Which parts of that are from Norton and which are extrapolations? L100,000 seems awfully high - especially since I wonder why Austin, writing contemporarily, would have then written Darcy as a very very rich man with only L10K. Perhaps the L100K refers not to yearly income, but to the base worth of the landowners’ holdings? Then he could raise that sum if necessary, but would really be living on much less. And if he sold everything off to make a fortune, the yearly interest at 4% would be L4,000. If we assumed that the amount of money made in rents and such would be comparable to interest on an invested fortune, that would bump Darcy back up to the head of the class. (However, I know nothing about how this system works, so if that is a ludicrous assumption, consider it withdrawn. I just don’t see how JA could have made such a stupid mistake in drawing Darcy - it doesn’t appear to be done ironically, as the existence of Pemberley attests - he really is supposed to be extremely rich. )
That data comes from historical information - its footnoted as H. Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880 (1969). Its possible the essayist was wrong, but doubtful, as Norton tends to publish only stuff that’s been through the wringer. The article is by David Spring and titled “Interpreters of Jane Austen’s Social World: Literary Critics and Historians” and was published in 1983. Its annual income, not holdings.
My guess is that Austen herself simply didn’t understand how rich really rich was. Her experience was with landed gentry and very minor nobility. So she thought L10,000 would make you one of the richest men in England - having never really come into contact with people who made ten times that. Or that her characters, in calling him one of the richest men in England, were exaggerating.
Consider that Darcy owns a single estate - Pemberley - its a darn nice one apparently, granted. Had he married Miss De Bergh, they would own two estates of similar wealth. It wasn’t uncommon for the very very wealthy to own several estates - holdings in Ireland, Scotland and the New World.
Interesting. Does it say anything about dowries? Georgiana has, IIRC, L30,000. Does that scale with Darcy’s stated income or is that a dowry amount more suited to the L100,000/year set?
It doesn’t, but if we assume Georgiana’s dowry is similar in contract to the Bennett girl’s its possible that that is the sum of her mother’s fortune and passed through the female line. Their mother is the daughter of an Earl, so such a sum wouldn’t be inconceivable. I do recall, but don’t know the source, that a) that arrangement was not uncommon - with fathers who could do so supplimenting the dowry through savings (particularly if there would be multiple daughters - as fortunes split poorly) and the b) it was traditional for a man to use the interest of the dowry to support the family (like Mr. Bennett apparently does) but leave the principal intact for the next generation of women. But it was not unknown for a man like Wickham to marry a woman like Miss King and spend the principal either - leaving her penniless.
I may be wrong here, and please correct if I am, but I thought that Col. Brandon warned Elinor to tell Edward that the living he could provide would NOT be enough for Lucy and Edward to marry, only enough to keep Edward himself gainfully employed and not destitute after the abandonment of his mother. It was intended as a “start” for Edward, and to help the younger man out of his immediate predicament. It actually took further money from a partially-reconciled Mrs. Ferrars to allow Edward to eventually marry Elinor. Although, IIRC, LUCY was somewhat (and falsely as it turned out) ok with marrying Edward on the pittance they’d have with his living from Brandon. Her aunt thought she could economize well even on that little, I believe.
Brandon seemed willing to help Edward, but not to support the marriage outright, which surely must have endeared him to Elinor. It’s a shame she didn’t snag him instead, as others have mentioned. They seemed so much better suited.
–Beck
Col Brandon does not think it will be quite enough to marry on, but Elinor and Mrs. Jennings seem to think it will enable them to marry. Its about L200 a year. Certainly NOT enough for Lucy, but I suspect that Edward would have followed through at that amount.
If Jane Austen’s father pulled down L600, with his family, then it seems that Edward and Lucy might have been able to start out with L200, & perhaps counted on doing better by the time children came along. Happily that did not come about, but it does seem reasonable. I guess one must remember that Col Brandon had quite a bit to live on, did not seem to be concerned at all about his own money (did Jane ever offer up what Brandon pulled in a year?), and was undoubtedly out of touch with what Edward might be able to marry on.
Do you know much about how the various Austen “military men” secured their money? Brandon had an estate as well, but Wentworth did not, nor did his brother-in-law the Admiral. I don’t recall much about Col Fitzwilliam (except the strange line about his being unable to have “considerable patronage” in the church compared to Mr. Darcy, and thus not a good match for Elizabeth) but seems he might have been landed, as well as having his military career.
They must have been paid in lump sums for their duties, and obviously more for higher rank achieved and even possibly “bonused” for heroic performances, but I am just guessing. I hope this isn’t a hijack, just maybe an “add-on”?
–Beck
I believe Col. Brandon had L2000 a year, but will have to dig through some text to confirm that. (I would rather have seen him marry Elinor too.)
L2000 is right.
The sea was a good option - Wentworth would have gotten a portion of the spoils and a lot of men made their fortune on the sea (see the Jack Aubrey books) - but dangerous - lots of men died.
The army worked, I believe, a little differently - less spoils.
Col Fitzwilliams main income would have been money settled on him by his father - similar to a dowry. He would have had his commission purchased (as would Brandon - they didn’t have to work their way up from enlisted men) that would have provided income for as long as he served or when he was called up - it may have provided a stipend when he was not on active duty. Remember that Brandon was a second son, he only inherited Delaford after his brother died - it was intended he’d make his living in the army.
I always figured Fitzwilliam got stuck with Miss deBergh - and therefore inherited Rosings. I feel sorry for him, but figure Anne deBergh isn’t lasting many more winters…
I just found the supporting quotes. In Ch. 14, Mrs. Jennings says “The estate at Delaford was never reckoned more than two thousand a year, and his brother left everything sadly involved.” And later on, when her brother and sister-in-law ask her about the Colonel, Elinor repeats this figure.
From the way Mrs. Jennings speaks of Delaford, I assume that Brandon’s income is mostly from the estate, and little from his army pay.
BTW, Lady Catherine’s last name is spelled de Bourgh.
Thanks, I’ve been listening, not reading - and spelling isn’t my strong point. de Bourgh has never been a strong point for spelling for me. (I leave off or add a t to Bennett randomly as well).
I had to look it up (as long as I had The Compleat Austen in my lap for the S&S references); I knew “de Bourgh” had an O in it, but probably would’ve put an E on the end if left to my own devices. 
I’ve seen both recent versions ( BBC, which is the Holy Grail of P&P, AFAIConcerned, and the Keira Knightley version.)
I love the first, right down to my widdle toes. It is the definiative Pride and Prejudice.
But, what I liked about the KN version was the different Mr. Collins. Truthfully, I cannot decide which little bastard is a better Mr. Collins.
I was so enthralled by the toady BBC version who was condescending and greasy.
But this new Mr. Collins…is righteously priggish and wunderbar distasteful on his own.
Discuss.
And when he was ready to cash out, he would have sold his commission to a younger officer. Army commissions were considered investments that provided retirement income.
Some years ago, friends and I had a P&P marathon, watching the 1990s and 1980s BBC versions and the 1940s film and had questions for discussion–not “the best” of each, since that would be too easy and the Firth/Ehle version would sweep most categories. One of the questions I recall was “Which Mr. Collins could you be prevailed upon to marry?”
I don’t know how this latest incarnation would fit as far as character traits. I picked the one with the least goofy theme music.
Wow, Miss Mapp, I wish I could be invited to some of your parties! That sounds like it was a blast!
I’m seriously late to the party. I finally rented P&P 2005 and thought that it was awful. The subtleties and the charm that made the A&E version so delightful were missing here. They managed to squeeze in the entire story, but didn’t leave sufficient time to allow a relationship to unfold between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. His proposal was supposed to come out of the blue, yes, but it was too jarring in the 2005t version. In the far superior A&E version, we see Elizabeth and Darcy interacting more and can sense the softening of their prejudices. (Until Elizabeth learns about his interference with Mr. Bingley and Jane.)
I strongly disagree that Austen should have married Mr. Collins off to Mary. That union would have been a union of equals marrying for common interests. The point of Charlotte marrying him was that she found him repugnant, yet agreed to marry him because of her precarious economic reality. It contrasted greatly with Lizzy’s refusal of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy, even though she was in a similar economic situation. She would not compromise and that’s what makes her a great heroine.
After rereading this, I began to wonder if Mr. and Mrs. Bennet couldn’t have adopted a son. I know that in other Austen novels there are young men, presumably orphaned gentlemen and second sons, who are in positions to inherit. Couldn’t they have bought themselves an heir?
StG
For me, the seemingly forgotten 1980’s version always prevails.
Best Elizabeth, best Darcy, best Bingley, best Mrs. Bennet, best music.
The sets are not lush, the costumes not sumptuous. But Austen’s dialogue sparkles; the acting completely envelopes the viewer into the P&P world.
Possibly forbidden by the entail. Austen’s brother was adopted by the Knights and inherited an estate, but its likely in this case that option wasn’t available to Mr. Bennett. Or its just as likely they didn’t exercise it because it makes a much better book with the entail in place.
Lisa, I agree that its much better literature to have Mr. Collins marry Charlotte. I just feel slightly sorry for him, Mary and Charlotte. Although Charlotte does make the best possible decision for her situation - economically if not romantically. Mary and Mr. Collins might have been happy - they would have made the people around them miserable, but they might have been happy. Austen is as much about making the wrong marriage as the right one, though, and her humor often comes from the interaction of a man and woman who did not marry from similar character - but married because of beauty or wealth. My favorite are the Palmers from Sense and Sensibility - both of them really decent people (takes a while to discover Mr. Palmer is a decent guy, but he is), but so mismatched.