emma. Gunn, however, emphasizes the assertion of “narrative authority” through Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in her novels (Gunn 35). 2
Schwartz 2 presenting Austen’s characters in terms of their thoughts and feelings. While one scholar, Anne Waldron Neumann, has discussed free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice as a device to present the novel's characters, she focuses primarily on its function as a tool for casting ironic judgment on minor characters. Most of the obvious instances of free indirect discourse in the novel present Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings, primarily in key scenes of the plot, such as after Darcy’s first proposal, or after reading Darcy’s letter. However, as of yet, no one has focused on the function of free indirect discourse in such instances, nor on what it adds to the reader’s understanding of Elizabeth that is not revealed through other modes of narration. In order to uncover the various functions of free indirect discourse in such instances, I will analyze obvious instances of free indirect discourse which relate Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings to the reader. Through my study of these instances, I identify five major functions of free indirect discourse when used to render Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings: First, to distinguish Elizabeth as the heroine of the novel by demonstrating her subjectivity as a character; second, to reveal those feelings of Elizabeth’s which would not be effectively represented through objective narrative discourse; third, to allow Elizabeth’s genuine and urgent feelings to emerge from beneath the narrative discourse; fourth, to allow the narrator to silently aid Elizabeth in recognizing her own true feelings; and fifth (to a lesser extent), to ironically distance Elizabeth from the narrator and reader by establishing her character’s limited perspective. All of these functions serve, to some degree, to demonstrate the narrator’s authority over the text and her characters, but mostly to bring Elizabeth’s subjectivity and robust emotions to the forefront of the novel. In Austen’s novels, free indirect discourse is generally used to present a character’s thoughts and feelings within the narrative discourse. Neumann defines free indirect discourse
Schwartz 3 as “any sentence (or clause) containing words which…could plausibly be attributed to a character by the reader but which are not explicitly attributed to that character by the narrator” (366). Free indirect discourse is commonly indicated by punctuation as well as by shifts in tone between narrative comment and character voice. As Gunn points out, focusing more on the narrator’s role in free indirect discourse, “Austen’s novels…deploy FID in conjunction with a trustworthy, authoritative narrative voice and which repeatedly intertwine FID with narratorial commentary, sometimes inside of a single sentence” (35). One such example of free indirect discourse appears in Pride and Prejudice, during Elizabeth’s stay at Rosings Park in Volume II: More than once did Elizabeth in her ramble within the Park, unexpectedly meet Mr. Darcy.—She felt all the perverseness of the mischance that should bring him where no one else was brought; and to prevent its ever happening again, took care to inform him at first, that it was a favourite haunt of hers.—How it could occur a second time therefore as very odd!—Yet it did, and even a third. (Austen 204) Here is a clear instance of free indirect discourse, most ostensibly indicated by an exclamation point, as well as by the framing of dashes around the sentence, “How it could occur a second time therefore was very odd!” This statement, which can be attributed to Elizabeth, is not explicitly introduced by the narrator as a thought, yet the exclamatory tone delineates it as more than mere narrative comment. The shift from narrative comment to character voice is gradual. The first sentence is clearly part of the objective narration as it is informing the reader of a fact in the plot. The next sentence, marked at the beginning with a dash, begins the shift toward character voice, in the description of Elizabeth’s feelings. The “perverseness of the mischance” of periodically meeting Darcy in the park is all felt by Elizabeth, but presented by the narrator, as is the “care” that Elizabeth takes to inform Darcy that she frequently walks this path. The third sentence, however, marks a tonal shift from objective narration to the character’s feelings of surprise, which indicates to the reader that
Schwartz 4 this is completely Elizabeth’s thought. The last sentence, also separated by a dash, signals the return to the objective narrative voice of fact. The gradual shifting of tone and voice, as well as the embedded nature of the character’s exclamation within the narrative discourse itself, indicates the presence of free indirect discourse in this passage. Much of the previous scholarship on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse has been focused on Emma, particularly on the subject of “narrative authority.” Finch and Bowen discuss free indirect discourse by equating it to the gossip that circulates the community of Highbury in Emma, in that both have the effect of “disseminating” and “eliding” narrative authority (3). Mezei focuses on free indirect discourse as a cause for narratorial and gender “indeterminacy” in the novel (86), as well as a “destabilizer” of narrative authority through the confusion of voices it creates (75). Gunn understands free indirect discourse to be a kind of “narratorial mimicry” of the characters’ voices (35). He argues with the previous critics that free indirect discourse does not “destabilize” or “elide” narrative authority; on the contrary it is a tool through which the narrator asserts her authority. These scholars represent the majority of the work that has been done on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse, yet their focus has been very narrow, addressing only the novel of Emma, and focusing primarily on the problem of narrative authority, to the exclusion of Austen’s other novels.3 Gunn and his predecessors do not focus much on the role free indirect discourse has in presenting the thoughts and feelings of Austen’s characters. Instead they are concerned with the effect free indirect discourse has on the narrator’s authority. Even when writing about the character’s voice in free indirect discourse, Gunn claims, “In Emma, we repeatedly 3
In his endnotes (6 and 18), Gunn refers to two papers which discuss free indirect discourse in Persuasion, but he makes no reference to any of Austen’s other novels (Gunn 51, 53). Mezei’s book, Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers, does not refer to Pride and Prejudice once, and the only chapter on free indirect discourse focuses only on Emma, of all Austen’s novels.
Schwartz 5 experience figural subjectivity…but…we never lose contact with the narrator’s authoritative voice, which is essential to the novel’s design” (42). For Gunn, clearly the importance of free indirect discourse lies in the authority of the narrator, and not in the “figural subjectivity” of the characters. Finch and Bowen write that free indirect discourse in Emma is “a technique in which the authority and existence of the narrator derive from the fact that she reveals everyone's thoughts but her own” (11). These critics are focused on free indirect discourse as it pertains to the elusiveness of the narrator’s thoughts, and what bearing that has on her authority, not on what it reveals about “everyone’s thoughts.” Although Mezei allows for the fact that free indirect discourse in Emma may encourage the reader to have an “empathetic response” to Emma as a character, she does so by focusing on how the narrator “deliberately effac[es] herself…and thus permit[s] an other and different voice to emerge” (73). For Mezei, free indirect discourse is more about the disappearance of the narrator than it is about the character’s voice which she is “permitting” to poke through. To these critics, Austen’s free indirect discourse will always be significant in terms of what it suggests about the narrator’s authority, rather than what it intimates about the character herself. However, at least one critic, Anne Waldron Neumann, has focused on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice rather than Emma, and on characterization rather than narrative authority, in her study on “double-voiced” verbs and free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice. Her essay sets her apart from the aforementioned scholars in two ways: It addresses an Austen novel that has not been previously studied by scholars on the topic of free indirect discourse, and it focuses on the function of free indirect discourse as a tool to understand the consciousness of the novel’s characters. In the introduction to her
Schwartz 6 essay, Neumann states her main claims about the function of free indirect discourse in Pride and Prejudice, as it relates to presenting both major and minor characters: I shall suggest that Austen uses double-voiced verbs to distinguish characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting but also to identify characters who are left to speak their thoughts and feelings for themselves. That is, by means of this single device, Austen's narrator can not only share with her heroines the responsibility for articulating their reflections at the level of thought but can also satirize lesser characters who attribute thoughts and feelings to themselves in their speech—who moralize or romanticize, for example—without the narrator's cooperation and endorsement. (365) Neumann, with these stated claims, has taken on a large and broad topic which has been, as of yet, unexplored by previous scholarship. To a large extent, Neumann succeeds in supporting her claim that Austen’s narrator uses free indirect discourse to satirize “lesser characters” who “moralize or romanticize.”4 While this is the second part of her main claim, she spends the majority of her paper exploring this idea, mostly by analyzing instances of free indirect discourse pertaining to such characters as Mrs. Bennet, Lydia, and primarily Mr. Collins. While she and Gunn both understand this satirizing to occur through the narrator mimicking the characters, Gunn is concerned with how the character voice enriches the narrative discourse, and how she “draw[s] their voices into the rich texture of her narration” (Gunn 41). Meanwhile, Neumann focuses on how the mimicry of the character reveals that particular character’s thoughts or motivations, such as in the passage in Pride and Prejudice in which Mrs. Bennet coyly conveys to Mr. Collins that although Jane is likely spoken for, her younger daughters are available for him to marry. Neumann interprets the free indirect discourse in this passage to reflect Mrs. Bennet’s deliberate indirectness and “imitation of elegant delicacy as she sets a trap for a second suitor without upsetting the snare in which she hopes an earlier suitor is about to become engaged” i.e. Mr. Bingley to Jane (Neumann 371). However I, and most likely Gunn, would argue with her claim that these “lesser characters” are presenting themselves through free indirect discourse “without the narrator’s cooperation and endorsement.” 4
Schwartz 7 Clearly Neumann’s understanding of the narrator’s imitation of characters is more closely related to the function of free indirect discourse in presenting the characters’ thoughts, as opposed to Gunn, who interprets the mimicry of characters only as it relates to the narrative discourse. But in focusing on Austen’s use of free indirect discourse in relation to minor characters, Neumann’s paper largely ignores the more important role of free indirect discourse as it relates to major characters, or “heroines” such as Elizabeth. Neumann devotes very little space to analyzing free indirect discourse as a vehicle for “distinguish[ing] characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting” (i.e. Elizabeth Bennet). Her main claim about major characters such as Elizabeth is that the narrator shares “the responsibility for articulating [her] reflections at the level of thought” through free indirect discourse, yet she proves that in only one of the six paragraphs that focus on Elizabeth at the very end of her paper. Clearly free indirect discourse in relation to Elizabeth is important; otherwise Neumann would not bother addressing it at all. However, the only definitive conclusions that can be made about Elizabeth’s character based on Neumann’s sparse reading are about Elizabeth’s depth of mind (as compared to her thoughtless sisters); even this conclusion is arrived at by an analysis of a passage with little to no occurrence of “doublevoiced verbs” and free indirect discourse, which Neumann herself acknowledges. Neumann’s interpretation of the function of free indirect discourse as it pertains to Elizabeth is illsupported, both by the quantity and quality of her evidence. As it stands, there is still a need to analyze those passages which present Elizabeth’s thoughts and feelings through free indirect discourse in order to more adequately understand the function of free indirect discourse as it pertains to a major character such as Elizabeth.
Schwartz 8 In my efforts to distinguish the primary functions of free indirect discourse in this novel, I will identify key obvious instances of free indirect discourse employed to relate Elizabeth Bennet’s thoughts and feelings. In addition to evaluating the mechanics of free indirect discourse and how it fits in with surrounding passages of objective narrative discourse, I will analyze individual passages of free indirect discourse through close reading. Through this analysis I will arrive at a number of claims specific to those passages, which will identify the various functions of free indirect discourse as outlined in the introduction. Free indirect discourse is often introduced in the novel by way of narrative discourse. The narrator leads with an external review of Elizabeth’s emotions, and uses free indirect discourse to more accurately represent Elizabeth’s feelings by directly relating the details of her thought process. Immediately after the infamous first proposal scene, Darcy departs and leaves Elizabeth feeling confused and overwhelmed: The tumult of her mind, was now painfully great. She knew not how to support herself, and from actual weakness sat down and cried for half-an-hour. Her astonishment, as she reflected on what had passed, was increased by every review of it. That she should receive an offer of marriage from Mr. Darcy! That he should have been in love with her for so many months! So much in love as to wish to marry her in spite of all the objections which had made him prevent his friend's marrying her sister, and which must appear at least with equal force in his own case—was almost incredible! It was gratifying to have inspired unconsciously so strong an affection. But his pride, his abominable pride—his shameless avowal of what he had done with respect to Jane—his unpardonable assurance in acknowledging, though he could not justify it, and the unfeeling manner in which he had mentioned Mr. Wickham, his cruelty towards whom he had not attempted to deny, soon overcame the pity which the consideration of his attachment had for a moment excited. (Austen 214) The narrative lead-in in this case appears in the third sentence, and introduces the rest of the paragraph, which will outline in detail Elizabeth’s “astonishment” and the course of its “increas[ing]” intensity. The rest of the passage, punctuated by exclamation points and dashes, indicates that Elizabeth’s thoughts are scattered and agitated. The increasing length of the sentences and the frantic and repetitive rhythm of her exclamations embody the
Schwartz 9 heightening of her surprise and distress as she continues to “review” all the facts of the event in her mind. The progress of her thoughts also relates her conflicting feelings for Darcy—on the one hand the flattery and surprise of his interest in her, and on the other, the disdain she feels for his “abominable pride.” The second part of her ruminations, which outline the reasons for her dislike, is contained within the last sentence. Its winding nature, its stops and starts, its verbose and unforgiving diction, convey the depth of Elizabeth’s disdain. The phrase beginning with “soon overcame the pity” is the moment when the narration slips back into the voice of the objective narrator, smoothly transitioning from Elizabeth’s direct thought. In one of the first instances of obvious free indirect discourse used to portray Elizabeth’s thoughts, the narrator uses free indirect discourse to distinguish Elizabeth from the other characters and to emphasize the limited nature of her knowledge, as well as that of the reader. The moment of free indirect discourse occurs in response to Wickham and Darcy’s cold greeting: On distinguishing the ladies of the group, the two gentlemen [Darcy and Bingley] came directly towards them, and began the usual civilities. Bingley was the principal spokesman, and Miss Bennet the principal object. He was then, he said, on his way to Longbourn on purpose to inquire after her. Mr. Darcy corroborated it with a bow, and was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth, when they were suddenly arrested by the sight of the stranger, and Elizabeth happening to see the countenance of both as they looked at each other, was all astonishment at the effect of the meeting. Both changed colour, one looked white, the other red. Mr. Wickham, after a few moments, touched his hat—a salutation which Mr. Darcy just deigned to return. What could be the meaning of it? It was impossible to imagine; it was impossible not to long to know. (107, my italics) For the most part, this passage is told purely from the objective narrator’s perspective. The only break from objective narration is the brief mention of Darcy’s internal thoughts—that he “was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth.” This is something that only an omniscient narrator would have access to, which she has also chosen to share with the reader.
Schwartz 10 However, Elizabeth is not privy to this information. All she can see is the external interaction between the two men. The narrator mentions that Elizabeth is “all astonishment” at their reaction to each other, but she cannot know what is really going on between them. That confusion and lack of information is perfectly expressed in the last two sentences, when the narrator shifts from the external viewpoint to the direct thoughts going through Elizabeth’s mind. On the one hand, this extra level of access which the reader is granted to Elizabeth’s direct thought is unprecedented at this point in the novel, and it distinguishes Elizabeth as the main character whose thoughts and feelings will remain open to readers (albeit on a limited basis, whenever the narrator chooses to grant that access).5 On the other hand, the sentiment expressed by Elizabeth, “What could be the meaning of it?” highlights her own limited access to the thoughts and backstories of the other characters. Elizabeth remains out-of-theloop for most of the novel as to the details of this particular relationship, as do the readers, until Darcy chooses to reveal them. This limited access reminds readers that while they will be able to see Elizabeth’s thoughts through free indirect discourse, and at select times the thoughts of other characters as well, ultimately the control is in the hands of the narrator to allow that access. By using free indirect discourse to give readers direct access to Elizabeth’s thoughts, the narrator also sets her in opposition to her sillier sisters, as a character who is capable of development and growth. After Elizabeth’s revelations about Wickham, she hears her sister Lydia make scathing remarks about the young woman whom Wickham has recently been courting, wondering what Wickham could see in “such a nasty little freckled thing.” Elizabeth’s reaction is told as follows: Or, as Neumann puts it, free indirect discourse “distinguish[es] characters whose point of view the narrator cooperates in reporting” (365). 5
Schwartz 11 Elizabeth was shocked to think that, however incapable of such coarseness of expression herself, the coarseness of the sentiment was little other than her own breast had harboured and fancied liberal! (236) The first clause of the sentence, ending with a comma, marks the narrative lead-in to Elizabeth’s direct thought. The italics and the exclamation point signal that the rest of the sentence is directly expressing the “shock” Elizabeth feels at the realization of her own hypocrisy. She judges her sister for the “coarseness of expression,” but now even more so comes to judge herself for having recently shared the same “coarseness of sentiment” about the young woman in question. She only now allows herself to acknowledge the ungracious attitudes that her feelings for Wickham had evoked in her only a few months previously, and feels ashamed and astonished at her prejudice. What sets Elizabeth apart from her petty sisters is the fact that she is aware of her own shortcomings, and that the narrator gives us direct access to her personal growth beyond the immaturity of her younger sisters. One of Austen’s key uses of free indirect discourse is to showcase her heroine’s subjectivity and progression of thought. When Elizabeth first becomes aware of Darcy’s involvement in Lydia’s marriage, she is told not to inquire into the matter. The narrator writes objectively that “Elizabeth was forced to put it out of her power, by running away” (324). Immediately afterward, however, she adds: “But to live in ignorance on such a point was impossible; or at least it was impossible not to try for information. Mr. Darcy had been at her sister’s wedding.” The indication that the sentence “But to live…” is rendered in free indirect discourse lies in the word “impossible.” The claim that “to live in ignorance” is “impossible” is subjective to Elizabeth. The fact that she qualifies the claim directly afterward is a further sign of her subjectivity, and indicates to the reader that he/she is witnessing the direct progression of Elizabeth’s thoughts. The last sentence is also a case of free indirect discourse, as it does not add any new information, plot-wise. The narrator has
Schwartz 12 already revealed through Lydia that Darcy was involved in the affair; therefore this reiteration of the facts must be part of Elizabeth’s direct thought, ruminating in her mind as she absorbs the shocking information and resolves to discover the details behind it. Free indirect discourse, when placed within the context of a greater narrative discourse, often allows Elizabeth’s true and unfettered feelings to respond to and clarify the narrator’s more objective statements. Elizabeth has just been informed that Wickham has most likely skipped the Netherfield ball in order to avoid meeting Darcy, and her reaction is described through narrative discourse as well as free indirect discourse. This part of his intelligence, though unheard by Lydia, was caught by Elizabeth, and, as it assured her that Darcy was not less answerable for Wickham's absence than if her first surmise had been just, every feeling of displeasure against the former was so sharpened by immediate disappointment, that she could hardly reply with tolerable civility to the polite inquiries which he directly afterwards approached to make. – Attendance, forbearance, patience with Darcy, was injury to Wickham. She was resolved against any sort of conversation with him, and turned away with a degree of ill-humour which she could not wholly surmount even in speaking to Mr. Bingley, whose blind partiality provoked her. (121, my italics). The first half of the passage relates the fact that Elizabeth’s prejudices about Darcy are only being confirmed by Wickham’s absence, and that she punishes him for the verification of her preconceived notions of his culpability in matters related to Wickham. The narrator is relaying facts from an external perspective—first Elizabeth’s feelings and then her actions in response to those feelings. The sentence preceded by a dash, “Attendance, forbearance, patience with Darcy, was injury to Wickham,” expresses the exact reasoning behind her “feeling of displeasure” toward Darcy as well as her rude replies to his “polite inquiries.” Readers are allowed direct access to Elizabeth’s exact motivations and feelings which prompt her rude behavior toward Darcy, and eventually Bingley. The brief insight into her mind explains her reaction more than the external narrative discourse does on its own. Readers now understand that Elizabeth feels loyalty to Wickham, misguided as it may be by her
Schwartz 13 prejudice against Darcy. The internal logic that politeness to Darcy would be an act of disloyalty to Wickham dictates her behavior. However, the fact that her thought is framed by external narrative discourse, and that the thought itself is mediated through a narrator, suggests that Elizabeth’s reaction may be somewhat irrational and disproportionate.6 Free indirect discourse can also be used to reveal underlying feelings of Elizabeth’s that would not be apparent through objective narrative discourse. For example, the reader is given direct access to Elizabeth’s changing attitudes toward Darcy, which result from his housekeeper’s praise: The commendation bestowed on him by Mrs. Reynolds was of no trifling nature. What praise is more valuable than the praise of an intelligent servant? As a brother, a landlord, a master, she considered how many people's happiness were in his guardianship!—How much of pleasure or pain was it in his power to bestow!—How much of good or evil must be done by him! Every idea that had been brought forward by the housekeeper was favourable to his character… (264) The sentences rendered in free indirect discourse are marked by dashes, a question mark, exclamation points, and the repetition of the phrase “How much of….” (There is only a brief moment of narrative interruption in the phrase “she considered.”) Each statement escalates in its
tone of admiration and surprise on Elizabeth’s part when she considers Darcy’s benevolence to those “in his guardianship.” Underlying the admiration for his good deeds is her apparent attraction to his “power” to “bestow pleasure or pain” and to do “good or evil.” Elizabeth seems overly excited by the control Darcy has over his dependents, such as his servants, his tenants, and even his sister. While this somewhat sinister attraction does not seem to make its way to the surface at any other point in the book, it is difficult to ignore the subtext present in this passage of free indirect discourse, and to wonder what the narrator’s motives may be in
Contrary to Mezei’s understanding that the narrator “effac[es] herself” by allowing the character’s voice to intrude through free indirect discourse, the narrator’s presence is felt even more strongly by the fact that Elizabeth’s thoughts are mediated through the narrative discourse. 6
Schwartz 14 introducing this side of Elizabeth so singularly and subtly in this instance. Perhaps in the context of viewing Pemberley and seeing the grandeur of what might have been hers, Elizabeth also comes to recognize the stateliness of the man himself whom she has rejected. In fact, when she first catches sight of Pemberley’s beautiful and extensive grounds, Elizabeth expresses in free indirect discourse that “to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!” (259). Though she later jokes to her sister that she began to fall in love with Darcy “from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley,” perhaps there is a certain level of truth to this statement after all (372). In a similar vein, Austen often employs free indirect discourse to demonstrate Elizabeth’s state of mind in a manner more effective than if the narrator had simply described to the reader how she was feeling. Such an instance occurs when Elizabeth accidentally meets Darcy at Pemberley: …Elizabeth heard not a word, and wholly engrossed by her own feelings, followed them in silence. She was overpowered by shame and vexation. Her coming there was the most unfortunate, the most ill-judged thing in the world! How strange it must appear to him! In what a disgraceful light might it not strike so vain a man! It might seem as if she had purposely thrown herself in his way again! Oh! why did she come? Or, why did he thus come a day before he was expected? Had they been only ten minutes sooner, they should have been beyond the reach of his discrimination; for it was plain that he was that moment arrived—that moment alighted from his horse or his carriage. She blushed again and again over the perverseness of the meeting. And his behaviour, so strikingly altered—what could it mean? That he should even speak to her was amazing!—but to speak with such civility, to inquire after her family! Never in her life had she seen his manners so little dignified, never had he spoken with such gentleness as on this unexpected meeting. What a contrast did it offer to his last address in Rosings Park, when he put his letter into her hand! She knew not what to think, or how to account for it. (265, my italics) Those sentences marked with italics are those which can indisputably be called free indirect discourse—they are indicated with many exclamation points and framed by dashes in certain places. The frequency and consecutive number of the exclamations cement the impression that Elizabeth is highly agitated and embarrassed to be found by Darcy in the act of exploring
Schwartz 15 his home. The narrator introduces Elizabeth’s mental tirade by saying that “[s]he was overpowered by shame and vexation.” The direct thoughts that immediately follow this statement demonstrate the degree of those emotions, as well the exact thoughts which are causing them. There are certain breaks in between her internal panicking when the narrator interrupts briefly to state objective truths, such as the evidence of Darcy just now having returned, and the fact that Elizabeth is blushing at what she perceives to be “the perverseness of the meeting.” Not only does the reader sense Elizabeth’s embarrassment over her predicament, but also her impeded perception of Darcy’s change in behavior. The intervening sentence in the last portion of the passage, beginning with “Never in her life,” marks a possible return to the narrative discourse, as it lacks the indicative punctuation, and therefore the same agitated tone as the sentences which immediately precede and follow it. The last sentence sums up, in the narrator’s words, Elizabeth’s confusion at the situation, and her inability to understand Darcy’s side of the encounter. In fact, Darcy’s emotions are only briefly considered in the narrative passage preceding this one, in which the narrator says, “Nor did he seem much more at ease; when he spoke his accent had none of its usual sedateness” (265). However, Elizabeth’s inner thoughts only address his behavior—she is not in a proper state of mind to see much beyond her own feelings of discomfort, let alone to decipher his. At such times of strong emotion, Elizabeth’s feelings burst forth in the form of free indirect discourse, often interrupting the flow of the narrative discourse in their urgency. In one example of many, Elizabeth internally expresses a seemingly involuntary emotional reaction to Mr. Collins’ proposal to dance the first two dances with her at the Netherfield ball.
Schwartz 16 Elizabeth felt herself completely taken in. She had fully proposed being engaged by Mr. Wickham for those very dances: —and to have Mr. Collins instead!—her liveliness had never been worse timed. (121) The narrative lead-in to this burst of thought expresses Elizabeth’s feelings, but from a slightly external view. The narrator is describing what Elizabeth is feeling and thinking— how this interferes with her original plans with Wickham—but from the outside, to a certain degree. The use of the words “she” and “herself” indicates the narrative distance from Elizabeth, that the reader is viewing her from the outside. The phrase bracketed by dashes and an exclamation point, however, grants brief yet direct access to her internal emotions, and the punctuation only serves to heighten the feeling of agitation that provokes this apparently spontaneous response. Elizabeth’s reaction remains internal for propriety’s sake, but the reader is made aware of her direct thought so there is no question about her feelings on the matter—that she strongly prefers Wickham and feels an aversion to spending this intimate time with Collins. While a brief burst of emotion from Elizabeth may interrupt the objective narrative discourse, the intrusion of the character voice is deliberate on the part of the narrator. While speaking to Collins about his “domestic comforts” with Charlotte, the woman in question walks in and interrupts them, eliciting this short eruption of feeling from Elizabeth: Poor Charlotte! it was melancholy to leave her to such society!—But she had chosen it with her eyes open; and though evidently regretting that her visitors were to go, she did not seem to ask for compassion. Her home and her housekeeping, her parish and her poultry, and all their dependent concerns, had not yet lost their charms. (233) The first sentence alone is rendered in free indirect discourse. As suddenly as it began, the emotional outburst breaks off and returns abruptly to narrative discourse. The second sentence in the passage appears to be from Elizabeth’s perspective, but it is very clearly distinguished from the first by its dispassionate tone, signaling the overwhelming return of
Schwartz 17 the narrator’s objectivity after the eruption of pity from Elizabeth’s consciousness. However, the narrator is still very much present in the first sentence, even though her voice seems overridden by Elizabeth’s emotional outburst. The abrupt shift in tone from emotional to detached, as well as the shift in perspective from that of character to narrator, signals the assertion of the narrator’s control over the discourse of the passage. The deliberate modulation from character to narrator voice demonstrates that even the emotional outburst is carefully calculated and controlled by the narrator.7 In this way, the passage in question conforms well with Gunn’s understanding of the assertion of the “narrator’s authoritative voice” in Emma, as opposed to the destabilization and “eliding” of authority which Mezei, Finch, and Bowen insist is the result of free indirect discourse in the very same novel. Often free indirect discourse is used to signal a moment of revelation for Elizabeth, which the narrator corroborates through her silent participation in the passage. For instance, as Elizabeth reads Darcy’s letter, she is forced to rethink her initial assessment of Wickham’s character. In an instant of astonished realization, Elizabeth expresses the thought: “How differently did everything now appear in which he [Wickham] was concerned!” (226). This sentence, a classic example of free indirect discourse, is followed by a list of Wickham’s actions which Elizabeth now reinterprets in light of Darcy’s new information. Whereas before, Elizabeth was inclined to view Wickham’s behavior favorably, her perspective has now widened as a result of her gained wisdom, and she is finally seeing him in a newer, less forgiving light. The reader, who also may not have picked up on Wickham’s hypocrisy when Interestingly, the last sentence in the passage seems to be told from Charlotte’s point of view. The definitive clause at the end, “had not yet lost their charms” are not qualified by conjecturing phrases like “evidently” and “seem to,” terms which appear in the previous sentence and imply an external perspective. Still, the narrator dominates the last two sentences, asserting her omniscience in her ability to provide both Elizabeth’s and Charlotte’s perspectives. This is a perfect example of what Gunn describes as a “trustworthy, authoritative narrative voice…which repeatedly intertwine[s] FID with narratorial commentary” (Gunn 35). 7
Schwartz 18 limited by Elizabeth’s rose-colored perspective, is now convinced by Elizabeth’s exclamatory revelation, which is silently supported by narrator, that he is not what he first appeared to be. Another moment of revelation comes when Elizabeth rereads Darcy’s explanation for separating Bingley and Jane. Now that she has allowed herself to believe his accusations against Wickham, she realizes that she may have to trust him on the first issue as well: “Widely different was the effect of a second perusal—How could she deny that credit to his assertions, in one instance, which she had been obliged to give in the other?” (227). A dash separates the narrative lead-in from the statement rendered in free indirect discourse, which details the precise “effect of a second perusal” for Elizabeth. While Elizabeth is admonishing herself for her own hypocrisy, the narrator is subtly encouraging her as well as the reader to rethink old assumptions and to trust Darcy.8 Free indirect discourse can be used to disclose feelings of Elizabeth’s that were previously unrealized or unacknowledged. When Elizabeth shares with Darcy the news of Lydia’s elopement, she observes his agitated reaction and considers how the revelation will affect their relationship. This example, though employing a more subtle form of free indirect discourse, stands out as a moment of honest introspection on Elizabeth’s part which opens her character up more fully to the reader: Elizabeth soon observed, and instantly understood it. Her power was sinking; everything must sink under such a proof of family weakness, such an assurance of the deepest disgrace. She could neither wonder nor condemn, but the belief of his selfconquest brought nothing consolatory to her bosom, afforded no palliation of her distress. It was, on the contrary, exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes; and never had she so honestly felt that she could have loved him, as now, when all love must be vain. (287-88)
This is similar to Neumann’s idea of the narrator using free indirect discourse to “share with her heroines the responsibility for articulating their reflections at the level of thought” (365). Part of that responsibility lies in (silently) supporting the heroine’s thoughts when the narrator deems them correct and worthy. 8
Schwartz 19 This is one of the first instances in which Elizabeth admits to herself, and in turn to the reader, the true nature of her feelings for Darcy, which she only allows herself to acknowledge at this point. The first sentence serves as the narrative lead-in, and the second sentences details the direct thought that Elizabeth “instantly understood.” The emphasis on the word “must” and the repetition of the word “such” signal the force of her disappointment at the realization that she must suffer as a result of Lydia’s actions. Her revelation in the last sentence also seems like a moment of free indirect discourse (although this is arguable), because of the phrase “never had she so honestly felt.” The sincerity of the words “so honestly” and the pain expressed in the phrase “when all love must be vain” open a window into Elizabeth’s mind and directly express the emotions she is finally willing to feel. There is a sort of narrative lead-in here as well—“It was, on the contrary, exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes.” In the context of the passage, Elizabeth is referring to her belief in his “self-conquest,” but it could also be looked at in terms of the narrator’s intended plan for Elizabeth—that the series of events leading up to this scene have been “exactly calculated to make her understand her own wishes.” The narrator has orchestrated the plot so that Elizabeth will have to face the prospect of losing Darcy in order to admit her own feelings for him. While at times Austen employs free indirect discourse to coax Elizabeth into moments of self-knowledge, there are other instances in which she uses the narrative device to create ironic distance between Elizabeth, the reader, and the narrator. During one of their many “spontaneous” meetings in Rosings Park, Elizabeth reflects on her conversation with Darcy, trying to decode the meaning of his words: He never said a great deal, nor did she give herself the trouble of talking or of listening much; but it struck her in the course of their third rencontre that he was asking some
Schwartz 20 odd unconnected questions—about her pleasure in being at Hunsford, her love of solitary walks, and her opinion of Mr. and Mrs. Collins's happiness; and that in speaking of Rosings and her not perfectly understanding the house, he seemed to expect that whenever she came into Kent again she would be staying there too. His words seemed to imply it. Could he have Colonel Fitzwilliam in his thoughts? She supposed, if he meant anything, he must mean an allusion to what might arise in that quarter. It distressed her a little, and she was quite glad to find herself at the gate in the pales opposite the Parsonage. (205) Elizabeth is “struck” by the oddity and apparent randomness of Mr. Darcy’s questions, and attempts to read between the lines. Through the repetition of the word “seemed” and the phrase, “She supposed, if he meant anything” the narrator is emphasizing Elizabeth’s uncertainty and lack of information. Her question, which remains internal, stands alone by not making any references to herself—this is purely Elizabeth’s direct thought. It also demonstrates how ill-informed Elizabeth is, in direct contrast to the narrator and the reader, who know that Darcy has anything but Colonel Fitzwilliam in his thoughts. While his specific motives may still be unclear to readers, it is probable that Darcy’s incessant questioning may be an effort on his part to get to know Elizabeth better, just as his constant appearance in her favorite walk is not a coincidence, but a conscious effort to spend more time with her. However, Elizabeth, from her limited perspective, remains oblivious to Darcy’s feelings and therefore unable to properly interpret his interest in her. The direct access to her thoughts reveals her limitations and emphasizes the ironic distance between her and the narrator and reader. The narrator also uses free indirect discourse to ironically undercut the emotion and intent of Elizabeth’s direct thoughts. For example, when Elizabeth learns of the plan to visit Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, she reacts rather negatively: Elizabeth said no more—but her mind could not acquiesce. The possibility of meeting Mr. Darcy, while viewing the place, instantly occurred. It would be dreadful! She blushed at the very idea, and thought it would be better to speak openly to her aunt than to run such a risk. But against this there were objections; and she finally resolved
Schwartz 21 that it could be the last resource, if her private inquiries to the absence of the family were unfavourably answered. (254-5) While only a brief phrase from this passage is rendered in free indirect discourse, it is very illuminating in terms of understanding Elizabeth’s true feelings (though she may not be aware of them herself at this point). The narrator tells us that Elizabeth has given up on objecting to the scheme verbally, but that her thoughts are still in revolt. Elizabeth’s “instant” thought in response to running into Darcy at Pemberley is, “It would be dreadful!” While the thought may be considered an instantaneous emotional reaction on Elizabeth’s part, it is not immediate. Aside from the subtext underlying her blushes and tactics to avoid seeing Darcy or appearing too concerned about his whereabouts, the phrase “It would be dreadful” also requires closer consideration to unveil what is spurring Elizabeth’s strong emotional reaction. Underlying Elizabeth’s “instant” thought, “It would be dreadful!” is the narrator’s subtle undermining question—“Would it really, though?” Would it be so dreadful for Elizabeth and Darcy to meet after her attitude toward him has undergone such a transformation? Readers have been rooting for this meeting to finally take place after months of introspection on Elizabeth’s part, and are eager to see Darcy from a less prejudiced perspective. While Elizabeth dreads the discomfort she will feel at this meeting, the narrator’s depiction of her involuntary bodily reaction, as well as her agitated avoidance schemes, reveals that Elizabeth (though she may not realize it yet) is most likely hoping for their meeting as well. In addition to using free indirect discourse to indulge her own sense of humor and irony, Austen may also employ it to reveal Elizabeth’s satiric tendencies. In the following passage, Elizabeth is reeling from her confrontation with Lady Catherine, yet she still manages to inject some humor into her frazzled thoughts: The discomposure of spirits which this extraordinary visit threw Elizabeth into, could not be easily overcome; nor could she, for many hours, learn to think of it less than
Schwartz 22 incessantly. Lady Catherine, it appeared, had actually taken the trouble of this journey from Rosings, for the sole purpose of breaking off her supposed engagement with Mr. Darcy. It was a rational scheme, to be sure! (360) The first sentence of narrative discourse leads in to the second and third, introducing the state of Elizabeth’s thoughts in the aftermath of Lady Catherine’s visit. While the voice of the second sentence is slightly ambiguous, its tone of surprise suggests more character subjectivity than the first sentence, which unmistakably carries what Gunn calls the “authoritative narrative voice” (Gunn 35). The words “it appeared” convey a sense of uncertainty that does not belong to the confident narrator. The words “actually” and “supposed engagement” express Elizabeth’s disbelief at the extremity of Lady Catherine’s actions and skepticism about her motivations. The third sentence, however, is unequivocally rendered in free indirect discourse, with its exclamatory and somewhat mocking tone. Through this sentence, the narrator is allowing the reader a direct glimpse into Elizabeth’s ironic sense of humor—clearly she believes Lady Catherine’s “scheme” to be anything but rational. Adding to the complexity of this passage is the underlying satire of the narrator, who, while joining Elizabeth in her mocking of Lady Catherine, is simultaneously poking fun at Elizabeth for not considering that Lady Catherine’s concerns may not be completely unfounded. While past critics have devoted many pages to unpacking the form and function of free indirect discourse as it appears in Emma, and as it relates to the narrator’s role in the act of story-telling, the aim of this study has been to examine the function of this nuanced narrative device in the much-beloved novel of Pride and Prejudice, as it relates to the central character of Elizabeth Bennet. Unlike Anne Waldron Neumann, I have chosen to focus on the heroine of Jane Austen’s classic work, as opposed to the minor characters, and I have endeavored to offer a multi-faceted view of the function of free indirect discourse as it relates
Schwartz 23 to the thoughts and feelings of this complex character. While I cannot claim to have ignored the role that free indirect discourse plays in asserting the authority of the narrator, I believe I have effectively demonstrated the function of free indirect discourse in revealing the subjectivity and latent emotion inherent in the character of Elizabeth Bennet. Free indirect discourse does have the effect of exhibiting narrative authority over the text and characters, especially in the instances in which it reveals the limitations of the character’s perspective. However, it also works to bring the thoughts and feelings of the character to the forefront, whether it appears in bursts of emotion or in bouts of internal soliloquy, during moments of surprise, shame, revelation, uncertainty, sincerity, denial, and satire, in ways that would not be possible through objective narration alone.
Schwartz 24 Works Cited Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Ed. Robert P. Irvine. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2002. Print. Finch, Casey, and Peter Bowen. ""The Tittle-Tattle of Highbury": Gossip and the Free Indirect Style in Emma." Representations The Margins of Identity in Nineteenth Century England 31 (1990): 1-18. JSTOR. University of California Press, Summer 1990. Web. Oct. 2015. Gunn, Daniel P. "Free Indirect Discourse and Narrative Authority." Narrative 12.1 (2004): 35-54. Project Muse. Ohio State University Press, Jan. 2004. Web. Oct. 2015. Mezei, Kathy. “Who Is Speaking Here? Free Indirect Discourse, Gender, and Narrative Authority in Emma, Howards End, and Mrs. Dalloway.” Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers. Ed. Kathy Mezei. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996. 66–92. Print. Neumann, Anne Waldron. "Characterization and Comment in Pride and Prejudice: Free Indirect Discourse and "Double-voiced" Verbs of Speaking, Thinking, and Feeling." Style Narrative Poetics 20.3 (1986): 364-94. JSTOR. Penn State University Press, 1986. Web. 1 Nov. 2015.
