Michelle in MO Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Our family is watching the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice now, and I guess I could search this out on the internet, but I'm really curious: why was a dowry so important during this time period? Why would a father, for example, have to pay 10,000 pounds (in the case of the devious Mr. Wickham) for a dowry? (Or, whatever the required dowry might be) I know this is not unique to British society, and I feel rather stupid for asking, but why should the family of daughters be required to do this? Since Mr. Bennet in the story had no sons, apparently the slimy Mr. Collins (the clergyman) was the next person to inherit Mr. Bennet's estate? I suppose this had to do with inheritance laws and the rights of women at the time. Just curious! I guess I can research it more on my own, too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritAnnia Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I was curious after reading your question. I found this... http://www.jasa.net.au/study/whalan.htm ... the relevant portion being about halfway down the page. Interesting how things seem so acceptable for a long time and yet still change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share Posted February 20, 2008 and will read it later. I just found it so curious that fathers had to "pay", in essence, for their daughters to get married! I know this is not just a British custom----it's been done in other societies, as well. I just don't quite understand the reasoning behind it, KWIM? Thanks for your response! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Savannah Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 In that time, most societies saw women's value in light of their ability to provide sons....It was the males who were of value, as they had earning power, ability to inherit family property and wealth. To have a daughter was to have a debt the father owed from the day she was born. We still see this in many cultures throughout the world....daughters are abandoned, killed, etc as a result. What a good essay question for a novel study. Heather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori D. Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 nt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share Posted February 20, 2008 In that time, most societies saw women's value in light of their ability to provide sons....It was the males who were of value, as they had earning power, ability to inherit family property and wealth. To have a daughter was to have a debt the father owed from the day she was born. We still see this in many cultures throughout the world....daughters are abandoned, killed, etc as a result. What a good essay question for a novel study.Heather I think that Austen, without being a feminist, was perhaps making social commentary on the situation with women at the time. Plus, I think she was challenging the concept of marrying for status (i.e., the necessity to marry "up") versus marrying for love. Anyone else want to comment? I'm new to Jane Austen---just now reading Sense and Sensibility, although I've seen the movie with Emma Thompson numerous times, along with A&E's version of Pride and Prejudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie in NC Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 The dowry wasn't exactly a "payment" by the father, but the daughter's share of inheritance taken early and given to the husband. A wealthy family could afford to give their daughters a larger dowry and thereby (hopefully) attract wealthier men from "good families." The process is actually a bit complicated. In most of England at the time, the oldest son was the only one to inherit the real property (along with the title if there was one). That was originally done to keep the estates of England from being completely chopped up in successive generations. The oldest son usually did not have a "career," but was to be a gentleman of comparative leisure, running his estates and managing his money. the second sun usually went into the military, and subsequent sons would usually go into law or the clergy. While they might have a stipend for life from the eldest brother, they were more or less on their own to make their fortune. Clergy didn't make much fortune usually! So you see, the dowry was a way for the second and subsequent sons of gentlemen to be able to afford a wife. In those days, even a dowry of a few thousand pounds could bring an income large enough to help with month-to-month living expenses. Those living expenses could be large when you consider that these families were expected to entertain, retain many servants, attend formal parties requiring expensive clothes, etc. In P&P (the book, it doesn't show this much in the miniseries), Captain Fitzwilliam (Darcy's cousin) is definitely taken with Elizabeth. At one point however, he makes sure she understands that as a younger son, he cannot marry anyone without a dowry because he will have little or nothing of his own. So dowries were not just a bribe to get anyone to marry the daughters, but a way for their daughters to marry into "good" families. And, perhaps just as important, a way for "sharing the wealth" and allowing younger sons of gentlemen to marry. And fathers were not required to do this. Some simply couldn't (like Mr. Bennet), and some probably didn't chose to give much in the way of dowry. As for entailment (having land pass only along the male line) this was usually done to keep estates in the family. Titles were also passed the nearest male heir, so they wanted the estates to go with the titles. Not all estates were entailed, as we learn from Lady Catherine De Bourgh. :) (Can you tell I am an Austen fan!) Carrie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Wow, this topic strikes my fancy for a few different reasons. I loved the article about "Emma" which is my Austin selection of the month (I'm trying to make it through the list this year). I just read P & P and I don't get the impression that Mr. Collins is "slimy" -- just a little odd and self-serving. The A & E show must have added some Hollywood to his character. He is a clergyman looking for a wife and was actually trying to help his relations by proposing marriage to a Bennet girl. I could be so wrong, though. As for the "daughter" issue, we adopted 2 little girls from China in the last few years so I have studied this issue in terms of Chinese culture. Girls are and have been considered property/burden in many societies/cultures from the beginning of time. The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck is a great book about this phenomenon in China. Back to Austin, I just watched the movie "Becoming Jane" last week and I was hoping to find out here if the movie is remotely factual. Anyone know? And yes, I also rented "The Jane Austin Book Club" which I was fairly disappointed with. Great topic, Michelle. Thanks for bringing it up. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in GA Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Good comments, Carrie. I think it's important to understand the reasons for the customs, and not just think, as many do, that women were simply "undervalued" in earlier times. Someone also mentioned that Austen was a feminist, and I don't agree, though I guess it may depend on your definition of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Back to Austin, I just watched the movie "Becoming Jane" last week and I was hoping to find out here if the movie is remotely factual. Anyone know? Very little is known about Austen's emotional life because her sister destroyed any relevant letters. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Readsalot Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I recently read a softcover unabridged edition of Pride and Prejudice with a scene form the 2005 movie on the cover. The book has notes to explain things like dowries, entail and lots more. Each chapter had 2-3 notes. I suggest reading this type of edition. If you would like the ISBN number let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 I'd like to read more on this subject of British society at the time. I don't think Austen was a feminist---I think that would have been extremely out of "character", for lack of a better word, for those times. I mentioned in my first post that I thought she was making some social commentary about the necessity of marrying into good families instead of marrying for love. Fortunately, Elizabeth gets both in Pride and Prejudice! But---it's obvious (at least from the movie) that she feels she cannot marry for any other reason. I haven't read Pride and Prejudice yet, but the movie version, at least, depicts him to be rather "slimy" in my opinion. He's fawning, self-serving, etc. However, the actor must be very good, because he does a great job with the part! Perhaps it is a bit of "Hollywood" thrown in there for effect! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 There's always The Annoated P&P. There are copious notes (many giving away plot points, so not for a first time reader), on the page opposite the relevant text. Some notes are downright insulting, but many of the finer points peculiar to the social history of this time are covered. For example, "morning" extended to late in the afternoon because it was considered to be the time before dinner which was being pushed later and later, especially amongst the rich folk (puts a different spin on going out "for the morning."). Supper then became a much smaller, and late affair among the well-to-do, but the lower classes (i.e. the Bennett girl's aunt in Merryton sp?) still had bigger meals. I learned more about church livings than I thought possible. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Carrie, its great that a conversation on Austin brought you out of lurking :) (on the new boards anyway. For all I know, you've been here for years). You have great insight. Thanks for sharing. Karen, I have the new P & P edition you speak of w/ the details/notes throughout. It was so helpful in reading Austin for the first time. (I wish I could find a Jane Eyre edition like that). Laura, where did you read that Austin's sister destroyed her notes? That's terrible! I'm sucked into Emma currently. Not quite sure how I feel about her. The vocab alone is keeping my pace rather slow going. Do I sense a Jane Austin book club in the making? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 Karen, I have the new P & P edition you speak of w/ the details/notes throughout. It was so helpful in reading Austin for the first time. (I wish I could find a Jane Eyre edition like that). Laura, where did you read that Austin's sister destroyed her notes? That's terrible! I'm sucked into Emma currently. Not quite sure how I feel about her. The vocab alone is keeping my pace rather slow going. Do I sense a Jane Austin book club in the making? :) added so much to this discussion: Carrie, for your additional wisdom on dowries and early 19th century British society; BritAnnia (sp?) for posting the article from the JASA, which I read and entirely enjoyed; Laura, for the note about Austen's sister (how awful that she did that!) and Beth, for this current idea! We were watching Pride & Prejudice recently, (we own the DVD, but I know A&E is currently replaying the series), and my oldest remarked how much the English language has deteriorated since Austen's time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 In many times and places, parents are expected to set their children up in life. Here, now, it is usually done by providing education. Other places and times, it consisted of paying for a training or a place in the military or for a child to get into politics or whatever. Dowries were the way the fathers set up their daughters for life. I don't think they've entirely gone out of fashion, either; they just tend to be called something else and they usually no longer have to get around the problem of men managing most of a families monitary resources. How many of us women have received cars, furniture, first month's rent, house downpayments, stocks, or trustfunds when we married? I bet quite a few of us, if our families had the wherewithall. -Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in GA Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I thought WORLD had an article about this, but no, the WORLD article is about the book A Walk With Jane Austen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 I guess I was tending to think of it almost as a "penalty" (although that's too strong of a word) for fathers of daughters, or merely money that had to be paid to future sons-in-law. (Maybe because we have three girls I wonder why!) However, thinking of it more in terms of providing for the daughters and contributing to their future husbands' income is better. You are right---we do help pay for our children's education, as well as helping them get started in life with their first automobile, perhaps cash at a wedding towards the first home for a young couple, etc. So---we perhaps do the same thing today, only we give it a different name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 p. 278 in my Penguin edition: "[bentley] was a shrewd publisher, and asked for more biographical material about 'the [dead] authoress' Henry offered very little, repeating his phrase 'my sister's life was not a life of events'; and he went on 'Nothing like a journal of her actions or her conversations was kept by her or others. Indeed the farthest thing from her expectations or wishes was to be exhibited as a public character under any circumstances.' Either Henry had failed to preserve any of the many letters Jane must have sent him and Eliza or, like [their sister] Cassandra, he was not prepared to let them be seen by other eyes... [Cassandra's] niece Caroline gives a clear account of the fate of the letters: she 'looked them over and burnt the greater part (as she told me) 2 or 3 years before her own death - She left, or gave some as legacies to the Nieces - but of those I have seen several had portions cut out.'" Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 She came to the US in high school and worked as a software engineer and was pretty modern about women's lib and all. She was proud of how much she would get when she married, proud and relieved. This, along with the jewelry her in-laws gave her, gave her security. It was her own wealth, not her husband's. She said it was nothing like a bride-price like in India. To her, the difference was who owned the dowery. In terms of family economics, they probably are quite similar, but to the wife, I can see how they be entirely different things. She also said that her in-laws were expected to provide her with a fully furnished house. -Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturalmom Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 What is it that makes Bingley and Darcy appealing at first? Their money. And consider in Sense and Sensibility, when Fanny's affection for the older son is transferred to the younger once the inheritance has been changed over to him! I think marriage was about financial security for a lot of people in those days. The idea was that, if Jane married well, her sister's would be taken care of, implies that although the husband may receive the wife's money, she is still put in a position to assist her family. Also, as for Mr. Collins, there is an older BBC version where he is not slimy, but just sort of socially awkward. I prefer that presentation of him, though that also makes you feel quite sorry for him when Elizabeth refuses him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moira in MA Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 A good resource for understanding British society and literature is: What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew; From fox hunting to Whist -- Fact of life in 19th century Britain by Daniel Pool. There are a few places where I'd debate his accuracy (I'm a Brit) but in general it contains a wealth of information. HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.