Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
what should i read
The issue of trade doesn't seem to have been completely straightforward in Austen either, come to that. After all, her uncle Gardiner seems to be in business (are we ever told what, precisely), and doesn't lie in an elegant part of London, so does he or doesn't he count as a 'gentleman'? (This isn't to do with his character, which is exemplary).He 'must' be a gentleman, in that Darcy treats him so well at Pemberley, or is that only because he's trying to make it up to Lizzie, plus he realises that, in trade or not, Mr Gardiner is a sensible man etc. As Lizzie observes, at least in her aunt and uncle she had nothing to be ashamed of (unlike her mother and Lydia, and Mr Collins too, and sometimes even her father).
One suspects with the Gardiners that if their business (whatever it is!) does very well, they will become something like a lessser Mr Bingley in a generation or so, and have put sufficient distance from their trade origins, and maybe buy a small estate like Longborn, and thereby 'go up in the world' and become 'landed gentry'.
In general, across Austen's novels, which other gentlemen aspire to rich wives, and how many succeed, and are they 'good' or 'bad' characters? Willoughby's the obvious prime example of 'bad' ie, actual fortune hunter (compounded by having led Marianne on when he had no intention of ever marrying her.)
Who else, I wonder?
On happy marriages, yes, would add the Morland mum and dad in.Not quite so sure about the Bertrams, on the grounds, as you say, that Lady B is so stupid. She is good natured, of course, and kind, and fond of Fanny (and her lapdog!), but she is not the equal of her husband. So it's an unequal match definitely, in terms of intellect. She can't be a true companion to Sir T (and she's a poor mother, given what happens to Maria, and Tom, too, is very off the rails until his illness wises him up)
Definitely agree the Norris's couldn't have been happy, as Aunt Norris is so repellent!
The Grants are quite happy I suppose - given that Mary's sister always has to ensure gourmet dining for him!
Mr and Mrs Weston in Emma I think would have to be added in - they seem equal in qualities to my mind.
Not sure of any others??
Do Mr and Mrs Elton count?!!! I admit they are probably very happy together, but they are hardly presented as a creditable couple - but since they don't know their own limitations it doesn't bother them!
A bit sideways from How Many People Die During A Novel? is the simmilar question 'How many people marry during the course of hte novel' (otehr than the hero and heroine of course).There are the Eltons in Emma, Lydia and Wickham in P and P, Lucy Steele and Robert Ferrers.
Any others??
Thé letter game with Frank Churchill spelling ‘blunder’ is definitely mentioned in the book for exactly the reason you mention!I like backgammon too, but apparently the use of dice can allow for a lucky win!
Isabelle and John Knightly in Emma were seemingly quite happy in Austen’s Emma. Mr. Knightly visits them to mull over his wish to attach Emma. And seeing their happy home, he races home and proposes!They were miserable in the 2020 Emma adaptation, which I did enjoy, but occasionally strayed from the book.
Beth I love they way you treat the characters as real thinking alive people wihth choises and desions. I do too. with how many authors do we do this? this is one of JA s greatness her creations walk off the page (that is a qouitation but I dont remember from where)
I have been re-reading A Duckworth's book The Improvment of the EState. Besides being fasinating in itsself I find it hugely relevent in the current tide of cancel culture (cultural revolution?)/ it should be taught in first year college classes especially the chapter on Mansfield Park.Ad points out the ways JA looks upon change as important but only when based on posotive traditional ideas. in other words tradtion needs to be energized ever so often but is the grounds of sociaty
Shana, I suppose, thinking about it, the use of the game in Emma and the 'blunder' business is actually different from the point you raised originally, that the choice of games in JA can tell us about the characters, eg, that Lydia likes lottery games (presumably she assumes she'll always win at 'life lottery'.....and is blissfully unappreciative of all that has been done by her family and Darcy to prevent her reckless 'gamble' on eloping with Wickham doesn't bring about her total financial and social wipeout - a total gambling 'loss' without questoin). I think in Emma the game is used not to show either Frank or Jane's character is it (I don't remember it that well), but simply to 'move the plot forward' a bit because of the 'blunder' clue that Emma fails to pick up (does Mr Knightley, by the way?)(not sure if he's actually there when the game is played.)
Or maybe I'm wrong and the way Jane and Frank (and any others?) play that word game does indicate things about their characters?
(By the way, I think the premise of 'the games we like reveal our characters' holds true outside novels too - when I used to play Monopoly I was a 'slum landlord', I never risked much capital, so bought up cheap properties on the board, then loaded them down with hotels to bump up the rents. Whereas my brother, who spent money far more freely than I ever did, always went for the expensive properties on the board!!! I also use to hide some of my money under the board as well, then produce it when I needed it - I still do squirrel money away for rainy days!!!)
(And, by and large, I absolutely hate gambling of all kinds - I can't bear that I lose my stake if I don't win. :) :) :) ) (Places like Las Vegas make my blood run cold with horror!!!!)
Oh yes, Isabelle and John Knightley - definitely a happy marriage! Well spotted. Any more do we think?
By the way, linking John Knightley back to 'how many honourable ways could a gentleman make money if he didn't inherit any', what was John Knightley's profession as a younger son? I can't remember if it's mentioned, other than that they live in London.Presumably Isabelle Woodhouse brought him a tidy dowry, as much as Emma will get when she marries, and both girls will inherit whatever Mr Woodhouse dies owning.
But John Knightley doesn't seem to be living off his wife's money, so presumably he's doing something else. Was he a lawyer, for example, which I think was one of the very few respectable careers (alone with Army/Navy and the Church) for gentlemen.
Mrs, I think it's impossible not to treat characters as 'real', but I definitely agree that when they are superbly created as Jane Austen's are, it's much easier.Some authors, such as D H Lawrence to my mind, create characters that never seem very real, or certainly seem very 'odd'.
I don't read Dickens, but from screen adaptations his characters can seem very 'two-dimensional' as in, not created to be pyschologically real, but more almost caricatures (with funny names!)
Makes me realise how 'real' Austen's are!
Mrs, that book The Improvement of the Estate sounds fascinating! I will look it up - thank you for mentioning it.I think it's interesting to compare what contemporaries to the passion for 'improvement' felt about it to what our own generation feels about 'modern architecture' or 'planning laws' etc.
Feelings can run very high! (I live in a commuter town that is constantly under pressure to enlarge with new housing estates, strongly resisted by the folk who already live here, and don't want their green fields concreted over, or any more people crowding into the town, etc - so is that selfish or 'good stewardship' to stop a nice town being spoilt by over-development?)
I suppose too, that these days when we visit great estates, eg, National Trust, all the 'improvement' has already been done, so we see the finished product - the lakes and terraces and vistas etc. We don't see what it looked like before, so we don't bewail the loss of the 'original'.
I guess to my mind it depends what it was that was destroyed in order to create the new improved look. I know some landlords moved whole villages out of the way, which seems dreadful, though perhaps the villagers got better quality new houses??
I think Jane Austen certainly disapproves of what stupid Mr (can't remember his name)! at Sotherton is planning, as she mentions a beautiful avenue of trees that are to be cut down, and it's obvious she deplores it, even though she is using Fanny's voice to express that.
I think in terms of current 'improvement' one of the things that must surely be worth it is when you see gardening programmes of people who have turned a field into a garden. I think that is uncontroversial, as a field is not usually particularly scenic in the first place??
I totally forgot about Mr and Mrs Weston. Yes, they are a happy couple. But with a man like Mr Weston, always happy and seeking a wife for his comfort, not her money, it isn't all that surprising. As to Mr and Mrs Elton: objectively, they might not be a perfect couple but they do like each other#s company. Probably not because of the other's character but more because the other represents what they like in another person and what they didn't get with any of the other characters in the novel (Mrs Elton would probably loved to marry Mr Knightley just to be richer and more looked up at and for the same reasons she dislikes Emma (who is above her in class).
As to suitable work for men: I guess apart from landed gentry it would have been being in the Navy, the Army, being a clergyman or being an attorney. John Knightley is an attorney in London. Absolutely respectable profession and Wickham, instead of becoming a parish priest, wants to study law.
As to trade, I've always wondered what was supposed to be a "respectable line of trade". We know from S&S that being a butcher or similar certainly wasn't. But Austen never says what is supposed to be respectable in that case. Mr Gardiner's line if trade is never revealed, nor that of Mr Bingley's father. I am assuming that it must be something to do with trading with items from oversea. Such as spices or fabrics from India, wood, cottonm or suar from the Americas. Because Sir Thomas has interests in that respect in the Caribbean and he is the epitome of respected gentleman.
I agree, Lizzy's lack of love for either Wickham or Colonel Fitzwilliam let's her be partially blinded for ther monetary ambitions in marriage.
And as to the question who else wants to marry for money, apart from those two (Colonel Fitzwilliam: good; Wickham: bad):
Thorpe: frowned upon because he wants Catherine Morland as long as he thinks her super rich and once he realised she isn't interested in him and probably less rich than expected, he tells lies about her to General Tilney.
General Tilney wants both his sons (and his daughter!) to marry for money. Love plays absolutely no role for him. We onsider him to be bad.
In that vein, it is never revealed but his eldest son, Colonel Tilney is probably also more mercenary than not. He plays with the affections of women but doesn't want to commit. (Although, i'd give him the benefit of the doubt.)
Mr Dashwood, the stepbrother, is all about getting good matches for his sisters. Also considered bad. He probably only married his wife for her money and one of the reasons, I suspect, that he is so very much deferrential to his m-i-l is that she is so very rich.
Sir Thomas is happy to marry his children off to rich partners despite knowing that they might not love them. He is redeemed later when he learns to value other things more than merely money. Or rather focus more on other values in life.
Sir Elliot (bad) because he is all about title and station in life, not just money. In fact, money is probably not at all his aim in life, seeing that his dauhter Mary's marriage to a well off family has little worth to him.
Mr Chrurchill (and his wife!) rejected his sister because she married a poor man (Mr Weston).
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Mrs, that book The Improvement of the Estate sounds fascinating! I will look it up - thank you for mentioning it.I think it's interesting to compare what contemporaries to the passion for 'improv..."
You mean Mr Rushworth.
Improving is really something very much of its time. Even when you watch gardening shows from the 1990s with all those wooden decks they were all in love with - nowadays everyone is keen to get rid of them.
In that vein, whenever I read Jane Austen, and she talks of a "modern, handsome" building, it probably replaced an older structure that these days would be hailed in "Escape to the Country" as a very characterful old part of an extended house.
Austen loiekd trees. She is not keen on Rushworth's "improvement" and she dismisses Mrs John Dashwood's "improvements" at Norland.
Iמ AD 's book JA uses the improvment of the estate as a metafore for the improvment of the socioty example Elizabeth by maring Darcy brings fresh energy and renewal to a warn out sociaty (lady c and her sickly daughter) but because Darcy is or becomes open minded he gives her room to bring her energy so the improvment is renewal on the base of tradition now AD follows all the novels and shows how this is achieved in all of them(the theme of combining tradition and change) the introduction is important if a little heavy but the first chapter on Mansfeld Park is the base and cannot be skipped I have read it several times and it stiil is enlighting / now is the time to study books like this if you are in lockdown as I am... I have been keeping Book DEpository in cash...
I read somewhere thatbas Bingly came from the North of England ther mony was probly made from the woolen mills
I thought John Knightley was a barrister, but I’m not positive. My laptop is in the shop at present so I’m living off my phone and can’t quickly confirm his occupation. Ugh. Emma is to get thirty thousand pounds so Isabelle would have been the same.
There's definitely something of a class divide between solicitors and barristers - not huge, maybe, but definitely there. Solicitors were (are???!) 'lesser' than barristers (and could be mere humble country attorneys). Barristers could be (and still can!) be 'posh'.In JA's day would a 'gentleman' ever be only a solicitor or would they always a barrister (ie, if they went into law)?
Rushworth - thank you! Clean forgot.It's interesting about the 'class nuances' in Mansfield Park. I think there is some indication that Mr Rushworth as owner of Sotherton, an Elizabethan grand house, is 'posher' than Sir Thomas (despite the latter's baronetcy) as his estate and family are older?
Sir Thomas almost seems to think his daughter will be marrying 'up' in the social scale - not hugely, but somewhat.
Mansfield Park is a younger estate than Sotherton, from what I recall, and so would be less 'august' perhaps?
Finally, if some (much?) of Sir T's wealth comes from his West Indies interests, that might affect his social status too? To an extent it is more 'new money' perhaps than Mr Rushworth's?
And, above all, if you had property in the West Indies (sugar plantations) would that count as 'trade' or 'land' I wonder? Sugar was obviously a cash crop, so that would make it 'trade', but on the other hand you owned the plantation, which was therefore 'land'
I appreciate that Sir T - and probably an awful lot of other Brits with West Indian interests - were absentee landlords, but I don't think they had 'tenant farmers' in the West Indies in the same way they did in the UK. As in, in the UK, they got rents from their tenant farmers, which provided their landed gentry income, but it was the tenant farmers who kept their own profit (or loss) from the farm they rented off the landowner. I don't think the landowner got any share of the profits (or loss) - just the constant rent coming in every quarter day.
I always had the feeling that in the West Indies, though the plantation owner would use an agent to oversee and 'run' the plantation, and though he might visit from time to time, as does Sir T, the landowner would be directly involved in the actual profit and loss of the plantation, rather than rent it out to a 'tenant' to pay him rent, but keep the profit/loss for himself.
It's not an area I know anything much about I have to say. (Except that plantations could be very, very lucrative.....)
I think some tenant farmers could be really quite prosperous in the UK (Robert Martin, as has been mentioned earlier) (I'd thought he was a yeoman farmer owning his own land, but was corrected that he was one of Mr Knightly's tenants), but such was the huge social kudos derived from owning land that a tenant farmer, however prosperous, could never be 'posh'.In a way it's very odd, as for example, if a business doesn't own its own premises (eg a factory/workplace etc) but makes huge profits from whatever it makes or sells etc, there is no social pressure to 'buy the factory'!
It's only ever agricultural land (or shooting estates etc) that count towards high social status.
It was higher social status to be a broke landlord than a highly profitable and prosperous tenant farmer!
It would certainly make sense if the Bingley money came from 'up north' in the mills - and why the social-climbing Bingley sisters were so keen NOT to be 'tainted' by that! (I don't think Mr Bingley would have been much cop as a mill owner himself - he'd have been far too nice and gone out of business in a year, being diddled by everyone around!)
I think plantations in the West Indies, as in America, were kept up by slaves, overseen by either the slave owners themselves present, i.e. living in the West Indies or taken care of by some appointed person. Nothing like being a landlord for land in the UK.
In respect of the AD book on 'improvement' there is, as well as in Mansfield Park, very clear statements by Jane Austen in Persuasion that the 'new blood' and indeed 'new money' that the navy brings by way of prize money is refreshing and invigorating, compared with the run down and somewhat derelict 'old money' of Sir Walter. In that sense, JA is in favour of 'improvement' when it is social improvement. But in Mansfield Park she deplores Mr Rushworth's schemes for mucking about with what he inherited.
Perhaps it's also revealing in the few cases of upward social mobility in her novels. It seems that those who represent 'old money' are far more tolerant than those whose money is newer. For example, Sir Lucas Long in P and P is pretty 'new money', but the Bennets accept them as social equals perfectly well (OK, Mr Bennet is at the lower end of the 'gentleman' spectrum, for all Lizzie's defiance of Lady C - '(Mr Darcy) is a gentleman, and I am a gentleman's daughter' - and Mrs B is very borderline at best, as the daughter of a country attorney)(and with a brother in trade).
But the Bingley sisters, whose own money comes from trade, albeit a generation or so earlier, are far more sneery of Sir Lucas.
(A nasty titter about him having kept 'a very good shop' - oh hilarious in deed!!!)
Similarly, in Emma, Emma herself is much sniffier about accepting an evening invitation from (I think?) the Coles, but then the Woodhouse money is 'newer' and Hartfield is not an estate - whereas Mr Knighley, who is 'old money', and whose wealth comes from Donnwell Abbey, is much less sniffy.
It seems the closer you are to having your own wealth deriving from 'trade' etc, the more socially conscious you are of anyone else coming up the social ladder close behind you. Those comfortably at the top already, being 'landed' are far more tolerant it seems.
Isabel - decking is going to be making bonfires all over the country - surely the craze can't last forever??!!!
As to trade, I've always wondered what was supposed to be a "respectable line of trade". We know from S&S that being a butcher or similar certainly wasn't. But Austen never says what is supposed to be respectable in that case. **
It would be fascinating to get some kind of contemporary source for what trades were 'least/most' offensive etc. In Dickens, a couple of generations later, in Our Mutual Friend (I think it was that one), there is a rich Londoner who has made his fortune in 'night soil'....the euphemism for 'human dung'.....ie, collecting all the 'output' from London houses.
Just how that turned into money I'm not sure (fertiliser springs to mind!!!!!). But it's definitely a strong metaphor for 'where there's muck there's brass' (!).
I don't think you can go much lower than trading in human dung, can you???!!!!!!
Thinking about it, maybe being a wine merchant was relatively respectable, if one had to be in trade at all? Wine was only really drunk by the upper classes, so catering to them would be a cut above perhaps - you wouldn't have to sully yourself selling to your social inferiors as they couldn't afford wine anyway etc.
I don't think the English got very invovled in French wine - with the exception of Claret/Bordeaux, where perhaps they had investments? - but in Portugal they were involved in Port, and Sherry in Spain, and also Maderia in Maderia....
Another 'respectable' profession for younger sons, nephews etc, could be 'land agent' - basically overseeing the estates of your richer relatives (or their chums) The thing is, it would give you a living, but hardly a fortune.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Isabel - decking is going to be making bonfires all over the country - surely the craze can't last forever??!!!":D
I guess the craze has already abated. As the various wooden planks rot, they are gradually being replaced by other materials.
Beth and Mrs., I just bought the book! I had some trouble on Amazon, probably because I’m using my phone instead of my kindle. But I finally did manage it.Beth, I have read Dickens, but don’t ask for titles. We are at our winter place and all the books are at our summer house. I like him, but it’s because he shows the underbelly of Victorian life. Bleakhouse! That’s it, that’s one of my favorites!
I can’t get to the right thread to respond to the solicitor versus barrister comment. But here are my thoughts anyway. Solicitors were part of the middle class. They worked for a living and they charged their clients fees. A solicitor earned his position by working as a clerk in a law office, under another solicitor, for about five years. Most attorneys were solicitors. They specialised in contracts and wills and they never entered a courtroom. Barristers, on the other hand, were a very small, elite, subset of attorneys. A barrister could spend 2,000£ becoming one. First you went to university, then you went to the Inns of Court for 3-5 years. It was an informal law school which was comprised mainly of lectures over dinner. Then you had to be invited to become a barrister! Failed barristers became solicitors. Barristers worked for gratuities, not fees, so it was a gentlemanly profession. If a person wanted to sue, they contacted a solicitor, who recommended a barrister and took part of the gratuity for the recommendation. Barristers are the attorneys who would try the case in court. They were primarily in London and other large cities and earned between 4,000 and 14,000£ per year. Barristers were also good candidates for government posts and cabinet positions. In 1810 there was said to be less than 600 barristers in all of Great Britain!
Shana, thinking about your excellent exposition of the differences between solicitors and barristers, I wonder if that social disparity accounts for why, in the USA, there are only 'lawyers'...as in, compared with the UK system where solicitors don't 'appear' in court, only the barristers do, in the USA that distinction doesn't exist. The American system must be more egalitarian.
Still on the subject of what professions a gentleman could take up without losing class/face, I wonder if politics should be included? I'm not sure how many government positions were actually paid in any sense (MPs weren't - it was one of the things that the Chartists later demand in Victorian days, because an MP who had no salary obviously had to have a private income!)(I believe Kier Hardie, the first Labour MP was 'paid' by the Trade Union movement out of their members subs).But were any other political appointments paid (or, perhaps rather as the snobbery of barristers indicates, they weren't 'paid' as such!)? There must have been some (or even a lot?!) - sincecures and that sort of thing?
Glad that decking is on the way out - I always think that underneath the decking the ground is 'dying'....but perhaps the reverse is true, and all sorts of beasties and beetles have a nice safe dark place to live. I think foxes sometimes make their earths underneath people's decking!
Shana wrote: "I can’t get to the right thread to respond to the solicitor versus barrister comment. But here are my thoughts anyway. Solicitors were part of the middle class. They worked for a living and they ch..."A barrister could be presented to the King. A solicitor could not. There's a stark difference.
I did not know a barrister could be presented to the King, but that certainly makes sense. Solicitors were decidedly middle class.I’m no expert on the law here in the US, but there is one traditional path to becoming a lawyer/attorney (either word works). A bachelors degree from an accredited college/university is usually required followed by 3 years of law school followed by passing the bar exam. The exam takes three tries, on average! I was very curious when Kim Kardashian announced she was studying to become an attorney considering she never went to college, and everything I read on it supports her announcement. In the state of California, you can study under another attorney as your training. She has tests she has to take and she still has to pass the bar. I don’t believe this is allowed in all 50 states. We’ll see how she does on the bar exam, but it’s an interesting alternative path. I wonder if it’s origins come from British rules for solicitors?
But however you manage to become an attorney here, your choice of specialization will dictate whether you ever see the inside of a courtroom.
Mr Gardenier was neae his where houses I read somewhere that this would mean that he was involved with the East India copany and this is high class tradewhich is comparable with the Bingly family . in other words mobility into an acceptable class Lucas also mves up.here we include Mrs Benne the coles the westens etc.
I read in aan article on P&P about the phycology of a nation. it comes to the surface in JA writings the British were agahst watching the French revolution and unconciencally (excuse my spelling mistakes which are worse than usuall it is early in the morning) realized the importance of allowing class mobility without a revolution. thus it started to become prevelent intermarage of classes But it was only acceptiable between two adjunant classes (like darcy and Elizabeth Mr & Mrs Bennet the westens and more) you couldnt skip too far say a shopkeeper and gentleman(knightly and Harriet) however one could marry one up or one down (ther were still people of course like Mrs Chuchhill and lady C who opposed this) this opened British sociaty and prevented a bloody revolution. all this can be seen in JA writings
Mrs - good point about Mr Gardiner, his warehouses nearby, and the likeliehood of him being in import/export trade, probably with India/colonies etc. We know that the very rich merchants became 'nabobs' and were pretty socially acceptable (even if a bit nouveau), especially if they then bought a landed estate etc. So it's not like Mr Gardiner was into anything 'low class' in his merchant dealings.I think your point about the British class mobility is very astute and spot on. It used to be said as a 'proverb' almost that 'the reason the English never had a revolution is that gentlemen played cricket with their tenants and staff', and that, whilst sounding trivial, let alone patronising (!) I do think rings true. If you recall the film The Go Between, showing the last golden summers of Edwardian England, it has a very characteristic scene of just that - where the 'Big House' plays 'the Village' and all that was required of a player to be praised and applauded was for him to play well, irrespective of his social standing. On the cricket pitch everyone was 'equal'. Even that limited amount of joint socialising must have helped in terms of keeping, so to speak, the 'peasantry' 'onside' with the 'toffs'. It probably worked better in the country than in the cities of course...
Also good is the bit about it being OK to marry 'up' or 'down'....but only a bit! A slightly unequal match was acceptable, but not a very unequal one. I guess it shows that it was OK to climb the social ladder, but only rung by run, so to speak, rather than vault up the whole thing at one go. If you were only a rung or two below whatever you aspired to, you could already see what would be entailed at the next higher level, so that if you managed to reach it you would already know 'how to behave', and that made it more likely you would fit in OK, given a bit of time to get your bearings.
I think we see in Austen several examples of that 'rung by rung' social climbing - for example, Dr Perry seems to be going up in the world, in Emma, if he's now acquired a carriage. And the Coles are feeling brave enough to entertain and invite the gentry, but are hesitant about inviting Emma, not wanting to 'presume' etc etc.
And Harriet Smith is in transition too, as Emma does 'bring her on' and, ironically, even though Harriet doesn't marry 'gentry', ie, either Mr Elton (a 'gentleman' however egregious!), let alone Mr Knightly, but only marries a tenant farmer, yet Austen makes it clear, through Mr Knightly's always 'right assessement' (he never gets it wrong!), that Robert Martin too is going up in the world. He's educating himself on agronomy and so on, and is getting 'posher'. He's also sufficiently respectable to be invited to dine with Mr John Knightley in London when he visits (to find Harriet there to re-propose to!), and that has to be telling of his rising social status.
Thinking about it, I wonder what the most socially disparate marriage is in any of JA's novels? Is it Lucy Steele, do you think, snapping up Robert Ferrars, who will, if his irate mother doesn't disinherit him, inherit a fortune?
Across three sisters, Mansfield Park shows one doing very well for herself, Lady Bertram, marrying a landed, wealthy baronet, while the next, Aunt Norris, 'only' gets a clergyman, but both do better than Fanny's mother who as Austen says 'married to disoblige her family' and ended up on the very borderline of gentility, if that, sunk into almost the lower middle class and being very ramshackle indeed.
In Persusasion, Lady Russel thinks Anne would be marrying 'down' if she married Lieut Wentworth, but by the time she marries Captain Wentworth, with his £20k prize money (or was it £25k?), JA spells out quite bluntly that it's a better match than the daughter of a vain, spendthrift, unachieving, decaying baronet could think to warrant - ie, in worldly terms she's 'done well for herself' (she could have done better, in worldly terms, marrying Mr Eliot - but then his wealth derives from his late vulgar first wife, though his social status will derive from his eventual baronetcy....assuming Sir Walter doesn't remarry and have an heir of his body!)
I guess Jane Fairfax does well for herself socially, and financially, marryign Frank Churchill, who gets status from his aunt (and money), as well as what his father might leave him (though he'll have to share it with his half-siblings).
Marianne Dashwood could be said to do well for herself materially, marrying Colonel Brandon, though socially she's as high status as he is as a 'daughter of Norland' etc.
Charlotte Lucas does well for herself in material terms, and will end up mistress of Longborn, and judges that a good exchange for having Mr C as a husband (though he is not bad, and does not mistreat her in the least, and she knows very well how to manage him!)
Lydia marries 'down', as Wickham is only the son of Pemberley's steward (is that what his father was?), and she is as much a 'gentleman's daughter' as her sister Elizabeth (though Lydia really is only borderline a 'lady' in her behaviour!))
Mrs Bennet has married 'up' from the daughter of an attorney to mistress of a (small) landed estate, though her brother obviously has done well for himself financially.
Who else, I wonder, marries either up/down in social terms?
"A barrister could be presented to the King. A solicitor could not. There's a stark difference."That's a very concise distinction - nice one!
Shana - I didn't know the American legal system had a bar as well!!!!I wonder when the Americans stopped wearing all the wigs and gowns etc? Was it straight after Independence, as a rejection of all things 'courtly' etc, or was it as fashion actually changed, ie, if you didn't wear a wig in real life, you wouldn't wear one in court.
To be honest, I don't know when the habit started in the UK either. I mean, at some point, late 18th/early 19th Century wigs went out of fashion (Pitt taxed flour to fund the wars, was that it?), yet they went on being worn by barristers and court officials and judges etc (and, thinking about it - the wigs of judges are 'periwigs', though white, and not as 'lush' as the periwigs of Charles II etc).
So, at some point, a decision must have been taken that despite ordinary dress codes not including wigs any longer, yet that persisted in courts of law. I wonder why? (And they persisted at the other end of the social scale too, ie, footmen - though perhaps only for a while into the Victorian era?)
What I always find significant is how so many of the UK's former colonies have adhered to British court-of-law dress code. I'm not sure about Australia or Canada, but I'm pretty sure in India they still wear the 18th Century British style wigs and robes, a deliberate, and presumably voluntary, legacy from the days of the Raj?
The blunder letter game definitely moved the plot forward by giving the other characters a hint of Frank mis-speaking. It also reveals to the reader that the other characters don’t realize Frank and Jame’s deception. But I also think the game is a device for further deception. You are supposed to use the letters to spell words. Frank is using them to send a message to just one person, in other words to perpetuate the secret they’ve been keeping throughout the novel. He does of course have difficulty in finding opportunities to speak with her privately.I can picture kids playing Monopoly and knowing something about them by how they play! I loved Monopoly as a kid and sometimes thought it should be called Marathon as the games were so long! I am sitting in Las Vegas as I type this, lol. Picture stucco and stone houses with tile roofs, it’s very suburban sprawl....:)
Ritual costume often preserves an earlier style. Brides still wear a version of Victorian dress. Earlier a bride’s dress was just in contemporary style and not necessarily very special. Think of Mrs Elton’s comments on Emma’s wedding.
Good point about the ritual costumes. Yes, now you mention it, brides do wear old-fashioned costumes...Male evening dress, with the wing collar comeback (I remember them disappearing in the 60s and 70s then coming back in the 80s and 90s), is a throwback to Edwardian dress I would suggest.
Sounds like the Frank Churchill game was a forerunner of Scrabble (a game I'm useless at!)As for Monopoly, yes, best to set a time limit and then tot up all the players' cash and assets when the bell goes, and whoever is richest, wins.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Shana - I didn't know the American legal system had a bar as well!!!!I wonder when the Americans stopped wearing all the wigs and gowns etc? Was it straight after Independence, as a rejection of ..."
“For heaven’s sake, discard the monstrous wigs which make the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum” Thomas Jefferson
Terrence wrote: "Ritual costume often preserves an earlier style. Brides still wear a version of Victorian dress. Earlier a bride’s dress was just in contemporary style and not necessarily very special. Think of Mr..."In the 19th-century, your wedding gown would be in the most formal style you would wear -- and then you would wear it. Indeed, there were places where the practice was to eventually bury you in it.
'Where does prudence end and avarice begin?'
I think you're right that Lizzie should have disapproved more of Wickham promptly courting Miss King, but I suspect our modern attitudes towards fortune hunters like Wickham are a lot stricter than they were in Austen's day. Then it was far less disgraceful for a poor man to want to marry a rich woman (well, providing both were 'gentle-folk') because it was so difficult for a gentleman without money to actually make money in a respectable way. Trade was out, so that left professions like the Navy - eg, Wentworth and his prize money - and possibly the East India Company (probably, rather hypocritically, because out in India no one in England could see what you were doing - ie, trading - so your social equals in England weren't subjected to the sight of you engaged in something so unbecoming a gentleman. And perhaps, too, if you were out in India you were making money out of 'natives' so that 'didn't count'??!!)
Were there any other respectable ways of a poor gentleman acquiring money (unless some relative died and left him some very conveniently).
In Austen's novels there seems to be something of a distinction, when it comes to gentlemen marrying for money (such as Colonel Fitzwilliam, who freely acknowledges he'll need a rich wife), as to whether the rich wife were herself a gentlewoman....or not. Mr Eliot in Persuasion is disapproved of as his rich wife was somewhat 'vulgar' (or, at least, somewhat low born), and that seems to be a worse crime than him marrying her for her money!
In respect of Wickham and Miss King, I suspect that had Lizzie actually fallen in love with him, and he'd given her sufficient reason to think it returned, then she might have been a lot more critical of his abrupt dumping of her in favour of Miss King (just as Marianne was heartbroken over Willoughby dumping her for a rich fiancee). Nor is she upset that Colonel Fitzwilliam could never make her the object of his honourable intentions, as she wasn't in love with him either.
On the other hand, the whole 'where does prudence end and avarice begin?' debate in respect of Wickham should have run alarm bells to an extent, as, with hindsight, Lizzie must be mortified that once WIckham's dastardliness (ie his attempt to elope with Georgiana) was known to her, she must have been aghast to think she had been so tolerant of his focussing his attentions from her to Miss King.