Friday, 2 October 2015

Review: 'Elizabeth Is Missing', by Emma Healey



I know I seem almost exclusively sci-fi and series in my reading now, but I made a bet with myself to not read any more sci-fi for the next 3 months (except Dr Who, for the marathon, obviously!), and to get back to reading other kinds of lit.  My first read was this wonderful book, so wonderful that I have had to give it its own review.

Elizabeth Is Missing SHOULD have been highly depressing, featuring a protagonist who is slowly forgetting everything, with dementia.  I find dementia terrifying (as a possibility for myself and my family, having watched it happen to a grandparent), and highly distressing.

But the book didn’t work out that way at all. The heroine is the one of the most compromised and unreliable narrators I’ve ever read, yet I felt nothing but sympathy and identification with her throughout. All the weird things she says, that you can see to the other characters seem to be coming from nowhere, indicating she is just utterly lost, are shown to be the product of what remains of semi-lucid memory and thought processes.  In her mind, Maud is trying to solve what she sees as the terrifying and perplexing disappearance of her only remaining friend and confidante, Elizabeth.  All the way through the book, she searches, going to the same places over and over, losing her thread, going back, doing it again; sometimes holding on to a vague idea of what she was doing, sometimes not.  

Interspersed with this are her long ago memories of the immediately post war period, where she was a just about teen, living with her parents and her sister, Sukey.  Sukey too vanishes.  And the novel revolves around byplay between Maud’s twisted and desperate perceptions of the present, and her clear and revealing memories of the past and what happened to Sukey.  I’m not spoilering you (as it is obvious), to say that by the close of the book, Maud has released enough information and in enough of an understandable way that the crime of what happened to Sukey is resolved, with the help of her exasperated and at the end of her tether daughter.  As for Elizabeth…?  I won’t spoiler that one.

I can’t emphasize enough how unputdownable this book is.  I have no idea if the depiction of the slowly unravelling and black holed mind of the dementia-ed protagonist is accurate or not (how can we entirely tell?), but it feels very plausible.  I cannot understand how reading the book didn’t terrify me to my core, as what is happening to Maud’s mind is dreadful.  But it didn’t.  I felt strong fellow feeling and identification with her, and I was desperate with her, for her to find Elizabeth, or even get downstairs safely.  There are several times when she wanders off out to do things (as dementia patients do), and I seriously worried if she would get home safely, or if anything befell her, how on earth she’d get out of it, as she wouldn’t be able to remember from one moment to the next how on earth she got there, or what was happening.  

I suppose there may be comparisons here with the slick Memento, or even the far more relevant (and harrowing) Still Alice by Lisa Genova – but this book was something all of its own.  The closest I can give you for feel, is the Alzheimer's sufferer in Ruth Rendell's Thirteen Steps Down, who keeps putting the wrong things in washing machines and all over the house, which makes perfect sense when read from her point of view; and none when others view her.  This book has two huge strengths.  It's an almost perfect minute portrait of everyday details in two completely different English eras.  Now: where care in the community and lack of funding make holding on to people who wander physically and mentally increasingly difficult;  and the immediately post-World War 2 period, where people did vanish and walk away from their lives all the time, as history makes clear…But also: it feels so much more rooted and real, in terms of identity, than many books I have read about characters with crystal clear yet flawed human thinking, in any time period. 

It’s an amazing feat to be able to give a character a clear and rounded identity of many facets in two stages of their lives, and have them not contradict either within in each period (e.g. the confusion of teen years: when Maud dresses as her lost sister, and is unsure what to make of her meetings with her sister’s husband, Frank, her possible attraction to him despite her suspicion and distrust of him), or between each period: the way Maud as a confused old person forgets from one moment to the next who her daughter is, near the end, and tries not to look at the bruises or pinch marks on her daughter’s body that she suspects in the back of her remaining mind, that she put there – indeed, the dealing with her very real violence and frustration is incredibly well done.  

There’s a brilliant way too of showing the internal reality of Maud for Maud, and then how she is perceived and treated by others on the outside.  The attitude of the policeman to whom she reports the missing Elizabeth 5 times; he seems so real and understandable, patronising and wryly humourous.  The only person, in fact, who treats Maud with any dignity is the woman in the local newspaper office, when she gets as far as attempting (and managing) to put an ad in the paper for help for finding her.  I felt entirely for the frustration of her tired daughter, dealing with the dropped and soiled clothes, the missed appointments, the terror of picking up your mother from the police station at 2 a.m. because she wandered again, the dealing with the repetitive phrases Maud keeps coming out with that seem to make no sense: “Where would you grow marrows?”  The mounting frustration and despair of her daughter is so clear and well done.  And again, since I’m equally identifying with that (having been a carer myself once and which I found horribly painful), I’m very surprised that I didn’t just fall into an over emotional pit and put the book down.  But it wasn’t written in such a way as to belabour the clearly emotional matter of its characters, at all.  Its possible to find much humour here, but you are always just smiling along, never laughing cruelly at anyone.  The misunderstandings between characters of sound mind, let alone the mentally suffering ones are just so real and common.

Actually, the comparisons I’d make, were I going to, are to Taichi YamadaHaruki Murakami and Kazuo Ishiguro.  Especially Ishiguru’s The Unconsoled – a terribly difficult, brilliant and winding, ever winding book of story after story after story, each threading to the next and you keep waiting for a story or a line of character to become clear and it never does.  By the end, you’ve experienced something so close to actual real life, in that none of made sense and linked up properly at all, though it seemed to tangentially (and then thoroughly explains why we are so superstitious and make patterns from the oddest of things, because it’s so vital to us to feel that things do make some sort of sense), that you feel irritated at the lack of closure, yet in awe of the scope of the book.  I would say Elizabeth Is Missing manages both much more and still less closure, but makes sense more as it goes along, for all that the main character is almost totally lost and moreso, by the ending.  The reason for the inclusion of (the deeply underappreciated) Taichi Yamada here, is the perplexedness of his main protagonists, and the way I always fall for them utterly, identifying and rooting for them within a world that makes increasingly little sense.  (Why are not MORE of this man's excellent, haunting and spooky books in translation over here???  WHY?!)  In terms of Murakami, this is a novel of the every day and its details and the thoughts you think while living it; the strange things that pop out at you and the things that appear where they shouldn’t be, and turn out to be portentous or not.  It makes a drama of the nothing of our everyday lives.  Not melodrama, but drama.  There's a quote on the back from Jonathan Coe, saying the book is one of "those mythical beasts, the book you cannot put down", which indeed I did find it to be.  (If you want another, read Coe's own magnificently funny and terrifying book about a narcolepsy sufferer, House of Sleep.  That too is a masterpeice.)

I cannot recommend Elizabeth Is Missing highly enough.  I do not get how the author managed to not bore me when for the millionth time her character had no idea how she got somewhere, or lost something, or is looking at all her little remembering notes that don’t make sense as she’s forgotten what they are for…I do not get how that did not make me scream with frustration.  (Such excellent writing, when you cannot see how it was done!)  But it did not. I was just driven and so determined for valiant Maud, that she would resolve something.  That I felt it understandable when she picked up bits of rubbish from the street and tried to eat them; or when she tore the heads off flowers she used to love as a girl.  The gift of making sense of actions that appear inexplicable is a mastery of such empathy and fellow feeling that this book could almost be a gift to our modern age of selfishness and uncaring.  The increasing multitudes that fill the ranks of ‘them’ and not ‘us’, whoever the hell WE are, each one of us.  The way we are all subjected to little endless media tales of the scary hoardes of ‘others’, that come to take our things, our benefits, our houses, our lives.  The way those tales worm inside and make us afraid and defensive and not wanting to understand any ‘others’ anymore.

Next time I see a crazy old woman in the street, I won’t just cross over or feel afraid and disgusted that that is some sort of future mirror of myself, that I might catch this madness…I might just try to understand a bit more.

This book, with no apparent effort, is just leaking humanity and empathy. No emotional wrecking ball, just a bloody good story and an amazing set of supporting characters to go with the towering figure of little bent over Maud and her personal mystery.  It’s one of those books that does our world in small, but leaves you with a bigger picture.  No idea how she did it, Emma Healey is something of a genius.

Please go and read it. Really marvellous.  And amazingly enjoyable. 

Monday, 14 September 2015

Women, Money and Debt in the 18th Century: Cecilia, Part1 - Penultimate part of Series!



Women, Money and Debt in the 18th Century Novel, Part 7:
Cecilia, Section 1

Looking at the prevailing obsession with money, the getting and managing of it (and what happens when you can’t pay your debts), in eighteenth century English literature – with specific reference to female heroines in Daniel Defoe’s Roxana (1724); Henry Fielding’s Amelia (1751), and Fanny Burney’s Cecilia (1782).

So: Amelia triumphed against the seemingly insurmountable odds, and through a sale, through engaging in trade…But what happens to a single woman, alone, who has an awful lot of money?  Surely life will be better, and far more insulated for her?  Surely she has all the advantages that a desperate though clever woman (Roxana) lacked?  Or that a poor wife dependent on an irresponsible man (Amelia) had not?  No.  Cecilia’s trials show that even having money can be a web so sticky that soon she has no independence at all.  Even having money is no defence against the rules of society at the time.  By the end of Cecilia’s story, you may well end up convinced, as I did, that a woman in those times needed to be both as clever and ruthless as Roxana; as married as poor gentle Amelia (just for camouflage), and as rich as Cecilia.  No point having the money if you can’t hold it and use it to shape your life…Here comes the sad economic tale of Cecilia…who would have done better as a widow, which is a bit sad.  (And long live feminism!)
                                    ***
And just in case you’re a trifle lost – here are the earlier posts in this series:

=> that’s the Introduction and Abstract to this mammoth undertaking!

=> that’s Roxana, Part 1…in a galaxy far far…etc…

=> that’s the last part of Roxana’s story and it’s analysis.

=> the first part of Amelia’s experiences: her husband is put in debtor’s prison.

=> how Amelia survives as a married woman but without protection for herself and her children, in a cruel and corrupt city.

=> and how Amelia finally achieves a happy ending, after all her trails…

Ok, let’s go!
 ***
Money is foregrounded absolutely in Cecilia.  As Catherine Gallagher points out, “we do not often fear for Cecilia, but we are kept in a perpetual state of anxiety about her money”[1].  She begins the novel an heiress (with two legacies), and the progress of the plot centres on her money and how much control she has over it.  She dreams of grand schemes for her fortune (much like Dorothea Brooke in the later Middlemarch), wanting to help the poor and act as a responsible benefactress.  But from the outset she is undermined and hindered by men seeking her money (for example, her childhood friend Monckton; each of her three guardians; and sundry fortune-hunting aristocrats, such as Floyer).  The insidious cumulative effects of debt also gradually drain her (how modern that sounds).  The way the novel manages to convey the confusion in situation between charitable object (be they worthy or unworthy), creditor and debtor, shows how easily the lines can be blurred, when it comes to trying to do good with money.  In addition, Burney conveys through Cecilia’s experiences, the impossibility of a woman with money being valued as anything other than a commodity to be made use of by men.  These same men also believe she is incapable of managing her own pin-money, let alone manage her fortune on any real scale (which is what Cecilia dreamed of: a local net of charitable aid she could control and distribute).[2]

Cecilia’s real problem – as if those stated already were not peril enough – proves to be love.  Because of a clause in her uncle’s will (the larger of the two legacies), Cecilia is required to keep her maiden name on marriage, with her husband expected to adopt the patronym.  If this condition is not adhered to, she will lose the entire inheritance.  Cecilia manages to fall in love with a poor aristocrat whose family is not only desperate for money, but also proud and determined to keep their family name.  The action of Cecilia traces the death of Cecilia’s dreams of charity and independence, caused by her own generosity and the interference of her guardians.  She eventually marries the poor aristocrat, Mortimer Delvile, with Burney concluding the book with her heroine battered by circumstance, much poorer, and ethically compromised.  I intend to illustrate how monetary obsession informs every aspect of the plot as it relates to Cecilia’s fate, and most of the main character’s interactions with her, showing that her good nature combined with her money, never really had a chance in this rapacious urban environment.
              Cecilia and Mortimer Delvile from Cecilia by Fanny Burney (1825); Image from: www.regencyhistory.net 

Cecilia is forced into London from her retirement in the country, by her uncle’s stipulation that until she reaches her majority, she must stay with one of three guardians he has appointed her: any use she makes of her legacy until she is of age, must be approved of by at least one of them.  She is almost immediately placed in a difficult position, as she cannot have even small amounts of pin-money for living expenses without resorting to credit, as she has no actual cash.  Hence, when she buys herself some books – and she does not spend much money on herself, preferring to live frugally – she must ask one of her guardians, the parsimonious Briggs, for the money to pay the credit bill.  His response is typical: “‘Books?’ he cried, ‘what do you want with books?  Do no good; all lost time; words get no cash’” (p.181).  When Cecilia tries to explain, her words go unheard – and her bill unpaid.  As Katherine M. Rogers points out, she can rarely get any of her guardians to listen to her point of view, until they have finished “expressing their egos”, even assuming she has a right to a view on how to dispose of her own money, does not appear to occur to them.[3]  Indeed, being an heiress guarantees her neither autonomy nor self-determination.  It merely

Guarantees others will attempt to dominate her. […]  To clear a space for self-determination, [she] must reject male consumerism or commodification, resisting the authoritative infringements of guardians, suitors and society.[4]

             The duel between Mr Monckton and Mortimer Delvile from Cecilia by Fanny Burney (1825); Image from: www.regencyhistory.net 

Terry Castle records that “Cecilia is the object of a collective economic fixation” – most of the men in the novel (Monckton, all three of her guardians, Floyer, Morrice, even her mentor in charity, Albany), view her in terms of what she can provide for them, and how she can further their aims.[5]  An example illustrating this well, is the occasion the Harrels decide to throw a masquerade (which Cecilia feels is another occasion for the Harrels to “wantonly accumulate debts” [p.103]).  Monckton, who wishes to marry her, and Briggs, who believes that anyone other than a husband he chooses for Cecilia himself is bound to be a villain, express clear opinions about Cecilia’s presence, her money and whose job it is to spend it.  Monckton can only show his sexual and economic aggression and possessiveness while in disguise at the masquerade, but his hemming of her in, so she can interact with no one else is a very telling way of protecting his investment in his future, as he sees her (p.115).  Similarly, Briggs’s appearance at the masquerade shows him more earnest to guard Cecilia’s fortune than her person; and his direct comments on her freedom and her fortune, give away much as to Cecilia’s illusory monetary independence:

[Briggs stumbles over Monckton in disguise and says ‘What’s this black thing?  Don’t like it; looks like the devil.  You shan’t stay with it; carry you away; take care of you myself. […]  Never set your heart on a fine outside; nothing within.  Bristol stones won’t buy stock: only wants to chouse [OED: to dupe] you. (p.119).

                      Examples of masquerade dress, sourced from: regencyfashion.org

Judy Simons comments that men frequently misvalue women in the novel:

Men are seen as dehumanizing women, reducing them to commodities, objects of pleasure or means of income, and it is in such a context that Cecilia must struggle to assert her sense of personal value.[6]

This was “the age of the fortune-hunting husband”, as Kay Rogers has so plainly put it,[7] and Cecilia is further hampered from trying to live her life and dispose of her money as she chooses by the almost constant attention, in the first half of the novel, of Sir Robert Floyer.  He pursues her with such naked ambition, he seems to believe her already his property: “[he viewed her with] the scrutinising observation of a man on the point of making a bargain, who views with fault-seeking eyes the property he means to cheapen” (p.34).  Cecilia detests him, intensely disliking his “successful brutality” (p.150), but discovers much later in the narrative, that Harrel, her guardian, actually tried to sell her in marriage to Floyer – hence Floyer’s behaving with so much more familiarity than was warranted by her behaviour to him (p.433).

Cecilia’s battle to use her money as she sees fit, without infringement by her guardians, is fought throughout the novel on the issue of her charity.  She makes clear from early in the novel, that she feels “her affluence […] as a debt contracted with the poor, and her independence, as a tie upon her liberality to pay it with interest” (p.55).  She expresses it thus: “Who should assist the poor if I do not?  Rich, without connections; powerful, without wants; upon whom have they any claim if not me?” (p.129).  This is the first blurring of the line between the usual understanding of debt, as money contractually owed between one lending party, and another receiving party; and Cecilia’s rather older and feudal understanding of it.[8]  She wants to do good with her wealth, and frequently fantasizes about it.  Her schemes are quite elaborate, but somehow vague: “In her sleep she bestowed riches, and poured plenty on the land; she humbled her oppressor, she exalted the oppressed; slaves were raised to dignities…” (p.711). Gallagher notes that this vagueness is possibly due to the fact that by this point in the novel Cecilia is starting to see the futility of her attempts to control her fate by her fortune: it is symbolic that in her dream she can only stand back and watch herself act, she is not simply being the figure she sees.  Somehow, inside herself, she knows this large-scale dream is not to be, that it can only ever be playacting.[9]  Earlier in the novel, Cecilia felt free to dream far more coherently: proposing to herself an entire scheme of living that would be graceful, educational and filled only with people who share her charitable aspirations (pp.102-3); and based solidly on her own right to her property (p.55).  She is forced rather quickly to compromise this dream, as it leaves her lonely and unsatisfied:

Finding the error into which her ardour of reformation had hurried her, and that a rigid seclusion from company was productive of a lassitude as little favourable to active virtue as dissipation itself, she resolved to soften her plan […] by mingling amusement with benevolence. (p.131)

However, amusement in the city is very different to Cecilia’s modest country pastimes.  From very early in the book, amusements are shown to be monetarily based, involving general avariciousness, or else acquisition at someone else’s expense.  Two early examples are indicative of the environment of rapaciousness that Cecilia inhabits.  The sort of people Cecilia has to interact with in the city, are the like of the grasping Miss Larolles, in whose company, even shopping for a necessary hat becomes a lesson in excess:

[in the house of the milliner] the raptures of Miss Larolles were again excited: she viewed the finery displayed with delight inexpressible [and] sighed with all the bitterness of mortification that she was unable to order home  almost everything she looked at. (p.29)

Barely a day later, the same voluble Miss Larolles is trying to get Cecilia to accompany her for a sale of a bankrupt’s house contents.  This is quite normal entertainment for her set, and a cause for crowds to flock, gawping and buying bargains:

O but do go, for I assure you it will be the best sale we shall have this season. […]  I hear the creditors have seized everything […] they have taken those beautiful buckles out of her shoes! […]  It is quite shocking, upon my word.  I wonder who’ll buy them. […]  But come, if we don’t go directly, there will be no getting in. (pp.31-2)

 A scene of dissipation, similar to what Cecilia increasingly finds at the Harrels, before their bankruptcy and his suicide.  This, the famous: The Tête-à-Tête, from Marriage à-la-mode, William Hogarth



The very normality of this event foreshadows what is to come, as ironically, in due course, the contents of Cecilia’s guardian Harrel’s house are also auctioned to pay his debts – with Miss Larolles and various other society figures in attendance.  Cecilia misses the whole incident, which lasts several days, and is only apprised of it later (pp.444-5, 600-1).  Simons perspicaciously observes that this initial incident of casual opportunism at the house sale establishes “the climate” of the novel, “pointing [to] the fragility of economic survival”, with the “heroine’s story […] set against the background of a society dominated by economic issues.”[10]

Cecilia soon has far more experience of the sort of frenzied acquisition based on credit than she wishes, for when she makes the decision to live with her guardian Mr Harrel, as she used to be childhood friends with his wife, she finds herself plunged into a world run on a “haemorrhage of expense”.[11]  She soon realises that not everyone views luxury with as disinterested an eye as she does, being brought up to “regard continual dissipation as an introduction to vice, and unbounded extravagance as the harbinger of injustice” (p.32).  She begins to worry for Mrs Harrel, whom she can see is

Dazzled by the brilliance of her situation; greedily, therefore, she had soon no pleasure but to vie with some rival in elegance, and no ambition but to exceed some superior in expence [sic]. (p.33)

Of course, no income can keep pace with a couple set on keeping up with everyone else, and soon Cecilia finds out matters are far worse than she feared.  Harrel is in debt for the building of an extra home, Violet-Bank (p.104), and when Cecilia tries to remonstrate with Mrs Harrel over the endless extras the couple plan for it, the logic of “an addict of credit”[12] is Mrs Harrel’s defence:

I don’t know how it is, one’s bills mount up before one is aware…I hardly know what I have had [from this tradesman], and yet he has run me up a bill of between three and four hundred pound.  (p.174)

Cecilia is horrified, and fears Mr Arnott, her new friend (Mrs Harrel’s brother), will end up in debt too.  Thus, now blurring the line between trying to ease the situation of her childhood friend and her new friend by a charitable favour, and ending up a debtor herself – she proposes to pay the bill.  However, none of her guardians (other than Harrel, who is of course, only too willing) will allow her to be advanced such a large sum of money.  It is by this means that a moneylender is suggested, and Cecilia becomes embroiled in increasing debt.  She is reluctant, feeling “that horror natural to all unpractised minds at the first idea of contracting a voluntary debt” (p.189). But she is overcome by her own good nature and desire to help a friend.  The financial situation worsens very quickly, with Harrel soon beside himself.  Creditors begin to invade the house (“– Did you not see them? – Do they not line the hall? –“, Harrel cries [p.265]), demanding “some thousand pounds perhaps” (ibid.).  Again to save her friend Mr Arnott further personal debt, she engages with the moneylender herself.  In this way, her paternal fortune is completely wiped out, single-handedly, by Harrel, her supposed guardian – she pays a total of £10,000 eventually (p.766).  Cecilia tries to be philosophical about the loss of the money: “nothing, therefore remains, but that I try to forget I was ever richer!” (p.297)

There are two important issues raised here.  Firstly, it has increasingly come to be recognized by critics that Burney was not merely dramatizing a credit and debt problem affecting a small and reckless part of the population, but that this was a far more widespread problem and phenomenon.  Randall McGowen summarizes the new literary historical research findings thus: “[most modern critics] accept the arguments that the new credit arrangements profoundly transformed society […] its culture and psychology”.[13]  Catherine Ingrassia elaborates, less neutrally, that “the growth of speculative investment” and household credit, is symptomatic of a wider social problem”.[14]  As shown in the Amelia analysis, credit affected vast swathes of the population, both urban and rural, and of all classes.  Craig Muldrew has established beyond doubt the far-reaching importance of credit since 1690:

From the late sixteenth century, England was very active as a market culture in which profit, price, credit and bargains were a constant concern for most households on a weekly, if not daily, basis.[15]

Cecilia is swimming against the tide of credit that is carrying her in its wake, against her better judgement.  As Markman Ellis has noted, “it is often the mutability of money and paper credit that has led to the misfortunes of the characters [in Cecilia] in the first place”.  The sympathy of this statement is difficult to apply to the limp-willed Harrels, who were unwilling “to separate their private lives from their public desires”[16], that is, their strong wishes for social status.  Yet Ellis’s “mutability of credit” affects Cecilia hugely; her own charitable dreams have been somehow funnelled awry: in desiring to save a friend from the reckless behaviour of another, she has lost an entire fortune.

This leads us to the second point.  Cecilia is not a controlling pragmatist like Roxana, or Miss Mathews.  On the other hand, she is not as meek as Amelia: nevertheless, somehow her modest dreams were rebuffed constantly.  There is an underlying theme in Cecilia, which explains the consistent frustration of her desires.  Gallagher refers to it as “the ceaseless circulation and unpayable debt” that runs through the life of Cecilia: that “she owes whatever she owns”.[17]  Castle characterises it as the largest theme in the novel, “the profound psychological theme of repayment”.[18]  Though so far, Cecilia has only lost money, which to her “has long appeared worthless and valueless” (p.706), when the Harrels affairs come to their almost operatically manic conclusion, with his public suicide (his suicide note proclaiming that all debts are “To be paid tonight with a BULLET” [p.430]), Cecilia is also made homeless.  When she goes to stay with one of her other guardians, Delvile, her troubles only increase.  For this is the proud father of the penniless aristocrat that Cecilia has reluctantly fallen in love with.  It is now that Cecilia “will pay, with her [remaining] fortune, for the dubious pleasure of enacting a merely conventional plot of heterosexual romance”.[19]
                                                
 Portrait of Fanny Burney by Edward Francis Burney (c. 1784-85)


***

And that’s where we’ll leave her today.  Poorer, but not as poor as she’s going to be.  The next instalment of Women and Debt in the Novels of the Eighteenth Century is the last (*sniffle*), so I hope you’ll tune in to be perplexed at how badly it goes for her, and mutter about how it’s not much different now, and how we should all have access to credit unions as they are far more ethical than our corrupt banks, and what a good thing there’s more feminism about now, etc etc etc.  See you next time!


[1] Catherine Gallagher, Nobody’s Story: The Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplace, 1670-1820 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p.238.
[2] Frances Burney, Cecilia (Oxford: Oxford University press, this edn 1999), pp.55,711. [All further references to this edition are placed within the main text in parentheses.]
[3] Katherine M. Rogers, Frances Burney: The World of ‘Female Difficulties’ (New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990), p.45.
[4] Katherine Sobba Green, The Courtship Novel, 1740-1820 (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1991), p.81.
[5] Terry Castle, The Masquerade and Civilisation: The Carnivalesque in Eighteenth Century English Culture and Fiction (London: Methuen and Company, 1986), p.275.
[6] Judy Simons, Fanny Burney (Hampshire and London: Macmillan, 1987), p.66.
[7] Kay Rogers, ‘Deflation of Male Pretentions in Fanny Burney’s Cecilia’, in Women’s Studies, 15 (1988), pp.87-96 (p.92).
[8] Catherine Keohane, ‘ “Too Neat for a Beggar”: Charity and Debt in Burney’s Cecilia, in Studies in the Novel, pp.379-401 (p.379).
[9] Gallagher, p.235.
[10] Simons, pp.66.65.
[11] Gallagher, p.247.
[12] Grant D. Campbell, ‘Fashionable Suicide: Conspicuous Consumption and the Collapse of Credit in Fanny Burney’s Cecilia’, in Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 20 (1990), pp.131-45 (p.140).
[13] Randall McGowen, ‘Credit and Culture in Early Modern England’, in Journal of British Studies, University of Chicago Press (Jan 2002), Vol 41, No.1, pp.120-131 (p.121).
[14] Catherine Ingrassia, Authorship, Commerce and Gender in Early Eighteenth-Century England: A Culture of Paper Credit (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.1.
[15] Craig Muldrew, The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (London: Macmillan Press, 1998), p.59.
[16] Markman Ellis, The Politics of Sensibility: Race, Gender and Commerce in the Sentimental Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp.134-5.
[17] Gallagher, pp.205, 208.
[18] Castle, p.277.
[19] Ibid.