There’s a language of horses and carriages that are totally lost on modern audiences, but would have been readily apparent to regency period readers. For example, Lady Catherine tells Lizzie, “If you can stay two weeks complete, I can take you as far as London in the barouche box.” This may seem like generosity, but not really. A barouche is a formal carriage with two seats facing each other in back. These seats are lower, and can be covered against the weather. The box is a seat much higher up in the front for the driver to sit. So in telling Lizzie she can be on the box, sitting up with the hired help, exposed to weather and public eyes, she’s telling Lizzie she’s not on her level. It’s an example of Lady Catherine’s backhanded generosity.
@Jonathan Parks yep, they're right that it was a sign of Lady Catherine's backhanded generosity, but it wasn't quite as gauche as making Lizzie sit where the lady's maid was supposed to sit
Thank you so much for sharing your instructions. I retired and now have time to read. My son died of brain cancer at 36 years. His true love was literature. He would sit with me and discuss books, give me tips just like this. I lost so much with his death and today listening to you gave me such comfort. I do have all his notes funderline along with his very large library he left. I will follow what you taught me today. Thank you again and best wishes.
I am so sorry about your son. Reading this post, however, reminds me of the timeless power of stories, both the stories that your son (and you and I) love as well as his own life story. Keep in touch and happy reading:)
I agree with the "don't search for deep meaning at first" comment, and I was an English teacher for 16 years. We kind of kill children's interest in reading by forcing them to analyze everything to death. When I was young, reading for pleasure, I cared about the characters and the plot, period. When you're first getting into something, that's quite enough.
I feel this especially hard having been a student in the UK, because my experience a few years ago was that we weren't even being taught to do the analysis ourselves. We were just kind of told 'these specific points are what you should be taking from the text, parrot them back in your exam' - and imo that not only removes the opportunity to feel interest in the story for entertainment's sake, it misrepresents what literary analysis is actually *supposed* to be, and denies kids even the chance to form a genuine interest in it.
The best English prof I ever had (I was a major) insisted we read Shakespeare out loud! He said the words were never written to be read silently. Amazing what a difference it makes in understanding the plays! The entire class would catch on at the same time and we’d go back and RE-READ with our new found comprehension! It was magic!!! WE were getting it ON OUR OWN not being spoon fed someone else’s ideas! When my kids were learning THE BARD I’d have us all read aloud at home. It makes a HUGE difference!!!!
@@robinholbrook6576 I find Shakespeare out loud difficult to follow. I'm lulled by the sound of the language. But I can read it just fine. I've often heard just what you said and we also read out loud in class. But I gleaned more reading at home alone.
Speaking of Funderlining, my favorite line in all of Jane's work is in Sense and Sensibility: Elinor's future BIL is yammering on about how he loves a country cottage and Jane writes: "Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." Great put-down!
Was going to add that, it's a part of the estates inheritances laws, which would have been made by an ancestor of theirs to keep it in their family. Probably by someone that forgot sometime only girls happen, and no fosight into if you inherit the property, you also have to see to the affairs of your inherited family (like housing, dowries etc...) no completely and utterly not thinking about that situation. Though it does make we wonder what stops sons from kicking out their sisters and mothers once they inherit?
Very good. One detail: Elizabeth's father did not create the entail on the estate. It had probably been set up a few generations back. He just assumed they would have a son. He is a lovely character but a bit negligent and even mentions that he should have made some provision for his daughters--perhaps investing? Jane Austen had 2 brothers in the Navy. Another reminder that this placid-seeming society was at war for most of its existence. Persuasion introduces us to naval officers. Who were rewarded for capturing "prizes"--a way to become rich. Or, at least, able to support a family in comfort.
I don't even understand how anyone who read the book wouldn't know this, much less someone who is explaining the book in a video! There is discussion right in the beginning of the book stating that Mr. and Mrs. Bennett were so sure they'd have a son, that they didn't even attempt to save money in case it didn't happen. Moreover, it's stated that Mrs. Bennett stubbornly refuses to understand how an entailment works, no matter how many times her daughters try to explain it to her. She is resentful that Mr. Collins will inherit the estate. As you said, Mr. Bennett didn't and wouldn't have entailed the estate away from his daughters. It's presented as a condition that is beyond anyone's control.
I remember reading on some Jane Austen fansite that the entail had to be renewed annually. So, I assume that Mr. Bennet always did this thinking he would eventually have a son, who would eventually break the entail when he came of age at 21.
More information on entails here. Important in Jane Austen and also Downton Abbey. Where there was a title, always going to the next male heir. And the money supporting the estate, apparently set up as an entail when Cora, with her American fortune, married into the family. Of course there would be a son! Inheriting titles is pretty standard, with some Scotswomen allowed to inherit a title. But entails came in many varieties.l www.google.com/amp/s/janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-fee-entail-in-pride-prejudice/amp/
It is so interesting to hear a guy talk about these books, as all the friends I have who read them are ladies as myself, thank you very much for your insight!
I love discussing Austen with blokes. I've read all of her novels a minimum of five times. It's interesting that she was extremely popular with World War One trench soldiers.
as another "guy" I will confess to having read the book and watched of the movie. And fyi, unlike the video "presenter" I was never a literature major, actually a science geek. The '85 version by the BBC is outstanding, though the movie with Keira Knightly was great too because, well, it was Keira Knightly (proof that yes, I'm all guy).
The Prince Regent himself liked Jane Austen's novels. And Gilbert Ryle, an important philosopher from the mid-twentieth century, when asked if he read novels, is said to have replied, "Yes, I re-read all six every year," referring to Jane Austen's novels.
I get the sense that Charlotte's marrying Mr Collins was a combination of ensuring her future, and just maybe that of her friends the Bennet sisters and their mother, if the former did not marry well. And Longbourne would have lapsed to Mr Collins anyway whether Lizzie married Darcy and Jane married Bingley, or not, on Mr Bennet's death. So Charlotte in a way would get Longbourne, likely keeping on the Bennets, if she sweet-talked Collins.
I don't think there's any reason to think Charlotte would want to keep the Bennets on. The Lucases are a large family and as Mrs Bennet notes, the day after the engagement they're already measuring for new drapes. What Charlotte is really doing by swooping in on Mr Collins is a little social climbing. Mrs Bennet and Mary are lucky Elizabeth and Jane are marrying well enough to keep them, if Mr Bennet predeceases them.
Actually Charlotte’s only hope of marrying, as at 27 she was already well over the marriageable age. A woman had no future unless she married, which is why marrying was such a grimly pursued goal. She took her chance n desperation, at least she would have a respectable home and security.
@@ladynataliemarie7780 No. The executor would probably be some law company into whose trust the entail would have been put. Mr Bennet was the beneficiary. He inherited it but it was a condition of his inheritance to produce a male heir to whom he could pass it on. He obviously tried many times, he had five daughters but gave up after that. On his death, his son would have moved into the house and the girls would have either lived in the house or been given cottages on the estate, supported by their brother had they not married. The other thing Bennet could have done was to move to a smaller place, rent out Longbourn and save money and invest so that his family would have a more secure future. It is possible he didn't do that because his wife couldn't even understand the principle of an entail, so would not have understood that it was not the best strategy for his family to live like landed gentry with such low financial resources to back them. It seems that he was a nice chap who married foolishly, liked his library and didn't plan much.
Mr. Bennet married for money. Mrs. Bennet had twice his income. It's made much of in the book how different their two characters are, and said once that she had been very appealing in her youth, but I don't doubt that money was his primary interest.
I am so glad Jay respects Mrs Bennett's concerns in the book. yes, she is not the most sensible character but she comes from a different background to her husband and he frankly is not looking out for their daughters futures.
@Jonathan Parks I don't disagree with this, and you can almost see a splitting of means and ends between the parents. Mr. Bennett is clearly the more intelligent of the two, but is frankly lazy (probably due in no small part because of his intelligence). Mrs. Bennett has a lot of energy and knows what her family needs, but as you point out is terrible at execution of this.
@Jonathan Parks I disagree with your first remark, and offer an explanation for the second. But first, let me copy and paste a quote from the book. Mrs. Bennet: When you have five daughters, Lizzie, tell me what else will occupy your thoughts, and then perhaps you will understand. ... A daughter's future is made by her marriage, and it is up to a mother to ensure that she secures the best place she possibly can.” Mrs Bennett, being bitterly aware that she produced no male heirs, is worried that her eldest will never marry which may in turn sour future husbands for the rest of the girls. Though we only have a snapshot of her in the books' window of time; I think it's reasonable to conclude, as evidence by the previous quote, that everything she does is in an effort to ensure that her girls have a secure future and protection. I see no idiocy in that. Since it's a small community of class, no doubt all other single eligible males are either recently married, too young, or unfit by either class or fortune. Thus leaving these five girls in a very precarious position, with no respite in sight. Much of this novel seems to be told from Lizzy's perspective. And as such I think it's important to remember that she's not much older than 15, and as we all know 15 to 20 something year old girls are eternally embarrassed by their parents, especially by their mother's antics. It's very possible that everything that Mrs. Bennett does is being seen thru that filter. If her behavior were truly socially unacceptable, no doubt the family would be snubbed socially. Now for the second. Mrs. Bennett is simply seeking a proper union as what befits their status. Plus, what parent doesn't delight in the ability to embarrass their children over exceptionally mundane things? And who's to say that driving those others off wasn't intentional? All you have is a teenage girl's inexperienced impression of her mother. My own daughter wanted to crawl in a hole and die when I made her stand beside me when we returned an item to the store. I was trying to teach her how to do it but she couldn't set past the cute guy at the counter. It was hilarious. I hope all of this makes sense. It's 4 am, I've got insomnia, and ADHD... so focusing hard even this long is tough. 🙂
@Jonathan Parks I would have to agree with your assessment here. Her goals and anxiety are certainly understandable, but her methods betray a lack of awareness and maturity. Another telling quote regarding her character flaws is the sad and touching line from Mr. Bennet to Elizabeth as he tries to be sure of her love and respect for Darcy: "Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child, let me not have the grief of seeing YOU unable to respect your partner in life. You know not what you are about." He may not be a perfect father, certainly. But, I always found this line moving as he tries to ensure that Elizabeth's marriage is happier than his own has been.
I forget that especially young people may not be aware of how different society was in the past. I the reason why I love reading books written in the past it’s because they are an entertaining way of learning social history without having to read a boring history book. Honestly, most of what is explained in this video can be gleaned from the book itself. The big problem most modern readers have is that they approach Jane Austen’s books believing they are romance novels. They are not. They are social satire.
Social satire to a degree. But no-one mentions the political situations. Napoleon Buonaparte, the French Revolution, battles, wars, or social stuff. Were they so shallow? Or was it all winnowed by Jane Austen, being considered too boring, or trivial to put into the characters' conversations.
I actually have never thought of Austen's works as being about marriage. I've always thought of them as being commentary on society and on the financial stress that women in particular were under. Financial stress and the lack of freedom to direct one's own destiny.
I hear you. I ALWAYS resist looking at texts according 1 idea of theme. I hear you. I was just making a point about how this concern is important in this novel Thanks!
I think you are quite right. Jane Austen writes about - among other things - the lives and concerns of unmarried women throughout their from the Bennet sisters to Miss Bates (as examples). She would have understood these concerns from her own life.
Jennifer Ehle played Elizabeth Bennett in the BBC miniseries or "Pride and Predudice". I think hers is the best interpretation and performance of the role. Ehle has graciously recorded a video reading of the novel which is available on TH-cam.
The 1995 adaptation is the best by a mile and Jennifer Ehle is lovely as Elizabeth. But I have to say that I was mesmerized by Elizabeth Garvie’s performance in the lack luster 1980 adaptation as well. The only problem I ever had with Jennifer’s portrayal was that it was obvious that she wasn’t keen on Darcy at all so his marriage proposal makes it look like he’s the epitome of arrogance without any awareness (which I love as she utterly destroyed him with her rejection). Garvie was more subtle, but don’t get me wrong, the 1980 version is just lack luster with many stilted and cringeworthy theatrical performances. Can’t hold a candle to 1995.
I like the 1995 miniseries too! It was exactly how I pictured it in my mind ( with the costumes and the houses etc) and they (thankfully), stuck closely to the book!
While I agree that Jennifer Ehle's interpretation is the best, we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that Elizabeth was 20. Jennifer Ehle was 28 at the time and looked it!
@@michaelodonnell824 agree - Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslett also has similar problem with ages of actresses vs ages of characters
Timestamps: 1:10 The Regency Era 3:20 Soldiers EVERYWHERE 5:16 Regency Economy 6:18 Who should one marry at this time? 8:15 What did people read? 11:05 What is a gentleman? 12:22 What is ENOUGH money? What is wealth? 13:25 4 key terms of MONEY and INHERITANCE 19:08 What is a vicar and what is a "living"? 21:37 common challenges to P&P/some reading tips 25:33 Works cited
When I first started reading P&P, I couldn't get past the formal complexity -- dryness, it seemed then -- of the first few sentences. The next time I read a little further -- that first conversation between Mr and Mrs Bennet -- and realised that this novel was witty, humorous. I proceeded to read the rest of the novel voraciously. i was about 15 or 16 at the time. Jane Austen had an eye for the silliness, oddity, humour of everyday life. She loved to laugh at folly. I was hooked.
Funny, my experience was very similar! I had to read it when I was 16 as it was a set text for English class at school. I struggled through it, getting caught on the archaic language. Didn't grasp the humour. Resented having to analyse it. A few years later after finishing school, I picked it up again. Loved it! I "Got" it then, like I hadn't before. Found it much easier and more enjoyable to read.
This was my first experience and I stopped reading after Chapter 20. Picked the book up yesterday and bursted out by Mr. Bennet's conversation with his wife: "I have a high respect for your nerves. They have been my best friend."
This is a tremendously useful presentation in my opinion. I'm no longer a critical reader of Jane Austen - she's an old friend now and great fun - but this is the sort of background information which makes the characters understandable, rather than seeming like silly, lightweight ciphers performing in an inexplicable pantomime.
Think you might have explained a bit more about how clergy depended on their patrons for their livings. This is a really big thing in Jane Austen. Each parish had a patron, who could be the Bishop or an Oxford or Cambridge College ( who used them to give jobs to their graduates) but most often it was the local aristocrat or squire. He had the right to "present someone to the living " , that is choose who would get the job as vicar and he could also make and break you as a clergyman. Sometimes local squires who were patrons had a younger son who was trained up and then given the living , but sometimes they gave it to a distant relative or a protege. Clergy who received such a living had to be careful not to say or do anything to antagonise the patron. This explains Mr Collins fawning around Lady Catherine, who was his patron and also the great anxiety around getting a living that is found in other Austen novels. With a clergyman father and clergy brothers , she knew all this very well.
Great point. I had about 90m more of notes but didn't want the presentation to go too long. Maybe in a future one, this will be a focus? Thanks for the feedback:)
@@missbeans That's really kind. Right now I am researching for a book I hope to write on teaching the Odyssey in the 21st Century. I have an Odyssey playlist of videos (including a preview of each chapter). (th-cam.com/play/PLfvrwGYLgbipGcDmahXugOlVKwnhx3A3S.html) I wouldn't mind someday doing more of a deep dive into each chapter of P&P. Thanks for the suggestion:)
I'd recommend reading an annotated version of any Jane Austen novel. It really helps provide context and explains the cultural aspects that we would not understand today.
For sure. No English literature class I had in college can hold a candle to this presentation. So useful, clear and accessible. There are tons of interesting videos about Jane Austen on You Tube. Don't miss Lucy Worsley videos about Jane Austen's homes. She travels around England showing all those mansions. It's a privilege to be able to watch all this at home, and practically for free.
I agree! I wish my English teachers would give historical backgrounds to a novel. I remember reading Wuthering Heights in AP English (back in the “90’s) and I didn’t know what a “moor” was.
I don’t think Jane Austen was much into symbolism or metaphor or that sort of lofty stuff, I’m my experience. She was more straightforward and grounded. I, for one, find it refreshing.
@Jonathan Parks I would agree. Everytime I reread her work, I find something new I never noticed before, such as when Mrs. Norris and Dr. Grant argue at the dinner table over an apricot tree in Mansfield Park. The symbolism of Mrs. Norris being like a tree full of bad fruit was delicious to perceive.
The dowry was essential for getting married. When the woman was widowed, the dowry reverted to her for her own income. This is why a widow of a nobleman was called a dowager. Marriage was so important that after a woman was widowed, she was actually called the widow Smith instead of Mrs. Smith.
I don't remember Mr. Collins breaching the etiquette of dancing three times with anyone. He does make faux-pass by approaching Mr. Darcy (who is of higher social standing), and introducing himself, when it should be the other way around.
In "Downton Abbey", the estate was entailed to a male relative (Patrick Crawley who died on the Titanic) and then had to go to another male relative: distant cousin Matthew Crawley, not to eldest child, Last Mary, and I believe THAT was likely set up before Lord Robert inherited Downton and no court in England would change it. What a headache when a family had no male heirs
I did some reading on that and the estate actually could have gone to Mary but it would have taken literally an act of parliament which is apparently not as absurd as it sounds but would have been extremely unusual and a bit difficult
3:53, Becoming a soldier doesn't make a gentleman and were generally scums. Those who bought commissions were those who become officers and officers make a gentleman.
At some periods soldiers were scorned, in other times they were honored. Sorry, I can’t tell you precisely when/why but the officers who defeated Napoleon would have been more likely to be respected - until there were too many of them and they became a source of social unrest.
@@TheSuzberry Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, Hero of Spain and Waterloo, once said, "The conscription calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son - all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very scum of the earth… people talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really Is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." suggesting that the British Army were nothing but beggars and scums and when seen action, they become heroes, and then later, they revert back to being scums and so forth; which was his remark after his soldiers ravaged Vittoria after winning it. Almost just like what you're trying to say, I believe?
Generally , officers came from the gentleman class . usually it was the second or third son whose colors were bought as that usually was the only financial sustenance that was his . Perhaps a small remittance was added as an inducement to behave and try to make his own way and marry well enough so as not to embarrass the family or his regiment . in some cases , it was regimental orders that a young gentleman stay single until he was a major .
The third time I read P&P I became appalled by Mr. Bennet. He is the model that his two youngest daughters followed. Off topic: It wasn't until my 3rd reading that I realized that there weren't any railroads. Railroads became one of the identities of the Victorian Age and the Industrial Revolution; realizing this was before railroads helped give background to what I was reading. The 3rd reading was also the first time I was able to place this historically, between the two Napoleonic wars. Returning to Mr. Bennett: He has no interest in anyone's comfort than his own. Although not talkative, when he does speak he is as rude as his wife and as uncaring for the results. He delights in disturbing his wife and daughter's plans and expectations. He takes no responsibility for the future. When a crisis hits and he is helped, he sounds good (the debt to his brother must be repaid) but soon very comfortably lapses back into caring only for himself. That Lydia should give no thought to what her "running away" unmarried with Wickstrom meant to her own future and her sister's wellbeing is an exact mirror of her father's behavior. He makes no effort to curb and correct his wife and daughters. (Poor Mary. I'm a middle child too, and turned to books and became unsociable.) Once you start thinking of him and his familial relationships, these characteristics leap out.
Thanks! Best explanation! I've read this book several times and overlooked this simple fact... And Mary is very lonely in this family - the parents, Lizzy/Jane and Kitty/Lydia. And in same danger like Charlotte, if there is no second "Mr. Collins"...
@Vera Mae - I see Mr. Bennet a little differently. He seems to me to be a man who has just given up. I think he was someone who tried at the beginning of his marriage - otherwise, I don't think Jane and Elizabeth would have grown up to be so sensible and caring about others. There was supposed to be a son, so he didn't think about saving money until it was really too late to do anything about it. By the time we meet him, I think he had realized several years before that all the decisions he had made were mistakes that couldn't be rectified, and he gave up and retreated into himself as much as he could. But, I definitely agree with Lady Catherine in that he should have insisted on a governess for his daughters! Maybe that would have helped with them, anyway.
Yes, Mary was stuck between two older sisters and two younger ones. She became her own person because she was basically forgotten by her mother. She was also the plainest looking but didn't seem bothered by it like the others would have been. Singing and playing piano was NOT her skill though.
This video lifted the veil on my own life and made me understand the experiences of my grandmother whose parents had 12 daughters and one son who died at a young age, and my mother who was one of four daughters.
WOW! Thanks for sharing. I think of my grandmother (who was a mom-figure AND hero of mine). She had no choices and needed to leave school at 12 to care for her family after her mom died. Anyway - thanks for the feedback.
change comes slowly - my mother was born in 1939 - she was their first child and my grandparents expected a son - so much so that they only had a boy’s name picked out - when they were introduced to their daughter - they were so disappointed that they left her with a feminine version of “her anticipated brother’s name” = Elma Georgina = have always wondered what kind of fella Elmer George would have been
P&P is one of those great books that has so many layers, both as you learn more about the Regency Era AND as you look at each individual character and how first impressions hide the true colors in so many ways.
Traditionally, though not exclusively, sons inherited property and daughters inherited cash. This is how an entail worked. If the father had the money and property, he was legally under no obligation to support his heir as a gentleman. The testator (or money possessor) could form a contract with the heir, agreeing to give the heir an allowance on the condition that the heir agreed to keep the estate intact as a single property and not divide it up among any other children or heirs. The heir agreed to pass the estate in its entirety to the next heir and so on. If the estate produced enough cash, then the possessor could use that money to endow other children. Also, money that the wife brought in could be used for the benefit of her children. Originally, estates could be entailed over indefinite generations, but legal challenges limited them to the grandson or great grandson of the heir in question so five generations at most. Since the entail was formed to protect the interests of the heir, they also worked the other way around. The possessor (the one who had inherited the estate but who wasn't the testator), could agree with the heir to end the entail. That is what Mr. Bennet planned to do. He would arrange with his son to end the entail and then he could use the money from the estate to make portions for his daughters. The problem arose when he and Mrs. Bennet had no son. The next person in line for the property, by the law enforcing the contract of the entail, was Mr. Collins.
"These jobs were funded by the parish" you stated. This would have been a good moment to point out that everyone was REQUIRED by law to *tithe* to the church, and many vicars were ruthless about collecting their tithe without thought to anyone's circumstances. "Caring for the poor" and other duties were often neglected if it interfered with the vicars income and lifestyle. The tithe, by the way, was only one of the high taxes common people were required to pay.
I have just finished listening to my first Jane Austen novel and so, while this video was recommended a bit too late for me, it did help me understand the world of Pride and Prejudice even better. From your description of the era in which the book is set, and especially the position women held, Austen seems even more progressive than I initially thought. I was aware women weren't held to much regard in that era, but was unaware of just how much restrictions were placed on women and lovers. This has made me love the book even more. As for the slow pacing of the story (which I didn't even realize as I was so engrossed in the characters themselves), I love romance to be more slow-burn than instant passion, while the latter can be rewarding sometimes. I love the fact that we are made aware of Mr. Darcy's growing attraction and affection towards Elizabeth in a short enough time and their each interaction left me smiling ear to ear. Especially in the latter part of the book when and after Mr. Darcy confessed his feelings to Elizabeth and even before that when he came to visit Elizabeth at the Collins'. I am grateful that I was still wearing a mask because their interactions felt so natural, and I was smiling so much that it would be embarrassing if someone saw me. In the end, I apologize if my comment was a jumbled mess of thoughts or if it sounds too pretentious. I am still riding the high of falling so much in love with a book that I feel to have lived the life of the characters themselves and that means I can neither control the rapid thoughts swirling in my mind nor can I truly separate myself from the world enough to write as my normal, casual self.
Actually, there were many diaries and books written by the soldiers and officers in the Peninsular War of the Regency. If you look into the works of Georgette Heyer - called "the poor woman's Jane Austen" - she puts in many of the details that you didn't know when you first read Austen. For some of her books, Heyer did a lot of research into the writing of the soldiers and, in some, added a bibliography at the end.
Love Georgette Heyer. Read them years ago in the 1950s and 60s. Still go back to them occasionally. She also wrote a number of very enjoyable mysteries.
@@paulaprice493 : OMG! Another Georgette Heyer fan! You read them back in the day when she was writing them. I started in 1976-1977 when I lived in a tiny town in northern Minnesota and the mobile library stopped in front of my house. I was snowed in and also pregnant. Her books were a great escape.
@@susanmercurio1060 I was living in Toronto Canada. My library bookmobile came on Saturday but it was maybe a half mile away. I so looked forward to it. Georgette Heyer was a big part. And Agatha Christie. And lots of historical novels. Then I would go to the encyclopedia to find out what really happened.
@@paulaprice493 : I don't care for mysteries much, but I used to go to the library to find out what really happened, too (that was after I moved to the Twin Cities). Only I looked up the books she listed in the bibliography, if any (An Infamous Army). Or other historical non-fiction books. P.S. I lived in northern Minnesota and the bookmobile stopped right in front of my house! That's how I became familiar with Georgette Heyer: browsing for books to get through the winter.
Truly excellent. I’ve seen everything that is about Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice, and your analysis, unlike most, really brings something different to the discussion.
Considering that Elizabeth had no prospects apart from marriage, it is shocking that she rebuffed both Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy. Men married for the sake of an heir but that was not the reason women married. A gentlewomen had no other option. Even were she born into great wealth, marriage was a necessity to maintain social standing. Women were a liability in themselves and an asset only in their capacity to birth an heir or if there was some property attached. Given Elizabeth's contrary attitude it is astonishing that she hit the jackpot with love and looks and wealth.
The fact that she and Jane were considered local beauties and "belles" might explain her confidence. Otherwise, she would live with her mother in more or less poverty.
I think she inherited the trait for ignoring uncomfortable truths from her father who never seems concerned about the future of his daughters at all, until Lydia was actively destroying her whole family’s reputation. But as the title suggests, she wasn’t only prejudiced (just like Darcy) but also had a lot of pride and the proposals from Collins and Darcy were so condescending, she just couldn’t ignore such insult. I admire her poise during the rejection scenes, especially hers of Darcy in the 1995 adaptation. An absolute Queen 👑.
Mister Bennett didn't Entail his property to his nearest male relative.The Entail was there from the beginning.It was originated by one of his Ancestors.Mister Bennett can't do anything about it.
@@paulaprice493 Apparently it could not be changed. I watched the first season of Downton Abbey, and that was all about the entailment of the huge, wealthy estate and mansion. The leader of the family has no son, and when he dies a cousin will get the estate through entailment. And the daughters need a wealthy husband to avoid becoming poor when the father dies. The characters are upset about the entailment, but apparently it cannot be revoked or changed, the law was the law, it seems. I have not seen the rest of the episodes, so I do not know how it ends. But there was a lot of concern about the daughters and their need for a husband. I suppose the series was inspired by Austen, or perhaps that sort of issue is common for novels and films about English society.
@@paulaprice493 Yes the Entail is for perpetuity. Unless there is no male heir, then Mister Bennet can do whatever he likes with the property. But in this case there is a male heir, Mister Collins
@@paulaprice493 Entails tended to protect the core landholdimg from beimg gambled away or lost via speculative investment usimg the land as collateral. Gambling was extraordinarily foolishly done by young heirs but an entail protected the core asset for future generations. Bank of England was created to protect England against a king's reckless spending.. it funded a war without giving the cash direct to the king...
The first time I read this was when I was I turned 9 in 2009 and she gave a copy to me and my sister and the cover looked so pretty so I tried to read it but I didn’t understand any of it so I stopped reading but then for my 10th birthday in 2010 my mother bought me the 2005 movie and after I watched it I finally understood it and now I love it!!
Oh please don’t associate this amazing book with the 2005 movie. That movie might have been good on its own, but was nothing like the book. It was fundamentally different and had huge errors regarding culture and the over all time period.
@@oldageisdumb well at that time when I got the movie I was only 10 and I never knew how inaccurate the movie was I just knew that it helped me understand the book better which was nice! 😂 in my opinion I love the movie! But I agree that the book is so much better!!
@@emilym8530 hi Emily. I hope you’ve had a chance to watch the 1995 Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth version of the movie. It’s excellent and much closer to the book.
Hi, I have enjoyed your commentary. As you state, Mr Bennet had an annual income of £2,000 which was a lot of money in 1813. Although some of the gentry had small estates of several hundred acres, it is probable that Longbourn was bigger. In 1832, for example, Meldon Park, provided an income from rents of £2,199 per annum and was 2,070 acres in extent. (The information on Meldon Park comes from a thesis I found online).
Great video, I’m in the middle part of reading pride and prejudice and this is such a huge help in understanding the context of the time and what it means to live in 19th century England. I got confused on reading it at first because of my unfamiliarity of Jane Austen and her formal way of writing but thank god I persisted because this is one of the best novels I ever read.
Reading historical fiction is somewhat like reading science fiction or fantasy. You cannot approach it from a modern viewpoint. You cannot approach it from your own cultural viewpoint. The rules are different. The culture is different. The technology is different. You have to allow the book to tell you about the rules of that world, and you have to immerse yourself in it.
Most definitely agree. Another era is like another culture - if you are going to travel there, you must respect their conventions and refrain from projecting your own. 'When in Rome . . .'
As a freshman in college, at a young age, it is usually because we are not mature enough, and frequently we have our minds on some flighty things. Often by the 3rd year, we start to develop a lot more academic maturity.
This has me thinking about how the Bennett sisters were raised, vs. the standard of the time. Lizzie's phrases "such masters as were needed," and "those who chose to be idle, certainly might," almost make it sound like 'unschooling.' And the fact that Lizzie and Mary are the only ones who play piano almost suggests that Lizzie was taking piano lessons around the time Mary realized that her role in the family was becoming "the plain one," and latched on to music as an opportunity to become "the accomplished one," instead. This also raises the question of "taste," in Austen/Regency terms, and how exactly people determined whether any given thing was tasteful or not. _Why_ were there correct and incorrect ways of admiring a landscape? Are Mary's song choices disapproved because they don't suit her vocal range, because they accompany less decorous dances, or because Irish/Scottish music was viewed as provincial?
I appreciate this reflection so much. I teach mostly privileged young men and while the Bennett sisters seem privileged to the modern reader, we know that they are one death away from homelessness. The issues of taste can also be an obstacle to my students (I mean, who REALLY cares about THIS kind of dress or THAT kind of song?) - they think that until they realize that they are no different. They too carefully choose what to wear on first dates and college interviews, they too carefully curate different spotify playlists for different purposes. Anyway, thank you again!
Interestingly, I understood all those estate and income issues when I read it for the second time in my teens. You see, my family is liberal and there are laws to give equal inheritance to women. But my extended family is orthodox and if not legal, then unofficially they follow these entailment and dowry laws . I've heard all my childhood about my female cousins being married off with huge dowries and aunts being on mercy of their husbands for income. So, it parallels one part of society and it helped me understand the brevity of Mrs Bennett's desperation.
Fantastic examples of how to enjoy and truly experience Austen. When I became interested in developing a deeper understanding of early 19th century literature having an idea of the customs/ rules/ regulations of the Regency period was a solid foundation to begin with. Jane Austen, in my opinion, was one of the finest writers in the world. To better understand I began with listening while reading. That proved to be invaluable. Here's to the best of the best, the one and only Jane Austen. ( I named my basset hound Jane Austen. We call her Austen 🐾🥰)
As a Swedish student with ADHD - this helped immensely with my work about this book. I had a hard time reading the book but listened to the audio version. This helped with looking at the social structures and its influence on the novel. Thank you thank you thank you!!!
Dropped two comments and here's another: I don't remember if I was reading history or scifi that the author wrote the society had never invented primogeniture, a lack which severely damaged forward progress. Primogeniture creates "capital", a lump of cash, land and other resources which can be used in investments. Investments which gather into banks and financial institutions that funds explorers, building ships, roads, buying horses, making things, all the resources a society needs. Larger farms are much more productive than small farms, for example. All this increases wealth for the whole society. Infinitely divided, with each son / child getting an equal share, eventually leaves everyone poor.
I'm so pleased to have stumbled across your channel! Please do more videos about P&P, a chapter by chapter analysis like you've done for the other texts on your channel 🙏
@@jaypawlyk3020 I've never read Homer, so I'm interested to see if I can relate to his writing. Austen is my absolute favourite though. I love to hear John Mullan enthuse about her genius 😂
Maybe as a man, (and you guys are ALWAYS competing with each other) can't see that Darcy DIDN'T just win the genetic lottery. Running/Managing an Estate, The Staff, Their livelihoods The tenants, and The Properties they live in, plus The family, including ANY lady dependents, was an enormous amount of WORK and responsibility. Depending on the Estate we're talking about Darcy and other Gentlemen like him would be like a mayor of a small city. Does he have to do hard work with his hands NO, but he has TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYBODY! And ALL OF THE STOCKS, BONDS, FOREX, COMMODITIES plus foreign businesses & investments he owns.
Exactly- this is one reason why Lizzie is so impressed when she sees Darcy's estate and meets his servants and sister. The way they are run and managed, and his relationships with the housekeeper and his sister, reflect on him.
A very important point of view. An enormous amount of responsebility for a very young man - because he has to guarantee it prospers and does not just fall apart like it would maybee in other hands.
As a potter interested in the history of horticulture I loved the image at 5:55 .. The lines of pots in the four tier stage is aptly called a "Theater". One the the best known Estate flowerpot makers for the north east was Page & co in Peabody by the way . Many of the original pots at Fenway Court were from your town.. I love the balance of structure to P&P .. I fall asleep every night on Elizabeth reading Darcy's note and her mulling over all its implications ; one of the great pivots of the story .
Not all soldiers, only the officers - who would have been from the gentry or higher anyway. It was not a time when a private could rise in rank beyond sergeant. Sergeant Troy in Hardy's Far From The Madding Crowd, for example, set half a century after Austen's novels, was from a lower middle class background and almost married the servant Fanny Robin.
I take from Austen’s work that unless a woman marries she has no societal, and therefore no legal, status. It always seemed to me that in the world of Austen (and for that matter Burney & Gaskell) to be a gentleman’s wife was the best a middle class woman could hope for. This might look like a lack of legal status to our eyes, and by our understanding of what that means it is, but I very much doubt they saw it that way at the time. ETA: Rosamund Pike’s narration of P&P is EXCELLENT. Available on audible.
If you read Emma you can see that a wealthy unmarried woman had plenty of status. But the economic setup made a wealthy woman very rare. Interestingly Anne de Burgh is a wealthy young woman in P&P
Other way around. Women had almost no legal rights, but could have emotional sway over the decisions her husband made, who did have legal rights. So a married woman kind of had legal status, at least sway. Her husbands status in the peerage determined who automatically had to obey him. So a married woman’s legal status determined her social status.
Yes, you’re right in most respects. Women were told from a very young age that their one purpose in life was to marry and have heirs for their husband. Spinsters were to be pitied and even a rich spinster didn’t hold much status even if she wasn’t pitied as much. A spinster could keep whatever money and property her family had left her and could run a business but banks would be very reluctant to give her a loan and most landlords wouldn’t sign contracts with women. So it sucked either way.
There was no such thing as middle class before the industrial revolution (which took place after the Regency Era). You were either upper class or lower (working) class. And unmarried women could have plenty of social status if they were wealthy enough, supported by a rich brother or other relative, or by a generous inheritance. They had relatively no legal status either way. It was all about finances - the anxiety around marrying off girls was not to get any sort of status, it was an anxiety about their financial future.
My favorite Pride and Prejudice is the with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. I've read the book, several times and watch every movie production. Thanks on giving more information about this era. Very interesting!
I appreciate your points on the times of Jane Austen's novels. I'm an avid history fan, and so none of your points are new to me. Perhaps that's why I appreciate them so well!
Also love Georgette Heyer. Also her mysteries. I still check them out of the library from time to time. I once owned almost all of her Regency romances, loaned them to a friend and never saw them again.
Thanks! This was so good! Also, your commenters (for the most part) are so knowledgeable and respectful. I feel like I really learned a lot. Way more than 10 things. - Now do "Lady Susan"!
Actually married settlements were super common among the people of trade who had some significant resources and the Gentry class and definitely were almost always among the Peerage and baronets and knights. Sir William Lucas is kind of the dumbest night in all of Jane Austen's writing because he doesn't stay in trade long enough to make enough money to have Dowry for all of his daughters. And to make good marriage settlement portions for them. If you're really interested in this stuff you should go check out Dr Octavia Cox. She does a lot more deep dive about this stuff
As a Brazilian that loves pride and prejudice and all jane austen’s work, I thank yoou deeply, there’s soo many cultural diferences that I didn’t get and now I can look at it with diferent perspective and context.
PRIDE is one of my two favorite books (the other being THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.) I have read Pride probably 6-8 times. Yet, I have never grasped Mrs. Bennett’s concern of getting her daughters married! I’m not sure how I missed that!!! But THANK YOU for explaining it so clearly! It now makes perfect sense! Everything else I understood. Your talk was worth it’s weight for clarifying this one aspect and raising Mrs. Bennett well above a silly woman!!! ❤️
Austen's own brothers, same thing. Oldest got the father's living and others went into the navy etc. And one became an admiral, interesting, her own life situation is reflected in her novels.
Mr Bennett was forced by the entail to pass the estate to his nearest male relative. He was unable to give his daughters anything but a meager dowry each. it would have been cash money only
Also, it is made clear that Mr. Bingley has made his fortune in labor and trade, which is undoubtedly due to the economic shifts and the industrial revolution! I never really gave that a lot of thought until I saw this video haha, very interesting!
Close -- it was the Bingley's father or maybe grandfather who made his money in trade. The three Bingley children were evidently educated to be part of the wealthy, leisured class. But yes, their money *did* come from trade, but what trade it was is never mentioned, I don't think.
@@haplessasshole9615 That's what I meant haha. Not neccessarily Bingley but just his family in general. And I don't remember reading anything about what kind of trade business their family was in either... but I'm curious about it now lol
@@Vexmybeloved_ given the times, there was at least some suggestion of slavery; not necessarily the slave trade directly, but profits that emerged from trade with the Americas.
@@sharongelfand5065 It is said that his family is from the north, so they probably were in the textile industry - but they had to buy the cotton somewhere, so...
Wow! I wish I had had your video back when I read Pride & Prejudice, over 25 years ago. Great tips/suggestions & background information. So now, I’m going to reread it & follow your suggestions!! Thank you!! Well done👍🏼🤗👏🏼👏🏼
I’ve read this book and the rest of Austen’s work several times. I didn’t think I needed to listen to this but I still enjoyed it. I’m a Dickens and Trollope fan as well.❤
Thanks, very informative and helpful as Im not really fond of reading periodic genre’ but the way P&P version 2005 movie was made got me awestruck that I bought the book.
I don't think it was rare to sign a pre-nuptual agreement. A husband should demand an assurance, that the dowry (the proper amount of it) will be paid, and a woman's family should negotiate the terms in which the dowry will be used. Mrs. Bennet's dowry was to be used for her living expences in case of Mr. Bennet's death, and after her own death, shared among daughters. Therefore the agreement was probably written.
I have first saw the BBC miniseries when I was teenager in my native language. In fact it was on once a year so I pretty much watched it as many times. Than I went to England in my early 20s to be an au pair - so my English was not the best - the first novel I picked from the library to read was Pride and Prejudice - not the smartest idea, but I still read the whole book and loved it. Also the library had the BBC adaptation on VHS. I've borrowed it quite often, once even watched the whole 5h long film in one sitting. Than when I came home I've reread the book now in my own language just to make sure I've gotten everything right in the original. Never gets old! Did I mention I absolutely adore P&P? 😁🤣 I should buy a copy of the miniseries I already own the book. 🤔
Mr Bennet did not entail the estate. It is never made clear how he came into possession of the property but it is most likely that he inherited it under the same entail that is causing such future difficulties for his daughters. That is, he inherited it but if he had no male heir, upon his death the estate would pass to the next male relative in line. The same thing would happen to the Collinses if they did not produce a male heir,.
I love to read, but had a tough time reading Austen. Audio books though were awesome. I grew to love her books through listening. Makes a huge difference.
I like the way this is presented. Regarding audiobooks, the Story Classics TH-cam channel presents the text on the screen as you are listening to the book read. I find this particularly useful. Quite a few of your points, particularly about why Jane Austen is not always understood by people just learning about her works, simply reiterate that she wrote about the world she knew. I think many of us know examples of fiction, of television and movie writing, of many other genres where the author knows little of what s/he is writing. I think you give a good introduction to primogeniture and entail. A sentence about marriage settlements being something like current-day prenups, and how the bride's family can restrict the timing and use of the fortune a woman brings into the marriage would have been a great addition. All in all, I like this very much. I know this video has been up quite a while, and I'm sure I've seen it and possibly even commented before, but I enjoyed watching it again.
This was wonderful insight. My only criticism of the book was I thought Elizabeth’s character wasn’t developed enough. I could picture her mother well. But because of context and custom, I see her character develop more. I will have to revisit the book, after this information. Thank you so much.
Interesting points. The question of Elizabeth's character development is certainly important. I remember reading Austen the first time after reading a Dickens novel, and I felt that NONE of her characters (or places) were adequately developed. I try to ask this question - how does the world of this novel (in this case, Pride and Prejudice) define a 'well developed' character? And how is THAT definition utterly its own?
In 1816 (three years after Pride and Prejudice was published) Jane Austen’s brother, Henry, became a clergyman and his annual income was just under £55. Consequently, at that rate of pay he would have had to work for over 36 years to receive the same amount of money as Mr Bennet received in a year. (Mr Bennet’s annual income of £2,000 is mentioned in Volume 1, Chapter 7).
Although I think your explanations are quite good, and certainly add value to the reading of the novels, I think it is an affirmation of Jane Austen and her skill as a writer, that a reader can be quite unfamiliar with these terms and their meanings and still fully understand and appreciate the novels.
"Why do these characters care so much about the next ball?"" Why do today's characters care so much about about "swipes" and "likes" on Instagram and Facebook? They are different manifestations of the same thing.
Glad you are encouraging people to read one of the finest novels in the English language. One point: the entail on his estate.was not set up by Mr. Bennet. It has been in place for a long time, perhaps many generations, and its purpose was to keep the estate together and in male hands. I'm sure Mr. Bennet would leave his estate to his daughters (maybe his favorite daughter Lizzie) if it were in his power to do so, but it absolutely is not. It was almost impossible to break an entail. Mr. Bennet would probably prefer that his property would not go to Mr. Collins, his heir mandated by the entail, for whom he feels nothing but contempt.
Thank you so much for sharing this information. I am just about to start reading this book and your insight on the world from when it is set is a great introduction.
There’s a language of horses and carriages that are totally lost on modern audiences, but would have been readily apparent to regency period readers. For example, Lady Catherine tells Lizzie, “If you can stay two weeks complete, I can take you as far as London in the barouche box.” This may seem like generosity, but not really. A barouche is a formal carriage with two seats facing each other in back. These seats are lower, and can be covered against the weather. The box is a seat much higher up in the front for the driver to sit. So in telling Lizzie she can be on the box, sitting up with the hired help, exposed to weather and public eyes, she’s telling Lizzie she’s not on her level. It’s an example of Lady Catherine’s backhanded generosity.
In the barouche box, not on the box.
@@ellicooper2323 p
@@ellicooper2323 even facing backwards for an entire journey in the barouche box would be pretty uncomfortable.
@Simon Ari she won't be your girlfriend for long...jerk...why didn't you ask her to see it!?????
@Jonathan Parks yep, they're right that it was a sign of Lady Catherine's backhanded generosity, but it wasn't quite as gauche as making Lizzie sit where the lady's maid was supposed to sit
Thank you so much for sharing your instructions. I retired and now have time to read. My son died of brain cancer at 36 years. His true love was literature. He would sit with me and discuss books, give me tips just like this. I lost so much with his death and today listening to you gave me such comfort. I do have all his notes funderline along with his very large library he left. I will follow what you taught me today. Thank you again and best wishes.
I am so sorry about your son. Reading this post, however, reminds me of the timeless power of stories, both the stories that your son (and you and I) love as well as his own life story. Keep in touch and happy reading:)
@@jaypawlyk3020 thank you and I will.
Sorry for your loss.
I agree with the "don't search for deep meaning at first" comment, and I was an English teacher for 16 years. We kind of kill children's interest in reading by forcing them to analyze everything to death. When I was young, reading for pleasure, I cared about the characters and the plot, period. When you're first getting into something, that's quite enough.
As an English teacher, I TOALLY agree with you!!!!
I feel this especially hard having been a student in the UK, because my experience a few years ago was that we weren't even being taught to do the analysis ourselves. We were just kind of told 'these specific points are what you should be taking from the text, parrot them back in your exam' - and imo that not only removes the opportunity to feel interest in the story for entertainment's sake, it misrepresents what literary analysis is actually *supposed* to be, and denies kids even the chance to form a genuine interest in it.
The best English prof I ever had (I was a major) insisted we read Shakespeare out loud! He said the words were never written to be read silently. Amazing what a difference it makes in understanding the plays! The entire class would catch on at the same time and we’d go back and RE-READ with our new found comprehension! It was magic!!! WE were getting it ON OUR OWN not being spoon fed someone else’s ideas! When my kids were learning THE BARD I’d have us all read aloud at home. It makes a HUGE difference!!!!
@@robinholbrook6576 I find Shakespeare out loud difficult to follow. I'm lulled by the sound of the language. But I can read it just fine. I've often heard just what you said and we also read out loud in class. But I gleaned more reading at home alone.
Speaking of Funderlining, my favorite line in all of Jane's work is in Sense and Sensibility: Elinor's future BIL is yammering on about how he loves a country cottage and Jane writes: "Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." Great put-down!
lol I love this!
A small correction, Mr Bennett did not entail the estate to Mr Collins, it was entailed by whomever he inherited it from. 😊
I fixed the video description :)
Was going to add that, it's a part of the estates inheritances laws, which would have been made by an ancestor of theirs to keep it in their family.
Probably by someone that forgot sometime only girls happen, and no fosight into if you inherit the property, you also have to see to the affairs of your inherited family (like housing, dowries etc...) no completely and utterly not thinking about that situation.
Though it does make we wonder what stops sons from kicking out their sisters and mothers once they inherit?
It was the law also.
Yeah , sometimes sons just don't happen ! Terribly amazing law !
Poor girls , poor women !
@@Sovereignty3 Which is what happens (pretty much) in Sense and Sensibility
Very good.
One detail: Elizabeth's father did not create the entail on the estate. It had probably been set up a few generations back. He just assumed they would have a son. He is a lovely character but a bit negligent and even mentions that he should have made some provision for his daughters--perhaps investing?
Jane Austen had 2 brothers in the Navy. Another reminder that this placid-seeming society was at war for most of its existence. Persuasion introduces us to naval officers. Who were rewarded for capturing "prizes"--a way to become rich. Or, at least, able to support a family in comfort.
I don't even understand how anyone who read the book wouldn't know this, much less someone who is explaining the book in a video! There is discussion right in the beginning of the book stating that Mr. and Mrs. Bennett were so sure they'd have a son, that they didn't even attempt to save money in case it didn't happen.
Moreover, it's stated that Mrs. Bennett stubbornly refuses to understand how an entailment works, no matter how many times her daughters try to explain it to her. She is resentful that Mr. Collins will inherit the estate. As you said, Mr. Bennett didn't and wouldn't have entailed the estate away from his daughters. It's presented as a condition that is beyond anyone's control.
I remember reading on some Jane Austen fansite that the entail had to be renewed annually. So, I assume that Mr. Bennet always did this thinking he would eventually have a son, who would eventually break the entail when he came of age at 21.
@@Rathana81 Annually means every year. Wouldn't mr. Bennet have stopped already if that was the case?
So, don't we know if an entailment can be challenged after a few decades or so?
More information on entails here. Important in Jane Austen and also Downton Abbey. Where there was a title, always going to the next male heir. And the money supporting the estate, apparently set up as an entail when Cora, with her American fortune, married into the family. Of course there would be a son!
Inheriting titles is pretty standard, with some Scotswomen allowed to inherit a title. But entails came in many varieties.l
www.google.com/amp/s/janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-fee-entail-in-pride-prejudice/amp/
It is so interesting to hear a guy talk about these books, as all the friends I have who read them are ladies as myself, thank you very much for your insight!
Over 70% of fiction readers are now women and the number is rapidly increasing. And on book tube that's about the ratio of women to men reviewers.
I love discussing Austen with blokes. I've read all of her novels a minimum of five times. It's interesting that she was extremely popular with World War One trench soldiers.
as another "guy" I will confess to having read the book and watched of the movie. And fyi, unlike the video "presenter" I was never a literature major, actually a science geek. The '85 version by the BBC is outstanding, though the movie with Keira Knightly was great too because, well, it was Keira Knightly (proof that yes, I'm all guy).
I’m an older bloke and I really enjoy Jane Austen’s novels and particularly Pride and Prejudice. We have much to learn from her use of language.
The Prince Regent himself liked Jane Austen's novels. And Gilbert Ryle, an important philosopher from the mid-twentieth century, when asked if he read novels, is said to have replied, "Yes, I re-read all six every year," referring to Jane Austen's novels.
I get the sense that Charlotte's marrying Mr Collins was a combination of ensuring her future, and just maybe that of her friends the Bennet sisters and their mother, if the former did not marry well. And Longbourne would have lapsed to Mr Collins anyway whether Lizzie married Darcy and Jane married Bingley, or not, on Mr Bennet's death. So Charlotte in a way would get Longbourne, likely keeping on the Bennets, if she sweet-talked Collins.
Bennett with two Ts - for goodness sake!!! We don't talk to the Bennet's with one T!
@@georgebennett3197 - yeah we do, we really do
Charlotte is the most sensible character in the book
I don't think there's any reason to think Charlotte would want to keep the Bennets on. The Lucases are a large family and as Mrs Bennet notes, the day after the engagement they're already measuring for new drapes. What Charlotte is really doing by swooping in on Mr Collins is a little social climbing. Mrs Bennet and Mary are lucky Elizabeth and Jane are marrying well enough to keep them, if Mr Bennet predeceases them.
Actually Charlotte’s only hope of marrying, as at 27 she was already well over the marriageable age. A woman had no future unless she married, which is why marrying was such a grimly pursued goal. She took her chance n desperation, at least she would have a respectable home and security.
Mr. Bennet did not entail his own estate. Longbourne was entailed by an earlier ancestor.
I was about to say the same thing
But he was the executor ?
@@ladynataliemarie7780 No. The executor would probably be some law company into whose trust the entail would have been put. Mr Bennet was the beneficiary. He inherited it but it was a condition of his inheritance to produce a male heir to whom he could pass it on. He obviously tried many times, he had five daughters but gave up after that. On his death, his son would have moved into the house and the girls would have either lived in the house or been given cottages on the estate, supported by their brother had they not married. The other thing Bennet could have done was to move to a smaller place, rent out Longbourn and save money and invest so that his family would have a more secure future. It is possible he didn't do that because his wife couldn't even understand the principle of an entail, so would not have understood that it was not the best strategy for his family to live like landed gentry with such low financial resources to back them. It seems that he was a nice chap who married foolishly, liked his library and didn't plan much.
Yes - that was an oversight of mine. I edited the description on the video :)
Mr. Bennet married for money. Mrs. Bennet had twice his income. It's made much of in the book how different their two characters are, and said once that she had been very appealing in her youth, but I don't doubt that money was his primary interest.
I am so glad Jay respects Mrs Bennett's concerns in the book. yes, she is not the most sensible character but she comes from a different background to her husband and he frankly is not looking out for their daughters futures.
Thanks for the feedback!
@Jonathan Parks I don't disagree with this, and you can almost see a splitting of means and ends between the parents. Mr. Bennett is clearly the more intelligent of the two, but is frankly lazy (probably due in no small part because of his intelligence). Mrs. Bennett has a lot of energy and knows what her family needs, but as you point out is terrible at execution of this.
@Jonathan Parks I disagree with your first remark, and offer an explanation for the second. But first, let me copy and paste a quote from the book.
Mrs. Bennet: When you have five daughters, Lizzie, tell me what else will occupy your thoughts, and then perhaps you will understand. ... A daughter's future is made by her marriage, and it is up to a mother to ensure that she secures the best place she possibly can.”
Mrs Bennett, being bitterly aware that she produced no male heirs, is worried that her eldest will never marry which may in turn sour future husbands for the rest of the girls.
Though we only have a snapshot of her in the books' window of time; I think it's reasonable to conclude, as evidence by the previous quote, that everything she does is in an effort to ensure that her girls have a secure future and protection. I see no idiocy in that.
Since it's a small community of class, no doubt all other single eligible males are either recently married, too young, or unfit by either class or fortune. Thus leaving these five girls in a very precarious position, with no respite in sight.
Much of this novel seems to be told from Lizzy's perspective. And as such I think it's important to remember that she's not much older than 15, and as we all know 15 to 20 something year old girls are eternally embarrassed by their parents, especially by their mother's antics. It's very possible that everything that Mrs. Bennett does is being seen thru that filter. If her behavior were truly socially unacceptable, no doubt the family would be snubbed socially.
Now for the second. Mrs. Bennett is simply seeking a proper union as what befits their status. Plus, what parent doesn't delight in the ability to embarrass their children over exceptionally mundane things? And who's to say that driving those others off wasn't intentional? All you have is a teenage girl's inexperienced impression of her mother.
My own daughter wanted to crawl in a hole and die when I made her stand beside me when we returned an item to the store. I was trying to teach her how to do it but she couldn't set past the cute guy at the counter. It was hilarious.
I hope all of this makes sense. It's 4 am, I've got insomnia, and ADHD... so focusing hard even this long is tough. 🙂
@Jonathan Parks I imagine it would be difficult to navigate the social obstacle course when you are raised to believe you don't need to think.
@Jonathan Parks I would have to agree with your assessment here. Her goals and anxiety are certainly understandable, but her methods betray a lack of awareness and maturity. Another telling quote regarding her character flaws is the sad and touching line from Mr. Bennet to Elizabeth as he tries to be sure of her love and respect for Darcy: "Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child, let me not have the grief of seeing YOU unable to respect your partner in life. You know not what you are about." He may not be a perfect father, certainly. But, I always found this line moving as he tries to ensure that Elizabeth's marriage is happier than his own has been.
I forget that especially young people may not be aware of how different society was in the past.
I the reason why I love reading books written in the past it’s because they are an entertaining way of learning social history without having to read a boring history book. Honestly, most of what is explained in this video can be gleaned from the book itself.
The big problem most modern readers have is that they approach Jane Austen’s books believing they are romance novels. They are not. They are social satire.
Great point:)
Social satire to a degree. But no-one mentions the political situations. Napoleon Buonaparte, the French Revolution, battles, wars, or social stuff. Were they so shallow? Or was it all winnowed by Jane Austen, being considered too boring, or trivial to put into the characters' conversations.
I actually have never thought of Austen's works as being about marriage. I've always thought of them as being commentary on society and on the financial stress that women in particular were under. Financial stress and the lack of freedom to direct one's own destiny.
I hear you. I ALWAYS resist looking at texts according 1 idea of theme. I hear you. I was just making a point about how this concern is important in this novel Thanks!
I think you are quite right. Jane Austen writes about - among other things - the lives and concerns of unmarried women throughout their from the Bennet sisters to Miss Bates (as examples). She would have understood these concerns from her own life.
Yeah, and also "don't be a dick". There's a strong message to that effect in nearly all of them.
A commentary on society and the financial stress women were under IS a commentary on marriage. Then and now.
Jennifer Ehle played Elizabeth Bennett in the BBC miniseries or "Pride and Predudice". I think hers is the best interpretation and performance of the role. Ehle has graciously recorded a video reading of the novel which is available on TH-cam.
The 1995 adaptation is the best by a mile and Jennifer Ehle is lovely as Elizabeth. But I have to say that I was mesmerized by Elizabeth Garvie’s performance in the lack luster 1980 adaptation as well. The only problem I ever had with Jennifer’s portrayal was that it was obvious that she wasn’t keen on Darcy at all so his marriage proposal makes it look like he’s the epitome of arrogance without any awareness (which I love as she utterly destroyed him with her rejection). Garvie was more subtle, but don’t get me wrong, the 1980 version is just lack luster with many stilted and cringeworthy theatrical performances. Can’t hold a candle to 1995.
I like the 1995 miniseries too! It was exactly how I pictured it in my mind ( with the costumes and the houses etc) and they (thankfully), stuck closely to the book!
While I agree that Jennifer Ehle's interpretation is the best, we can sometimes lose sight of the fact that Elizabeth was 20. Jennifer Ehle was 28 at the time and looked it!
1980 version is the best
@@michaelodonnell824 agree - Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslett also has similar problem with ages of actresses vs ages of characters
Timestamps:
1:10 The Regency Era
3:20 Soldiers EVERYWHERE
5:16 Regency Economy
6:18 Who should one marry at this time?
8:15 What did people read?
11:05 What is a gentleman?
12:22 What is ENOUGH money? What is wealth?
13:25 4 key terms of MONEY and INHERITANCE
19:08 What is a vicar and what is a "living"?
21:37 common challenges to P&P/some reading tips
25:33 Works cited
When I first started reading P&P, I couldn't get past the formal complexity -- dryness, it seemed then -- of the first few sentences. The next time I read a little further -- that first conversation between Mr and Mrs Bennet -- and realised that this novel was witty, humorous. I proceeded to read the rest of the novel voraciously. i was about 15 or 16 at the time. Jane Austen had an eye for the silliness, oddity, humour of everyday life. She loved to laugh at folly. I was hooked.
Perfectly stated:)
Funny, my experience was very similar!
I had to read it when I was 16 as it was a set text for English class at school. I struggled through it, getting caught on the archaic language. Didn't grasp the humour. Resented having to analyse it.
A few years later after finishing school, I picked it up again. Loved it! I "Got" it then, like I hadn't before. Found it much easier and more enjoyable to read.
This was my first experience and I stopped reading after Chapter 20.
Picked the book up yesterday and bursted out by Mr. Bennet's conversation with his wife:
"I have a high respect for your nerves. They have been my best friend."
This is a tremendously useful presentation in my opinion. I'm no longer a critical reader of Jane Austen - she's an old friend now and great fun - but this is the sort of background information which makes the characters understandable, rather than seeming like silly, lightweight ciphers performing in an inexplicable pantomime.
I appreciate this - thank you:)
Think you might have explained a bit more about how clergy depended on their patrons for their livings. This is a really big thing in Jane Austen. Each parish had a patron, who could be the Bishop or an Oxford or Cambridge College ( who used them to give jobs to their graduates) but most often it was the local aristocrat or squire. He had the right to "present someone to the living " , that is choose who would get the job as vicar and he could also make and break you as a clergyman. Sometimes local squires who were patrons had a younger son who was trained up and then given the living , but sometimes they gave it to a distant relative or a protege. Clergy who received such a living had to be careful not to say or do anything to antagonise the patron. This explains Mr Collins fawning around Lady Catherine, who was his patron and also the great anxiety around getting a living that is found in other Austen novels. With a clergyman father and clergy brothers , she knew all this very well.
Great point. I had about 90m more of notes but didn't want the presentation to go too long. Maybe in a future one, this will be a focus? Thanks for the feedback:)
@@jaypawlyk3020 I for one would welcome a second video covering what you didn't have time for in this one!
@@missbeans That's really kind. Right now I am researching for a book I hope to write on teaching the Odyssey in the 21st Century. I have an Odyssey playlist of videos (including a preview of each chapter). (th-cam.com/play/PLfvrwGYLgbipGcDmahXugOlVKwnhx3A3S.html) I wouldn't mind someday doing more of a deep dive into each chapter of P&P. Thanks for the suggestion:)
I'd recommend reading an annotated version of any Jane Austen novel. It really helps provide context and explains the cultural aspects that we would not understand today.
this was quite enjoyable and informative.
I majored in English literature and the teacher never explained any of this :/ I learn more interesting things on youtube than from my teachers
For sure. No English literature class I had in college can hold a candle to this presentation. So useful, clear and accessible. There are tons of interesting videos about Jane Austen on You Tube. Don't miss Lucy Worsley videos about Jane Austen's homes. She travels around England showing all those mansions. It's a privilege to be able to watch all this at home, and practically for free.
I agree! I wish my English teachers would give historical backgrounds to a novel. I remember reading Wuthering Heights in AP English (back in the “90’s) and I didn’t know what a “moor” was.
@@alyssasmith6010 Moor..?
Yorkshire Moors, Ilkley Moor.
I don’t think Jane Austen was much into symbolism or metaphor or that sort of lofty stuff, I’m my experience. She was more straightforward and grounded. I, for one, find it refreshing.
@Jonathan Parks I would agree. Everytime I reread her work, I find something new I never noticed before, such as when Mrs. Norris and Dr. Grant argue at the dinner table over an apricot tree in Mansfield Park. The symbolism of Mrs. Norris being like a tree full of bad fruit was delicious to perceive.
@@mrs.manrique7411 Intriguing!
The dowry was essential for getting married. When the woman was widowed, the dowry reverted to her for her own income. This is why a widow of a nobleman was called a dowager. Marriage was so important that after a woman was widowed, she was actually called the widow Smith instead of Mrs. Smith.
Wow.
Very interesting!
She only received the remaining dowry if there was any left; the husband didn't have to respect the longevity of his wife's life after his death.
very Interesting.
OK, didn't know origin of word dowager. Makes sense.
I don't remember Mr. Collins breaching the etiquette of dancing three times with anyone.
He does make faux-pass by approaching Mr. Darcy (who is of higher social standing), and introducing himself, when it should be the other way around.
In "Downton Abbey", the estate was entailed to a male relative (Patrick Crawley who died on the Titanic) and then had to go to another male relative: distant cousin Matthew Crawley, not to eldest child, Last Mary, and I believe THAT was likely set up before Lord Robert inherited Downton and no court in England would change it. What a headache when a family had no male heirs
I did some reading on that and the estate actually could have gone to Mary but it would have taken literally an act of parliament which is apparently not as absurd as it sounds but would have been extremely unusual and a bit difficult
@@CheshirePhrog Very Interesting
3:53, Becoming a soldier doesn't make a gentleman and were generally scums. Those who bought commissions were those who become officers and officers make a gentleman.
You are correct. Only I was an Army.officer and I am no gentleman. (*_*)
At some periods soldiers were scorned, in other times they were honored. Sorry, I can’t tell you precisely when/why but the officers who defeated Napoleon would have been more likely to be respected - until there were too many of them and they became a source of social unrest.
@@TheSuzberry Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, Hero of Spain and Waterloo, once said, "The conscription calls out a share of every class - no matter whether your son or my son - all must march; but our friends - I may say it in this room - are the very scum of the earth… people talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having bastard children - some for minor offences - many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really Is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are." suggesting that the British Army were nothing but beggars and scums and when seen action, they become heroes, and then later, they revert back to being scums and so forth; which was his remark after his soldiers ravaged Vittoria after winning it. Almost just like what you're trying to say, I believe?
Generally , officers came from the gentleman class . usually it was the second or third son whose colors were bought as that usually was the only financial sustenance that was his . Perhaps a small remittance was added as an inducement to behave and try to make his own way and marry well enough so as not to embarrass the family or his regiment . in some cases , it was regimental orders that a young gentleman stay single until he was a major .
YEs - a key distinction = thanks!
The third time I read P&P I became appalled by Mr. Bennet. He is the model that his two youngest daughters followed.
Off topic: It wasn't until my 3rd reading that I realized that there weren't any railroads. Railroads became one of the identities of the Victorian Age and the Industrial Revolution; realizing this was before railroads helped give background to what I was reading.
The 3rd reading was also the first time I was able to place this historically, between the two Napoleonic wars.
Returning to Mr. Bennett:
He has no interest in anyone's comfort than his own.
Although not talkative, when he does speak he is as rude as his wife and as uncaring for the results.
He delights in disturbing his wife and daughter's plans and expectations.
He takes no responsibility for the future.
When a crisis hits and he is helped, he sounds good (the debt to his brother must be repaid) but soon very comfortably lapses back into caring only for himself.
That Lydia should give no thought to what her "running away" unmarried with Wickstrom meant to her own future and her sister's wellbeing is an exact mirror of her father's behavior.
He makes no effort to curb and correct his wife and daughters.
(Poor Mary. I'm a middle child too, and turned to books and became unsociable.)
Once you start thinking of him and his familial relationships, these characteristics leap out.
Thanks! Best explanation! I've read this book several times and overlooked this simple fact... And Mary is very lonely in this family - the parents, Lizzy/Jane and Kitty/Lydia. And in same danger like Charlotte, if there is no second "Mr. Collins"...
For the next era, after Austen died, read "Middlemarch" . Also brilliant characterizations.
I like Mr Bennett’s dry sense of humour..His affection for Elizabeth is shown in every conversation between them and does him great credit.
@Vera Mae - I see Mr. Bennet a little differently. He seems to me to be a man who has just given up. I think he was someone who tried at the beginning of his marriage - otherwise, I don't think Jane and Elizabeth would have grown up to be so sensible and caring about others. There was supposed to be a son, so he didn't think about saving money until it was really too late to do anything about it. By the time we meet him, I think he had realized several years before that all the decisions he had made were mistakes that couldn't be rectified, and he gave up and retreated into himself as much as he could.
But, I definitely agree with Lady Catherine in that he should have insisted on a governess for his daughters! Maybe that would have helped with them, anyway.
Yes, Mary was stuck between two older sisters and two younger ones. She became her own person because she was basically forgotten by her mother. She was also the plainest looking but didn't seem bothered by it like the others would have been. Singing and playing piano was NOT her skill though.
This video lifted the veil on my own life and made me understand the experiences of my grandmother whose parents had 12 daughters and one son who died at a young age, and my mother who was one of four daughters.
WOW! Thanks for sharing. I think of my grandmother (who was a mom-figure AND hero of mine). She had no choices and needed to leave school at 12 to care for her family after her mom died. Anyway - thanks for the feedback.
change comes slowly - my mother was born in 1939 - she was their first child and my grandparents expected a son - so much so that they only had a boy’s name picked out - when they were introduced to their daughter - they were so disappointed that they left her with a feminine version of “her anticipated brother’s name” = Elma Georgina = have always wondered what kind of fella Elmer George would have been
P&P is one of those great books that has so many layers, both as you learn more about the Regency Era AND as you look at each individual character and how first impressions hide the true colors in so many ways.
Traditionally, though not exclusively, sons inherited property and daughters inherited cash. This is how an entail worked. If the father had the money and property, he was legally under no obligation to support his heir as a gentleman. The testator (or money possessor) could form a contract with the heir, agreeing to give the heir an allowance on the condition that the heir agreed to keep the estate intact as a single property and not divide it up among any other children or heirs. The heir agreed to pass the estate in its entirety to the next heir and so on. If the estate produced enough cash, then the possessor could use that money to endow other children. Also, money that the wife brought in could be used for the benefit of her children. Originally, estates could be entailed over indefinite generations, but legal challenges limited them to the grandson or great grandson of the heir in question so five generations at most. Since the entail was formed to protect the interests of the heir, they also worked the other way around. The possessor (the one who had inherited the estate but who wasn't the testator), could agree with the heir to end the entail. That is what Mr. Bennet planned to do. He would arrange with his son to end the entail and then he could use the money from the estate to make portions for his daughters. The problem arose when he and Mrs. Bennet had no son. The next person in line for the property, by the law enforcing the contract of the entail, was Mr. Collins.
As an hardcore P&P fan, I enjoyed this. Definitely, some points to help others “get it”.
"These jobs were funded by the parish" you stated. This would have been a good moment to point out that everyone was REQUIRED by law to *tithe* to the church, and many vicars were ruthless about collecting their tithe without thought to anyone's circumstances. "Caring for the poor" and other duties were often neglected if it interfered with the vicars income and lifestyle.
The tithe, by the way, was only one of the high taxes common people were required to pay.
Great point!
This was so interesting and informative. Thank you so much for making this video!
keep me posted on your reading:)
I have just finished listening to my first Jane Austen novel and so, while this video was recommended a bit too late for me, it did help me understand the world of Pride and Prejudice even better.
From your description of the era in which the book is set, and especially the position women held, Austen seems even more progressive than I initially thought. I was aware women weren't held to much regard in that era, but was unaware of just how much restrictions were placed on women and lovers. This has made me love the book even more.
As for the slow pacing of the story (which I didn't even realize as I was so engrossed in the characters themselves), I love romance to be more slow-burn than instant passion, while the latter can be rewarding sometimes. I love the fact that we are made aware of Mr. Darcy's growing attraction and affection towards Elizabeth in a short enough time and their each interaction left me smiling ear to ear. Especially in the latter part of the book when and after Mr. Darcy confessed his feelings to Elizabeth and even before that when he came to visit Elizabeth at the Collins'. I am grateful that I was still wearing a mask because their interactions felt so natural, and I was smiling so much that it would be embarrassing if someone saw me.
In the end, I apologize if my comment was a jumbled mess of thoughts or if it sounds too pretentious. I am still riding the high of falling so much in love with a book that I feel to have lived the life of the characters themselves and that means I can neither control the rapid thoughts swirling in my mind nor can I truly separate myself from the world enough to write as my normal, casual self.
Thank you so much for this personal and thoughtful reflection. Please keep in touch:)
@@jaypawlyk3020 Of course!
Actually, there were many diaries and books written by the soldiers and officers in the Peninsular War of the Regency.
If you look into the works of Georgette Heyer - called "the poor woman's Jane Austen" - she puts in many of the details that you didn't know when you first read Austen. For some of her books, Heyer did a lot of research into the writing of the soldiers and, in some, added a bibliography at the end.
Love Georgette Heyer. Read them years ago in the 1950s and 60s. Still go back to them occasionally. She also wrote a number of very enjoyable mysteries.
@@paulaprice493 : OMG! Another Georgette Heyer fan!
You read them back in the day when she was writing them.
I started in 1976-1977 when I lived in a tiny town in northern Minnesota and the mobile library stopped in front of my house. I was snowed in and also pregnant. Her books were a great escape.
@@susanmercurio1060 I was living in Toronto Canada. My library bookmobile came on Saturday but it was maybe a half mile away. I so looked forward to it. Georgette Heyer was a big part. And Agatha Christie. And lots of historical novels. Then I would go to the encyclopedia to find out what really happened.
@@paulaprice493 : I don't care for mysteries much, but I used to go to the library to find out what really happened, too (that was after I moved to the Twin Cities). Only I looked up the books she listed in the bibliography, if any (An Infamous Army). Or other historical non-fiction books.
P.S. I lived in northern Minnesota and the bookmobile stopped right in front of my house! That's how I became familiar with Georgette Heyer: browsing for books to get through the winter.
Truly excellent. I’ve seen everything that is about Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice, and your analysis, unlike most, really brings something different to the discussion.
That's very kind of you!
Considering that Elizabeth had no prospects apart from marriage, it is shocking that she rebuffed both Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy. Men married for the sake of an heir but that was not the reason women married. A gentlewomen had no other option. Even were she born into great wealth, marriage was a necessity to maintain social standing. Women were a liability in themselves and an asset only in their capacity to birth an heir or if there was some property attached. Given Elizabeth's contrary attitude it is astonishing that she hit the jackpot with love and looks and wealth.
The fact that she and Jane were considered local beauties and "belles" might explain her confidence. Otherwise, she would live with her mother in more or less poverty.
Jane Austen herself refused to marry a rich young man for reasons she only knows, and she was way older and plainer than Lizzy
I think she inherited the trait for ignoring uncomfortable truths from her father who never seems concerned about the future of his daughters at all, until Lydia was actively destroying her whole family’s reputation. But as the title suggests, she wasn’t only prejudiced (just like Darcy) but also had a lot of pride and the proposals from Collins and Darcy were so condescending, she just couldn’t ignore such insult. I admire her poise during the rejection scenes, especially hers of Darcy in the 1995 adaptation. An absolute Queen 👑.
And this is the rebellion that Austen is representing in her novels.
simple answer is - she rebuffs them because it advances the plot
How could he get the entail explanation partly wrong ? It was not Mr. Bennett’s decision . The estate was entailed sometime in the past.
Thanks - fixed this in the video description.
Mister Bennett didn't Entail his property to his nearest male relative.The Entail was there from the beginning.It was originated by one of his Ancestors.Mister Bennett can't do anything about it.
Thanks - I edited the video description. :)
I get how the entail works. So is it for perpetuity, never to be changed? That seems harsh.
@@paulaprice493 Apparently it could not be changed. I watched the first season of Downton Abbey, and that was all about the entailment of the huge, wealthy estate and mansion. The leader of the family has no son, and when he dies a cousin will get the estate through entailment. And the daughters need a wealthy husband to avoid becoming poor when the father dies. The characters are upset about the entailment, but apparently it cannot be revoked or changed, the law was the law, it seems. I have not seen the rest of the episodes, so I do not know how it ends. But there was a lot of concern about the daughters and their need for a husband. I suppose the series was inspired by Austen, or perhaps that sort of issue is common for novels and films about English society.
@@paulaprice493 Yes the Entail is for perpetuity. Unless there is no male heir, then Mister Bennet can do whatever he likes with the property. But in this case there is a male heir, Mister Collins
@@paulaprice493 Entails tended to protect the core landholdimg from beimg gambled away or lost via speculative investment usimg the land as collateral. Gambling was extraordinarily foolishly done by young heirs but an entail protected the core asset for future generations. Bank of England was created to protect England against a king's reckless spending.. it funded a war without giving the cash direct to the king...
As someone whose read this over a dozen times, this was very helpful. Thanks for putting this together 🙏🏽
Thanks. I love it too:)
The first time I read this was when I was I turned 9 in 2009 and she gave a copy to me and my sister and the cover looked so pretty so I tried to read it but I didn’t understand any of it so I stopped reading but then for my 10th birthday in 2010 my mother bought me the 2005 movie and after I watched it I finally understood it and now I love it!!
Oh please don’t associate this amazing book with the 2005 movie. That movie might have been good on its own, but was nothing like the book. It was fundamentally different and had huge errors regarding culture and the over all time period.
@@oldageisdumb well at that time when I got the movie I was only 10 and I never knew how inaccurate the movie was I just knew that it helped me understand the book better which was nice! 😂 in my opinion I love the movie! But I agree that the book is so much better!!
@@emilym8530 hi Emily. I hope you’ve had a chance to watch the 1995 Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth version of the movie. It’s excellent and much closer to the book.
Hi, I have enjoyed your commentary. As you state, Mr Bennet had an annual income of £2,000 which was a lot of money in 1813. Although some of the gentry had small estates of several hundred acres, it is probable that Longbourn was bigger. In 1832, for example, Meldon Park, provided an income from rents of £2,199 per annum and was 2,070 acres in extent. (The information on Meldon Park comes from a thesis I found online).
Great video, I’m in the middle part of reading pride and prejudice and this is such a huge help in understanding the context of the time and what it means to live in 19th century England.
I got confused on reading it at first because of my unfamiliarity of Jane Austen and her formal way of writing but thank god I persisted because this is one of the best novels I ever read.
SO glad you like it (and that the video helped). Keep me posted on your thoughts about the entire novel once you finish it!
Reading historical fiction is somewhat like reading science fiction or fantasy. You cannot approach it from a modern viewpoint. You cannot approach it from your own cultural viewpoint. The rules are different. The culture is different. The technology is different. You have to allow the book to tell you about the rules of that world, and you have to immerse yourself in it.
I think Pride and Prejudice is considered classical literature rather than historical fiction. There's a certain difference
Most definitely agree. Another era is like another culture - if you are going to travel there, you must respect their conventions and refrain from projecting your own. 'When in Rome . . .'
Thank you. Your guidance is so practical and insightful. And you bring new ideas to stimulate the student (in this case, me). I’m so appreciative.
As a freshman in college, at a young age, it is usually because we are
not mature enough, and frequently we have our minds on some flighty
things. Often by the 3rd year, we start to develop a lot more academic
maturity.
This has me thinking about how the Bennett sisters were raised, vs. the standard of the time. Lizzie's phrases "such masters as were needed," and "those who chose to be idle, certainly might," almost make it sound like 'unschooling.' And the fact that Lizzie and Mary are the only ones who play piano almost suggests that Lizzie was taking piano lessons around the time Mary realized that her role in the family was becoming "the plain one," and latched on to music as an opportunity to become "the accomplished one," instead.
This also raises the question of "taste," in Austen/Regency terms, and how exactly people determined whether any given thing was tasteful or not. _Why_ were there correct and incorrect ways of admiring a landscape? Are Mary's song choices disapproved because they don't suit her vocal range, because they accompany less decorous dances, or because Irish/Scottish music was viewed as provincial?
I appreciate this reflection so much. I teach mostly privileged young men and while the Bennett sisters seem privileged to the modern reader, we know that they are one death away from homelessness. The issues of taste can also be an obstacle to my students (I mean, who REALLY cares about THIS kind of dress or THAT kind of song?) - they think that until they realize that they are no different. They too carefully choose what to wear on first dates and college interviews, they too carefully curate different spotify playlists for different purposes. Anyway, thank you again!
Interestingly, I understood all those estate and income issues when I read it for the second time in my teens. You see, my family is liberal and there are laws to give equal inheritance to women. But my extended family is orthodox and if not legal, then unofficially they follow these entailment and dowry laws . I've heard all my childhood about my female cousins being married off with huge dowries and aunts being on mercy of their husbands for income. So, it parallels one part of society and it helped me understand the brevity of Mrs Bennett's desperation.
I enjoyed this, thank you! Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite novels
Nicely done--one of my favorite books, but I still learned a thing or two--thank you!
How come I'm watching so profound P&P review on youtube? Also thanks for your excellent English!
Fantastic examples of how to enjoy and truly experience Austen. When I became interested in developing a deeper understanding of early 19th century literature having an idea of the customs/ rules/ regulations of the Regency period was a solid foundation to begin with. Jane Austen, in my opinion, was one of the finest writers in the world. To better understand I began with listening while reading. That proved to be invaluable.
Here's to the best of the best,
the one and only Jane Austen.
( I named my basset hound
Jane Austen. We call her Austen 🐾🥰)
thanks for your feedback :)
As a Swedish student with ADHD - this helped immensely with my work about this book. I had a hard time reading the book but listened to the audio version. This helped with looking at the social structures and its influence on the novel. Thank you thank you thank you!!!
Thanks - keep me posted about what you think of the novel.
Dropped two comments and here's another:
I don't remember if I was reading history or scifi that the author wrote the society had never invented primogeniture, a lack which severely damaged forward progress.
Primogeniture creates "capital", a lump of cash, land and other resources which can be used in investments. Investments which gather into banks and financial institutions that funds explorers, building ships, roads, buying horses, making things, all the resources a society needs. Larger farms are much more productive than small farms, for example. All this increases wealth for the whole society.
Infinitely divided, with each son / child getting an equal share, eventually leaves everyone poor.
I wish he was my English teacher. He seems so passionate.
Thanks:)
I'm so pleased to have stumbled across your channel!
Please do more videos about P&P, a chapter by chapter analysis like you've done for the other texts on your channel 🙏
Interesting idea! I'm currently researching for a book I'd hope to write on teaching the Odyssey in the 21st century. I'd love to do one on P&P too!
@@jaypawlyk3020
I've never read Homer, so I'm interested to see if I can relate to his writing.
Austen is my absolute favourite though. I love to hear John Mullan enthuse about her genius 😂
@@ellie698 Homer and Austen - quite wildly different; however, Emily Wilson's translation (I find) to be quite relatable. Keep me posted!!
Maybe as a man, (and you guys are ALWAYS competing with each other) can't
see that Darcy DIDN'T just win the genetic lottery. Running/Managing an Estate,
The Staff, Their livelihoods The tenants, and The Properties they live in, plus
The family, including ANY lady dependents, was an enormous amount of WORK
and responsibility. Depending on the Estate we're talking about Darcy and other
Gentlemen like him would be like a mayor of a small city. Does he have to do hard
work with his hands NO, but he has TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYBODY! And ALL OF THE
STOCKS, BONDS, FOREX, COMMODITIES plus foreign businesses & investments he owns.
Exactly- this is one reason why Lizzie is so impressed when she sees Darcy's estate and meets his servants and sister. The way they are run and managed, and his relationships with the housekeeper and his sister, reflect on him.
@Jonathan Parks Then you have to manage the estate agent.
Your description somewhat contradicts the definition of a gentleman as someone who doesn’t work and doesn’t have to.
A very important point of view. An enormous amount of responsebility for a very young man - because he has to guarantee it prospers and does not just fall apart like it would maybee in other hands.
As a potter interested in the history of horticulture I loved the image at 5:55 .. The lines of pots in the four tier stage is aptly called a "Theater". One the the best known Estate flowerpot makers for the north east was Page & co in Peabody by the way . Many of the original pots at Fenway Court were from your town.. I love the balance of structure to P&P .. I fall asleep every night on Elizabeth reading Darcy's note and her mulling over all its implications ; one of the great pivots of the story .
I love this! Thanks for sharing!
@@jaypawlyk3020 a theatre of Auriculas, the little beauties, seen to their best advantage.
Getting ready to read this book again & will take your suggestion to do the audio. Excellent video & info! TYTY! ❤️❤️🙏❤️❤️
Not all soldiers, only the officers - who would have been from the gentry or higher anyway. It was not a time when a private could rise in rank beyond sergeant. Sergeant Troy in Hardy's Far From The Madding Crowd, for example, set half a century after Austen's novels, was from a lower middle class background and almost married the servant Fanny Robin.
Yes - the soldier / officer distinction is essential - thank you!
I take from Austen’s work that unless a woman marries she has no societal, and therefore no legal, status. It always seemed to me that in the world of Austen (and for that matter Burney & Gaskell) to be a gentleman’s wife was the best a middle class woman could hope for. This might look like a lack of legal status to our eyes, and by our understanding of what that means it is, but I very much doubt they saw it that way at the time.
ETA: Rosamund Pike’s narration of P&P is EXCELLENT. Available on audible.
If you read Emma you can see that a wealthy unmarried woman had plenty of status. But the economic setup made a wealthy woman very rare. Interestingly Anne de Burgh is a wealthy young woman in P&P
Other way around. Women had almost no legal rights, but could have emotional sway over the decisions her husband made, who did have legal rights. So a married woman kind of had legal status, at least sway. Her husbands status in the peerage determined who automatically had to obey him. So a married woman’s legal status determined her social status.
@@ariadnepyanfar1048 an unmarried woman could hold property on her own name
Yes, you’re right in most respects. Women were told from a very young age that their one purpose in life was to marry and have heirs for their husband. Spinsters were to be pitied and even a rich spinster didn’t hold much status even if she wasn’t pitied as much. A spinster could keep whatever money and property her family had left her and could run a business but banks would be very reluctant to give her a loan and most landlords wouldn’t sign contracts with women. So it sucked either way.
There was no such thing as middle class before the industrial revolution (which took place after the Regency Era). You were either upper class or lower (working) class.
And unmarried women could have plenty of social status if they were wealthy enough, supported by a rich brother or other relative, or by a generous inheritance. They had relatively no legal status either way. It was all about finances - the anxiety around marrying off girls was not to get any sort of status, it was an anxiety about their financial future.
My favorite Pride and Prejudice is the with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. I've read the book, several times and watch every movie production. Thanks on giving more information about this era. Very interesting!
LOVE the Colin Firth P&P!
I appreciate your points on the times of Jane Austen's novels. I'm an avid history fan, and so none of your points are new to me. Perhaps that's why I appreciate them so well!
Really interesting, simple and clear. Thank you, as I am intending to read Austen soon.
I read this book as a teenager. I figured these definitions out myself.
Georgette Heyer wrote Regency stories and used the same concept.
Just wanted to say that I love Georgette Heyer novels. It is good to see her mentioned here.
I really wish someone would make films of Georgette Heyer’s books. They are every bit as good, even better than, gasp, Austin’s.
Also love Georgette Heyer. Also her mysteries. I still check them out of the library from time to time. I once owned almost all of her Regency romances, loaned them to a friend and never saw them again.
@@paulaprice493 I had them all in paperback but read them over and over since the 1960s that that they fell apart. Now have them all in hardcover.
Many , Many thanks for this very fascinating presentation!
You are a wonderful explainer.. thank you for adding so much to my next reading of this novel!!
Thanks! This was so good! Also, your commenters (for the most part) are so knowledgeable and respectful. I feel like I really learned a lot. Way more than 10 things. - Now do "Lady Susan"!
SO nice of you. Keep in touch and good luck with your reading:)
Actually married settlements were super common among the people of trade who had some significant resources and the Gentry class and definitely were almost always among the Peerage and baronets and knights. Sir William Lucas is kind of the dumbest night in all of Jane Austen's writing because he doesn't stay in trade long enough to make enough money to have Dowry for all of his daughters. And to make good marriage settlement portions for them. If you're really interested in this stuff you should go check out Dr Octavia Cox. She does a lot more deep dive about this stuff
Thanks for the info!
As a Brazilian that loves pride and prejudice and all jane austen’s work, I thank yoou deeply, there’s soo many cultural diferences that I didn’t get and now I can look at it with diferent perspective and context.
PRIDE is one of my two favorite books (the other being THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.) I have read Pride probably 6-8 times. Yet, I have never grasped Mrs. Bennett’s concern of getting her daughters married! I’m not sure how I missed that!!! But THANK YOU for explaining it so clearly! It now makes perfect sense! Everything else I understood. Your talk was worth it’s weight for clarifying this one aspect and raising Mrs. Bennett well above a silly woman!!! ❤️
You're very kind. Keep in touch!
No one ever talks about the younger sons. They were often completely overlooked in the marriage market as everyone was after the eldest son.
Second son into the Army. Third son into the church
@@petermacleod5710 hahaha
Sense and Sensibility pretty much deals with this, in the dynamics of Edward and his older brother.
Austen's own brothers, same thing. Oldest got the father's living and others went into the navy etc. And one became an admiral, interesting, her own life situation is reflected in her novels.
@@petermacleod5710 Most definitely, as shown in many a noble family of the time.
SOOO interesting ! Thank you very much , we learned a lot about P&P ...
Great job ! I loved listening , several times !
Thanks for your feedback. Happy reading!
Mr Bennett was forced by the entail to pass the estate to his nearest male relative. He was unable to give his daughters anything but a meager dowry each. it would have been cash money only
Also, it is made clear that Mr. Bingley has made his fortune in labor and trade, which is undoubtedly due to the economic shifts and the industrial revolution! I never really gave that a lot of thought until I saw this video haha, very interesting!
Close -- it was the Bingley's father or maybe grandfather who made his money in trade. The three Bingley children were evidently educated to be part of the wealthy, leisured class. But yes, their money *did* come from trade, but what trade it was is never mentioned, I don't think.
@@haplessasshole9615 That's what I meant haha. Not neccessarily Bingley but just his family in general. And I don't remember reading anything about what kind of trade business their family was in either... but I'm curious about it now lol
Old Money v. New Money is definitely one of the many themes in Austen's P&P.
@@Vexmybeloved_ given the times, there was at least some suggestion of slavery; not necessarily the slave trade directly, but profits that emerged from trade with the Americas.
@@sharongelfand5065 It is said that his family is from the north, so they probably were in the textile industry - but they had to buy the cotton somewhere, so...
Wow! I wish I had had your video back when I read Pride & Prejudice, over 25 years ago. Great tips/suggestions & background information. So now, I’m going to reread it & follow your suggestions!! Thank you!! Well done👍🏼🤗👏🏼👏🏼
That's very kind - good luck!
Thank you so much for this wonderful presentation! I am really glad I came upon this video!
That's very kind of you!
I’ve read this book and the rest of Austen’s work several times. I didn’t think I needed to listen to this but I still enjoyed it. I’m a Dickens and Trollope fan as well.❤
Thanks, very informative and helpful as Im not really fond of reading periodic genre’ but the way P&P version 2005 movie was made got me awestruck that I bought the book.
Great background information on the book! Thanks!
I don't think it was rare to sign a pre-nuptual agreement.
A husband should demand an assurance, that the dowry (the proper amount of it) will be paid, and a woman's family should negotiate the terms in which the dowry will be used.
Mrs. Bennet's dowry was to be used for her living expences in case of Mr. Bennet's death, and after her own death, shared among daughters.
Therefore the agreement was probably written.
Pride and Prejudice - an excellent novel with wonderful dialogue!!
Thanks, this was great. It was such an interesting time in history. Your explanations really clarify these issues.
Thanks so much for the feedback. Happy reading!
I really enjoyed this, some really interesting points made. Thanks for posting. ☮️
THanks for the feedback!
This is truly informative and very well done. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you for making this video I did not know about some of these things. Very insightful.
Thank you. Keep me posted about your reading:)
I have first saw the BBC miniseries when I was teenager in my native language. In fact it was on once a year so I pretty much watched it as many times.
Than I went to England in my early 20s to be an au pair - so my English was not the best - the first novel I picked from the library to read was Pride and Prejudice - not the smartest idea, but I still read the whole book and loved it. Also the library had the BBC adaptation on VHS. I've borrowed it quite often, once even watched the whole 5h long film in one sitting.
Than when I came home I've reread the book now in my own language just to make sure I've gotten everything right in the original.
Never gets old!
Did I mention I absolutely adore P&P? 😁🤣
I should buy a copy of the miniseries I already own the book. 🤔
Thank you. Really enjoyed this video. Helps to know all these things to fully appreciate the novel.
Mr Bennet did not entail the estate. It is never made clear how he came into possession of the property but it is most likely that he inherited it under the same entail that is causing such future difficulties for his daughters. That is, he inherited it but if he had no male heir, upon his death the estate would pass to the next male relative in line. The same thing would happen to the Collinses if they did not produce a male heir,.
Thanks - I fixed this in the video description.
Such an enjoyable and useful video. Hope to see more like this❤️🙏
I'm on it! :)
I love to read, but had a tough time reading Austen. Audio books though were awesome. I grew to love her books through listening. Makes a huge difference.
Thank you Jay, This was very informative, even for me who is a long time reader and fan of Jane's novels.
That's very kind of you. I'm glad you enjoyed it:)
I like the way this is presented.
Regarding audiobooks, the Story Classics TH-cam channel presents the text on the screen as you are listening to the book read. I find this particularly useful.
Quite a few of your points, particularly about why Jane Austen is not always understood by people just learning about her works, simply reiterate that she wrote about the world she knew. I think many of us know examples of fiction, of television and movie writing, of many other genres where the author knows little of what s/he is writing.
I think you give a good introduction to primogeniture and entail. A sentence about marriage settlements being something like current-day prenups, and how the bride's family can restrict the timing and use of the fortune a woman brings into the marriage would have been a great addition.
All in all, I like this very much. I know this video has been up quite a while, and I'm sure I've seen it and possibly even commented before, but I enjoyed watching it again.
This was wonderful insight. My only criticism of the book was I thought Elizabeth’s character wasn’t developed enough. I could picture her mother well. But because of context and custom, I see her character develop more. I will have to revisit the book, after this information. Thank you so much.
Interesting points. The question of Elizabeth's character development is certainly important. I remember reading Austen the first time after reading a Dickens novel, and I felt that NONE of her characters (or places) were adequately developed. I try to ask this question - how does the world of this novel (in this case, Pride and Prejudice) define a 'well developed' character? And how is THAT definition utterly its own?
Excellent! Also, thx for funderlining concept 🤘
Try it in your funderwear!
In 1816 (three years after Pride and Prejudice was published) Jane Austen’s brother, Henry, became a clergyman and his annual income was just under £55. Consequently, at that rate of pay he would have had to work for over 36 years to receive the same amount of money as Mr Bennet received in a year. (Mr Bennet’s annual income of £2,000 is mentioned in Volume 1, Chapter 7).
WOW - really cool!
Although I think your explanations are quite good, and certainly add value to the reading of the novels, I think it is an affirmation of Jane Austen and her skill as a writer, that a reader can be quite unfamiliar with these terms and their meanings and still fully understand and appreciate the novels.
I totally agree.
"Why do these characters care so much about the next ball?"" Why do today's characters care so much about about "swipes" and "likes" on Instagram and Facebook? They are different manifestations of the same thing.
Exactly!
Thank for the historical background..so very interesting.
Glad you are encouraging people to read one of the finest novels in the English language. One point: the entail on his estate.was not set up by Mr. Bennet. It has been in place for a long time, perhaps many generations, and its purpose was to keep the estate together and in male hands. I'm sure Mr. Bennet would leave his estate to his daughters (maybe his favorite daughter Lizzie) if it were in his power to do so, but it absolutely is not. It was almost impossible to break an entail. Mr. Bennet would probably prefer that his property would not go to Mr. Collins, his heir mandated by the entail, for whom he feels nothing but contempt.
Thanks. And I corrected the entail error in the video description.
Thank you so much for sharing this information. I am just about to start reading this book and your insight on the world from when it is set is a great introduction.
Awesome! Keep me posted on your reading!