Jane Austen discussion

We're beginning our group discussion of Pride & Prejudice. I apologize for the day's delay.

I am creating folders dividing the novel into sections, following some of the natural breaks in the plot. I believe I have also followed the original volume divisions of the novel.

I preferred setting up the folders this way, rather than "no-spoiler/spoiler" folders because I thought it would keep the discussion together better and should help the flow. So just move into the next folder after you have read up to that point to avoid spoilers.

I am also adding a folder to contain links to some interesting essays that we might want to discuss along with the reading. Please add links or references to any essays you would like to share.

Please comment on the set up or make requests for anything you would like to see included.

I hope you enjoy discussing a delightful, one-of-a-kind novel that is funny, emotional, scrutinizing, and more. Voted most likely to find a permanent home on your bookshelf.

Join in!

Does anyone have anyea as to the size of Longbourne? Would there have been a lot of land to let to farmers, etc? Country dwelling Brits, any thoughts on typical size?

I addressed this in the other thread where you ask the question.

Abigail, could you cross reference please - sounds interesting!

Longbourn is probably at the smallest end permissible to still rate as a 'country house' or 'gentleman's residence' or 'big house' to an estate, and the estate itself probably at the smallest end too.

It can probably be worked out (I'm sure Abigail does!) in reverse by working out how much income Mr Bennet had annually, and then how many acres he would have had to get that rent from (unless he had some money in Government stock/bonds?) from tenant farmers.

We know his daughters (and widow?) will be left with only a thousand pounds a head each in capital, which, when invested (in safe government stocks/bonds - Gilts I believe?) will yield an income of about 5% (?) therefore £50 per annum. Not a great deal at all, but a 'living' for all that (especially if they all live together to save on household expenses etc).

They would probably be reduced to the level of Miss Bates and her mother from Emma - just clinging on to 'gentility' but probably grateful (or not!!!!!) for 'little extras' bestowed on them by Charlotte Collins (who would then be mistress of Longborn when her husband Mr Collins inherits). I think Charlotte would not be ungenerous (perhaps depending on how many children she and Mr C have!), but it would have been very galling indeed to Mrs Bennet. The worst would have been that Charlotte would take after the ghastly Fanny Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility who begrudged giving anything at all to her husband's dispossesed stepmother and stepsister.

Speaking off the top of my head (!), I would say that to rate as an 'estate' at all, one would need to own at the very minimum two farms rented to tenant farmers (and one could also have thigns like timber woods and so on - plus have a 'home farm' which would supply both provisions for the 'big house' and, indeed, generate income as well, eg, by selling its produce, such as grain, directly on the open market)

A home farm, though, even one that was a commercial income-generating enterprise, would be unlikely to be worked full time (or at all!) by the estate owner. That said, I recall that Mr Knightley took a pretty active interest in his own estates, though Mr Bennett doesn't seem very interested??

I'll ty and find the link, but the house which was used in the 1995 Colin Firth adaptation of P&P to be Longborn (which I would say hit the right note in terms of 'gentleman's residence' - posh, but not too posh!) was recently for sale for something like a couple of million pounds.

Small country houses (Gentleman's Residences) and former rectories are very popular buys, as they are 'grand' but not too expensive to run. The Georgian era/style ones are very popular, with large sash windows, high ceilings, picture rails for hanging portraits and landscapes, with a formal dining room and drawing room, and sweeping staircases. They are 'mini' stately homes, but very liveable in for modern times (with central heating of course, and probably an updated kitchen, even if the old fashioned kitchen is kept 'as well' with an Aga stove and large country-style table)

In terms of acreage again, off the top of my head, I'd say Longborn would have had to have at the minimum a couple of hundred acres and two farms??

This is only a guess though!

Current land prices, in general, are around £10,000 an acre, and you'd probably need at the very least 50 acres, probably closer to a hundred, to have any kind of commercially viable traditional farm???

That price per acre varies, of course, across the country, depending mainly on whether it's arable or pastoral, and what the quality is (eg steep rough upland vs say water meadowland or rich arable), and on the total acreage (small totals have a large price per acre than large totals, etc)

A decent size field, whether for arable or pasture, would need to be at least 3 acres I would say???

Remember, in the UK, the land is pretty fertile and productive. I don't know, off hand, how many cows can graze per acre in the summer (ie, mostly only grass, without supplementary feed??), or what the wheat crop per acre tends to be (with, presumably, chemical fertiliser?)

Let alone how that compares to Austen's day (with no chemical fertilisers, but active soil enrichment through growing leguminous plants, as well as rotating pasture to get animal-manure fertiliser etc - all part of the Agrarian Revolution of the 18th C which significantly increased agricultural yields overall before the arrival of either chemical fertilisers or - and it was huge business! - the import of sea-bird droppings, known as guano!)

Tenant farmers, especially when the Corn Laws applied, holding the price of English grain high, could be pretty prosperous in their own right (think of Robert Martin in Emma), but because they did not own the land they farmed they could never be 'gentlemen' (which is why Emma is so snobbish about Robert Martin).

Land OWNERSHIP was essential to qualify as a 'gentleman'. Though just how much land one had to own is a tricky one. If you had income from other sources (merchant, etc, but sufficiently 'distant' not to be soiled as 'trade'!!!!) then you could probably get away with owning only a posh house and grounds and gardens, rather than farm land, though you would not then be an 'estate'.

In Emma, do we every find out how much land, if any at all??, Emma's father owns? I get the feeling their is the implication that yes, Hartfield is quite a grand house (definitely a good couple of rungs up from Longborn), it is not old (like Mr Knightley's Donwell Abbey), and there may not be any estate farms to it?

I always get the feeling (right or wrong??) that the Woodhouse money is relatively 'new' (eg, like the Bingleys, but perhaps another generation or so older) (One certainly cannot imagine Mr Woodhouse having the slightest ability to actually 'make' money by business or investment enterprises!!!!)

It’s in a different JA group, this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/....

Many interesting ideas from Beth! I take a more expansive view of the Longbourn estate by virtue of Mr. Bennet’s income of £2,000 a year, which appears to be generated entirely by rents. The rub for his wife and daughters come from the fact that Mr. Bennet’s ENTIRE income derives from the estate and is therefore lost to them when he dies. Their small portions come from the small amount of money Miss Gardiner (Mrs. Bennet) brought to the marriage.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Tenant farmers, especially when the Corn Laws applied, holding the price of English grain high, could be pretty prosperous in their own right (think of Robert Martin in Emma), but because they did ..."

Hi Beth in UK,

My 'bible', the 1823 A New System of Practical Domestic Economy is pretty clear on the line for entering the landed gentry and becoming a gentleman. And this is not the only place I have seen this information. The line is 150 pounds per annum. And you typically had to have 300 acres of farmable/rentable land to generate that income level. As you say, if you have other sources of income (in addition to your land) it can muddy the waters. You might still have enough income to qualify as a gentleman without quite having 300 acres. But as we all know, attaining that rung on the latter is not entirely about money. The status that accompanied owning 300 acres was part of the criteria.

I completely agree with your comments about Highbury and Mr. Woodhouse. I always had the impression that his house was newer, his money was newer (not brand new, there's a reason Mr. Woodhouse is so helpless -- he did not become rich last year), he was incapable of generating that sort of income (or increasing his income) on his own, and lastly that his income largely, if not entirely, came from investments. He was not out on his land checking in with tenants, settling tentant disputes, meeting with a steward to discuss contract renewals, etc . Didn't he receive mail from London on occasion that he always had to have Mr. Knightley look over to decipher? Mr. Woodhouse was a lovable dimwit.

I am curious what your take was on the Coles? Emma was not quite sure about going to their party. The Coles were not quite sure about inviting her because it might look presumtuous. So the Coles were rising to the level of gentry, but perhaps their situation was still ambiguous enough that they weren't quite there yet. Weren't they just finishing an addition on their home to add a formal (or a second) dining room? So they had some money, but not necessarily the gentility. Your thoughts?

Cheers, hope you are well.
Shana

Thank you both for your very informative posts (I will check out that link in a moment - thank you for it).

OK, so if Mr Bennet has a (rent-generated) income of £2000 a year his capital must be (at the standard (?) 5%?) wealth must be in the region of £400,000 (is that right/ Maths, and decimal points, are not my strong suit without a handy calculator!!!!).

But does that correlate with what farm rents actually were at the time, and how do farm incomes vary with arable/pastoral usage? (Obviously, farmers would not have had free choice about what kind of farming to do, eg, arable/pastoral, as so much would depend on the location/soil type/elevation etc)(for those outside the UK, by and large the south and east of the country is generally flatter and drier, and is therefore more beef cattle and arable-oriented to this day, but the west and north are hillier and wetter, so these days are more likely to be sheep and dairy cattle )

Do we know how much rent per arable/pastoral acre a landlord could expect from a tenant farmer?

(These days, while I have no idea how much a proper field tenancy would bring in, whether arable or pastoral, I do know that if you own a grass field you can rent it out for the summer at something as low as £80 an acre - that really is not much, especially since it will have cost £10k an acre to purchase the field! The renting farmer has to keep the hedges in good nick, and probably fertilise the grass as well as the natural fertiliser the sheep and cattle grazing on it will supply. The landlord usually has to ensure the field has a supply of water as well.)

Presumably too, for a landlord like those in Austen, the tenant farmer would be living in a farmhouse owned by the estate, so there would be some kind of 'house rent' element of whatever he had to hand over to his landlord on quarter days?

Also, as we know from the dreadful situation that developed in Ireland in the 19thC, landlords had no legal obligation to keep the farmhouse or farm buildings in good repair - repairs had to be done at the tenants' expense. Also, there was little (no?) security of tenure, and tenants could be kicked out (presumably taking their stock and equipment with them?) and the farm rented to another tenant farmer willing or able to pay a higher rent. (Rackrenting??)

So, coming back to Mr Bennet, if his farm rental income was £2000 a year, and he farmed in the Home Counties (off hand I can't remember where Meryton is, but it's somewhere in the area around London??) (Rosings is in Kent I believe??), then how many farms/acres would he have had to have owned to generate that total in rents?

I hadn't realised that the Bennet girls' £1,000 each capital came from their mother's family only. Given that their were five of them (did Mrs B get to have £1k too?) that would put Mrs B's original portion at £5k (or £6k?), which is a little less than Fanny Price's mother (who married to disoblige her family as Austen puts it!), who had, I believe, £7k as her portion.

I seem to remember in P&P Austen tells us that Mr Bennet knew he 'should' have been making economies, and setting aside a little of his £2k every year to boost his daughters' portions, but kept hoping that he'd have a son, and by the time he'd given up on it (Mrs B became menopausal??) he'd got used to living at the top level of his income and so did not want to live more frugally (shades of Sir Walter Eliot not wanting to retrench in Persuasion!)

In S&S, Elinor and Marianne's father, who also will not be able to leave any of his estate-derived wealth to his daughters, was hoping he could make some money out of the estate (timber??) during his lifetime, to be able to beef up what little his wife and daughters would get.

As an aside, it's only within the last generation or so that widows have had a legal right to claim on their late husband's estate, if he wills it away from her, if she has no other income to support her. A dependent adult child can similarly make a claim for support, irrespective of what his will says.

Speaking of being menopausal, how old was Mrs B do we think? Did she not have any more children after Lydia 15 years earlier because she was menopausal (surely not, or she'd have been quite old when she first married!), or simply she never got pregnant again (or could carry to full term??)

In a way, it's odd that she stopped at 'only' five children, given how many children were not unusual at that era. Of course, we have to allow that Austen needed to have her only daughters, so the threat of the entail could impoverish the family and heighten the drama.

Interesting, in a way, that half of Austen's heroines are seriously 'poor' (Lizzie Bennet, then Elinor Dashwood and then Fanny Price) (by the standards of gentility), and half are 'not poor' (Emma the richest, then probably Anne Eliot, and then Catherine Morland??)

Shana, that £150 threshold is fascinating! In terms of capital, that would require a capital sum of £30k (???).

You mention 300 acres - so would that amount of farmland generate rental income at the same rate, ie £150? Which would then argue that 300 acres would ost £30k to buy outright, ie, £1,000 an acre (is my maths right??!!!)

Given the change in monetary values, how does £1k an acre then (if that is so!) relate to the roughly £10k an acre which, as I say, is about the 'going price' (give or take!) these days.

I suspect monetary values have changed by more than a factor of ten haven't they since Regency times? Which would make land actually more expensive then than it is now? (But then, of course, agriculture is far less important to the national economy than it was then, which may account for it??)

For example, again for those non-UK folk, in the UK, if a field near a town gets planning permission from the local government to build houses, it will soar in value (probably true in the USA as well really!).

I live in a commuter town, and developers are always trying to get planning permission to build on the surrounding fields - they can build houses that can sell for a million pounds, and could probably fit at least two, if not three, such houses per acre!

I don’t think Mrs. Bennet was menopausal; the five children came quite close together, over about 7.5 years. More likely she had some difficulties producing Lydia that precluded future pregnancies, or else Mr. Bennet tired of digging himself a deeper hole and didn’t want to risk having another daughter.

BTW, I think by the Regency it was more 3 per cents and 4 per cents than 5 per cents that people would be invested in, but in any case I don’t think Mr. Bennet had many invested assets; only Mrs. Bennet’s dowry would be secured in that way, as part of the marriage settlements, for the benefit of her children.

I’ve just been reading Shapard’s annotated edition and he discusses these questions quite a bit, which is why some of the details are fresh in my mind.

They were in Hertfordshire, about 20 miles north of London. I’m more familiar with the agriculture of Surrey, so I don’t have much to say about quality of soil or rental rates in their area.

There is mention of the horses being needed on the home farm and of a pasture in front of the house, both of which lead me to think that Longbourn was an old-school manor that derived most of its value from fields and pasturage. Interrupted, gotta go!

In respect of the Coles, I'm going to have to go back to the text I'm afraid (haven't read Emma for a while).

How did they make their money?

In P&P, the Lucases are pretty 'new money' (Caroline Bingley's snide comment about how Sir William 'kept a very good shop')(rich, considering she's only a generation away from the shop herself!), but they socialise with the Bennets.

But then the Bennets are not as 'posh' as either the Woodhouses or the Knightley family, so perhaps it doesn't compare.

I do find it quite extraorindary in a way that there was this kind of invisible 'moat' in a village around those who were considered 'gentlefolk', and those who were not.

What is really weird to my mind is when that moat was breached - ie, by a family who were on the outside, like the Coles, achieving sufficient money and status to be 'allowed in'.

One might think that a family like the Coles, making 'new money' would prefer to move to a completely different part of the country and arrive 'as gentlefolk' rather than be upscaled in their own village. On the other hand, perhaps it was quite gratifying to them to be suddenly (eventually?) 'accepted' by Emma (Queen of Highbury!)

How does Mr Weston compare to the Coles do you think? We know he married above himself, and that the Churchills look down on him, which is why they adopted his son Frank.

I do think Austen shows the actual social fluidity and mobility that was going on at the time, with some folk 'heading upwards' (Mr Weston, the Coles, the Bingleys) and some, sadly, heading downwards (the Eliots, and the sad Bates) (and the Bennet girls, had they not managed to snap up Mr B and Mr D!)

Austen's own family, of course, demonstrates that very fluidity, with her and her sister and mother heading 'down' but her adopted brother very firmly 'up', and then her other brothers making their own way in the world (sometimes to descend again through bankruptcy like banker Henry??)

No wonder she was so keen on selling novels to make money! Had she lived longer, she might have made more money than any of them except the adopted brother!!! (Her heirs certainly would be millionaires if all the Austenalia were still in copyright!!!!!) (think of the film and TV rights alone!!!!!!)

Thank you re 3/4% and Hertfordshire!! And Mrs B's menopause!!!!

As you say, with five daughters, very possibly Mr B had just given up and didn't want to risk any more girls....

I haven’t read Emma for a while either, but it’s interesting to note the differences between Emma’s and Mr. Knightley’s takes on the upwardly mobile Coles and Mr. Weston.

For Emma, a woman, it’s a lot about how you behave in a drawing room. Keeping a shop (long hours) meant you didn’t have much energy left over for education, so your behavior in a drawing room would reflect that. Your wife and daughters might have more opportunity for gentrification, especially if the father was successful early enough to send his girls to a more high-toned school. Mr. Weston seems to have achieved some of the trappings of gentility along the way, so it’s easier for Emma to accept him especially after she singles him out as the companion of her governess’s future life!

For Mr. Knightley, it’s more about how you behave in the community. Everyone with a comfortable income, regardless of class, was expected to volunteer service—as a JP for instance if landed, in the vestry administering the poor rates if not, as mayor, on committees, etc. There are lots of mentions of his engagement with parish and tenantry matters, and if he met Mr. Weston and Mr. Cole regularly in those settings, he would develop a different relationship with them and it would be more arbitrary for him to exclude them on social occasions or fail to respond to their social outreach.

Because the books are written about women’s lives, a lot of the male engagement in the community is in the background; but in Emma it’s a recurrent undertone and part of how Mr. Knightley guides and educates Emma in how she ought to behave toward those around her.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Abigail, could you cross reference please - sounds interesting!

Longbourn is probably at the smallest end permissible to still rate as a 'country house' or 'gentleman's residence' or 'big house' t..."

I do not Charlotte as a Fanny Dashwood. Mr Collins would need no inducement to be ghastlly, though.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I hadn't realised that the Bennet girls' £1,000 each capital came from their mother's family only. Given that their were five of them (did Mrs B get to have £1k too?) that would put Mrs B's origina..."

That is sad. I live in a community property state. I do not think there are more than 10 in the US. All income earned during a marriage belongs to both spouses equally. Nearly all property acquired after marriage belongs to both spouses equally. There are exceptions for noncommunity income, such as inheiritances, However, this can get murky if that inheiritance is deposited in a joint account. As for assets acquired before marriage, that can also muddy the waters. If for example, one spouse purchased the house before marriage and was still making payments on it at the time of marriage, and community funds are used to make payments, pay for upkeep and improvements, the house starts to become community property. If that spouse is a trust fund baby and all payments are made out of the trust, you could avoid that issue. In any community propery state it would have always been extremely difficult to disinheirit your spouse. Community property state also have a lovely thing called the double step-up in basis at death. I know other non CP states have laws against disinheiriting your spouse, and I expect they vary greatly from state to state.

I have been reading Jane Austen and James Herriot since I was 12 or so, so I had a basic understanding of how the tenant farming system works but no idea of the scale. Where I live, 200 acres would be a very small family dairy farm. Robert Martin would clearly not be farming this much without a tractor and other mechanization.
A cranberry marsh would probably be 50 to 100 acres.
The large and prosperous potato and vegetable growers might have 8000 acres. These are all examples of family farms were I live. It varies tremendously on what you produce and where you are on the hierarchy of success.

Thanks everyone for a lovely discussion. Maybe Dr Octavia Cox has a more difinitive answer. If not her, then who?

On what could a man like Mr Bennet spend 2000 a year. He didnt have bad habbits like wickham and Willouby so spend some on houshold and books but that income is large. The dashwood women and real life Austen women lived on 450 (with 2 or three servants no carriage)

The Bennets had at least 12 servants, which would account for several hundred pounds. They have at least 3 horses, a couple hundred a year each to maintain. There would be costs for maintaining the house and the tenants’ cottages, for buying supplies (seed, fertilizer, etc.) for the home farm. Travel was very expensive, though he doesn’t travel much. Clothing for the entire family and the servants. Buying food; Mrs. Bennet keeps a very lavish table. Candles, especially if they use wax candles (and I can’t imagine Mrs. Bennet doing anything else), were very expensive. Books were at least a pound apiece. I suspect Mrs. Bennet was the biggest spending culprit, with her endless shopping and expensive housekeeping.

Lydia is the youngest because they stopped trying. Mr. Bennet lives in his library to avoid Mrs. B's nerves. They aren't sharing a bed anymore.

Considering Lydia spends money on a bonnet she doesn't even like, I don't think we have to wonder where all Mr. Bennet's money went!

The question of how much land you need to form a commercially viable farm is an interesting one, depending, fundamentally, as you say, on the state of soil quality/fertility, water availability and topography (ie, flat/hilly and elevation above sea level)

I would say, rather off the top of my head, that a truly 'grand' estate (eg, a nobleman's) would need to be a good few thousand acres at least of pretty decent farmland?

Estates in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, were pretty unfertile (acid soils, quite far north, and upland), and needed to be far larger (and probably mainly used for shooting and hunting, and left as moorland, though post-war a lot of coniferous forests were planted for quick timber, and a lot of peatland dug up for garden fertiliser - destroying, thereby, unique ecosystems alas)(there is a strong push in the UK for peat-free garden compost, to save what is left of the peatlands.)

In the American west, as in Southern Africa and Australia, estates (ranches!) are measured, I appreciate in square miles, rather than acreage, as soil quality/water is far poorer, and you need more land per head of cattle etc etc. Ranches can be as big as some of our smaller counties!

I really don't know what the minimum viable smallholding would be in the UK, ie, enough to make a living out of. Farmers are very adept at adapting to whatever they can sell at any profit at all - eg, the trend for corn (ie, maize) and rapeseed for oil. Dairy farming is notoriously unprofitable, and milk is very often produced at a loss. Farming is, grimly, often intensive, with pigs and poultry kept indoors, even dairy cows too, sometimes, all their lives.

The culprit is the British obsession with cheap food. We spend far less a percentage of our income on food, compared with historic times, and this has very often been at the expense of animal welfare and soil health.

Ironically, as in the USA, the result has also been a plague of obesity!!!!!

Jan, the whole issue of property within a marriage is a can of very nasty worms indeed! It's SO difficult to make it 'fair' all round.

As we women know, the main culprit is child-rearing. It might be relatively simple, on marriage, to determine what the property and money is of each partner prior to getting married, and say that that is ringfenced as their personal property for the duration of their marriage and thereafter, and it's even relatively simple to say that whatever each partner earns during their marriage, after paying shared costs (mortgage/bills etc) is 'theirs to bank and keep'.

But the moment one partner gives up salaried work to rear children instead, the problems really start. Is a SAHM (Stay At Home Mum) 'living off' her husband's earnings 'for free', or is she earning her own 'child-care salary' paid by him to raise his children and keep his house etc etc.

I, personally, believe that what I either inherit from my parents, or acquire pre-marriage, is mine and only mine, and ditto for my partner, and that what I earn during marriage goes to an equal payment of bills, and the rest is mine all mine (if there's any left of course!). And maybe simply being 'paid' to raise children is the best? Though, of course, if I were high-earning in my career, would I want to take a 'low paid' job like a nanny??

It's really fraught all round.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for the legally binding marriage settlements drawn up in Austen's time!!! Get it sorted BEFORE you marry....let alone divorce!

Abigail, that's fascinating about the Bennet's likely expenses and costs. I hadn't realised that he had £2,000 a year which does seem pretty comfortable, and I hadn't realised they employed at least 12 servants.

That definitely rules out the nonsense about pigs running around the house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, although we know how much income Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy have respectively (£5k and £10k) (well, Mrs Bennet certainly knows!!!!!!!!), do we know what Lady Catherine's income was? We know she spent £600 on her windows (courtesy of Mr Collins!), but would she have had as much as Darcy? I sort of get the feeling she didn't, and that was one of the reasons she was so keen for her daughter to marry Darcy!

Maybe she had around £7k, half way between Mr B and Mr D, though I'm only guessing!!!

"I do not see Charlotte as a Fanny Dashwood. Mr Collins would need no inducement to be ghastlly, though."

No, I agree - don't think anyone could be as bad as Fanny Dashwood, other than her own mother! - but I do think Mr Collins would have felt it his Christian duty to bestow some degree of 'beneficience' on his indigent cousins. He won't have felt guilty at inheriting Longbourn, I'm sure, but I do think he would have felt he 'should' do something for 'the girls'. (Possibly not Lydia, though, as she had so obviously fallen into sin!!!!!)

They aren't sharing a bed anymore
**

That's a very interesting proposition! I could actually see them still doing so, because it's what made Mr B attrracted to her in the first place, and he does call her a handsome woman still from time to time. Bed may be one of the few things that makes their marriage bearable??

Unless, as you say, the risk of yet another daughter kept him away?

We'll never find out from Austen of course!!!

So Beth, community property is a Spanish institution and was initially in the USA in the Southwest in Arizona, New Mexico, California, Texas, and other places of early Spanish settlement. Wisconsin, where I live, was added in the 1980s with a few late comers after that. The theory behind it, in short, is that both spouses contribute equally to the family. Period. You can see this in Hispanic naming when the mother's family name is retained in some fashion.
The stay at home mom or dad's contributions are seen as equally valuable as a salaried spouse. If both spouses work you do not get your "now that I paid my half of the bills, the rest of my salary is mine". It is still joint not separate income. Gifts and inheritances are still YOURS.
In the US, if you file your income taxes married filing separately rather than married filing jointly. the proper way to do so is to still split all wages equally.

While Mr Collins might very well bestow small kindnesses as his Christian duty on Mrs B and unmarried J, E, M, and K he certainly would not on Lydia. He would forget to love thy neighbor commandant because it would be fat better for her to be dead than a stupid idiot who runs off with a cad like Wickham.

Far better, not fat better. Stupid fat fingers and tiny phone keyboards.

I always pictured Mr B adopted a strategy similar to Charlotte Lucas . He spends the day alone in his library and sees Mrs B as little as possible during the day much as Charlotte does with Mr Collins. As for sleeping apart, maybe. Or did they practice withdrawal and other early forms of birth control?

Jan wrote: "As for sleeping apart, maybe. Or did they practice withdrawal and other early forms of birth control?."

No most likely not since marriage was for procreation. It says in the novel that Mr. B pretty much lives in his study and also that Mr. Collins and Charlotte are expecting an "olive branch" at the end of the novel so as of yet, they aren't estranged. Charlotte knows better what she wants and how to manage her silly husband more than Mr. Bennet can manage his wife. He's described as "indolent" which means he doesn't really try.

Even if the official pary line was marriage was for procreation, people liking sex is not new, even if they did not admit it out loud.

Jan, interesting in a way that it is the Hispanic/Spanish prevalence for communal property, as one might think that such a society is likely to be more patriarchal - but perhaps patriarchy is more associated with the Puritans of New England?

It is a fiendishly difficult issue, that of two people melding (or not!) their finances, over decades. The trouble is, it can work well when the couple is happy together, but divorce can cause havoc and be highly unfair in either direction.

I honestly don't think there are any easy answers, even today.

Interesting comparisons between the Bennets and the Collinses. I agree with what you've said, but would point out that it is more important for Charlotte to be able to manage her husband, as the law was weighted so, so, so much in HIS favour. Mrs Bennet was pretty much dependent on Mr B, so he could, in a way, afford to be indolent (especially as he'll not suffer when Mr Collins inherits Longborn as he'll be dead!)

As others have pointed out, he leaves it to his wife to find ways (through marriage) of his own children not being left in a parlous financial condition (and, again, as pointed out here, their portions all come from their mother either!!) Their dad will leave them penniless.

Even if the official pary line was marriage was for procreation, people liking sex is not new, even if they did not admit it out loud.

**
True! I can actually see Mrs Bennet being quite enthusiastic actually, and not prudish either.

Mrs. Bennet was totally Lydia when she was 16 but Mr. Bennet no longer feels anything for her. I think he lost interest long before Lydia was born. Probably after Mary. That would explain her personality because she was neglected by her parents. Jane and Lizzie= the joys of new parenting and hopes for the future; Kitty and Lydia are most like their mother in personality and the spoiled youngest. Mary is the pickle in the middle and unloved by everyone.

I would not say Mary is unloved by Everyone. Jane and Elizabeth surely love her. They are just very close as are Kitty and Lydia. Lydia is completely self-absorbed and shallow and Kitty is outgoing and shares Lydia's interests in parties and social activities. Mr B thinks Mary is silly. which she is, but there is no indication he does not love her. He favors Lizzy because she shares his ability to look at the absurdities and follies of others. He failed to see Mary shared his interest in reading and build on that. It is how he failed Mary in particular and one of the many ways he failed his family.

It would be nice to think that with Lydia gone, Kitty might draw closer to poor Mary, but I don't think it will happen. Kitty will still think Mary boring and tedious, and however unbrainy Mary really is, she has more interest in serious things than Kitty does.

Still Kitty has more to her than Lydia has (who is the ultimate airhead), and I think she is 'salvagable'. Both girls would benefit from being invited to Pemberley, and wherever Mr and Mrs Bingley decide to settle nearby.

Kitty might also be invited by the Gardiners too, and Mrs Gardiner is certainly a good influence.

Are there any 'spare males' in the Austen canon who might possibly be a potential husband to Mary?

Any neglected, despised, and ignored young men anywhere?

I can't think of any offhand alas.

Don't worry about Mary. She ends up with a clerk who works with her Uncle Phillips. It's better than NO husband at all given her situation but not ideal. Kitty spends more time with Jane and Lizzy and less time with Lydia. She ends up with a clergyman. (source:A Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections)

Mary's clerk may be ideal for her. A really nice guy, a less affluent Mr Bingley, kind and caring, a good husband and father. Not a gentleman, but not a lover by ant means. And better than a clergyman. Henry Tinley is the only Austin clergyman with any appeal. Ferrars is a good fit for Elinor, and likeable, but dull. Bertram and Collins may have been typical of their time, but are not big on love thy neighbor, forgiveness, etc,

Not a LOSER by any means.
Henry Tinley

Hard time typing.

That's interesting about Mary marrying a clerk - I think that is the solution of The Other Bennet Sister (started but not yet finished), but does it derive ultimately from JA herself??

She certainly needs someone to actually care about her, and then she can blossom too finally.

As for clergymen, it's difficult these days to see them as romantic heroes (just as Mary Crawford had problems with it!), but of course in Austen's time it was probably a lot, lot less 'religious' and simply more of a 'job' (ie, means of having a decent living, and living as a gentleman).

I'd say, off hand, that Mr Elton is 'worse' than Mr Collins (who I think is a relatively decent chap - he simply feels Lydia is a fallen woman!)(which she is....), and of course, he sucks up to Lady C! Otherwise I'd say he's pretty 'harmless'??

As for Edmund Bertram, he certainly has every right to be extremely angry and hostile towards Henry Crawford, who has ruined his sister's life (however contributory Maria was, HC should have known better - he suffers not at all for his crime!).

And I don't think he need feel much sympathy for Mary either, who exonerates her own brother, and also would be quite happy for Edmund's brother to die so that he, Edmund, could inherit Mansfield Park....

By the way, speaking of Edmund inheriting MP, does anyone know what would have happened had Tom died? I get that Edmund would be next in line to inherit the property, but what about the baronetcy given that he was already ordained (or if he wasn't, let's say he was, for the sake of my question!).??

Could one be both a clergyman and a baronet??

I'm not quite sure one could be 'unordained' - though perhaps one could be? I know one could be defrocked for behaviour unbecoming a man of the cloth etc, but could you give it up voluntarily as well, eg, if you inherited a title instead!

Beth-In-UK wrote: "That's interesting about Mary marrying a clerk - I think that is the solution of The Other Bennet Sister (started but not yet finished), but does it derive ultimately from JA herself??

She certain..."

Beth-In-UK wrote: "By the way, speaking of Edmund inheriting MP, does anyone know what would have happened had Tom died? I get that Edmund would be next in line to inherit the property, but what about the baronetcy g..."

I'm not sure but in some of the novels I've read, the clergyman are also country gentleman with estates of their own and families just as one would normally see. I don't know if one could be a baronet and a clergyman though. I suppose Edmund could have hired a curate to do his duties or passed the living on to someone else. Nothing I've read, fiction or non-fiction, has delved into that. If no one else knows, I'll some digging on the blogs and JASNA and see if it pops up but not tonight.