I think that one of your favorite verbs, that is "unpick," is especially apt for this video. My word what a tangle of finances! I think I've always caught the drift of this in S&S but you have really brought the details forward. Thanks! I think it interesting what a sad and conniving sort of creature Mrs. Ferrars is especially when compared to a more loving parent like Mrs. Dashwood. I find quite a contrast (foil) in the Ferrars and Dashwoods. The Dashwoods (that is Mrs. D, Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret) have real affection, companionship, and a sense of duty to one another, while the Ferrars clan (excepting Edward) prize money and connection above familial love.
I would like to know your opinion, if possible, on why on earth Miss Gray ever married Mr. Willoughby... She already had money and rank. She could choose any other man she liked. She knew he was in love with another woman. What did she need from him at all?
@@carolinaceci8817 Her family and friends would be resistant to Miss Gray becoming a barfly or the equivalent of "coming upon the town". The only respectable options were to be married or be a spinster. Alas, she appears to have had an eye for flashy "Chads" rather than for more staid or steady gentlemen. Mrs. Clay (in Persuasion) appears to have been afflicted by the same urges. Perhaps Jane herself was not-so-secretly inclined or at least tempted, since there are so many of this species (Homo chadus) in her novels? Count them off on your fingers.
I love the non-melodramatic and often hilarious way Austen wrote of domestic dysfunction or downright abuse (as in this case). She was so observant but also so incredibly funny.
Yes, Mrs. Ferrars emotionally and financially abuses her children and Edward in particular. I'm glad that he gets away from her and his awful siblings.
'she (Elinor) did not think he (Robert Ferrars) deserved the compliment of rational opposition' is one of my favourite lines from all of Austen, and I even use it from time to time myself, to mean 'I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with them.'
There's a delicious irony in Mrs. Ferrars hastily settling Norfolk on Robert to punish Edward for his engagement to Lucy Steele, thereby enabling Robert to marry Lucy Steele. I'd say that Mrs. Ferrars settled in haste to repent in leisure, but Lucy's charm offensive took care of that.
Apart from money, there was another important way of providing for a person's living expenses and that was land, housing and payment in kind. The living that Colonel Brandon offers Edward includes a rectory, and that would almost certainly have had additional land of some kind attached. Often rectories had the sort of sized 'garden' that would nowadays be called a small holding. This meant that the incumbent and his family could use it to raise poultry, very likely a cow for milk, farm animals such as pigs, and also have an orchard, fruit bushes, potatoes and herbs. In those days the gentry had no need to buy food at all. This is another reason why Miss Bates and her mother are so poor: they live in 'rooms' with no access to anything homegrown. It was a dividing line between the well off and the poor. This also explains the significance in Emma of the gift of eggs, among other foodstuffs, that Mr Knightly gives Miss Bates. The Norfolk estate that Mrs Ferrars gives to Robert would have yielded more than just a monetary income. Estates provided plentiful food to eat, and food wasn't cheap to buy in those days.
Yes, great point - especially your observation about Miss Bates. This was how George Austen (in addition to his tutoring) supplemented his income at Steventon. Mrs Austen also took charge of their kitchen garden there. And her great-granddaughter remembered that at Chawton - when she was in her seventies - Mrs Austen still managed her kitchen garden: gardening with her was "no idle pastime, no mere cutting of roses & tying up of flowers. She dug up her own potatoes & I have no doubt she planted them, for the kitchen garden was as much her delight as the flower borders, and I have heard my mother [Anna Austen] say that when at work she wore a green round frock like a day labourer" ('Family Record', ed. Le Faye, p.178).
This is more than hinted at in Ch 50: "The first month after (Edward and Elinor's) marriage was spent with their friend at the Mansion-house; from whence they could superintend the progress of the Parsonage, (the builders were "dilatory" - plus ca change) and direct every thing as they liked on the spot;-could chuse papers, project shrubberies, and invent a sweep. Mrs. Jennings's prophecies, though rather jumbled together, were chiefly fulfilled ......... They had in fact nothing to wish for, but the marriage of Colonel Brandon and Marianne, and rather better pasturage for their cows." That last line is wonderful.
Come to think of it, the 'poor' rural people with land or at least garden big enough for potatoes, some fruit trees and other vegetables and fruit plots fare always better than city poor during economical crises.
Mrs. Ferrars deserves to be considered one of Jane’s top villains, so purposeful is her cruelty to her son. Robert is pretty snobby and certainly aware of social station. I’ve never understood why he would marry Lucy when he could have married much higher. Having the estate makes him highly marriageable despite his buffoonery. It seems like revenge on his mother, but presumably he could still have inherited more upon her death. Lucy’s flattery and manipulation don’t seem to explain it. It seems like one of the few times Jane uses a devise that doesn’t make sense to accomplish a plot point. Dr. Cox perhaps you could address this in a later video. Thank you for another wonderful engaging lecture.
He is incredibly dim. People tolerate him, but despite what he claims, no one actually seeks out his opinion or notices him very much. He's not nearly rich enough on £1,000 a year to tempt pretty women who are also wealthy, so once he's rich-ish but still not attracting any rich, pretty women, he's taken in quite quickly by what he perceives as genuine admiration from a pretty woman. (A pretty woman who is unusually good at making people believe what they want to believe.) You're overlooking one of the key components of his character, I think: Robert Ferrars isn't trying to amass endless money for the sake of having it, he's using it to buy bespoke toothpick holders etc *in an attempt to get fashionable people to accept him as their equal*. Lucy is both giving him all the attention he wants, and she's socially adept at attracting admiration from wealthier, more fashionable people. With his money, she'll be an unstoppable social climber, and he'll rise with her. Whereas a rich snooty wife who would go on ignoring him (like most people do) and then use money/her social position to bully him (like his mother always has) is the last thing he would want. In his mind, he sees himself as an attractive, fashionable, independent man who's so irresistible he's managed to woo his brother's fiancée away from him; and that fiancée will, as his wife, help him to become more fashionable and pleasing and maybe even accepted. Lucy is literally the most perfect choice he could make for his goals (even those goals he himself isn't aware of, like wanting to pretend he's more handsome and clever than he actually is).
I think what's really awful about all of this is that Edward was actually trying to do the honorable thing by sticking to the engagement he had entered into before he really knew her character, and was doubly punished for being the nice guy - both by losing his inheritance, and then seeing Lucy marry his brother. Not that losing Lucy is really a punishment, and certainly Elinor's love is a much higher reward - but he honestly thought more of the necessity of preserving Lucy from real poverty than of the inconvenience of losing the estate, and that's why it's such a noble thing for him to do. But his family doesn't see his actions as honorable, just defiant. Which is so unfair!
Very unfair indeed. And, until Lucy had sent him her 'Lucy Ferrars' letter, he was actually still persuaded that she loved him: "till her last letter reached him, he had always believed her to be a well-disposed, good-hearted girl, and thoroughly attached to himself. Nothing but such a persuasion could have prevented his putting an end to an engagement, which, long before the discovery of it laid him open to his mother’s anger, had been a continual source of disquiet and regret to him" (ch.49).
@@DrOctaviaCox I think it is a fair punishment, actually, or at least as fitting as Mrs Ferrars's punishment; he is wrong to ignore his feelings of 'continual disquiet and regret', and certainly wrong to contemplate marrying someone he obviously doesn't care for, especially when he prefers someone else instead. His wedding vows would be a lie if he married Lucy; his rigid adherence to social conventions costs him his inheritance (which, fortunately, he was quite ambiguous about) and hurts Elinor needlessly. Of course, Marianne's mistake is *only* to listen to her emotional inner voice, which makes her selfish and rude to others, but Edward's is the opposite - he simply denies his, and hurts everyone, including himself, in the process.
There's no fairness when it comes to dealing with narcissists. They don't care about whether or not you are a nice or good person, they care about whether or not you followed their rules, that's what's important to them. I don't think he deserved the result, but at the same time, I think it was about time somebody taught him a lesson about not being too trusting & only seeing the good in people, even women. There's being a good person, & then there's being a doormat, these are not the same thing. Perhaps that comes from living with narcissists though, he learnt to survive by seeing the good in people. Still he could have taken the time to get to know Lucy some how, and considered whether or not she was genuine, what she thought of living in poverty if it all fell through, & whether or not it was worth the sacrifice. He was lucky Eleanor loved him, & he could have ended up pretty messed up by the end if he hadn't had her to marry.
@@madhatterline yes, it is almost as if he is overly dismissive about his wealth, he doesn't appreciate it so he doesn't realize what a driving force it is for others who don't have it; that Lucy, who is poor, genuinely can't or won't see him separately from his wealth. He may feel he is honorable, but he doesn't know his own power or advantage to an extreme degree and that will damage others in the long term. Elinor has been brought up to expect wealth and prominence so she hasn't been schooled in the ways of scheming that the Steele sisters have been, but even she at the end of the novel can see the value of keeping in with the family to a certain extent - she has been the victim of a badly drawn up will and an unfortunate set of circumstances before, and appreciates the way that well intentioned individual choices from people in power - Old Mr Dashwood, Mrs Ferrars - can have on later dependents. She was left with almost nothing after the death of her father in comparison with her step-brother, and her children will again be left with almost nothing after Mrs Ferrars' decisions.
@@DrOctaviaCox Yes Austen is a great writer. Did you know that an author wrote a series of books creating 🤔 Jane Austen a crime solving character. In it Austen's attention to detail make her a successful ✨ sleuth. I can't be certain of the author's name but I believe that the last name is Barron. I am enjoying your discussions of Austen's novels.
I was always so interested in finances in Austen's novels and you explaining it so beautifully. As someone who has read the books with no outside help at all, this is very helpful. Amazing video as always
Perfect timing! I'm in bed with a cold and was just thinking how nice it would be to listen to another insightful video about the works of Jane Austen narrated in a soothing voice.
I hope you feel better quickly. I was the same 2 days ago. You forget what colds were like after being locked in for so long. 😆 I live in an area where hardly anyone wears masks and won’t stand 6 feet away especially if you are wearing one. I’m sure that’s how I got sick. I had two women crowding up on me in the grocery store on Saturday. By Tuesday I was out of it.
I've always had this image in my head of poor Miss Morton watching the Ferrars family drama from the sidelines with a sinking feeling and, at the end, being like "Oof! Musket ball DODGED!"
@@debshaw680 It certainly could have been, I know, but I like to think it wasn't. And not having to marry Robert must have been at least a momentary relief.
She probably was secretly happy she didn't have to merry any of them though Edward is such a wonderful honorable person. With her inheritance she probably would merry even better than Ferrars' brothers.
@@ladooshka One would hope she married very well indeed, and didn't have to deal with a mother-in-law like Mrs. Ferrars. Or maybe she decided not to marry at all after watching the Ferrars family trainwreck itself very publicly. It's not like she needed to marry for financial security, after all. Maybe she was more interested in teaching her sister's ten children to embroider cushions and play their instruments very ill...
I hope Miss Morton did what Robert did, pretended to comply with her stupid family's orders disguised as wishes, managed to trick a lot of money from her inheritance somehow and then eloped with a very unsuitable man that everybody disapproved of. Except unlike Robert it turned out to be a most excellent choice and she was happy ever after, which would be fair after being refered to for so long as "Miss Morton with 30 000 pounds".
I liked this talk! I'd just add a few points: at the end, Edward, while admitted to be Mrs. Ferrars' son after Robert's marriage, is not by any means the oldest son. Actually, he gets exactly half of what Robert gets - 10000 pounds, which gives an annual income of 500 pounds - half of the 1000 that Robert has from his estate. Moreover, the sum Edward gets, it is stressed, is the same sum Fanny got - that is, a sum suitable for a young woman's dowry, not for a young man's independence! But Elinor and Edward, with lower financial expectations and tastes, find it quite enough, while Robert and Lucy continue to receive additional financial support from Mrs. Ferrars - an indication both of her favour and of their more lavish lifestyle.
Austen has the best descriptions. The bribing one son to do the thing she was punishing the other for doing. My favourite is the description of Robert & Lucy's married life and their relationship with Mrs Ferrars, Fanny & John. They get what they deserve in the end. Love your Austen videos, please keep them coming.
Thank you! Ha - yes - wonderful: "They settled in town, received very liberal assistance from Mrs. Ferrars, were on the best terms imaginable with the Dashwoods; and setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands of course took a part, as well as the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves, nothing could exceed the harmony in which they all lived together". Very harmonious!
@DrOctaviaCox so they have the money, but no peace. As a reader, that satisfies me. Austen seems to have a knack for appropriately punishing her bad characters. They get what they wanted, but as we all tend to find out, they realize that it comes with negative and long-lasting consequences that may or may not have been foreseeable.
I’m so happy I found this explanation. I have wondered, “ This doesn’t make sense that Robert inherited the money and married Lucy Steele, but, Edward was disowned for proposing the same thing.” Thank you for helping me understand all the manipulations going on.
The more of your close readings I listen to the less I can read fan fiction, so you're winning the fight, Dr Cox! Thank you for your time, and wishing you a lovely weekend.
Another wonderful class .... I was very struck with the comparison you made with Jane Austen’s own earnings for writing this wonderful novel with the annual incomes of the various characters in the book. Once again, I’m inspired to re-read a favorite. Slowly.
I read sense and sensibilty in 2020 after being a long time fan of the 95 and 08 adaptations. And literally just rewatched them and spent a while googling how mrs ferrars was able to disinherit Edward when primogeniture was in place and found some good articles. And then you just post this video! I should have just waited for you. Reading my mind. Amazing. Thank you : )
Mrs Ferrars' relationship with Edward I do find most interesting. One could argue that she had more expectations of him because he was the first born but she acts throughout as if she doesn't like him. He certainly thwarts her a lot. It might have been worth a book on its own.
Found your channel once started doing Jane Austen module at my university, and can’t lie I have been the most knowledgable one at my class! All because of your videos, they are truly amazing! Thank you! I would love to see more on Jane Austen especially on the social markers of the society of that time, and maybe also the places that are explored (castles, Bath etc) that also show social status! Thank you, Dr Octavia Cox!
Thank you so much for this channel. At the age of twelve I was going through my school library looking for an interesting novel, and happened upon Sense and Sensibility, it became one of my favorite books. I had no idea that it was a classic, only that it was a sweet, romantic, and well written novel that ended as it ought. Although I have read it multiple times over that last 45 years, you have helped me reach a deeper understanding of the characters and story. Thank you
The whole situation is so comical and I hadn't the foreknowledge or insight to pick up on it when I read the novel in question some years ago - so thank you for enlightening me and providing avid amusement and further appreciation of the genius of Jane Austen
In King Lear, Edmund's comment on Edgar can be paraphrased: "Their nature was so far from generosity that they suspect none". John Dashwood says "Mrs Ferrars is one of the most affectionate mothers in the world" - and therefore the idea of Edward benefiting by getting a small living from Colonel Brandon - even though not at Mrs Ferrars' expense - is anathema. They really are a loathsome lot - just look at the way John Dashwood cannot understand Elinor's comment "The lady, I suppose, has no choice in the affair" when he suggests that Robert should now marry Miss Morton (poor girl - she had a lucky escape). But (to quote Joseph Heller in another context) Elinor and Edward will have something that John and Fanny, and Robert and Lucy will never have - they will have enough.
isn't king lear quote, "a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms, that he suspects none"? after all its edmund who says this about edgar, not the other way around.
@@sitting_nut I did say "Edmund's comment on Edgar", and perhaps I should have used the word "adapted" rather than "paraphrased". My point was, of course, that John Dashwood was completely unable to understand that Colonel Brandon could - out of pure human decency - give the small living which is in his gift to Edward (all these Eds are going to get confusing) simply because he (Brandon) thinks Edward has been unfairly treated and without any thought of getting any material return on the gift: in fact, John D. goes further - he doesn't want Fanny or Mrs F. to know about the gift because they would be upset by it. (Some years ago, there was a satire on charity collectors approaching a merchant banker for help and they received a similar answer to that given by Mr JD).
- they will have enough. Exactly! And that's a fabulous quotation of Elinor's, "The lady, I suppose, has no choice in the affair". To which John Dashwood's response - "Certainly, there can be no difference" - is chilling in its lack of awareness. It's rather a lovely touch, I think, that Austen does not let readers actually encounter Miss Morton. I like to imagine that she couldn't bear Mrs Ferrars and had no intention of marrying either of her sons!
@@DrOctaviaCox Yes, there is no reason to suppose that Miss Morton is just quite as keen as the Dashwoods make out - if she is as financially independent as Mrs Ferrars, she can make her own choice.
@@HRJohn1944 Also, we don't know if Fanny and John had a love match. Likely not. And we know Lucy married Robert for his money. Edward and Elinor actually love each other, so they will have that.
In the reduction scene John Dashwood goes from £3000 of assistance to occasional gifts of fish and game. James Leigh Perrot made a claim to the Stoneleigh estate, not with any hope of success, but by threat of persistent legal action negotiated considerable lump sums and annuities for himself and his wife, to add to his already substantial wealth. Mrs Leigh Perrot then wrote to the estate solicitors demanding regular gifts of fish and game "as befits their newfound social circumstances". I think of this every time I think of that reduction scene.
James Leigh Perrot demanded £20,000 plus £3000 per year from the Stoneleigh estate. He met with solicitor Joseph Hill who tried to persuade him that £8000 of the £20k should go to Mrs Austen's family and Mr Cooper's . Mr Leigh Perrot refused, saying he would make such provision himself as he thought proper. Joseph Hill wrote to Thomas Leigh about this meeting that "Mrs Leigh Perrot was not present at the conversation but I believe her influence has great weight with his determination."
I always wondered why when Mrs. Ferrars cuts off Edward for being engaged to Lucy Steele, she gives all to Robert who ends up marrying her. That now explains it to me. Thank you so much.
Thank you Dr. Cox for explaining why Robert Ferrars gets to keep his fortune! I have not read the novel, but only seen the film, and was always puzzled by that point! Now finally I get it! I really enjoy your talks, and have come to appreciate just how brilliant and talented Miss Austen was.
That was interesting! My failure in English class - and in life, for that matter - is that I rarely see past the surface. All I saw in the situation with Edward was that Edward had been irrevocably disinherited. While I know those are not the exact words, that is how I read it. However, I did see it as liberating both sons. I just saw it as impossible to disinherit both sons. Now, I am enlightened. Thank you.
Thank you so much for answering my question. The answer makes much sense. What a lovely family the Ferrars, makes you wonder how Edward turned out so well 😛
I love your close readings of Jane Austen! I didn't know there were differences between the first and second editions of Sense and Sensibility. Are there more differences beyond the one you quoted? Do any of Austen's other novels have differences from the first to second edition?
Its good that you cleared the misconceptions of female inheritance because it seems to be widespread with Austen’s time. The 1995 adaption of Sense and Sensibility itself perpetuates this when Elinor says “houses go to father to son, dearest, not father to daughter, it is the law” (I just recently rewatched the film on Netflix and noticed it). Emma Thompson also wrote the screenplay so I assume she believed it to be true.
Nope, Emma Thompson said in her production diary that she knew that wasn’t strictly true, but it was close enough to the usual way of things & easier to fit into a theatrical release than to explain what actually happened; though DaddyDashwood did say at the beginning of the film, to John, that the terms upon which Norland was left to him kept him from leaving anything significant to his daughters.
I think it’s sadder if she knew it wasn’t true. I don’t really think it’s close to being true since there wasn’t such law and even the customs didn’t always mean that male primogeniture was followed. And what is worse is that the plot and themes of Sense and Sensibility so depend upon inheritance. The Dashwood sisters suffered because of their relatives and not law, Edward Ferrars like shown in this video could be controlled by his mother because women could have money and Willoughby married out of money and not love because women could have money like he found a bride who did. It would have been maybe a bit less of an issue if the law was misrepresented in something like Persuation adaption but it was very crucial here. And people do learn of history in these adaptions, sometimes unconsciously, and the wider public sees the movies more than reads in any case.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 I think so too. Rereading the beginning of the novel, it is very complicated, with the bulk of John Dashwood's fortune coming from his mother, the first Mrs Dashwood - another woman with her own money - and Henry Dashwood (the girls' father) being left only a lifetime interest in the estate by his uncle, because said uncle is charmed by John and Fanny's child - doubtless tirelessly coached by Fanny... Willoughby is dependent on the shadowy Mrs Smith, who cuts him off because she finds out about his treatment of Col Brandon's ward (I like Mrs Smith) and Miss Grey also controls her own money, which enables her to control Willoughby. But I think it could have been simplified without presenting all women as victims of an unfair law, when actually the men often seem to be footballs kicked about between the women, in this novel. Films, however good, just can't get the depth of novels. Even the visuals are often inaccurate - the main characters in Emma Thompsons film (which I did enjoy) are much younger than the actors portraying them - it makes a difference.
Your videos are always entertaining an so full of information. Thanks for your work about my favorite Austen novel 👍👍👍👍👍As I had always thougt, every child with such a mother needs no enemy
Thank you for this video! I've asked myself this question quite often 😅 I always thought that it was also because Robert was Mrs Farrows favourite son as he "matched the picture" of wanting the grandeur while Edward just wanted a simple life
And through Mrs. Farris's cruel manipulations, Providence blesses Edward by releasing him from his engagement, freeing him to marry the most worthy, Elinor. So sweet!
With a little help from the author🤓 But, I think in a way, that even Jane Austen knew that this had to happen - I'm thinking of the end in Northanger Abbey, where the narrator concludes that "if a young couple has set their mind to marry, it's hardly impossible to get them to do otherwise" I don't remember the exact words (and read it in Swedish), but it's close.
Another excellent video, Dr Cox! I'd never understood the Edward/Robert/Lucy Steele money situation and now it's crystal clear. Thank you! I love your informative videos!
It’s always a pleasure to hear your literature dissections, and this was one I felt curious about each time I caught the film. How did they manage it? Well now I know! Thank you as always 💐
Your videos are fab! I've only just discovered your channel and love Jane Austen, although I admit I haven't read any of her works for a while. You miss so much from relying only on the film and TV productions. I had completely forgotten about Mrs Ferrars manipulating her family and laughed so much towards the end of this video. I wonder if Jane Austen intended for many of her characters and situations to be so comedic - I love how Mrs Ferrars shot herself in the foot here and wonder how she didn't make settling the Norfolk estate on Robert watertight. That said, even she may not have foreseen Lucy Steele jumping in!
Dear Dr Cox,I like your channel. very much and I'd like you to make videos about other classical English novels such as "Middlmarch","Vanity fair" "Wives and daughters"
One of the language choices I found really interesting in this was that John Dashwood says his friends 'must' be out of anybody's power to assist him. I think that's a very specific and characterful word choice. Because as far as John Dashwood is concerned, it is not a choice - he MUST cut off Edward and see others do too, because defying Mrs. Ferrars and her deep pockets is not an option for him. That defying her, that they could or should help him is so beyond his ability to even comprehend as possible. it is not done. It's a fascinating view into his head, which we get a few looks at throughout the novel. He's filthy rich but is so absolutely miserly with it.
Deeg Leffler: *YES!* I find that reading Austen requires as much attention from the reader as reading a Haiku poem, because Austen is as precise about diction as any poet. John Dashwood is a morally frail reed who lacks the empathy & imagination to think independently. So he literally cannot encompass the concept of defying Mrs. Ferrars. Thank you for your insight.
It’s been decades since I’ve read the book, so I suspect I’m relying on Emma Thompson here, but I agree. I got the impression he was a weak man, but not naturally so mean. He was slightly fond of his sisters, so I think he would have been a little more generous. His first suggestion (before the MARVELLOUS Harriet Wilson dissuaded him), was a small annuity.
I could watch your videos all day long. They make me think! I just had a recollection triggered by your ending observation that Mrs. Ferrars cannot get her control over her sons back. It reminded me of the words uttered by Mrs. Jennings earlier in the novel, that she "has the whip hand of" Mr. Palmer, because having married Mrs. Jennings' daughter, he has "taken her off of [Mrs. Jennings'] hands," and "cannot give her back again."
Thank you! I have been looking for this explanation for years, ever since I saw sense and sensibility for the first time. It never made sense why Robert got to keep the money and still marry Lucy. My mind is now at ease lol
First off, I've really enjoyed these videos on finances in Austen. As a reader, I always understood enough to get by in context, but these are particularly informative. As a side note, it makes sense that most of these estates were passed down to children, but I was wondering how much estates of these sorts would cost to purchase (dependent on size and location, of course)? Under what circumstances would they go on the market in the first place, and how would someone (say, a Bingley type) go about getting one? Maybe the subject of another video? Thanks again!!
An excellent question! - Then as now, it would depend on multiple factors (such as how close it was to London) - but the main two were the condition, size, etc of the house itself and how much income it generated per year. The British government [!] bought Princess Charlotte, in 1816, Claremont House and estate in Surrey (now part of the National Trust), which had c.1600 acres of farmlands, for £69,000. Quite a prevalent circumstance which would lead to an estate being sold was that the owner had got into financial trouble - the Romantic poet Lord Byron, for instance, sold his estate, Newstead Abbey, because he was chronically in debt.
There's also the example in "Persuasion" of Sir Walter Elliott, who owing to profligacy had to let his estate to Admiral Croft and use the income to rent a more modest property in Bath. If it hadn't been for Anne keeping some semblance of control over the household finances, it's quite likely he would have had to sell Kellynch Hall instead of letting it.
This was really helpful! It's been decades since I read the novel, and the film really just makes it seem like Robert is just... Her favorite? And it comes off a bit confusing.
When they say that the income from a set amount is $$$ is that money invested with a bank? Were interest rates set? Some kind of annuity? How do they know what annual amount a sum of money will provide? Not asking about property that will of course provide income.
Edward is such an underrated character ! Many would have given into the temptation of wealth and consequence but Edward always stuck to his principles at great cost to himself.
As you highlight, the estate in Norfolk is worth £1,000 per annum. On the other hand, Colonel Brandon has an annual income of £2,000 from his estate in Dorset. Hence he has the same income as Mr Bennet in Pride & Prejudice. In marked contrast, In 1816 one of Jane Austen's brothers was earning just under £55 a year as a curate. At that rate of pay he would have to work for over 36 years to make £2,000.
I am new to this channel but have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed and learned a great deal from what I have listened to so far. What has always puzzled me is why the Longbourn family, in particular Mr Bennet, Lizzy and Jane, are so accepting and, superficially I know, warm towards Wickham when he returns married to Lydia. Especially as Mr Bennet had previously said that his house was one to which he would never be admitted. Have you any thoughts on this question?
It's wonderful, isn't it? I love his comments when he's talking about the cottages his friends have - he says something about how the dining room will hold "eighteen couple"; I think the inference is that it can be used for dancing . . . but just the idea of one room in a cottage being that big is hilarious! (I suspect that his friends' cottages are really the equivalent of grand holiday homes that they view as cosy, which just shows you how utterly out of touch he is with the reality of the Dashwoods' lives. Even better, Jane Austen actually gets a follow-up reference about it into the conclusion of the book, talking about his honeymoon with Lucy, when they "passed some months in great happiness at Dawlish; for she had many relations and old acquaintances to cut-and he drew several plans for magnificent cottages"! (It's the "magnificent" that gets me.)
Hi Dr. Cox, I really enjoy your channel, specially all your analysis of Austen’s work. Would you do an analysis of Mrs. Elton in Emma ? It’s probably a straight forward character but I am curious as to why she has so much protagonism in several scenes in the novel. Is it all social commentary from Austen or does she has a role to play ? Thank you
It seems to me that they’re far less wealthy than the people in Pride and Prejudice or Emma even with not giving the Dashwood sisters their due. Even with joining houses. 1000 pounds per annum? Shockingly poor by those standards! 😆 Why do I feel like Col. Brandon had more money than the Ferrars and John Dashwood? I think the colonel is my favorite character in all of Austin. He lives like Mr. Cellophane.
As always, I enjoyed your analysis though I wish you had pointed out that ironically it was Mrs. Ferrars' interference which saved Edward from the consequences of his hasty engagement. Moreover, it was Mrs. Ferrars' who ultimately enabled him and Eleanor to marry. But, given Austen's deep dislike of mothers, especially powerful ones, is a constant. I would love you to prepare a video on the topic as well as of her tendency to see the younger sibling more capable in a variety of ways.
@@JudithKlinghoffer hmmm the mother’s in a lot of the books aren’t bad tho most often mothers of other people. Emma’s mother figure, a governess and companion, is a sweet, if overly indulgent, loving woman whereas her father is as ridiculous as Mrs Bennet. The mother is Sense and Sensibility is a lovely person. My brain is not working with names today but their benefactor’s mother in law is nosey, silly, and somewhat annoying but with only the best intentions for her friends and a playful sense of humor. A lot of characters we never meet the mothers. I do think she had a dislike of ridiculous women like Mrs. Bennett, Lydia, and the aunts of Fanny Brice. But Mrs. Bennett was balanced by her sister in law for a sensible mother figure. I think the ridiculous figures are there as a foil to the sensibility and perseverance of kindness of the heroines with the people who would drive a saint yo drink while they have other figures who do have the grounded role.
@@debshaw680 I agree that Col Brandon is probably the wealthiest "speaking character" in Sense and Sensibility, and I find him likeable. The Brandon family is also interesting, financially and morally. Col Brandon has an older brother who inherits the estate. (He also has a sister, and all we know about her is that she lives in Avignon, France.) Their father is ward to his niece, Eliza. "(H)er fortune was large, and our family estate much encumbered" i.e. in debt. Brandon's father forces Eliza to marry his elder son, by locking her up until she agrees, despite the fact that she and his younger son, Col Brandon, are in love. The colonel's brother treats her unkindly, and "his pleasures were not what they ought to have been" i.e. drink and debauchery, bringing on his early death and Col Brandon's inheritance of the estate, either by will or by entail. Eliza is seduced by an unnamed lover, runs away from her cruel husband and dies destitute. Col Brandon finds her (too late to save her life) and assumes wardship of her illegitimate daughter, Eliza 2. Is Eliza 2 also Col Brandon's illegitimate daughter? He's cagey about the dates, and doesn't deny it. Eliza 2 is seduced and abandoned by Willoughby, and also has an illegitimate child, who will also, presumably, be a Brandon ward. We don't know whether the child is a boy or a girl. This child has no legal claim to any money, but it is his or her grandmother's money which provides the foundation of Col Brandon's fortune, and Marianne's eventual, comfortable life. Let's hope the colonel and Marianne do the decent thing. The Ferrars look civilised, by comparison.
@@londongael I don’t think Brandon was the father of Eliza 2 because he would have probably acknowledged her if she was instead of fostering her out. He’s an honorable man. I felt, from what he said, that the man in question was a Willowby type or a paying customer. Her life must have been a nightmare.
Not quite on topic, but I'm re-reading Sense and Sensibility, and I have a question about attending weddings and funerals in Regency England. Elinor doesn't meet Fanny's brothers and mother until the events in the book. Were weddings and funerals super small back then (i.e. your siblings/half-siblings wouldn't normally attend)?
I am just fascinated by the economics of large estates and day to day issues of the Regency era. Being a dirt poor American millennial, this is all so novel and new to me. Lol
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like the videos I create, then you can support my channel here:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N
Thank you for watching.
I think that one of your favorite verbs, that is "unpick," is especially apt for this video. My word what a tangle of finances! I think I've always caught the drift of this in S&S but you have really brought the details forward. Thanks! I think it interesting what a sad and conniving sort of creature Mrs. Ferrars is especially when compared to a more loving parent like Mrs. Dashwood. I find quite a contrast (foil) in the Ferrars and Dashwoods. The Dashwoods (that is Mrs. D, Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret) have real affection, companionship, and a sense of duty to one another, while the Ferrars clan (excepting Edward) prize money and connection above familial love.
I'd like you to make videos about "Middlemarch","Vanity fair" ,"Wives and daughters"
I would like to know your opinion, if possible, on why on earth Miss Gray ever married Mr. Willoughby... She already had money and rank. She could choose any other man she liked. She knew he was in love with another woman. What did she need from him at all?
@@carolinaceci8817 Her family and friends would be resistant to Miss Gray becoming a barfly or the equivalent of "coming upon the town". The only respectable options were to be married or be a spinster. Alas, she appears to have had an eye for flashy "Chads" rather than for more staid or steady gentlemen. Mrs. Clay (in Persuasion) appears to have been afflicted by the same urges. Perhaps Jane herself was not-so-secretly inclined or at least tempted, since there are so many of this species (Homo chadus) in her novels? Count them off on your fingers.
I love the non-melodramatic and often hilarious way Austen wrote of domestic dysfunction or downright abuse (as in this case). She was so observant but also so incredibly funny.
Yes, Mrs. Ferrars emotionally and financially abuses her children and Edward in particular. I'm glad that he gets away from her and his awful siblings.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who hits the LIKE button even before actually watching your videos. I know they'll be informative and well done.
Oh, thank you! I appreciate the support very much indeed.
I would rather be Liked for what I say than for what I might say. But then, I am more an Elinor than a Marianne lol.
Yes, always fascinating.
Exactly!!! Just fantastic!!!
You are correct.
'she (Elinor) did not think he (Robert Ferrars) deserved the compliment of rational opposition' is one of my favourite lines from all of Austen, and I even use it from time to time myself, to mean 'I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with them.'
I feel like Austen is giving us a glimpse into life with a Narcissist, complete with Flying Monkeys, the Golden Child, and the Scapegoat.
Very good observation! Wonder if Mrs Ferrars was based on someone in particular to get all that down accurately. :)
came here to say exactly this!
That has always been my thought about this underrated novel.
There's a delicious irony in Mrs. Ferrars hastily settling Norfolk on Robert to punish Edward for his engagement to Lucy Steele, thereby enabling Robert to marry Lucy Steele. I'd say that Mrs. Ferrars settled in haste to repent in leisure, but Lucy's charm offensive took care of that.
A haste indeed makes a waste with Mrs Ferrars ☺️
The downside to Robert Ferrars is that he has to endure married life with Lucy Steele.
Apart from money, there was another important way of providing for a person's living expenses and that was land, housing and payment in kind. The living that Colonel Brandon offers Edward includes a rectory, and that would almost certainly have had additional land of some kind attached. Often rectories had the sort of sized 'garden' that would nowadays be called a small holding. This meant that the incumbent and his family could use it to raise poultry, very likely a cow for milk, farm animals such as pigs, and also have an orchard, fruit bushes, potatoes and herbs. In those days the gentry had no need to buy food at all. This is another reason why Miss Bates and her mother are so poor: they live in 'rooms' with no access to anything homegrown. It was a dividing line between the well off and the poor. This also explains the significance in Emma of the gift of eggs, among other foodstuffs, that Mr Knightly gives Miss Bates.
The Norfolk estate that Mrs Ferrars gives to Robert would have yielded more than just a monetary income. Estates provided plentiful food to eat, and food wasn't cheap to buy in those days.
Yes, great point - especially your observation about Miss Bates. This was how George Austen (in addition to his tutoring) supplemented his income at Steventon. Mrs Austen also took charge of their kitchen garden there. And her great-granddaughter remembered that at Chawton - when she was in her seventies - Mrs Austen still managed her kitchen garden: gardening with her was "no idle pastime, no mere cutting of roses & tying up of flowers. She dug up her own potatoes & I have no doubt she planted them, for the kitchen garden was as much her delight as the flower borders, and I have heard my mother [Anna Austen] say that when at work she wore a green round frock like a day labourer" ('Family Record', ed. Le Faye, p.178).
This is more than hinted at in Ch 50:
"The first month after (Edward and Elinor's) marriage was spent with their friend at the Mansion-house; from whence they could superintend the progress of the Parsonage, (the builders were "dilatory" - plus ca change) and direct every thing as they liked on the spot;-could chuse papers, project shrubberies, and invent a sweep. Mrs. Jennings's prophecies, though rather jumbled together, were chiefly fulfilled ......... They had in fact nothing to wish for, but the marriage of Colonel Brandon and Marianne, and rather better pasturage for their cows." That last line is wonderful.
@@HRJohn1944 I love the cow line.
Come to think of it, the 'poor' rural people with land or at least garden big enough for potatoes, some fruit trees and other vegetables and fruit plots fare always better than city poor during economical crises.
Mrs. Ferrars deserves to be considered one of Jane’s top villains, so purposeful is her cruelty to her son. Robert is pretty snobby and certainly aware of social station. I’ve never understood why he would marry Lucy when he could have married much higher. Having the estate makes him highly marriageable despite his buffoonery. It seems like revenge on his mother, but presumably he could still have inherited more upon her death. Lucy’s flattery and manipulation don’t seem to explain it. It seems like one of the few times Jane uses a devise that doesn’t make sense to accomplish a plot point. Dr. Cox perhaps you could address this in a later video. Thank you for another wonderful engaging lecture.
He is incredibly dim. People tolerate him, but despite what he claims, no one actually seeks out his opinion or notices him very much. He's not nearly rich enough on £1,000 a year to tempt pretty women who are also wealthy, so once he's rich-ish but still not attracting any rich, pretty women, he's taken in quite quickly by what he perceives as genuine admiration from a pretty woman. (A pretty woman who is unusually good at making people believe what they want to believe.)
You're overlooking one of the key components of his character, I think: Robert Ferrars isn't trying to amass endless money for the sake of having it, he's using it to buy bespoke toothpick holders etc *in an attempt to get fashionable people to accept him as their equal*. Lucy is both giving him all the attention he wants, and she's socially adept at attracting admiration from wealthier, more fashionable people. With his money, she'll be an unstoppable social climber, and he'll rise with her.
Whereas a rich snooty wife who would go on ignoring him (like most people do) and then use money/her social position to bully him (like his mother always has) is the last thing he would want. In his mind, he sees himself as an attractive, fashionable, independent man who's so irresistible he's managed to woo his brother's fiancée away from him; and that fiancée will, as his wife, help him to become more fashionable and pleasing and maybe even accepted. Lucy is literally the most perfect choice he could make for his goals (even those goals he himself isn't aware of, like wanting to pretend he's more handsome and clever than he actually is).
I think what's really awful about all of this is that Edward was actually trying to do the honorable thing by sticking to the engagement he had entered into before he really knew her character, and was doubly punished for being the nice guy - both by losing his inheritance, and then seeing Lucy marry his brother. Not that losing Lucy is really a punishment, and certainly Elinor's love is a much higher reward - but he honestly thought more of the necessity of preserving Lucy from real poverty than of the inconvenience of losing the estate, and that's why it's such a noble thing for him to do. But his family doesn't see his actions as honorable, just defiant. Which is so unfair!
Very unfair indeed. And, until Lucy had sent him her 'Lucy Ferrars' letter, he was actually still persuaded that she loved him: "till her last letter reached him, he had always believed her to be a well-disposed, good-hearted girl, and thoroughly attached to himself. Nothing but such a persuasion could have prevented his putting an end to an engagement, which, long before the discovery of it laid him open to his mother’s anger, had been a continual source of disquiet and regret to him" (ch.49).
@@DrOctaviaCox I think it is a fair punishment, actually, or at least as fitting as Mrs Ferrars's punishment; he is wrong to ignore his feelings of 'continual disquiet and regret', and certainly wrong to contemplate marrying someone he obviously doesn't care for, especially when he prefers someone else instead. His wedding vows would be a lie if he married Lucy; his rigid adherence to social conventions costs him his inheritance (which, fortunately, he was quite ambiguous about) and hurts Elinor needlessly. Of course, Marianne's mistake is *only* to listen to her emotional inner voice, which makes her selfish and rude to others, but Edward's is the opposite - he simply denies his, and hurts everyone, including himself, in the process.
There's no fairness when it comes to dealing with narcissists. They don't care about whether or not you are a nice or good person, they care about whether or not you followed their rules, that's what's important to them. I don't think he deserved the result, but at the same time, I think it was about time somebody taught him a lesson about not being too trusting & only seeing the good in people, even women. There's being a good person, & then there's being a doormat, these are not the same thing. Perhaps that comes from living with narcissists though, he learnt to survive by seeing the good in people. Still he could have taken the time to get to know Lucy some how, and considered whether or not she was genuine, what she thought of living in poverty if it all fell through, & whether or not it was worth the sacrifice. He was lucky Eleanor loved him, & he could have ended up pretty messed up by the end if he hadn't had her to marry.
@@madhatterline yes, it is almost as if he is overly dismissive about his wealth, he doesn't appreciate it so he doesn't realize what a driving force it is for others who don't have it; that Lucy, who is poor, genuinely can't or won't see him separately from his wealth. He may feel he is honorable, but he doesn't know his own power or advantage to an extreme degree and that will damage others in the long term. Elinor has been brought up to expect wealth and prominence so she hasn't been schooled in the ways of scheming that the Steele sisters have been, but even she at the end of the novel can see the value of keeping in with the family to a certain extent - she has been the victim of a badly drawn up will and an unfortunate set of circumstances before, and appreciates the way that well intentioned individual choices from people in power - Old Mr Dashwood, Mrs Ferrars - can have on later dependents. She was left with almost nothing after the death of her father in comparison with her step-brother, and her children will again be left with almost nothing after Mrs Ferrars' decisions.
@@kahkah1986 not stepbrother, half brother, they shared a father. His behavior was deplorable.
These close readings of Jane Austen are among my absolute favorite videos on RUclips, thank you!
It's my pleasure! Who doesn't love close reading Austen - there's always so much detail to think about.
@@DrOctaviaCox Yes Austen is a great writer. Did you know that an author wrote a series of books creating 🤔 Jane Austen a crime solving character. In it Austen's attention to detail make her a successful ✨ sleuth. I can't be certain of the author's name but I believe that the last name is Barron.
I am enjoying your discussions of Austen's novels.
I haven't even read the book...
I was always so interested in finances in Austen's novels and you explaining it so beautifully. As someone who has read the books with no outside help at all, this is very helpful. Amazing video as always
Thank you very much! - Yes, the economic aspect of Austen's novels is fascinating - especially how it interrelates with power.
Perfect timing! I'm in bed with a cold and was just thinking how nice it would be to listen to another insightful video about the works of Jane Austen narrated in a soothing voice.
Ha! - perfect timing indeed! - I hope you feel better soon.
I hope you feel better quickly. I was the same 2 days ago. You forget what colds were like after being locked in for so long. 😆 I live in an area where hardly anyone wears masks and won’t stand 6 feet away especially if you are wearing one. I’m sure that’s how I got sick. I had two women crowding up on me in the grocery store on Saturday. By Tuesday I was out of it.
Soothing voice is exactly right.
I've always had this image in my head of poor Miss Morton watching the Ferrars family drama from the sidelines with a sinking feeling and, at the end, being like "Oof! Musket ball DODGED!"
Except her family was selling her off to the highest bidder so it could be MUCH worse.
@@debshaw680 It certainly could have been, I know, but I like to think it wasn't. And not having to marry Robert must have been at least a momentary relief.
She probably was secretly happy she didn't have to merry any of them though Edward is such a wonderful honorable person. With her inheritance she probably would merry even better than Ferrars' brothers.
@@ladooshka One would hope she married very well indeed, and didn't have to deal with a mother-in-law like Mrs. Ferrars. Or maybe she decided not to marry at all after watching the Ferrars family trainwreck itself very publicly. It's not like she needed to marry for financial security, after all. Maybe she was more interested in teaching her sister's ten children to embroider cushions and play their instruments very ill...
I hope Miss Morton did what Robert did, pretended to comply with her stupid family's orders disguised as wishes, managed to trick a lot of money from her inheritance somehow and then eloped with a very unsuitable man that everybody disapproved of. Except unlike Robert it turned out to be a most excellent choice and she was happy ever after, which would be fair after being refered to for so long as "Miss Morton with 30 000 pounds".
This is why watching the movies isn't enough. Thanks for getting into the details!
It's my pleasure.
I liked this talk! I'd just add a few points: at the end, Edward, while admitted to be Mrs. Ferrars' son after Robert's marriage, is not by any means the oldest son. Actually, he gets exactly half of what Robert gets - 10000 pounds, which gives an annual income of 500 pounds - half of the 1000 that Robert has from his estate. Moreover, the sum Edward gets, it is stressed, is the same sum Fanny got - that is, a sum suitable for a young woman's dowry, not for a young man's independence! But Elinor and Edward, with lower financial expectations and tastes, find it quite enough, while Robert and Lucy continue to receive additional financial support from Mrs. Ferrars - an indication both of her favour and of their more lavish lifestyle.
Austen has the best descriptions. The bribing one son to do the thing she was punishing the other for doing. My favourite is the description of Robert & Lucy's married life and their relationship with Mrs Ferrars, Fanny & John. They get what they deserve in the end. Love your Austen videos, please keep them coming.
Thank you! Ha - yes - wonderful: "They settled in town, received very liberal assistance from Mrs. Ferrars, were on the best terms imaginable with the Dashwoods; and setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy, in which their husbands of course took a part, as well as the frequent domestic disagreements between Robert and Lucy themselves, nothing could exceed the harmony in which they all lived together". Very harmonious!
@DrOctaviaCox so they have the money, but no peace. As a reader, that satisfies me. Austen seems to have a knack for appropriately punishing her bad characters. They get what they wanted, but as we all tend to find out, they realize that it comes with negative and long-lasting consequences that may or may not have been foreseeable.
I’m so happy I found this explanation. I have wondered, “ This doesn’t make sense that Robert inherited the money and married Lucy Steele, but, Edward was disowned for proposing the same thing.”
Thank you for helping me understand all the manipulations going on.
This was great! Robert keeping his inheritance despite marrying Lucy makes so much more sense to me now.
The more of your close readings I listen to the less I can read fan fiction, so you're winning the fight, Dr Cox!
Thank you for your time, and wishing you a lovely weekend.
I hope you have a lovely weekend too!
Love hearing in detail about some of the secondary characters. It really improves my understanding and enjoyment of the book’s 🙏🏻
Excellent! - Austen makes such full worlds that even the secondary characters add an enormous amount to the meaning of the whole.
Another wonderful class .... I was very struck with the comparison you made with Jane Austen’s own earnings for writing this wonderful novel with the annual incomes of the various characters in the book. Once again, I’m inspired to re-read a favorite. Slowly.
I read sense and sensibilty in 2020 after being a long time fan of the 95 and 08 adaptations. And literally just rewatched them and spent a while googling how mrs ferrars was able to disinherit Edward when primogeniture was in place and found some good articles. And then you just post this video! I should have just waited for you. Reading my mind. Amazing. Thank you : )
Austen is expert in avoiding those awkward expository paragraphs but still getting the point across!
Mrs Ferrars' relationship with Edward I do find most interesting. One could argue that she had more expectations of him because he was the first born but she acts throughout as if she doesn't like him. He certainly thwarts her a lot. It might have been worth a book on its own.
Your information has allowed me to appreciate Austen even more. Thank you!
It's absolutely my pleasure.
How fortunate for Miss Morton, in my opinion.
Found your channel once started doing Jane Austen module at my university, and can’t lie I have been the most knowledgable one at my class! All because of your videos, they are truly amazing! Thank you! I would love to see more on Jane Austen especially on the social markers of the society of that time, and maybe also the places that are explored (castles, Bath etc) that also show social status! Thank you, Dr Octavia Cox!
Thank you so much for this channel. At the age of twelve I was going through my school library looking for an interesting novel, and happened upon Sense and Sensibility, it became one of my favorite books. I had no idea that it was a classic, only that it was a sweet, romantic, and well written novel that ended as it ought. Although I have read it multiple times over that last 45 years, you have helped me reach a deeper understanding of the characters and story. Thank you
I just finished reading Sense and Sensibility yesterday. So this video was perfectly timed.
Ha! - yes, perfectly.
Haha I read S&S (as well as other books) at least 6 times a year so it is hard for dr Cox to have a bad timing in my case 😂
The whole situation is so comical and I hadn't the foreknowledge or insight to pick up on it when I read the novel in question some years ago - so thank you for enlightening me and providing avid amusement and further appreciation of the genius of Jane Austen
In King Lear, Edmund's comment on Edgar can be paraphrased: "Their nature was so far from generosity that they suspect none". John Dashwood says "Mrs Ferrars is one of the most affectionate mothers in the world" - and therefore the idea of Edward benefiting by getting a small living from Colonel Brandon - even though not at Mrs Ferrars' expense - is anathema.
They really are a loathsome lot - just look at the way John Dashwood cannot understand Elinor's comment "The lady, I suppose, has no choice in the affair" when he suggests that Robert should now marry Miss Morton (poor girl - she had a lucky escape). But (to quote Joseph Heller in another context) Elinor and Edward will have something that John and Fanny, and Robert and Lucy will never have - they will have enough.
isn't king lear quote, "a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms, that he suspects none"? after all its edmund who says this about edgar, not the other way around.
@@sitting_nut I did say "Edmund's comment on Edgar", and perhaps I should have used the word "adapted" rather than "paraphrased". My point was, of course, that John Dashwood was completely unable to understand that Colonel Brandon could - out of pure human decency - give the small living which is in his gift to Edward (all these Eds are going to get confusing) simply because he (Brandon) thinks Edward has been unfairly treated and without any thought of getting any material return on the gift: in fact, John D. goes further - he doesn't want Fanny or Mrs F. to know about the gift because they would be upset by it. (Some years ago, there was a satire on charity collectors approaching a merchant banker for help and they received a similar answer to that given by Mr JD).
- they will have enough. Exactly! And that's a fabulous quotation of Elinor's, "The lady, I suppose, has no choice in the affair". To which John Dashwood's response - "Certainly, there can be no difference" - is chilling in its lack of awareness. It's rather a lovely touch, I think, that Austen does not let readers actually encounter Miss Morton. I like to imagine that she couldn't bear Mrs Ferrars and had no intention of marrying either of her sons!
@@DrOctaviaCox Yes, there is no reason to suppose that Miss Morton is just quite as keen as the Dashwoods make out - if she is as financially independent as Mrs Ferrars, she can make her own choice.
@@HRJohn1944 Also, we don't know if Fanny and John had a love match. Likely not. And we know Lucy married Robert for his money. Edward and Elinor actually love each other, so they will have that.
In the reduction scene John Dashwood goes from £3000 of assistance to occasional gifts of fish and game. James Leigh Perrot made a claim to the Stoneleigh estate, not with any hope of success, but by threat of persistent legal action negotiated considerable lump sums and annuities for himself and his wife, to add to his already substantial wealth. Mrs Leigh Perrot then wrote to the estate solicitors demanding regular gifts of fish and game "as befits their newfound social circumstances". I think of this every time I think of that reduction scene.
Hi. Thanks for your interesting comment.
James Leigh Perrot demanded £20,000 plus £3000 per year from the Stoneleigh estate. He met with solicitor Joseph Hill who tried to persuade him that £8000 of the £20k should go to Mrs Austen's family and Mr Cooper's . Mr Leigh Perrot refused, saying he would make such provision himself as he thought proper. Joseph Hill wrote to Thomas Leigh about this meeting that "Mrs Leigh Perrot was not present at the conversation but I believe her influence has great weight with his determination."
The Perrot Leighs were Jane Austen's mother's brother and his wife.
None of the films have yet answered my questions while you videos have. Thank you so much.
I always wondered why when Mrs. Ferrars cuts off Edward for being engaged to Lucy Steele, she gives all to Robert who ends up marrying her. That now explains it to me. Thank you so much.
one feels that Miss Moreton dodged a bullet there. :)
Thank you Dr. Cox for explaining why Robert Ferrars gets to keep his fortune! I have not read the novel, but only seen the film, and was always puzzled by that point! Now finally I get it! I really enjoy your talks, and have come to appreciate just how brilliant and talented Miss Austen was.
That comment “did not deserve the compliment of rational opposition” is one of my favourite lines in Jane Austen’s writings.
That was interesting! My failure in English class - and in life, for that matter - is that I rarely see past the surface. All I saw in the situation with Edward was that Edward had been irrevocably disinherited. While I know those are not the exact words, that is how I read it. However, I did see it as liberating both sons. I just saw it as impossible to disinherit both sons. Now, I am enlightened. Thank you.
Thank you so much for answering my question. The answer makes much sense. What a lovely family the Ferrars, makes you wonder how Edward turned out so well 😛
Thank you! I feel like these videos are like visits from rare friends with whom one can really talk and think. Thank you again!
Finally an answer to the puzzling question about Robert's ability to marry Lucy Steele but not Edward's. Thank you.
I love your close readings of Jane Austen! I didn't know there were differences between the first and second editions of Sense and Sensibility. Are there more differences beyond the one you quoted? Do any of Austen's other novels have differences from the first to second edition?
Its good that you cleared the misconceptions of female inheritance because it seems to be widespread with Austen’s time. The 1995 adaption of Sense and Sensibility itself perpetuates this when Elinor says “houses go to father to son, dearest, not father to daughter, it is the law” (I just recently rewatched the film on Netflix and noticed it). Emma Thompson also wrote the screenplay so I assume she believed it to be true.
Nope, Emma Thompson said in her production diary that she knew that wasn’t strictly true, but it was close enough to the usual way of things & easier to fit into a theatrical release than to explain what actually happened; though DaddyDashwood did say at the beginning of the film, to John, that the terms upon which Norland was left to him kept him from leaving anything significant to his daughters.
I think it’s sadder if she knew it wasn’t true. I don’t really think it’s close to being true since there wasn’t such law and even the customs didn’t always mean that male primogeniture was followed. And what is worse is that the plot and themes of Sense and Sensibility so depend upon inheritance. The Dashwood sisters suffered because of their relatives and not law, Edward Ferrars like shown in this video could be controlled by his mother because women could have money and Willoughby married out of money and not love because women could have money like he found a bride who did. It would have been maybe a bit less of an issue if the law was misrepresented in something like Persuation adaption but it was very crucial here. And people do learn of history in these adaptions, sometimes unconsciously, and the wider public sees the movies more than reads in any case.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 I think so too. Rereading the beginning of the novel, it is very complicated, with the bulk of John Dashwood's fortune coming from his mother, the first Mrs Dashwood - another woman with her own money - and Henry Dashwood (the girls' father) being left only a lifetime interest in the estate by his uncle, because said uncle is charmed by John and Fanny's child - doubtless tirelessly coached by Fanny... Willoughby is dependent on the shadowy Mrs Smith, who cuts him off because she finds out about his treatment of Col Brandon's ward (I like Mrs Smith) and Miss Grey also controls her own money, which enables her to control Willoughby. But I think it could have been simplified without presenting all women as victims of an unfair law, when actually the men often seem to be footballs kicked about between the women, in this novel. Films, however good, just can't get the depth of novels. Even the visuals are often inaccurate - the main characters in Emma Thompsons film (which I did enjoy) are much younger than the actors portraying them - it makes a difference.
21:50 - OH SNAP, Elinor! That girl knew how to land a sick burn! Ooof! Gosh I love Elinor xD
I have been asking this question FOREVER!
Thank you
Another Sense and Sensibility video so soon after I finish it? I feel spoiled. I just watched the movie too. I'm so ready
Your videos are always entertaining an so full of information.
Thanks for your work about my favorite Austen novel 👍👍👍👍👍As I had always thougt, every child with such a mother needs no enemy
Thank you for this video! I've asked myself this question quite often 😅
I always thought that it was also because Robert was Mrs Farrows favourite son as he "matched the picture" of wanting the grandeur while Edward just wanted a simple life
Thank you so much for doing these videos! Your analysis is always fascinating, and it makes me enjoy the novels so much more!!
And through Mrs. Farris's cruel manipulations, Providence blesses Edward by releasing him from his engagement, freeing him to marry the most worthy, Elinor. So sweet!
With a little help from the author🤓 But, I think in a way, that even Jane Austen knew that this had to happen - I'm thinking of the end in Northanger Abbey, where the narrator concludes that "if a young couple has set their mind to marry, it's hardly impossible to get them to do otherwise" I don't remember the exact words (and read it in Swedish), but it's close.
Another excellent video, Dr Cox!
I'd never understood the Edward/Robert/Lucy Steele money situation and now it's crystal clear. Thank you! I love your informative videos!
It’s always a pleasure to hear your literature dissections, and this was one I felt curious about each time I caught the film. How did they manage it? Well now I know! Thank you as always 💐
I would love to see a cross-over between you and Ellie Dashwood. That would be amazing. Both of you do excellent videos
I just wanted thank you again and again for all you do. My mind is always stimulated very week
Your videos are fab! I've only just discovered your channel and love Jane Austen, although I admit I haven't read any of her works for a while. You miss so much from relying only on the film and TV productions. I had completely forgotten about Mrs Ferrars manipulating her family and laughed so much towards the end of this video. I wonder if Jane Austen intended for many of her characters and situations to be so comedic - I love how Mrs Ferrars shot herself in the foot here and wonder how she didn't make settling the Norfolk estate on Robert watertight. That said, even she may not have foreseen Lucy Steele jumping in!
Dear Dr Cox,I like your channel. very much and I'd like you to make videos about other classical English novels such as "Middlmarch","Vanity fair" "Wives and daughters"
One of the language choices I found really interesting in this was that John Dashwood says his friends 'must' be out of anybody's power to assist him.
I think that's a very specific and characterful word choice. Because as far as John Dashwood is concerned, it is not a choice - he MUST cut off Edward and see others do too, because defying Mrs. Ferrars and her deep pockets is not an option for him. That defying her, that they could or should help him is so beyond his ability to even comprehend as possible. it is not done. It's a fascinating view into his head, which we get a few looks at throughout the novel. He's filthy rich but is so absolutely miserly with it.
Deeg Leffler: *YES!* I find that reading Austen requires as much attention from the reader as reading a Haiku poem, because Austen is as precise about diction as any poet. John Dashwood is a morally frail reed who lacks the empathy & imagination to think independently. So he literally cannot encompass the concept of defying Mrs. Ferrars. Thank you for your insight.
I think Fanny is largely responsible for that. If it weren't for her, I haven a feeling he would have helped his sisters financially.
It’s been decades since I’ve read the book, so I suspect I’m relying on Emma Thompson here, but I agree. I got the impression he was a weak man, but not naturally so mean. He was slightly fond of his sisters, so I think he would have been a little more generous. His first suggestion (before the MARVELLOUS Harriet Wilson dissuaded him), was a small annuity.
I could watch your videos all day long. They make me think! I just had a recollection triggered by your ending observation that Mrs. Ferrars cannot get her control over her sons back. It reminded me of the words uttered by Mrs. Jennings earlier in the novel, that she "has the whip hand of" Mr. Palmer, because having married Mrs. Jennings' daughter, he has "taken her off of [Mrs. Jennings'] hands," and "cannot give her back again."
Thank you! I have been looking for this explanation for years, ever since I saw sense and sensibility for the first time. It never made sense why Robert got to keep the money and still marry Lucy. My mind is now at ease lol
Dr. Cox, have you uploaded anything recently? I love your analyses, I learn so much. It’s as though you’re helping us look behind the scenes. ❤
Hoist on her own petard, indeed! Thanks for a charming video 💕
First off, I've really enjoyed these videos on finances in Austen. As a reader, I always understood enough to get by in context, but these are particularly informative.
As a side note, it makes sense that most of these estates were passed down to children, but I was wondering how much estates of these sorts would cost to purchase (dependent on size and location, of course)? Under what circumstances would they go on the market in the first place, and how would someone (say, a Bingley type) go about getting one? Maybe the subject of another video?
Thanks again!!
An excellent question! - Then as now, it would depend on multiple factors (such as how close it was to London) - but the main two were the condition, size, etc of the house itself and how much income it generated per year. The British government [!] bought Princess Charlotte, in 1816, Claremont House and estate in Surrey (now part of the National Trust), which had c.1600 acres of farmlands, for £69,000.
Quite a prevalent circumstance which would lead to an estate being sold was that the owner had got into financial trouble - the Romantic poet Lord Byron, for instance, sold his estate, Newstead Abbey, because he was chronically in debt.
Yes I would also like to know in context the cost of an estate and how one is obtained. Like Mr Bingley at the end of P&P.
@@DrOctaviaCox thank you! This is fascinating
There's also the example in "Persuasion" of Sir Walter Elliott, who owing to profligacy had to let his estate to Admiral Croft and use the income to rent a more modest property in Bath. If it hadn't been for Anne keeping some semblance of control over the household finances, it's quite likely he would have had to sell Kellynch Hall instead of letting it.
Always informative! Thank you, Dr. 👏
This was really helpful! It's been decades since I read the novel, and the film really just makes it seem like Robert is just... Her favorite? And it comes off a bit confusing.
Great synopsis
When they say that the income from a set amount is $$$ is that money invested with a bank? Were interest rates set? Some kind of annuity? How do they know what annual amount a sum of money will provide? Not asking about property that will of course provide income.
great questions
Edward is such an underrated character ! Many would have given into the temptation of wealth and consequence but Edward always stuck to his principles at great cost to himself.
Thank you. You answered my question extremely well.
Now I want a ludicrously extravagant bejewelled bespoke toothpick case
Informative and entertaining, it’s always delightful to see new layers of Jane Austen’s wit and satire. TY!
I so enjoy these, it makes me go back and read Austen again and again
This detailed review is great! Highlights again how wonderful the script by Emma Thompson is for the movie.
Love your channel so much 🥰. Thank you for another great video!
Thank you!! I had wondered why Edward was seeking a profession when he was the eldest son!
I’ve wondered these questions since I first read Sense and Sensibility! Thanks for the great topic.
This explains things so much for me thank you!!
I've been wondering about this for years, thank you.
Watching from Utah!
As you highlight, the estate in Norfolk is worth £1,000 per annum. On the other hand, Colonel Brandon has an annual income of £2,000 from his estate in Dorset. Hence he has the same income as Mr Bennet in Pride & Prejudice. In marked contrast, In 1816 one of Jane Austen's brothers was earning just under £55 a year as a curate. At that rate of pay he would have to work for over 36 years to make £2,000.
Thank you for explaining this it was a question I had, now answered.
Thank you Octavia; that is such a clear explanation.
Thanks for this. You have resolved a question that has puzzled me for a long time.
Brilliant video, perfect to follow up the Lucy Steele video.
Gosh I love these videos so much
I am new to this channel but have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed and learned a great deal from what I have listened to so far. What has always puzzled me is why the Longbourn family, in particular Mr Bennet, Lizzy and Jane, are so accepting and, superficially I know, warm towards Wickham when he returns married to Lydia. Especially as Mr Bennet had previously said that his house was one to which he would never be admitted. Have you any thoughts on this question?
Thanks for tackling my question! Guess enough people asked #2 to get it in the queue...
thank you for this~ so many details in the game of Mrs. Farrars that I never picked up on though I've read and watched several times!
I will have to reread the book.
I love that you explained this! I've always wondered about this. Thanks! 😊
Great video, as always. Thank you!
Very interesting break down, thank you 😊
Stunning video, thank you ❤️
I would love to for you to analyze more Shakespeare. I would love Much Ado About Nothing.
Well done!
Robert Ferras' monologue about cottages is laugh-out-loud funny.
It's wonderful, isn't it? I love his comments when he's talking about the cottages his friends have - he says something about how the dining room will hold "eighteen couple"; I think the inference is that it can be used for dancing . . . but just the idea of one room in a cottage being that big is hilarious! (I suspect that his friends' cottages are really the equivalent of grand holiday homes that they view as cosy, which just shows you how utterly out of touch he is with the reality of the Dashwoods' lives. Even better, Jane Austen actually gets a follow-up reference about it into the conclusion of the book, talking about his honeymoon with Lucy, when they "passed some months in great happiness at Dawlish; for she had many relations and old acquaintances to cut-and he drew several plans for magnificent cottages"! (It's the "magnificent" that gets me.)
Hi Dr. Cox, I really enjoy your channel, specially all your analysis of Austen’s work. Would you do an analysis of Mrs. Elton in Emma ? It’s probably a straight forward character but I am curious as to why she has so much protagonism in several scenes in the novel. Is it all social commentary from Austen or does she has a role to play ? Thank you
I never liked Mrs. Elton. She had no reason to dislike Emma.
What do you think of Austen’s depictions of the Ferrars’ finances?
It seems to me that they’re far less wealthy than the people in Pride and Prejudice or Emma even with not giving the Dashwood sisters their due. Even with joining houses. 1000 pounds per annum? Shockingly poor by those standards! 😆 Why do I feel like Col. Brandon had more money than the Ferrars and John Dashwood? I think the colonel is my favorite character in all of Austin. He lives like Mr. Cellophane.
As always, I enjoyed your analysis though I wish you had pointed out that ironically it was Mrs. Ferrars' interference which saved Edward from the consequences of his hasty engagement. Moreover, it was Mrs. Ferrars' who ultimately enabled him and Eleanor to marry. But, given Austen's deep dislike of mothers, especially powerful ones, is a constant. I would love you to prepare a video on the topic as well as of her tendency to see the younger sibling more capable in a variety of ways.
@@JudithKlinghoffer hmmm the mother’s in a lot of the books aren’t bad tho most often mothers of other people. Emma’s mother figure, a governess and companion, is a sweet, if overly indulgent, loving woman whereas her father is as ridiculous as Mrs Bennet. The mother is Sense and Sensibility is a lovely person. My brain is not working with names today but their benefactor’s mother in law is nosey, silly, and somewhat annoying but with only the best intentions for her friends and a playful sense of humor. A lot of characters we never meet the mothers.
I do think she had a dislike of ridiculous women like Mrs. Bennett, Lydia, and the aunts of Fanny Brice. But Mrs. Bennett was balanced by her sister in law for a sensible mother figure. I think the ridiculous figures are there as a foil to the sensibility and perseverance of kindness of the heroines with the people who would drive a saint yo drink while they have other figures who do have the grounded role.
@@debshaw680 I agree that Col Brandon is probably the wealthiest "speaking character" in Sense and Sensibility, and I find him likeable.
The Brandon family is also interesting, financially and morally. Col Brandon has an older brother who inherits the estate. (He also has a sister, and all we know about her is that she lives in Avignon, France.) Their father is ward to his niece, Eliza. "(H)er fortune was large, and our family estate much encumbered" i.e. in debt. Brandon's father forces Eliza to marry his elder son, by locking her up until she agrees, despite the fact that she and his younger son, Col Brandon, are in love. The colonel's brother treats her unkindly, and "his pleasures were not what they ought to have been" i.e. drink and debauchery, bringing on his early death and Col Brandon's inheritance of the estate, either by will or by entail.
Eliza is seduced by an unnamed lover, runs away from her cruel husband and dies destitute. Col Brandon finds her (too late to save her life) and assumes wardship of her illegitimate daughter, Eliza 2. Is Eliza 2 also Col Brandon's illegitimate daughter? He's cagey about the dates, and doesn't deny it. Eliza 2 is seduced and abandoned by Willoughby, and also has an illegitimate child, who will also, presumably, be a Brandon ward. We don't know whether the child is a boy or a girl. This child has no legal claim to any money, but it is his or her grandmother's money which provides the foundation of Col Brandon's fortune, and Marianne's eventual, comfortable life. Let's hope the colonel and Marianne do the decent thing.
The Ferrars look civilised, by comparison.
@@londongael I don’t think Brandon was the father of Eliza 2 because he would have probably acknowledged her if she was instead of fostering her out. He’s an honorable man. I felt, from what he said, that the man in question was a Willowby type or a paying customer. Her life must have been a nightmare.
Oh thank you! I've been asking why he could marry the same person that his brother was cut off for !
Brilliant commentary ad always!! Lucy is just as insincere as Robert! Perfect match!
Not quite on topic, but I'm re-reading Sense and Sensibility, and I have a question about attending weddings and funerals in Regency England. Elinor doesn't meet Fanny's brothers and mother until the events in the book. Were weddings and funerals super small back then (i.e. your siblings/half-siblings wouldn't normally attend)?
I am just fascinated by the economics of large estates and day to day issues of the Regency era. Being a dirt poor American millennial, this is all so novel and new to me. Lol