MovieChat Forums > Sense and Sensibility (1996) Discussion > An off-topic (book) question

An off-topic (book) question

posted 8 years ago by maijuutuub
11 replies | jump to latest

This is not really a specific book question about the plot either, more like a general question about the world and people Austen describes. Since people in the world of Jane Austen novels are so preoccupied with money and retaining their class status in marriage, how would they go about getting that information if it doesn't happen to come up naturally in some conversation? Is there a way to do it that's not completely tacky and classless?

"You must allow me to express how ardently I admire and love you, or in the words of a great poet say "I fancy you beyond reason", but unfortunately not quite far enough beyond as not to inquire if you have at least 5000 pounds in your bank account. Alas, if you do not, then regrettably I must take all that back and piss off."

This is just something that came to my mind when I read how Elinor and Edward weren't quite enough in love to think that three hundred and fifty pounds a-year would supply them with the comforts of life. The comforts of life is a relative thing, isn't it? I'm pretty sure that's a lot more than what the vast majority of English families managed to live on just fine at the time. It may be true to life as Austen observed it in the middle-class circles, but it doesn't sound very romantic.

If sucking up to Edward's monster sociopath mother hadn't worked, what they would have done? Given up on getting married?

[–] Julie-30 8 years ago

Back then, people did talk about money. But they didn't talk about sex.

Today, nobody thinks it's polite to talk about money, but you can't shut people up about sex.

That said, I believe Elinor and Edward would have married anyway.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] maijuutuub 8 years ago

I have to agree about your point about sex today. Even newspapers write about how you could almost see this or that celebrity's nipples at the red carpet of some awards gala or how some random woman has 500,000 followers on Instagram or whatever it's called; she has big tits which she is very proud of and hopes to get a chance to exhibit them in movies in the future. My first reaction is "this is news? Who do they think is interested in that nonsense?" and have to remind myself that apparently it's most people. They write about it because it sells.

[–] rujane 8 years ago

The class that Austen talks about is the genteel middle class, people who were provided for by the income on inherited/entailed property (Darcy, Mr. Bennet) or income derived from a large inheritance or acquisition (Wentworth, Bingley.) The extremely wealthy (Lady Catherine, Mr. Rushworth) and the poor (the Prices) are usually supporting players (Mr. Darcy is an exception to this.)

Mr. Bingley is said to have "four or five thousand a year"; this was the interest on the income left to him by his father, who had been in trade; this represented the hundred thousand pounds left to him by his father, presumably invested at the prevailing interest of 4-5%.

Austen does not deal with either the upper aristocracy (royalty) or the working class; even those with professions, principally the clergy, had some additional source of income and, of course, women did not have professions open to them and so those raised in an upper middle class household were dependent upon marrying a man of equal or greater stature in order to maintain their standard of living. You see how difficult it is for Mrs. Dashwood to maintain herself and her three daughters on five hundred pounds a year; Elinor and Edward would find it very difficult, especially since it could be assumed that they would have a family to support.

In terms of what people had, and how it became common knowledge - gossip, the Regency equivalent of gossip and society columns, newspapers and the publication of legal matters such as the disposition of wills and property were among the routes that circulated information on how wealthy people were.

[–] Furienna (3342) 7 years ago

Edward became a priest, so he must have had some income. True, it might not have been very large by the standards of their snobbish social class. Still, Elinor learned to live on a rather small income after her father died and would have been able to accept the situation. It would have helped of course that their wealthy brother-in-law was their patron. And we can be sure that Colonel Brandon would have helped them if necessary.

[–] LocusNOLA (26) 7 years ago

Edward's income as a clergyman is dependent upon the income of the "living," or "parish" in this film. In Austen's novel, it is made clear that the living at Delaford did not provide sufficient income to support him, by itself. As has been pointed out, most of those who made the Church their profession had additional resources; Edward has none.

Brandon might very well have been willing to "help" Edward and Elinor, if it were needed. It is less clear that Edward would be willing to accept his charity - he is very grateful for the living, but at least he will be working to earn his meagre bread. A handout would have been quite another matter, and offering one, no matter how willing Brandon were, would have been problematic, an indelicacy.

[–] Furienna (3342) 7 years ago

Ah, I hadn't realized that priests would need an additional income back then. But I guess that Ellinor and Edward made it, somehow.

[–] LocusNOLA (26) 7 years ago

The value and income of an Anglican clergyman's living varied widely - some had tenancies, providing rental income, some had working farms, providing income from crop sales. Some, like the living at Delaford, has very little in the way of income-producing activity, and were only viable for a a quite well-off man.

Elinor has about 50 pounds a year, until her mother dies; Edward has about 100 - not a living income at that time. The living at Delaford does not produce enough (200 pounds annually) to keep a gently-reared man and his wife, let alone a family.

Mrs. Ferrars, in the book, gives Edward 10,000 pounds - the same amount she settled on Fanny when she married John Dashwood. This additional capital produces income which enables them to live in comfort, but not in a manner to rival Colonel Brandon's lifestyle.

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Also, weren't the Anglican clergy of the time entitled to "tithes"? Not just the usual voluntary contributions that modern churches get, if they get their way, but everyone was legally required to give a certain percentage of their income to the local Anglican church - even Catholics! (Really, that's what you get when you don't separate church and state, the official state religion can take your money even if you don't believe or attend. This was in force during at least part of the 19th century, in England.)

However, if your parish was entirely populated by poor farmers, as was the case in a lot of places, collecting tithes from them didn't produce much income. Not enough to support a "gently bred" wife and kiddies.

[–] LocusNOLA (26) 7 years ago

Good, point. I believe, however, that tithes were responsible for structural maintenance of the church as well as for the maintenance of the Vicar, Rector, or Parson and his domicile.

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

And the relief of the poor, and buying the sacramental wine, and forwarding funds to the church heirarchy, and all the other expenses maintained in running a country church.

But it's what meant when the post of vicar was called a "living", it meant that the incumbent was legally entitled to collect tithes from everyone in the parish (even non-Anglicans). Being given a church meant a guaranteed income for life to do with as you pleased, even if the tithes didn't amount to much in some places. A priest might even own several "livings", be the official priest of several parishes; the tithes were his to use as he pleased, and that would include paying a curate to live in his spare parishes and actually minister to the congregants. Being an Anglican priest was a pretty good deal in those days, and the "livings" were given out per the orders of the local landowner or nobility, not the church hierarchy. They were very much the property of the upper classes, where they put comparatively poor relations.

[–] otter 8 years ago

Specifically regarding Edward and Eleanor, I'm sure Edward was frank about the financial realities when he needed to be. They both had sense, Edward would know that Eleanor would appreciate knowing that he didn't have a shilling to his name, or didn't have enough to support a wife and kids. And that she would appreciate his frankness when he said so.

In general though, there was a network of meddling, matchmaking older women, who advised the parents of eligible young people about the financial situation of other young people - Mrs. Jennings and her colleagues. Remember two things - these people didn't expect to work or to ever add to their inherited income, marriage was literally their only chance to improve their financial situation. Also, they were only a generation or less removed from arranged marriages (remember Mr. Darcy was still expected to marry his cousin), so meddling in affairs of the heart was considered not just acceptable but kindly.

So, Mrs. Jennings and Mrs. Bennett and other people who were concerned with who married whom made sure to introduce wealthy Mr. X to pretty Miss Y, and to distract Miss G when the penniless Mr. H came by, and to sit the penniless Mr. M next to the dowry-rich Miss N. And who took the penniless Misses Dashwood and Steele to the London season, in the desperate hope that at least one of them would get lucky.

“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!