Hi Haley, first of all, thank you for including the continuous chapters to the reading schedule!
I am stuck on the concept of entailment, especially now that you wrote that it’s "very unlikely that Mr. Collins will actually inherit Longbourn." Because Mr. and Mrs. Bennet did not have a son, isn't it guaranteed that Longbourn go directly to Mr. Collins, no matter what?
My understanding is that entailment was legally established before the daughters were born, so it's independent of Mr. Bennet's wishes or his daughters' situations, unless one of them married Mr. Collins who is the nearest male relative. So even if all the daughters married other men and had sons, those grandsons would not inherit Longbourn unless they were descended from Mr. Collins because he is next in line. Am I incorrect about this?
Oh no! You’re totally right. I have written it wrong. I’ve been reading so much about entails and primogeniture that I’m in my head. Yes: Mr Collins is in line to inherit. That’s why he wants one of the daughters: it’s basically a sign of good will that he’ll keep the estate “within the family.”
I had read something recently about how some entailments allowed the eldest daughter’s husband to become the one to inherit—but that doesn’t apply here, and leads to estates being partitioned out (one piece per married daughter). Entails were designed precisely to avoid land being broken up like that.
I read something a bit different (I think the concept of entailment intrigues me because I'm one of five daughters). I read that if there are NO male heirs, the property will be split between each of the daughters but the article didn't state that the daughters must be married; it just said that the property would then be partitioned off. Why would the stipulation be that the daughters had to marry?
Gawd, this reminds me of when I was 18 (early 1970s), working full-time after high school graduation, and yet many banks wouldn't let women open checking accounts or get credit cards without a father's or husband's signature.
With the no male heirs thing...some entails apparently held that if the daughters married, then their *husband(s)* would become the heirs. It was a way around losing the property to a distant cousin, I think. If the daughters didn't marry, then it'd get all divided up, I guess? It all seems extremely complicated but also completely sensible if you understand their underlying goal was to keep land/power concentrated haha.
It reminds me so much of the plot of Downton Abbey.
And YES. These restrictions have been around forever (and it's scary to think a lot of them are trying to make a comeback...)
After the action of the last few chapters it now seems that we are stuck in the winter doldrums. Jane has had another letter from Caroline and "Hope was over, entirely over...". Elizabeth is in a funk - "The more I see of the world, the more I am dissatisfied with it..." when in reality she's not seen much of the world at all. Their reactions make them seem like moody teenagers in that "Oh my life is over" way when their social life is upended. I'm understanding their over-reacting a bit differently because closely reading has made me better realize the very real consequences of social standing in their world. Elizabeth's stay with Charlotte is enlightening to her and to me. Collins is both as pompous and simpering as ever. As to Charlotte she relishes the comforts of her new home, and Elizabeth observes "she wisely did not hear" most of the embarrassing things Collins said. I found that very funny, especially since Elizabeth is always acutely aware of the cringe worthy things her mother says in public. Elizabeth spends a boring evening at Rosings punctuated by a brief and unwelcome flash of spirit in a conversation with Lady Catherine. That Elizabeth might have been obligated to marry Collins and that this might have been her life is unthinkable. She would not have wanted or maybe even been able to hold her tongue and withhold her opinions, which to Collins would have made her the one exhibiting shameful (and dangerous) behavior. It's sobering to realize that in this era it probably was the fate of many bright young women like Elizabeth. Then again it was a better fate than having been born or fallen into poverty. This has left me pondering how capriciously where and when you are born influences both who you are and what you can strive to be. Prudent is the word most attached to Charlotte, and she seems to have the will to mold her circumstances enough that she can be satisfied with what she has. Elizabeth (maybe a little recklessly?) craves more from her life. Both Elizabeth and Austen seem to be marking time in these chapters. We're about half way into the book and so far this has been a funny, but long introduction to Austen's world and characters. I'm ready for her to crack this story open.
Yes, I notes that quote also about being dissatisfied with the world the more she saw of it. Mrs Gardiner's reply demonstrates her maturity and experience that she must approach matters more gently if not to ruin her happiness.
Hasn't Mrs. Gardiner been great so far? She's so different from her husband's two sisters. I've been wondering how Jane and Elizabeth are so different from the rest of their family. Maybe this aunt has had something to do with it. She certainly gives astute counsel here.
I've definitely found my reading energy pulling back this week. I think the thing that stuck out to me most is the relationship between Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine. They are both perfectly suited to feeding each other's ego. Lady Catherine "condescends" to put Mr. Collins in his position and give him attention (when she has no better entertainment) which absolutely puffs him up and makes him feel more important (and "good" for constantly bowing and scraping to thank her for it) and gives him reason to humble brag to everyone about his situation; and he in turn allows her to feel especially superior, as he is more apt than most to fully appreciate the difference in their rank and remind her how much he is aware of it (which, as we know, is very important to her). It's no wonder that she chose him or continues to give him attention when his overly deterrent demeanor is exactly what she expects from people (but very obviously doesn't normally get to the extent which he gives).
In regards to question number 2, my annotated copy of the novel says that Mr. Bennet saying something to the effect of "let the other ladies have time to exhibit" loud enough for all to hear suggests that the purpose of their playing was to show off (which was true, of course, but it wasn't socially acceptable to acknowledge that 🙄). So he committed a faux pas as well.
Thank you so much - I have never read/thought about it this way. I do remember Mr Bennet saying that and it being a faux pas is true. He was being too honest in a social circle that works hard at hiding things.
I’ve a feeling Mr Collins is a deeply insecure man and has built this grandiose scaffolding around himself to avoid being seen for what he is, an empty man, and has now probably started believing it, or at least is now in too deep to let go of it. Kind of like a reverse imposter syndrome?
I found the scene between Sir William and Lady Catherine very funny. They are sizing each other up, Sir W is of course not so much in awe as hoarding up every detail for later use as anecdotes and name dropping. They are so similar in how they feed off a false sense of pride except Lady C has more money.
The class hierarchy is clear. Status attaches to land ownership, so the order of operations is as follows:
1. Darcy—owns a large estate but doesn’t have a title, so he’s landed gentry. Derbyshire is up north, so he’s rural—the closer you are to London the higher status.
2, Lady Catherine—landed BUT she is called Lady CATHERINE, not Lady de Bourgh. Lord/Lady first name is called a “courtesy title.” Austen’s readers would have been able to place her by that detail. I am putting her below Darcy for a couple of reasons—one is her courtesy title, and the other is that she’s got a daughter to marry off—she wants to merge the Darcy and de Bourgh holdings, but clearly Darcy is in the driver’s seat here. She needs him to agree to it, and her daughter is described as “sickly.” A landowner needs at least one son to survive into adulthood if he wants to keep his landholdings.
3. Bingley—also landed gentry, but it’s implied somewhere his status is more recent.
4. The Bennets—landowners, but not nearly as large a holding as Bingley or Darcy. Mrs. Bennet’s brothers are “in trade” so she’s clearly lower status than her husband, and her lack of social grace is used to point that out.
Now we get to the landless. The second and subsequent sons of the landed don’t inherit anything, but they can’t just go out and get a job. The second son typically would go into the church, and after that the family would have had to purchase a commission for any remaining sons.
5. Mr. Collins
6. The officers
7. The Gardeners and the Jenkinses—since they work for a living they are at the bottom of this hierarchy.
There are other clues here. We are told that the Darcys and the deBourghs are “old families” and their surnames are more Norman than old English. “Bennet” is also Anglo-Norman. Collins is old English. “Gardener” and “Jenkins” are right out.
Austen deftly skewers the pretentions of the people who inhabit the same community as the Bennets. In chapter 27-Lizzie is in a coach with Sir William Lucas and Charlotte’s younger sister Maria, heading off to Kent to visit the Collins’s. They plan to stop in London to see Jane.
“(Maria)…..a good humored girl, but as empty headed as himself (Sir William), had nothing to say that could be worth hearing, and were listened to with about as much delight as the rattle of the chaise.” Elizabeth loved absurdities, but she had known Sir William’s too long. He could tell her thing new of the wonders of his presentation and knighthood; and his civilities were worn out, like his information.”
Lady Catherine is sketched as quite grand and intimidating, but the 19th century English reader would instantly understand that these are small-time country people—the real nobility is probably a couple of layers above even the de Bourghs. Sir William was presented at the Court of St. James and received a knighthood, but it is clearly not a hereditary knighthood—and it’s the biggest thing in his life. These knighthoods were handed out pretty routinely and didn’t have any land or money associated with them. Our Queen, Dame Judi, received one of these.
I think I have reached peak nerd here so I’ll stop.
The Fandom Jane Austen Wiki wrote that Mr. Collins owned Hunsford Parsonage, stating that it "was bequeathed to William Collins after he accepted a position as the clergyman of the parish"...but was that actually written into the novel or was it implied? (I missed that entirely.) Pretending that he did acquire the property, would you move his status above the Bennet family, perhaps due to his connection with Lady Catherine, or does he remain below them because he's so obnoxious? 😉
I certainly won’t disparage the veracity of a Wiki, but I think in this case they are quite wrong. The landowner (Lady Catherine) owns everything, including the attached village where the parishioners live. She provides the “living” and the parsonage so the local parish will have a preacher. The politics and dynamics of this are more fully laid out in “Mansfield Park”. Also see Downton Abbey. Lord Grantham owns it all and every one rents from him. Even Mr. Bennett has tenant farmers at Longbourne, although it is not prosperous enough to have a village. Hence, the one mile walk to Meryton
Yeah ^^ this. The Bennets and the Collinses will really only ever be renters from Lady Catherine (who is herself part of a larger system).
Now, if (when) Mr. Collins inherits Longbourn after Mr. Bennet’s death, that is going to be quite painful for Mrs Bennet, who’d be essentially socially downgraded from having been its tenant because she is widowed and never had a son. She’d have to rely on Collins or one of her married daughters for a home/security. (Perhaps this helps explain her pervasive nerves and anxieties…)
Bennets are landowners though—and the Collins’s live in in a parsonage, so they aren’t renting from Lady Catherine. She does seem to have some kind of influence over WHO is the rector of her village church though—that’s why Collins has to be so obsequious-if he gets out of line she could have him removed from his position.
It's so interesting to think about the concepts of land ownership from this time period — because while Mr. Bennet is "landed gentry," meaning that he's within the social class that considers him a land owner, he doesn't have a son, he actually doesn't "own" anything he can "pass down." The girls all have to marry or end up dependent on a distant relative who is essentially a stranger.
From what I've read, Mr. Bennet is *not allowed* to sell the land or rewrite the entail law or write any level of ownership to his daughters via his will. So, the idea of land ownership here really doesn't feel that much like ownership to me.
And on another note: Mr. Bennet is the only one who is actually a "landowner," since none of the women in his family can inherit the land/estate. (I've been thinking about Lady Catherine's comment at dinner that *her* family's estate was not entailed, so her husband's death meant that Rosings Park went to herself and their daughter Anne.)
The Bennet girls do, however, have the class status of being "landed gentry," which I think helps with their marriage prospects.
Thank you for the explanation! It didn't make sense to me that Mr. Collins was formally given Hunsford Parsonage, especially if he was ever dismissed as clergyman. This, combined with my lack of familiarity with Mansfield Park and Downton Abbey (much to my family's dismay!), makes me realize I have some serious reading to catch up on.
I am also realizing how much research I could do on all this "entail" business. Land rights are so fascinating and this re-read (and all of our club's amazing comments each week) are helping me understand just how deeply Austen herself understood the nuances of these laws and their social consequences!
I feel the same. I'm reading David Copperfield for the first time (I'm loving this novel so much!) and it's now making me wonder who will inherit his family home after Mr. Murdstone dies because he doesn't have any children. (No spoilers, please!) Maybe it will come to nothing but David Copperfield was published 37 years after P&P so this law must have been in effect. I would never have considered this if we hadn't discussed entailment.
Generally unless there is a restriction like an entail or trust the owner of a property could leave it to who he wanted. Eldest son was usual but children could be cut off if they went against parents wishes on something. If no children it could be left to anyone in the will
Disputes over inheritance are also a theme in 19th century literature. Sometimes a man without a son would adopt a distant relative to take over the estate. This happens in Emma and I think also to Jane Austen's brother
A parsonage can’t be owned…it is provided by the patron (landowner) to house clergy. I was mistaken when I said the church owned these—it was the landowner. I posted a link to an explainer of how the Church of England worked during the Regency in another comment. A living was a lifetime appointment and a vicar could only be removed by a bishop—giving them some degree of independence from their patron, but I would assume that the patron could easily get a bishop to remove a cleric they didn’t like.
When Mr. Bennet dies and Mr. Collins inherits Longbourne, he’ll move up into the landed group, but his estate is smaller and yields a lower income than say the Darcy estate.
Obnoxiousness doesn’t really factor into status, unfortunately. I thought it was interesting that Austen has the most ridiculous characters being the ones with the least secure status, where the ones that had the most secure status (Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley) were the least affected. The more precarious a character’s financial and social status, the more anxious they were about it, and Austen uses their status anxiety to poke fun at many of them.
Yes—that and she was from a family that was “in trade” and married up—remember her brother is an attorney and the other one also worked. They probably were more affluent than the Bennets-the Gardiners traveled and were generous to their nieces—-but the landowner class really looked down on the professional and merchant class so she would have had that insecurity as well as worrying about what would happen to her daughters as they were not wealthy.
This is such a fascinating lens, Jenn! It makes me think about how frustrated Mrs. Bennet is with Mr. Bennet's apparent laziness (he wants to sit in his library, hesitates to make extra social visits, doesn't like going to town, etc), and I wonder if Mrs. Bennet experiences his landed gentry class status as a kind of anti-industriousness. As in: Mrs. Bennet is used to being around men who work in trades or professional settings, like law offices. Mr. Bennet has the relative luxury of not having to "work" in the same way; Mrs. Bennet has the "business of marriage" to attend to with her daughters. It seems there may be class tensions within that marriage itself that we're seeing play out in their banter and teasing (and frustrations) with each other.
I hadn’t thought of that. I read her picking at him as being out of anxiety-she is the shopkeeper with excess inventory to move, and her husband isn’t feeling the same sense of urgency about getting all of those daughters married off.
One of the funniest lines in the book was when Mr. Bennet told her in effect, “relax—you might die first.”
A favorite quote of mine is Elizabeth’s; “Since we see every day that where there is affection, young people are seldom withheld by immediate want of fortune from engagements with each other, how can I promise to be wiser than so many of my fellow-creatures if I am tempted, or how am I even to know that it would be wisdom to resist?”. It really demonstrates how much of a complete outlook she has on human nature, a beautiful logic that doesn’t exclude feeling. It was also interesting to me since earlier on we witness her dialogue between her and Jane, where Jane prefers to view the world with empathy, likely for her own trust in humanity and comfort, while Elizabeth is committed to seeing people as they are (which tends to be more pessimistic). And here we see that her commitment to truth goes beyond her perception of the external world; she is also self-aware, acknowledging that she too can get swept by her emotions. And since wisdom and her own happiness are both important to her, it raises the question of how to approach acting wisely about matters of the heart, which often can’t be rationalized or calculated. I’d really look forward to seeing how she makes decisions once she also faces strong emotions.
I look at Jane and Elizabeth differently. To me, Elizabeth is very certain that her first impressions are correct and then she strongly uses confirmation bias to cement her believes. This is perhaps the prejudice of the title. Jane does have more empathy but she also seems to understand that often they only have one side of the story and should perhaps hold their prejudices in check until more is revealed. I will be honest. I’ve readP&P 4 or 5 times and I find Elizabeth less agreeable every time I read it
I still love Lizzy just as much, but I do think I see more of her faults now than I did my first few reads. But I think there's truth to what both you and Angeline said about how you view Lizzy and Jane - that's part of what I love about the story; the characters are complex and almost all have both strengths and weaknesses which we can see illustrated in different situations.
I'm experiencing a similar read on Lizzy this time around. She's so funny and very self-aware in some moments...and so conceited and self-assured in others. We are closest to her POV, thanks to our narrator, and so I think we understand her shifts in thinking and energy better than, say, Darcy's or Bingley's (who we experience, most often, at a greater distance). This re-read is helping me notice just how clever and compassionate Austen's choice of narrative "free indirect" style really is: it allows us to see Lizzy in her best moments, and also in her less forgiving ones, too. The first time I read the novel, I was really taken with her. On this re-read, I'm grateful for the number of times we get to see how, just like Darcy, she has her own struggles with pride and prejudice.
I found it interesting that Lizzy was so upset that Charlotte chose Mr. Collins for “worldly benefit”, but when Wickham dumps her for Miss King, she defends his actions to her aunt. “A man in distressed circumstances has not time for all those elegant decorums which other people may observe.”
I found out Darcy’s first name is “Fitzwilliam” lol
Mr.Bennet continues to be enjoyable; I like how he knows Jane’s situation better than her own mother and has insight into Wickham’s character as well: “He is a pleasant fellow, and would jilt you creditably.”
I can see an (inverse?) parallel between Mr. B spending as much time as possible in his library with Charlotte encouraging Mr. Collins to spend as much time as he can in the garden.
I am loving your reading of Lizzy's contradictory defenses of Wickham when, you're so right, Collins has done exactly the same thing. I have been kind of shocked by how much Lizzy defends and makes excuses for Wickham, even as she holds an iron-tight grip on her feelings about how Darcy is the worst man in the universe. Innnnnnteresting....
My close reading this week highlighted to me just how strongly Lizzy felt towards Charlotte marrying Mr Collins. Chapter 1, I found her language to be rather harsh (or 'too strong' as Mrs Gardiner states) when she refuses any defence for Charlotte maintaining that the meaning of 'principle' and 'integrity' were not to be changed for one individual.
Does this highlight once more Lizzy's prejudices? Another lesson she has to learn.
I was therefore pleased to see that by chapter 3 she had mellowed somewhat - "it was for the sake of what had been, rather than what was" - in maintaining correspondence with Charlotte.
The relationship between Lizzy and Charlotte makes me so sad. They were obviously very close and comfortable with one another and suddenly Lizzy feels like she can't confide in her friend anymore (which, to be fair, is reasonable, because she's attached herself to a person that Lizzy would under no circumstances be comfortable being intimate with, and she can't know how much of what she says to Charlotte will now be passed along to Mr. Collins).
The line you mentioned where you said she mellowed actually made me saddest of all, because it illustrates that she's agreed to keep close correspondence not because she really wants to, but for the sake of what their friendship *used* to be. It made me itch for their visit, to see just how much their former relationship might be reconciled, or if she'll continue to feel disconnected to Charlotte forever.
So many great sentences stood out to me this week:
“You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavor to persuade yourself or me, that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger, security of happiness.” Struck a chord with, um, current events. 👀
“Without scheming to do wrong or make others unhappy, there may be error, and there may be misery. Thoughtlessness, want of attention to other people’s feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business.”
(Both ch. 1)
“What are men to rocks and mountains?” I love how this one speaks to Elizabeth’s ability to be happy outside of marriage. She hopes for a good marriage, but does not hang all of her hope for happiness on it the way some do and is truly content single — I could see her being perfectly happy as a spinster.
This weeks reading of the specific details of social connections and how they are strengthened or weakened, specifically Miss Bingley’s rejection of Jane, Jane and Elizabeth analyzing her actions, letters, words, visits (and lack thereof) really struck me and brought up personal examples of being snubbed, having someone seem super stoked to be my friend and then passively aggressively back off from it, being in a position of analyzing another’s actions & motives, and deciding when to give the benefit of the doubt vs. when to take the not-so-subtle hint. The fact that it felt so relatable speaks to the timelessness of Austen’s writing, her gift of perception of human nature, and her excellent crafting of believable characters.
Love your choice of quotes! And, re the rocks and mountains one, I also laughed out loud at the way she skewers travel recollections: "And when we DO return, it shall not be like other travellers, without being able to give one accurate idea of anything. We WILL know where we have gone -- we WILL recollect what we have seen. Lakes, mountains, and rivers shall not be jumbled together in our imaginations; nor when we attempt to describe any particular scene, will we begin quarrelling about its relative situation. Let our first effusions be less insupportable than those of the generality of travellers." Brilliant! Could only have been written by someone young!
I totally see what you mean, and never saw prejudice in that context but that would be very clever. I've also found it questionable that simply because Elizabeth doesn't have complete faith in the goodwill of others, it makes her as perspicacious as she seems to believe (like those believing pessimism always equates to intelligence). Equally, I definitely think Jane's outlook deserves more credit than her sister gives it, since it could be more objective than her sister's. However I found in intention oftentimes Elizabeth really was searching for objectivity/truth, while her sister would search for good in others. Whether they respectively succeed is another story.
One thing that really stuck out to me this week were people who Lizzie really connects with and respects. especially Charlotte, Jane, and Mrs. Gardiner.
With Charlotte, we see the results of their loss of intimacy, and Elizabeth now feels so much more reserved with Charlotte. She feels like their correspondence is more for “what had been, rather than what was.” So sad when friendships fade for whatever reason.
I love Jane’s and Elizabeth's connection- just what you would want in a relationship with a sister. They seem like they can talk freely, even though they have very different opinions and temperaments. But because of that they can confide, vent, and encourage. And who wouldn’t be elevated by Jane-who still seems to be truly good, even with some big disappointments. And Elizabeth sometimes gives me the feeling that she is trying to “protect” her more innocent sister, and let her know what life is really like.
Mrs. Gardiner is a welcome relief to have one sensible, intelligent, elegant woman to be a good role model and confidant to the girls. It seems like she is someone they love and respect, and she has already stepped in to take Jane to London, and counseled Lizzie about Wickham. So good to see a woman of actual substance in the book, and sounds like we will see more of her with Elizabeth to join their upcoming travels!
My favorite quote was in Chapter 6/27: "Stupid men are the only ones worth knowing after all." Correct me if I am wrong, but my sense is that it was said out of sarcastic frustration with marriage rules. It made me laugh because it seemed, in my limited JA experience, so unexpected to see written out in her book.
No comments on the chapters here, but I wanted to share that this group and reading P and P have been a major source of comfort to me during this time. Need to stop doomscrolling? Re-read a chapter. Absorb insights from other readers. Revisit Hailey’s posts. Complete a free write. Thank you for this community!
No comments on the chapters here, but I wanted to share that this group and reading P and P have been a major source of comfort to me during this time. Need to stop doomscrolling? Re-read a chapter. Absorb insights from other readers. Revisit Haley’s posts. Complete a free write. Thank you for this community!
Thank you for your 'loving reminder', Hayley. I did struggle through the chapters this week. While I completed them, I feel I rushed, without reading closely enough. Looking back over my annotations, I noticed the sentences I liked best both relate to Lizzy's reaction to Wickham and Miss King. First, the one which begins "Nothing, on the contrary..." and even more so, "A man in distressed circumstances has not time for all those elegant decorums which other people may observe." In a chat about To the Lighthouse this week, I mentioned some similarities between Mrs B and Mrs Ramsay on marriage which led a comment about Austen's humour. It's not something I've focused on to this point, but for the weeks ahead, I'm going in with the goal of closely reading for where Austen is funny, and how she does it - is it dry, sarcastic or something else.
Thank you for the encouraging words Haley! I thought I had all caught up but now just realized I’m still a week behind 😅
In this week’s reading, one sentence at the end of chapter 3 (volume 2) stuck me more than others: „handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain.“ this reads like another addendum to the opening sentence: not only young men with fortunes, those not so fortunate must play the marriage market just as much. The difference perhaps is the former are schemed whereas the latter must scheme. So it’s not so much about women or men, it’s about the moneyed and those who lack it: Yes, class! even within the thin layer of the gentries.
Hi Haley, first of all, thank you for including the continuous chapters to the reading schedule!
I am stuck on the concept of entailment, especially now that you wrote that it’s "very unlikely that Mr. Collins will actually inherit Longbourn." Because Mr. and Mrs. Bennet did not have a son, isn't it guaranteed that Longbourn go directly to Mr. Collins, no matter what?
My understanding is that entailment was legally established before the daughters were born, so it's independent of Mr. Bennet's wishes or his daughters' situations, unless one of them married Mr. Collins who is the nearest male relative. So even if all the daughters married other men and had sons, those grandsons would not inherit Longbourn unless they were descended from Mr. Collins because he is next in line. Am I incorrect about this?
Oh no! You’re totally right. I have written it wrong. I’ve been reading so much about entails and primogeniture that I’m in my head. Yes: Mr Collins is in line to inherit. That’s why he wants one of the daughters: it’s basically a sign of good will that he’ll keep the estate “within the family.”
I had read something recently about how some entailments allowed the eldest daughter’s husband to become the one to inherit—but that doesn’t apply here, and leads to estates being partitioned out (one piece per married daughter). Entails were designed precisely to avoid land being broken up like that.
Thanks for the clarification!
I read something a bit different (I think the concept of entailment intrigues me because I'm one of five daughters). I read that if there are NO male heirs, the property will be split between each of the daughters but the article didn't state that the daughters must be married; it just said that the property would then be partitioned off. Why would the stipulation be that the daughters had to marry?
Gawd, this reminds me of when I was 18 (early 1970s), working full-time after high school graduation, and yet many banks wouldn't let women open checking accounts or get credit cards without a father's or husband's signature.
With the no male heirs thing...some entails apparently held that if the daughters married, then their *husband(s)* would become the heirs. It was a way around losing the property to a distant cousin, I think. If the daughters didn't marry, then it'd get all divided up, I guess? It all seems extremely complicated but also completely sensible if you understand their underlying goal was to keep land/power concentrated haha.
It reminds me so much of the plot of Downton Abbey.
And YES. These restrictions have been around forever (and it's scary to think a lot of them are trying to make a comeback...)
These are frightening times, Haley. I’m paying attention but my novels are helping me escape the daily onslaught.
After the action of the last few chapters it now seems that we are stuck in the winter doldrums. Jane has had another letter from Caroline and "Hope was over, entirely over...". Elizabeth is in a funk - "The more I see of the world, the more I am dissatisfied with it..." when in reality she's not seen much of the world at all. Their reactions make them seem like moody teenagers in that "Oh my life is over" way when their social life is upended. I'm understanding their over-reacting a bit differently because closely reading has made me better realize the very real consequences of social standing in their world. Elizabeth's stay with Charlotte is enlightening to her and to me. Collins is both as pompous and simpering as ever. As to Charlotte she relishes the comforts of her new home, and Elizabeth observes "she wisely did not hear" most of the embarrassing things Collins said. I found that very funny, especially since Elizabeth is always acutely aware of the cringe worthy things her mother says in public. Elizabeth spends a boring evening at Rosings punctuated by a brief and unwelcome flash of spirit in a conversation with Lady Catherine. That Elizabeth might have been obligated to marry Collins and that this might have been her life is unthinkable. She would not have wanted or maybe even been able to hold her tongue and withhold her opinions, which to Collins would have made her the one exhibiting shameful (and dangerous) behavior. It's sobering to realize that in this era it probably was the fate of many bright young women like Elizabeth. Then again it was a better fate than having been born or fallen into poverty. This has left me pondering how capriciously where and when you are born influences both who you are and what you can strive to be. Prudent is the word most attached to Charlotte, and she seems to have the will to mold her circumstances enough that she can be satisfied with what she has. Elizabeth (maybe a little recklessly?) craves more from her life. Both Elizabeth and Austen seem to be marking time in these chapters. We're about half way into the book and so far this has been a funny, but long introduction to Austen's world and characters. I'm ready for her to crack this story open.
Yes, I notes that quote also about being dissatisfied with the world the more she saw of it. Mrs Gardiner's reply demonstrates her maturity and experience that she must approach matters more gently if not to ruin her happiness.
Hasn't Mrs. Gardiner been great so far? She's so different from her husband's two sisters. I've been wondering how Jane and Elizabeth are so different from the rest of their family. Maybe this aunt has had something to do with it. She certainly gives astute counsel here.
I've definitely found my reading energy pulling back this week. I think the thing that stuck out to me most is the relationship between Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine. They are both perfectly suited to feeding each other's ego. Lady Catherine "condescends" to put Mr. Collins in his position and give him attention (when she has no better entertainment) which absolutely puffs him up and makes him feel more important (and "good" for constantly bowing and scraping to thank her for it) and gives him reason to humble brag to everyone about his situation; and he in turn allows her to feel especially superior, as he is more apt than most to fully appreciate the difference in their rank and remind her how much he is aware of it (which, as we know, is very important to her). It's no wonder that she chose him or continues to give him attention when his overly deterrent demeanor is exactly what she expects from people (but very obviously doesn't normally get to the extent which he gives).
In regards to question number 2, my annotated copy of the novel says that Mr. Bennet saying something to the effect of "let the other ladies have time to exhibit" loud enough for all to hear suggests that the purpose of their playing was to show off (which was true, of course, but it wasn't socially acceptable to acknowledge that 🙄). So he committed a faux pas as well.
Thank you so much - I have never read/thought about it this way. I do remember Mr Bennet saying that and it being a faux pas is true. He was being too honest in a social circle that works hard at hiding things.
I’ve a feeling Mr Collins is a deeply insecure man and has built this grandiose scaffolding around himself to avoid being seen for what he is, an empty man, and has now probably started believing it, or at least is now in too deep to let go of it. Kind of like a reverse imposter syndrome?
I found the scene between Sir William and Lady Catherine very funny. They are sizing each other up, Sir W is of course not so much in awe as hoarding up every detail for later use as anecdotes and name dropping. They are so similar in how they feed off a false sense of pride except Lady C has more money.
The class hierarchy is clear. Status attaches to land ownership, so the order of operations is as follows:
1. Darcy—owns a large estate but doesn’t have a title, so he’s landed gentry. Derbyshire is up north, so he’s rural—the closer you are to London the higher status.
2, Lady Catherine—landed BUT she is called Lady CATHERINE, not Lady de Bourgh. Lord/Lady first name is called a “courtesy title.” Austen’s readers would have been able to place her by that detail. I am putting her below Darcy for a couple of reasons—one is her courtesy title, and the other is that she’s got a daughter to marry off—she wants to merge the Darcy and de Bourgh holdings, but clearly Darcy is in the driver’s seat here. She needs him to agree to it, and her daughter is described as “sickly.” A landowner needs at least one son to survive into adulthood if he wants to keep his landholdings.
3. Bingley—also landed gentry, but it’s implied somewhere his status is more recent.
4. The Bennets—landowners, but not nearly as large a holding as Bingley or Darcy. Mrs. Bennet’s brothers are “in trade” so she’s clearly lower status than her husband, and her lack of social grace is used to point that out.
Now we get to the landless. The second and subsequent sons of the landed don’t inherit anything, but they can’t just go out and get a job. The second son typically would go into the church, and after that the family would have had to purchase a commission for any remaining sons.
5. Mr. Collins
6. The officers
7. The Gardeners and the Jenkinses—since they work for a living they are at the bottom of this hierarchy.
There are other clues here. We are told that the Darcys and the deBourghs are “old families” and their surnames are more Norman than old English. “Bennet” is also Anglo-Norman. Collins is old English. “Gardener” and “Jenkins” are right out.
Austen deftly skewers the pretentions of the people who inhabit the same community as the Bennets. In chapter 27-Lizzie is in a coach with Sir William Lucas and Charlotte’s younger sister Maria, heading off to Kent to visit the Collins’s. They plan to stop in London to see Jane.
“(Maria)…..a good humored girl, but as empty headed as himself (Sir William), had nothing to say that could be worth hearing, and were listened to with about as much delight as the rattle of the chaise.” Elizabeth loved absurdities, but she had known Sir William’s too long. He could tell her thing new of the wonders of his presentation and knighthood; and his civilities were worn out, like his information.”
Lady Catherine is sketched as quite grand and intimidating, but the 19th century English reader would instantly understand that these are small-time country people—the real nobility is probably a couple of layers above even the de Bourghs. Sir William was presented at the Court of St. James and received a knighthood, but it is clearly not a hereditary knighthood—and it’s the biggest thing in his life. These knighthoods were handed out pretty routinely and didn’t have any land or money associated with them. Our Queen, Dame Judi, received one of these.
I think I have reached peak nerd here so I’ll stop.
This was really interesting. Thank you for sharing your nerding out with us. Much appreciated. :)
The Fandom Jane Austen Wiki wrote that Mr. Collins owned Hunsford Parsonage, stating that it "was bequeathed to William Collins after he accepted a position as the clergyman of the parish"...but was that actually written into the novel or was it implied? (I missed that entirely.) Pretending that he did acquire the property, would you move his status above the Bennet family, perhaps due to his connection with Lady Catherine, or does he remain below them because he's so obnoxious? 😉
I certainly won’t disparage the veracity of a Wiki, but I think in this case they are quite wrong. The landowner (Lady Catherine) owns everything, including the attached village where the parishioners live. She provides the “living” and the parsonage so the local parish will have a preacher. The politics and dynamics of this are more fully laid out in “Mansfield Park”. Also see Downton Abbey. Lord Grantham owns it all and every one rents from him. Even Mr. Bennett has tenant farmers at Longbourne, although it is not prosperous enough to have a village. Hence, the one mile walk to Meryton
Yeah ^^ this. The Bennets and the Collinses will really only ever be renters from Lady Catherine (who is herself part of a larger system).
Now, if (when) Mr. Collins inherits Longbourn after Mr. Bennet’s death, that is going to be quite painful for Mrs Bennet, who’d be essentially socially downgraded from having been its tenant because she is widowed and never had a son. She’d have to rely on Collins or one of her married daughters for a home/security. (Perhaps this helps explain her pervasive nerves and anxieties…)
Bennets are landowners though—and the Collins’s live in in a parsonage, so they aren’t renting from Lady Catherine. She does seem to have some kind of influence over WHO is the rector of her village church though—that’s why Collins has to be so obsequious-if he gets out of line she could have him removed from his position.
DRwilson said above that Lady Catherine owned the parsonage—I thought the church owned those buildings, but DR is correct—I just found this explainer: https://randombitsoffascination.com/portfolio/vicars-curates-and-church-livings/.
It's so interesting to think about the concepts of land ownership from this time period — because while Mr. Bennet is "landed gentry," meaning that he's within the social class that considers him a land owner, he doesn't have a son, he actually doesn't "own" anything he can "pass down." The girls all have to marry or end up dependent on a distant relative who is essentially a stranger.
From what I've read, Mr. Bennet is *not allowed* to sell the land or rewrite the entail law or write any level of ownership to his daughters via his will. So, the idea of land ownership here really doesn't feel that much like ownership to me.
And on another note: Mr. Bennet is the only one who is actually a "landowner," since none of the women in his family can inherit the land/estate. (I've been thinking about Lady Catherine's comment at dinner that *her* family's estate was not entailed, so her husband's death meant that Rosings Park went to herself and their daughter Anne.)
The Bennet girls do, however, have the class status of being "landed gentry," which I think helps with their marriage prospects.
Thank you for the explanation! It didn't make sense to me that Mr. Collins was formally given Hunsford Parsonage, especially if he was ever dismissed as clergyman. This, combined with my lack of familiarity with Mansfield Park and Downton Abbey (much to my family's dismay!), makes me realize I have some serious reading to catch up on.
I am also realizing how much research I could do on all this "entail" business. Land rights are so fascinating and this re-read (and all of our club's amazing comments each week) are helping me understand just how deeply Austen herself understood the nuances of these laws and their social consequences!
I feel the same. I'm reading David Copperfield for the first time (I'm loving this novel so much!) and it's now making me wonder who will inherit his family home after Mr. Murdstone dies because he doesn't have any children. (No spoilers, please!) Maybe it will come to nothing but David Copperfield was published 37 years after P&P so this law must have been in effect. I would never have considered this if we hadn't discussed entailment.
Generally unless there is a restriction like an entail or trust the owner of a property could leave it to who he wanted. Eldest son was usual but children could be cut off if they went against parents wishes on something. If no children it could be left to anyone in the will
Disputes over inheritance are also a theme in 19th century literature. Sometimes a man without a son would adopt a distant relative to take over the estate. This happens in Emma and I think also to Jane Austen's brother
A parsonage can’t be owned…it is provided by the patron (landowner) to house clergy. I was mistaken when I said the church owned these—it was the landowner. I posted a link to an explainer of how the Church of England worked during the Regency in another comment. A living was a lifetime appointment and a vicar could only be removed by a bishop—giving them some degree of independence from their patron, but I would assume that the patron could easily get a bishop to remove a cleric they didn’t like.
When Mr. Bennet dies and Mr. Collins inherits Longbourne, he’ll move up into the landed group, but his estate is smaller and yields a lower income than say the Darcy estate.
Obnoxiousness doesn’t really factor into status, unfortunately. I thought it was interesting that Austen has the most ridiculous characters being the ones with the least secure status, where the ones that had the most secure status (Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley) were the least affected. The more precarious a character’s financial and social status, the more anxious they were about it, and Austen uses their status anxiety to poke fun at many of them.
Which completely explains Mrs. Bennet's personality!
Yes—that and she was from a family that was “in trade” and married up—remember her brother is an attorney and the other one also worked. They probably were more affluent than the Bennets-the Gardiners traveled and were generous to their nieces—-but the landowner class really looked down on the professional and merchant class so she would have had that insecurity as well as worrying about what would happen to her daughters as they were not wealthy.
This is such a fascinating lens, Jenn! It makes me think about how frustrated Mrs. Bennet is with Mr. Bennet's apparent laziness (he wants to sit in his library, hesitates to make extra social visits, doesn't like going to town, etc), and I wonder if Mrs. Bennet experiences his landed gentry class status as a kind of anti-industriousness. As in: Mrs. Bennet is used to being around men who work in trades or professional settings, like law offices. Mr. Bennet has the relative luxury of not having to "work" in the same way; Mrs. Bennet has the "business of marriage" to attend to with her daughters. It seems there may be class tensions within that marriage itself that we're seeing play out in their banter and teasing (and frustrations) with each other.
I hadn’t thought of that. I read her picking at him as being out of anxiety-she is the shopkeeper with excess inventory to move, and her husband isn’t feeling the same sense of urgency about getting all of those daughters married off.
One of the funniest lines in the book was when Mr. Bennet told her in effect, “relax—you might die first.”
It is interesting that Austen’s father was a rector of two parishes, so Jane was intimately familiar with how the livings system worked
Fascinating! Thank you for this.
A favorite quote of mine is Elizabeth’s; “Since we see every day that where there is affection, young people are seldom withheld by immediate want of fortune from engagements with each other, how can I promise to be wiser than so many of my fellow-creatures if I am tempted, or how am I even to know that it would be wisdom to resist?”. It really demonstrates how much of a complete outlook she has on human nature, a beautiful logic that doesn’t exclude feeling. It was also interesting to me since earlier on we witness her dialogue between her and Jane, where Jane prefers to view the world with empathy, likely for her own trust in humanity and comfort, while Elizabeth is committed to seeing people as they are (which tends to be more pessimistic). And here we see that her commitment to truth goes beyond her perception of the external world; she is also self-aware, acknowledging that she too can get swept by her emotions. And since wisdom and her own happiness are both important to her, it raises the question of how to approach acting wisely about matters of the heart, which often can’t be rationalized or calculated. I’d really look forward to seeing how she makes decisions once she also faces strong emotions.
I love this Angeline. Thank you.
I look at Jane and Elizabeth differently. To me, Elizabeth is very certain that her first impressions are correct and then she strongly uses confirmation bias to cement her believes. This is perhaps the prejudice of the title. Jane does have more empathy but she also seems to understand that often they only have one side of the story and should perhaps hold their prejudices in check until more is revealed. I will be honest. I’ve readP&P 4 or 5 times and I find Elizabeth less agreeable every time I read it
I still love Lizzy just as much, but I do think I see more of her faults now than I did my first few reads. But I think there's truth to what both you and Angeline said about how you view Lizzy and Jane - that's part of what I love about the story; the characters are complex and almost all have both strengths and weaknesses which we can see illustrated in different situations.
I'm experiencing a similar read on Lizzy this time around. She's so funny and very self-aware in some moments...and so conceited and self-assured in others. We are closest to her POV, thanks to our narrator, and so I think we understand her shifts in thinking and energy better than, say, Darcy's or Bingley's (who we experience, most often, at a greater distance). This re-read is helping me notice just how clever and compassionate Austen's choice of narrative "free indirect" style really is: it allows us to see Lizzy in her best moments, and also in her less forgiving ones, too. The first time I read the novel, I was really taken with her. On this re-read, I'm grateful for the number of times we get to see how, just like Darcy, she has her own struggles with pride and prejudice.
“What are men to rocks and mountains?”
-Elizabeth Bennet
I found it interesting that Lizzy was so upset that Charlotte chose Mr. Collins for “worldly benefit”, but when Wickham dumps her for Miss King, she defends his actions to her aunt. “A man in distressed circumstances has not time for all those elegant decorums which other people may observe.”
I found out Darcy’s first name is “Fitzwilliam” lol
Mr.Bennet continues to be enjoyable; I like how he knows Jane’s situation better than her own mother and has insight into Wickham’s character as well: “He is a pleasant fellow, and would jilt you creditably.”
I can see an (inverse?) parallel between Mr. B spending as much time as possible in his library with Charlotte encouraging Mr. Collins to spend as much time as he can in the garden.
I am loving your reading of Lizzy's contradictory defenses of Wickham when, you're so right, Collins has done exactly the same thing. I have been kind of shocked by how much Lizzy defends and makes excuses for Wickham, even as she holds an iron-tight grip on her feelings about how Darcy is the worst man in the universe. Innnnnnteresting....
My close reading this week highlighted to me just how strongly Lizzy felt towards Charlotte marrying Mr Collins. Chapter 1, I found her language to be rather harsh (or 'too strong' as Mrs Gardiner states) when she refuses any defence for Charlotte maintaining that the meaning of 'principle' and 'integrity' were not to be changed for one individual.
Does this highlight once more Lizzy's prejudices? Another lesson she has to learn.
I was therefore pleased to see that by chapter 3 she had mellowed somewhat - "it was for the sake of what had been, rather than what was" - in maintaining correspondence with Charlotte.
The relationship between Lizzy and Charlotte makes me so sad. They were obviously very close and comfortable with one another and suddenly Lizzy feels like she can't confide in her friend anymore (which, to be fair, is reasonable, because she's attached herself to a person that Lizzy would under no circumstances be comfortable being intimate with, and she can't know how much of what she says to Charlotte will now be passed along to Mr. Collins).
The line you mentioned where you said she mellowed actually made me saddest of all, because it illustrates that she's agreed to keep close correspondence not because she really wants to, but for the sake of what their friendship *used* to be. It made me itch for their visit, to see just how much their former relationship might be reconciled, or if she'll continue to feel disconnected to Charlotte forever.
I love what you wrote. I always hold onto hope. If a window is left a little open the light and fresh air come in. Lizzy has left the window open.
Yes! I totally see that. Lizzy has many lessons to learn.
So many great sentences stood out to me this week:
“You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavor to persuade yourself or me, that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger, security of happiness.” Struck a chord with, um, current events. 👀
“Without scheming to do wrong or make others unhappy, there may be error, and there may be misery. Thoughtlessness, want of attention to other people’s feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business.”
(Both ch. 1)
“What are men to rocks and mountains?” I love how this one speaks to Elizabeth’s ability to be happy outside of marriage. She hopes for a good marriage, but does not hang all of her hope for happiness on it the way some do and is truly content single — I could see her being perfectly happy as a spinster.
This weeks reading of the specific details of social connections and how they are strengthened or weakened, specifically Miss Bingley’s rejection of Jane, Jane and Elizabeth analyzing her actions, letters, words, visits (and lack thereof) really struck me and brought up personal examples of being snubbed, having someone seem super stoked to be my friend and then passively aggressively back off from it, being in a position of analyzing another’s actions & motives, and deciding when to give the benefit of the doubt vs. when to take the not-so-subtle hint. The fact that it felt so relatable speaks to the timelessness of Austen’s writing, her gift of perception of human nature, and her excellent crafting of believable characters.
Love your choice of quotes! And, re the rocks and mountains one, I also laughed out loud at the way she skewers travel recollections: "And when we DO return, it shall not be like other travellers, without being able to give one accurate idea of anything. We WILL know where we have gone -- we WILL recollect what we have seen. Lakes, mountains, and rivers shall not be jumbled together in our imaginations; nor when we attempt to describe any particular scene, will we begin quarrelling about its relative situation. Let our first effusions be less insupportable than those of the generality of travellers." Brilliant! Could only have been written by someone young!
I totally see what you mean, and never saw prejudice in that context but that would be very clever. I've also found it questionable that simply because Elizabeth doesn't have complete faith in the goodwill of others, it makes her as perspicacious as she seems to believe (like those believing pessimism always equates to intelligence). Equally, I definitely think Jane's outlook deserves more credit than her sister gives it, since it could be more objective than her sister's. However I found in intention oftentimes Elizabeth really was searching for objectivity/truth, while her sister would search for good in others. Whether they respectively succeed is another story.
One thing that really stuck out to me this week were people who Lizzie really connects with and respects. especially Charlotte, Jane, and Mrs. Gardiner.
With Charlotte, we see the results of their loss of intimacy, and Elizabeth now feels so much more reserved with Charlotte. She feels like their correspondence is more for “what had been, rather than what was.” So sad when friendships fade for whatever reason.
I love Jane’s and Elizabeth's connection- just what you would want in a relationship with a sister. They seem like they can talk freely, even though they have very different opinions and temperaments. But because of that they can confide, vent, and encourage. And who wouldn’t be elevated by Jane-who still seems to be truly good, even with some big disappointments. And Elizabeth sometimes gives me the feeling that she is trying to “protect” her more innocent sister, and let her know what life is really like.
Mrs. Gardiner is a welcome relief to have one sensible, intelligent, elegant woman to be a good role model and confidant to the girls. It seems like she is someone they love and respect, and she has already stepped in to take Jane to London, and counseled Lizzie about Wickham. So good to see a woman of actual substance in the book, and sounds like we will see more of her with Elizabeth to join their upcoming travels!
My favorite quote was in Chapter 6/27: "Stupid men are the only ones worth knowing after all." Correct me if I am wrong, but my sense is that it was said out of sarcastic frustration with marriage rules. It made me laugh because it seemed, in my limited JA experience, so unexpected to see written out in her book.
No comments on the chapters here, but I wanted to share that this group and reading P and P have been a major source of comfort to me during this time. Need to stop doomscrolling? Re-read a chapter. Absorb insights from other readers. Revisit Hailey’s posts. Complete a free write. Thank you for this community!
This makes me smile so big, Shannon. This community is such a balm for me, too. Thanks for being here! 💕🥂
No comments on the chapters here, but I wanted to share that this group and reading P and P have been a major source of comfort to me during this time. Need to stop doomscrolling? Re-read a chapter. Absorb insights from other readers. Revisit Haley’s posts. Complete a free write. Thank you for this community!
I love Lizzie's IDGAF energy! And Mr Collins is getting more and more annoying with his over eagerness to please Lady Catherine!
Thank you for your 'loving reminder', Hayley. I did struggle through the chapters this week. While I completed them, I feel I rushed, without reading closely enough. Looking back over my annotations, I noticed the sentences I liked best both relate to Lizzy's reaction to Wickham and Miss King. First, the one which begins "Nothing, on the contrary..." and even more so, "A man in distressed circumstances has not time for all those elegant decorums which other people may observe." In a chat about To the Lighthouse this week, I mentioned some similarities between Mrs B and Mrs Ramsay on marriage which led a comment about Austen's humour. It's not something I've focused on to this point, but for the weeks ahead, I'm going in with the goal of closely reading for where Austen is funny, and how she does it - is it dry, sarcastic or something else.
Thank you for the encouraging words Haley! I thought I had all caught up but now just realized I’m still a week behind 😅
In this week’s reading, one sentence at the end of chapter 3 (volume 2) stuck me more than others: „handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain.“ this reads like another addendum to the opening sentence: not only young men with fortunes, those not so fortunate must play the marriage market just as much. The difference perhaps is the former are schemed whereas the latter must scheme. So it’s not so much about women or men, it’s about the moneyed and those who lack it: Yes, class! even within the thin layer of the gentries.