WHICH IS THE WORST MARRIAGE IN JANE AUSTEN’S NOVELS? 

Thank you for clarifying! This makes a lot of sense. I think today we are so used to the “in-law” term to mean the family you marry into. But I’ve heard it used synonymously with “by-law” in period pieces and it makes sense when describing what we now call step parents and step children.

You tell ‘em!

I think the logic of their day was that he was her son only by right of her marriage to his father , so in that sense he is a son in law. Where we would call someone a sister-in-law Jane has them call each other “sister” and “brother”

Thank you for the explanation. I admit I was somewhat confused by the expression.

Amazing note. In polish translation a step-mother and step-son is in use. I also read and re-read the original and never noticed the different term :) very interesting!

And Charlotte was in her late twenties.

I also believe that Charlotte wouldn't have been like Fanny Dashwood, and actually had Mr. Collin help the Bennets, if Jane and Lizzy hadn't married Bingley and Darcy, because of her friendship with Lizzy. I mean Charlotte always seemed a good friend especially when she warned Lizzy that Jane should be more affectionate and we later found that Darcy thought Jane wasn't in love with Bingley because she wasn't so outwardly affectionate.

He was cruel, though. He tried to bully Elizabeth into marrying him by telling her that probably nobody else would want her, and when Lydia ran away, he came to Longbourne to gloat and tell her sisters she'd be better off dead.

But she had to share a bed with him. Ugh!

@@erikab1317 Agreed, if "he's not a mind reader" was a thing people said, she would have said it.

I couldn't agree more but Mrs Hurst doesn't seem. particularly unhappy either

Totally agree, but they are well off, even if it isn't his!

@@lizziebkennedy7505 yes mosquitos are bloodsuckers but it's grosser to US as the ones they have to bite, than to a mosquito, I'm sure ha ha ha

I don't think they aren't well off and just live off of Mr. Bingley. It was quite common in Regency England to have prolonged family visits that could last up to several months and we are never really told how much money Mr. Hurst has at his disposal.

@@minemarei768 no, but the book does say he was a man of “more fashion than fortune,” or something like that.

Agreed. I think of the Collins as a very good marriage since both of them are getting exactly what they want in life, thanks to Charlotte's practicality and Mr. Collins' obliviousness.

Mr. Collins/Charlotte Lucas: Realist Mr. Bingley/Jane Bennet: Idealist Mr. Darcy/Elizabeth Bennet: Rationalist Mr. Wickham/Lydia Bennet: Fantasist Mr. Bennet/Mrs. Bennet: Absurdist

Exactly. The relationship is functional and both people are reasonably happy.

@@renshiwu305 Thats pretty apt

"Independence" was only possible because Collins was easily led😛

Continuing this thought -- Charlotte Lucas was already nearing that dangerous age of 28. She had a younger sister who could marry better if Charlotte led the way. And she had her parents and other siblings to consider. She observed William Collins as a suitor for her best friend Lizzy Bennet. Upon finding that the offer of marriage had been made and rejected, she did the hard calculus. Charlotte could remain as an aging spinster in her parents' home, and eventually as a poor relative living with a sibling. Or she could become the wife of an upwardly mobile young clergyman under the patronage of Lady Catherine de Bourgh. And upon Mr. Bennet's death she would be Mrs. Collins, the mistress of Longbourn. She would raise her family near her parents' home at Lucas Lodge, and she would be in a position to take up her former life in Meryton, now as a leading member of the community. Charlotte would probably face the same problem with the entail on Longbourn that troubled Mrs. Bennet. As long as she provided one male heir to inherit upon Mr. Collins' death, her place would be secure. Mr. Collins, in turn, married the daughter of a knight, a practical and supportive soul who made his home life more convivial than a Miss Elizabeth ever could.

Absolutely! To say nothing of the fact that unmarried, middle/upper class women who weren't lucky enough to inherit any property or money basically had no rights or independence. Their only career options, as it were, were marriage, to become a companion to some wealthier relative or friend of the family or whatever, or else become a governess. We see that plight highlighted in Emma with Jane Fairfax, her aunt and grandmother. Charlotte's family are not implied to be particularly well off; Sir William was knighted because of his being mayor of Meryton, and had made his money in trade I'm pretty sure, so they were technically a lower class than the Bennets as well. I thought the youtube series the Lizzie Bennet Diaries updated Charlotte's choice really well. It's basically the choice between choosing a less than ideal, but stable, job and gaining that financial security and independence with the possibility of being able to improve the situation with time (she is clever enough that she could totally steer Collins to a promotion I'm sure, as well as his prospects of inheriting Longbourn), vs choosing the path of idealism and 'not selling out' which might work out and bring great rewards, but could equally completely fail leaving you forced to compromise and make the stable choice later, but with the downside of now being completely disillusioned. Lizzie is lucky enough to escape the latter ending, but her romantic notions could very easily have resulted in that kind of life (and she does joke about becoming an old maid to Jane). In many ways too I think Lizzie is a great deal more like Lydia than she (or many readers) would like to think; they are both very romantically minded, stubborn, and somewhat inclined to be dismissive of other people. The difference is the fact that as Lizzie is the second born her father paid more attention to her, whereas he'd sort of given up by the time Lydia arrived..

I agree completely, and I also always thought she would have protected the Bennet girls from being thrown out of their home if any were still unmarried when their father died. Considering they already have the parsonage right next to Lady Catherine, I think Charlotte would have had an easy job convincing Mr. Collins to appear generous and caring by allowing his cousins to remain at Longbourne at least for some time until they could marry or their mother passed and that dowry being split among them.

@@patriciauselton6460 I especially love your point about Charlotte having to consider her family. Both her father and sister, when visiting the married couple, seem happy with the match - and especially impressed by Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Lady Catherine even offers Miss Lucas and Lizzie a private carriage for their return trip, and hosts them both at Rosings. Mr Collins may not have been the most attractive man in the novel, but he was respectable, set to inherit a good estate, and had desirable social connections. Charlotte not only chose the best option she had available to her personally, she made an advantageous union for her family

Elizabeth certainly had more advantages than Charlotte. As has been mentioned already, she was younger than Charlotte and was good-looking. Moreover, she was of higher birth for she was born into the landed gentry whereas the Lucas family were newcomers to upper class circles. Consequently, it was not unrealistic of Elizabeth to think that she could attract the affection of a gentleman she could love and respect.

I agree, the book itself says that they Lydia is always getting money from Jane or Elizabeth and that they are always in dept. It also says they take separate vacations and Lydia herself stops loving Wickham at some point fairly early on.

I think it would take quite a lot for Lydia Wickham to be unhappy. Through the whole book, she acts only for herself, and never bothers to consider how her behavior affects others. Wickham is also selfish and manipulative, but I think his own self-interest would prevent him from acting too cruelly to her-- there would be considerable risk of her family intervening, and with many more resources than they had when he met them. Lydia also takes after her mother the most out of the five sisters, and Mrs. Bennet, although her marriage could not be described as "happy," clearly built up her own little reality to inhabit, centered around gossip and matchmaking. She's not "punished" for her inappropriate conduct like Eliza Brandon is, or like Marianne Dashwood is. She never shows repentance or gratitude for all her family has done for her. I know we have different ideas about teenage development now than during the Regency, but I guess I assumed Lydia was never going to grow out of her ways, so a marriage that would certainly have served as a punishment for another heroine is just a minor inconvenience to her.

Wickham is vicious and reckless. However, I don't think he respects Lydia enough to be deliberately cruel to her, if that makes sense. I don't think he quite regards her as a person, but an asset or hindrance. He resented Darcy because Darcy sees through him and has things he wants. Lydia does not see or hear anything she doesn't want to. She will probably go through life thinking he's wonderful because it's most convenient for her. Her willful ignorance will keep her safe.

Plus Lydia would end up permanently pregnant and Wickham would go off with prostitutes when she was to heavily pregnant, he'd be risking catching the pox too. Being married to Wickham would be an awful fate indeed.

I don't know: Lydia didn't strike me as someone who'd ever grow up. She appeared to have a similar disposition to that of her mother, and we see, Mrs. Bennet hasn't really grown up much/

Great point. I agree - a robust refusal to accept such moralising novelistic conventions runs throughout Austen's novels. In _Sense and Sensibility_ we might think of Lucy Steele, who remains comeuppance free (unless you think being married to Robert Ferrars is a comeuppance, which Lucy doesn't seem to), or John Willoughby: "But that he was for ever inconsolable, that he fled from society, or contracted an habitual gloom of temper, or died of a broken heart, must not be depended on-for he did neither. He lived to exert, and frequently to enjoy himself. His wife was not always out of humour, nor his home always uncomfortable; and in his breed of horses and dogs, and in sporting of every kind, he found no inconsiderable degree of domestic felicity." (ch.50)

@@DrOctaviaCox All Austen’s most dislikable (to us 21st-century readers) characters share a semblance of shamelessness.

@@DrOctaviaCox I've always felt she was particularly mean about Mary Bennet though, both within the body of the novel and at the end where she is left alone at home, moralizing over every morning visit with Mrs Bennet. Maybe Mary's flaws were really the ones that Jane Austen disliked most!

​@@zillie8167 Maybe when she wrote "Pride and Prejudice", at least. But when I read "Mansfield Park", I couldn't help feeling that Fanny Price and Mary Crawford felt a bit like Mary and Elizabeth Bennett, as written by an older Austen who had come to like Mary more and like Elizabeth a heck of a lot less.

@@christophertaylor2462 exactly. I've also compared those two characters - brave and spontaneous Elizabeth (walking to see her sister etc) and as brave and spontaneous and also charming Mary Crawford - how differently treated in these two novels! (From thise two I feel "safer" reading Mansfield Park, cause I was always more like Fanny or Mary B. than any atrractive, brave young women ;) and I wonder what influence Jane A. was expecting to have on young women - her readers - in both cases - and why :) )

We are told in the final chapter that Wickham would go, without Lydia, "to enjoy himself in London or Bath" (ch.61). I think we can guess what that means...

At the end of the book, we’re also told that whatever initial attraction Lydia and Wickham had shared quickly vanished, and they ended up very indifferent toward one another. As for finances, the Wickhams end up mooching off the Bingleys to the point where the Bingleys talk about the possibility of asking the Wickhams to move out. So Wickham obviously continued his profligate ways, and Lydia would have been no source of restraint.

I’m sure Lydia would take lovers as well .

Wickham was given a commission to the Newcastle militia in Pride and Prejudice. Although Austen couldn't know that when she wrote her book, this militia ended up at Waterloo and almost all the officers were killed in action. Lydia probably ended up a widow.

@@happybkwrm Thank you. That's an interesting piece of information.

And Charlotte does fit the bill of Mr Collins's wife wish-list according to Lady Catherine! Mr Collins says "she said, ‘Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry. Choose properly, choose a gentlewoman for my sake; and for your own, let her be an active, useful sort of person, not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way. This is my advice. Find such a woman as soon as you can, bring her to Hunsford, and I will visit her’" (ch.19).

I agree! I love Lizzy, but she could not have borne the life offered by Mr. Collins and she would have made them both miserable. Charlotte is more suited to the life and better able to make her own happiness wherever she is. She understands that life needs practicality and purposefully chooses a practical and beneficial marriage. I have always thought of their union as a successful match, not a negative one. It's quite a happy ending for both Mr. Collins and Charlotte, given the times. And, it's beneficial for the Benners, as well, as Charlotte would never allow Mr. Collins to be cruel to the Bennet ladies when Mr. Bennet dies.

Yes, I agree. I also think it possible that Charlotte could be a positive influence on Mr. Collins. I don't think he would change tremendously but he could develop a tenderness for her and for a child that could soften him a bit.

An excellent observation Rebecca. I hadn't considered that before. Yes, Charlotte would be much kinder than a - for example - Fanny Dashwood type!

Yes, I completely agree. Because she went into that marriage with both eyes wide open, she was able to arrange things in a way that suited them both.

I totally agree!

If he had been a good sort of man, he would have put his foot down. Then told Fanny to zip it. Usually our mates amplify the worst of our traits. Or exploit them

I don’t think he is fundamentally good man or that the video is trying to portray him as such, the video says they bring worts out of each other. If his wife has been someone like Jane like the example she would never have been fine with his sisters not being taken care of and he didn’t have a spine to go against societies expectations on his own, even if he wanted to since he was greedy as well.

I have just been re-reading S&S and I agree - John Dashwood is a vile character: in Ch 33 he complains to Elinor of the cost of replacing the china, linen etc bequeathed to her (Elinor's) mum. "He (their dad) had an undoubted right to dispose of his own property as he chose, but in consequence we have been obliged...to supply....what was taken away". Later, in Ch 41 (after Edward Ferrars has been disowned and cut off by his mother) Edward has been offered the living which is within Col. Brandon's gift), John Dashwood cannot understand this action - "He could have sold this for £1,400......what could be the Colonel's motive?" - (Elinor replies) "A very simple one - to be of use to Mr Ferrars". John Dashwood simply cannot understand this. This conversation goes on with a bit of sexual politics: "We think now" said Mr Dashwood "of Robert's marrying Miss Morton." (she had previously been lined up for Edward). Elinor, smiling (replied) "The lady, I suppose, has no choice in the affair." "Choice! - how do you mean?" 21st century satire couldn't - doesn't - do it better.

I think all this is beside the question. Were John and Fanny happily married? I’d say ‘yes’. They are both mean and selfish and this unites rather than divides them.

Yes, excellent shout re Mr Elliot and his wife. Mrs Smith tells us of Mr Elliot's reasons for choosing his wife: "Money, money, was all that he wanted. Her father was a grazier, her grandfather had been a butcher, but that was all nothing. She was a fine woman, had had a decent education, was brought forward by some cousins, thrown by chance into Mr Elliot's company, and fell in love with him; and not a difficulty or a scruple was there on his side, with respect to her birth. All his caution was spent in being secured of the real amount of her fortune, before he committed himself." And exactly as you say, his mourning is superficial - he's already making calculations about his next wife! Anne makes clear the impropriety of this: "My dear Mrs Smith, Mr Elliot's wife has not been dead much above half a year. He ought not to be supposed to be paying his addresses to any one." (Persuasion, ch.21)

The novel says Anne's mother's one mistake was marrying sir Walter and she just went made the best of it that she could.

Yes, indeed: "Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable; whose judgement and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence afterwards.--She had humoured, or softened, or concealed his failings, and promoted his real respectability for seventeen years; and though not the very happiest being in the world herself, had found enough in her duties, her friends, and her children, to attach her to life, and make it no matter of indifference to her when she was called on to quit them.--" ('Persuasion' ch.1).

@@DrOctaviaCox I wonder if at least part of the reason why Mr. Elliot pursued Anne as opposed to her sister Elizabeth is because he thought Anne might be easier to control.

@@legendarymermaid To me it always seemed like Mr. Elliot did enjoy intelligence and Elizabeth wasn't as quick witted as Anne. He also didn't mind doing something morally wrong but by the same token didn't try to draw attention to it. He liked being a bit in the shadow where his actions would go more unnoticed. Elizabeth liked being the center of attention too much. And also your point. It even ties into the attention point: Anne would never make a scene even if she was unhappy. Elizabeth on the other hand... Just my interpretation though. Been a while since I read the book.

"Mrs" was often a courtesy title. Did Mr Hill even exist?

I don’t remembers a Mr Hill mentioned. She (Mrs Hill) was probably never married.

There is a Mr. Hill in the movie, not in the series, if I remember correctly.

I felt sorry for Charlotte because of Lizzie's treatment to her. It's her best friend and she was so quick to judge her for what she did, but even as a 13 year I could see that Charlotte had little other choice. What was she meant to do for the rest of her life, she needed to be looked after, anf there was no other offer. It was poorly done on Lizzie's side.

@@pippiecarr9378 I think Lizzie probably thought Charlotte would be as miserable in the marriage as she would have been and said what she said out of concern for someone she loved. That doesn't make it any more sensitive of course, but it was from wanting to protect and not attack.

The outcome was certainly damning. Much like Maria Bertram's.

@@einahsirro1488 except Maria Bertram went into her marriage willingly, for money and position in society.

@@Bandomeme Not quite. She was also fleeing from her fathers oppressive control.

@@annnee6818 it’s a factor she took into account, but her father didn’t force her into marriage against her inclination, she made a free choice to marry Rushworth.

@@annnee6818 It's Julia who married to escape their father if I remember well, Mr Bertram asked Maria during her engagement wether or not she was sure of her decision.

Yes, awful - I have another video about the narrative of Mrs Eliza Brandon's marriage here which may be of interest: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kKxNYZja4eg.html

We should also probably include Brandon's mom and dad's marriage because we know his dad is a self-dealing bully who has two sons and forces his WARD to marry the one that DOESN'T love her when the son that does would have equally entitled him to steal all her money. What a lout. Another example of Austen showing that the "Great and Transparent Men of England" is really just a veneer of civility over a whole wealth of oppression and wrongs eating at the soul of England.

also marianne and colonel brandon. he was a million years older than she was.

@@mayrnibird9224 That was super common at the time - Mr Knightley is something like 16 years older than Emma. That alone isn't something that should lead to a "worst marriage in Austen" label.

@@SchlichteToven common for pedophiles doesn't make it right or good. he could have married marianne's mom if he was an honorable man.

The way young Tilney felt it incredibly necessary to force the idea of his parents' 'love' onto Catherine is so telling. General Tilney absolutely neglected his wife's illness , if anything, that's abuse .

Yes, this is always a point that I think is overlooked when Catherine's 'naivete' is mocked. She's actually completely correct that General Tilney is a cruel man, she just has a more dramatic idea of what that cruelty consists in. I think JA was trying to make the point that real-life cruelty tends to be far less obvious than in books, and you need to watch out for it, which Catherine DOES. It also adds another layer to her relationship with Henry. I've heard it critcized for him 'knowing' more than her, but he actually doesn't. His automatic impulse is to defend his father, but he actually realizes Catherine is more right about him and stands up to him in the end. He would probably never have been brave enough to do that without Catherine's example.

Mr. Willoughby will have many mistresses, Miss Gray will end up being unhappy but she will not let anyone know.

Sad for her but she’s a rich woman so it would be easy for her. I think she’ll have as many affairs as Willoughby but Willoughby wouldn’t divorce her since she’s the one with money.

@@Girl-rj3qe my dear, all the money a lady possessed became the property of the husband as soon as she married, unless there was some annuity set in her dowry or prenuptial agreement. Of course, social norms dictated the husband was to provide for his wife and we do not see abusive cruelty from Willoughby towards his wife other than that he was unfaithful.

I've always wondered why Elinor has any sympathy at all for him at the end of the novel when he visits while Marianne is ill.

​@@julijakeitNo, it didn't. It became BOTH their property, which yes did mean a husband could gamble away his wife's money - or a wife her husband's! - unless there were legal settlements which Miss Grey undoubtedly had or her family would not have let her marry someone poor. I get so tired of this 'wife's property became the husband's' argument. 'With all my worldly goods I thee endow' is said by the HUSBAND in the marriage contract, not the wife. I have read of so many Victorian husband's ruined by paying their wife's debts, because his money was legally hers to spend!

I agree. I think it is made clear that Mr. Bennet does not respect his wife and at one point I think he regrets not having taken better care of his daughters, but if you really look at it, in the end he is really happy to let other people sort out his problems. He sais he is utterly ashamed of himself but that it will pass soon enough. While intelligent and well-mannered he is some sort of lethargic enabler in a way. That is what an unhappy marriage does to you.

This is the only Austen novel I've read, and she had me hooked right out of the gate with the painful accuracy of the Mr. and Mrs. Bennett dynamic. Stuff I've seen up close and personal!

I would argue that Mr. Bennet is actually a bit worse than Sir Thomas. Sir Thomas at least seemed to have realized his failings after Maria's elopement and his part in it. He realized he hadn't been the best father and regrets that. Mr. Bennet on the other hand, learns nothing. He does, briefly, mourning his failings, but then it passes and he just goes on as before. Nothing learned.

From personal observation, unhappily married people create a « dysfunctional system » that affects all the people in their orbits. In thinking about the Bennetts, which to me was a disastrous union, I always wondered where the goodness of Jane and the down to earth wisdom of Lizzie came from. They each have their blind spots, but they are not self centred in the way their younger sisters were. They seem less touched by their mother’s egocentricity or their father’s escapism than the other girls. I don’t really think it’s possible to rank unhappiness in a marriage....there are too many varieties of unhappiness, and Jane Austin gives us such great examples! Some people’s coping mechanisms are better than others, but are they really happy?

The question of why Jane and Lizzie turned out so well, especially in comparison to their sisters, is a really interesting one. In considering the five-factor model of personality, it is estimated that 30 to 60% of those factors are influenced by genetics. So part of the answer to the question is possibly that Jane and Lizzie got better genes. In addition, there is a mention that Jane and Lizzie visited the Gardiners in London frequently, while the same thing is not said of the younger three sisters. It could be that the Gardiners were an important influence on how Jane and Lizzie turned out as well. Ultimately, of course, it’s impossible to know why people turn out the way they do (considering the Bennet girls as if they were real people rather than fictional characters), since sometimes people in appalling situations turn out very well, while people in ideal situations turn out badly.

A great idea. Thanks for the suggestion! Octavia

Yes, please!

Ha! - duly noted. Octavia

Yes please x

Principles on both sides probably would do the job :) whatever other features could be...

His sister, Mary, gives us a little insight into what it would have been, with her astonishingly cynical prediction of "when love ceased", plus her worldly acceptance of a "regular flirtation" between Henry and Maria at family visits....

I've always though that a few years into Fanny and Henry's marriage they would have been like Stepan (Stiva) and Darya (Dolly) Oblonsky from Anna Karenina.

I know a lot of people are pissed off with that, but I love how Austen destroys the cliché of "virginal goody-goody girl changes bad boy into good boy", and slaps the reader with "Nope, that doesn't happen if the guy does not want to change". I have always loved how much Jane kicks Romantic ideals until they are left bleeding on the ground.

@@isabelguzmanmiranda5025 Yes. Even in Pride and Prejudice Elizabeth doesn't change Darcy, instead her and our perspectives are shifted and we see that he wasn't a bad person in the first place. Not because all his actions suddenly make sense, but because we realise he didn't actually do the worst things that he's been accused of in the first place. They both then meet on the middle ground.

Yes absolutely!

Hmmm. I’m afraid I’m not convinced about Sir Thomas’s goodness. Yes, Lady Bertram is content to be with Sir Thomas, but she’s also happy to be with her Pug! And does he really love his children? - Other than how they reflect back on to him? Here are Sir Thomas’s thoughts on the same moment in the novel as the Maria quotation I examined in the video: “Sir Thomas was satisfied; *too glad to be satisfied, perhaps, to urge the matter quite so far as his judgment might have dictated to others* . It was an alliance which he could not have relinquished without pain; and thus he reasoned. Mr. Rushworth was young enough to improve. Mr. Rushworth must and would improve in good society; and if Maria could now speak so securely of her happiness with him, speaking certainly without the prejudice, the blindness of love, she ought to be believed. Her feelings, probably, were not acute; he had never supposed them to be so; but her comforts might not be less on that account; and if she could dispense with seeing her husband a leading, shining character, there would certainly be everything else in her favour. A well-disposed young woman, who did not marry for love, was in general but *the more attached to her own family* ; and the nearness of Sotherton to Mansfield must naturally hold out the greatest temptation, and would, in all probability, be a continual supply of the most amiable and innocent enjoyments. Such and such-like were the reasonings of Sir Thomas, happy to escape the *embarrassing evils of a rupture, the wonder, the reflections, the reproach that must attend it* ; happy to secure a marriage which would *bring him such an addition of respectability and influence* , and very happy to think anything of his daughter's disposition that was most favourable for the purpose.” (ch.21) His reasonings about Maria’s marriage to a man he knows she doesn’t value include: that she’ll be at Mansfield more often because she'll be more attached to her own family rather than her husband, that he can escape any “embarrassing” rupture, and - most crucially (and damningly) - that the marriage will bring himself “an addition of respectability and influence”. Not good reasons! In the opening sentence here, the narrative voice implies that he ought to have thought about the matter more, that his personal “glad[ness]” outweighs the judgement & consideration others would have felt the matter dictated. Did he try to promote Fanny’s happiness? He banished her to Portsmouth when she refused to marry Henry Crawford, and only allowed her to return after Henry had publicly disgraced himself, and when she would be useful to him as a nurse / carer / companion for Lady Bertram. He took on Susan when Fanny was no longer there to attend to Lady Bertram (essentially as an unpaid companion). I read Sir Thomas as one of the most selfish characters in all of Austen’s novels. And I think we can read this in the closing paragraphs of the novel. For instance, “Fanny was indeed the daughter that he wanted. His charitable kindness had been rearing a prime comfort for himself”. A prime comfort for himself! - hardly the point of ‘kind’ charity. The very last mention of Sir Thomas I think exposes his self-conceit too: “Sir Thomas saw repeated, and for ever repeated, reason to rejoice in what he had done for them all” (ch.48). Yes, what *he* has done for everyone else is what’s important! Perhaps I read Sir Thomas too harshly?

@@DrOctaviaCox those are excellent points and he was very selfish and concerned about appearances. I suppose he enjoys having a complacent wife who follows his direction as it boosts his ego. While he does harm I'm not entirely sure it is the marriage at fault. Lady Bertram is such a non entity as a parent it causes problems too.

Oh yes absolutely - Lady Bertram's parenting skills are severely lacking! But I think the marriage is central to the failings of both parents because I think each exacerbates the flaws of the other. Lady Bertram's indolence allows for Sir Thomas to call the shots completely, and Sir Thomas' self-conceit, self-importance, & belief that everyone else should do what he wants is encouraged by a wife who is happy for him to do everything (because it means she doesn't have to do anything). Lady Bertram does virtually nothing for her children at all during the novel. She indulges her children when it is not an "inconvenience" to her, and the narrative voice even tells readers that she thinks more of her dog than her children! : "To the education of her daughters Lady Bertram paid not the smallest attention. She had not time for such cares. She was a woman who spent her days in sitting, nicely dressed, on a sofa, doing some long piece of needlework, of little use and no beauty, thinking more of her pug than her children, but very indulgent to the latter when it did not put herself to inconvenience, guided in everything important by Sir Thomas..." (ch.2) Lady Bertram is very content to be "guided in everything" by Sir Thomas, because it means she does not have to have the inconvenience of doing anything herself. This is a woman who does not have "time for such cares" as the "education of her daughters"! [I have to confess, though, that I have rather a fondness for Lady Bertram as a character, because Austen is so biting and funny in the depiction of her!]

@@DrOctaviaCox regarding the last part of your comment about readers loving characters because of Austen’s description of them are so full of humour and sarcasm and are so entertaining that we sometimes miss their actual qualities or flaws. I think this may also apply to Mrs Bennet. Her hysterics and nervous disposition are described in such hilarious terms that we tend to overlook the fact that her concerns for her daughters marriages are genuine and legitimate and not misplaced, although the manner in which she approaches this might not be the best. But she’s doing the best she can given her limited education and understanding. At least she’s doing something. But all this is not expressly stated in the book but left for the readers to work out.

Absolutely nidhird - I couldn't agree more. We dismiss Mrs Bennet's legitimate concerns because of her personal character flaws. Not dissimilarly, I think readers often overlook & dismiss Miss Bates because of her conversational style.

Oh, if it was only the generation of a hundred years ago! Women still seek protection in their relationships. We try to buy safety with sex and hardly even realise it. If we at least knew, we could choose our partners accordingly instead of inviting the next enemy into our beds. At least leaving has become easier...

Ha! be bly - you have pre-empted me! I’m planning another video in which I discuss Eliza and the elder Brandon brother’s marriage (and various surrounding circumstances), in which I argue that Austen presents it in the background as a ‘conventional’ novel/gothic narrative in order to highlight how her own novel (Sense and Sensibility) thwarts those expectations.

Absolutely - Claudia Johnson in _Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel_ : "Gothic novels teach the deferent and self-deprecating Catherine to do what no one and nothing else does: to distrust paternal figures and to feel that her power of refusal is continuously under siege." A really seminal work of criticism.

But this was an anecdotal memory, though, not actual characters.

Yes - Eliza's marriage to the elder Brandon brother happens off-stage and is narrated to us by Colonel Brandon.

Incidentally, I have now published this video on Colonel Brandon's description of Mrs Eliza Brandon, which you can watch here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kKxNYZja4eg.html In the video I argue that Brandon's narrative account is deliberately Gothicised.

Yes, Charlotte really did make the best of her situation and was quite a practical minded woman.

Indeed. Mr. Collins got himself a practical, intelligent woman like his patron demanded (and very useful given his character), and Charlotte got a stable and comfortable future instead of uncertain spinsterhood, dependent on the charity of family to not fall into poverty. Not married for love, of course, but they both got a good catch.

Agree too. I'm a bit biased as I have a bit of a soft spot for Mr Collins. Yes he's silly and pompous but he has some good qualities - a sense of family obligation and he wants to be on good terms with his and Charlotte's family; a need to be independent (Wickham in Mr Collins' situation would be happily living off his expectations); and, he respects women more than most characters (Charlotte arranges their home as she wants and he explicitly says he would not bring up his wife's lack of money). He's quite young, desperately insecure and, given Charlotte has the ability to guide him and make him feel valued, he has more potential than a lot of Austen's male characters. I think the Collinses have a good chance at a happy marriage.

JA touched on their marriage so little that I feel like Fanny was a second choice.

It is why I joined the army. I was working 3 pt jobs and still couldn’t afford to get out of my family home. Never even considered marriage.?

Yes, indeed Myra. When looked at through the lens of distance, it seems such an odd way to organise society! And of course virtually an irreversible decision (it was extremely difficult to get a divorce at the time, and even required an act of parliament). An apt phrase, I think, "marry in haste and repent at leisure", comes from William Congreve's late 17th century play _The Old Batchelor_ (1693): Thus grief still treads upon the heels of pleasure: Married in haste, we may repent at leisure. (Act V, scene 8) Charlotte Lucas seems to recognise this point exactly in her comment that "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life" ( _Pride and Prejudice_ ch.6 ) I can only agree with Lizzy's response, "it is not sound. You know it is not sound".

@Dr Octavia Cox I was literally scrolling to see if you would bring up Charlotte Lucas and her commentary on marriage. Charlotte knows her assertions are both the truth and absurd, even though she says it in a light hearted tone. But, as the narrative says, she’s an educated lady so she has to play the game and take a chance anyway. It’s awful to think that her life would have actually been worse for her if she didn’t accept Mr Collins. In the modern world Charlotte wouldn’t have had to make that choice .

No, indeed, Rebecca - she would have had far more options available to her. And she would have been able to put her considerable skills to better use! There must have been _so_ many women like her... It makes me rather sad to think about it.

@@rebeccasperring1747 Which is why Charlotte and Mr. Collins have a conventional marriage, for the time period.

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries has an excellent take on the modern version of Charlotte's choice: unemployment in a harsh market or a mind numbing/frustrating job

Perhaps Mr Elliot and Mrs Clay in _Persuasion_ too?

I like in Death Comes to Pemberley (the TV version at least :) ) that it becomes obvious Lydia and Wickham's marriage has been in many ways disastrous, but Lydia, true to form, has enjoyed the wild ride every step of the way.

I agree. Bennet was cruel to his wife

Whenever I think of Mr Bennets behavior towards Mrs Bennet, I’m reminded of Mr Knightlys behavior towards Miss Bates. Both women are small-minded gossips but while Mr Bennet belittled and mocked his wife, Mr Knightly treats miss bates with respect and compassion. He is the picture of a gentleman, one who does not use his position to his abuse.

I also disagree that the Betrams have such a bad marriage. Much of the bad behavior of Tom, Maria, and Julia (especially Maria) comes from the over indulgeance of Mrs. Norris. I think her influence cannot be ignored. Also Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram seem genuinely fond of each other. I rank the Bennett's marriage as worse, because they are unhappy and this severely damages their younger daughters, particularly Mary.

I agree completely. I was enjoying the video and mostly agreeing until she came to the part about Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram. They're shown to be relatively happily married. He cares for her comfort and she's glad to have him home. Their marriage is no worse than Mr. and Mrs. Bennett's, and arguable better since he doesn't ridicule her in front of the children. As for the argument that Sir Thomas is some heinous villain... He isn't. His daughters are so eager to "escape" from him because he holds them to a higher standard of behavior than they want to adhere to. The biggest piece of tyranny we see him guilty of in regards to his daughters is breaking up the play, which was a scandalous play anyway. He's shown again and again to be trying to be a good father. He's just bad at it. He worries about Maria's happiness with Mr. R. He makes a point of bringing Tom with him to Antigua to get him away from the bad crowd, then sends him home when they've been gone a long time. He gets upset of Fanny's behalf that Mrs. Norris doesn't want her to have a fire... He's not a *great* man, but he's certainly not the monster Dr. Cox interprets him as.

@@nataliet1260 There is a disgusting movie version of this book that portrays Sir Thomas in a way that I won't even describe. The author is very clear about her view of him at the end of the book. He's a good man. Just like most other characters in Austen's stories, he's also a flawed one. The more I listen to and reread Persuasion, for example, the less I like Captain Wentworth for these very reasons. I think your comments about why his daughters wanted to escape from him are just. Remember in Persuasion, the narrator talks about the Musgroves thusly: "The Musgroves, like their houses, were in a state of alteration, perhaps improvement. The father and mother were in the old English style, and the young people in the new." This dichotomy is clear in Mansfield Park as well. The "perhaps" in the above quote is important. There is a way of being in the new style that is also consistent with the values and integrity of the old, and these are embodied in Edmund and Fanny. Part of the old English style was marrying for position. It is understandable that Sir Thomas takes this into consideration for Maria, but it doesn't end up being the right choice for people "in the new" style. He learns his lesson. I think learning from one's mistakes is an important element in all Austen's books. And the people who don't (Lydia and Wickham are perfect examples) suffer and/or make others suffer on their behalf when they themselves don't suffer but should. We are lucky in this book that both Maria and Aunt Norris get to enjoy eternity together and that all the others are separated from them. And it is clear that Austen purposefully gives this respite to Sir Thomas (and the readers) because he deserves it for learning and changing. Thanks for your comments, Natalie.

Mrs Norris, the villain of the story... how interesting that JK Rowling chose that name for Mr Filch's cat. Another Austen novel I must revisit now. Heck, all of them, thank you, Dr Cox. Wonderful analyses!

Very few readers of Mansfield Park seem to realise that Sir Thomas Bertram's visit to the West Indies (with his son Tom) implies (or confirms) that his wealth is derived from slavery in one way or another. To describe him as a good man is therefore ridiculous even if, by the standards of the time, it was regarded as acceptable. He must have seen what life was like for the people on the plantation and yet took it for granted that he was entitled to the proceeds of their enslavement.

@@darthlaurel I disagree. Sir Thomas is not a good man for most of the novel; the fact that he dramatically changes at the end does not alter who and what he was the previous years. And that is part of Austen's point. While Sir Thomas does come to understand and regret his errors and see the consequences of them, he cannot change them and must live with them. And Austen does not give Sir Thomas respite because he earned it; she gives it because she chooses not to "dwell on guilt and misery." One thing about Austen was that she never really "punishes" her bad guys. Sir Thomas, Gen. Tilney, Henry Crawford, John Dashwood, John Willoughby, etc. rarely suffer much from what they've caused. Women like Maria, Mrs. Norris seem to suffer more from their misdeeds. And interestingly enough, of all the realizations Sir Thomas comes to, giving up slave owning doesn't seem to be one of them.

I adore Catherine Morland, she is one of my favourite Austen heroines as well. Northanger Abbey is a wickedly funny novel, with some of my favourite Austen lines.

That's a great addition. Yes, it's hard to know what the Churchills' marriage was like because it's filtered through Emma's (often) perception of Frank's account. But there is something telling in the comparison between these two reactions, placed near each other in the text. First is the collective view of "Every body" on Mrs Churchill's death: "...what would Mr Churchill do without her? Mr Churchill's loss would be dreadful indeed. Mr Churchill would never get over it...". And then comes Frank's report: "Mr Churchill was better than could be expected" (vol.3, ch.9). It looks like he will get over it!

I don't know if Mr. Collins loves Charlotte, but I do think he is happy with her, which is close enough. She ticks every box in his requirements for a wife (or rather Lady Catherine's, same difference 😆). Charlotte is practical, intelligent, and good natured.

I'm not sure about that. Charlotte only fullfilled Lady Catherine's demands he gets married. He did go to The Bennet's with the goal of choosing a wife. After Lizzie turns him down Charlotte was available and willing.

@@einezcrespo2107 I don't think he loved Charlotte when he asked her to marry him. I think that after the marriage he grew to actually love Charlotte by the time Elizabeth comes to visit.

It's fun to speculate on how the Hunsford parsonage might change after Lady C's death. The legatee of Rosings probably will discourage Mr. Collins fawning and gossip. Charlotte might be able to mitigate his behaviors when the person who enables and colludes with those behaviors is gone. Her own father was a silly, obsequious man as well. She was well schooled in living peaceably with foolishness. I actually love Charlotte more than Elizabeth. I prefer a strong woman able to deal with real life over a romantic idealist.

​@@cs3742I think Anne de Burgh, who I hope married Col Fitzwilliam, probably had hidden depths she kept from her mother. She would have run the estate differently!

But are they happy with their horror in common? Hard to say.

@@lizziebkennedy7505 She is I’m pretty sure of that

Mrs. Bennet's concerns were ALWAYS on the money, as Mr. Bennet is later forced to admit "he should have put more money aside to bribe young men to marry his daughters", and yet he still wasn't taking it seriously. Sadly.

Mr Palmer certainly seems to be more interested in his newspaper than his wife!

This. Good observation!!

I had wondered about this when I was watching the video. But then, I don't know if their marriage is deeply dysfunctional in the way some others are, and a case could be made that Mrs Palmer actually ameliorates the more toxic elements of Mr Palmer's personality.

Yes!

Oh, the comic relief. Mrs Palmer was indefatigable so hard to know if it was their couple shtick, or she was a form of Mrs Bennet... great example, though. 😭

Well said. John and Fanny Dashwood are certainly both bad but there is no evidence of their being unhappy together.

Interesting choice. I find judgment of that union problematical because of the gloss Catherine's imaginings place on it and because we never meet Mrs Tilney. I would observe that the marriage produced two relatively well balanced and decent children, especially Henry, so psychological theories would tend to suggest the General was not all bad and the Tilney children had some good parental and relationship modelling in their birth family.

I agree. He was scandalously negligent of the future welfare of his wife and children, much like Mr. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. I wonder if JA took this character type from a real life example, or if it was a common failing?

He had inherited the estate for one year only (chapter 1). He had no time to spare money for his family.

I think the Bennets were principal inhabitants of their area, but not that rich either. So the little inheritance money mentioned would already contain what Mr Bennett could put aside +maybe 2 cents from the mother's money after paying for a growing number of daughters. Mr. Dashwood sen. though.......

Exactly instead he put his hopes in his estranged son

@@edennis3202 He did not inherit as much as he expected to ("he left it to him on such terms as destroyed half the value of the bequest") and that most was left to John Dashwood for Harry. It seemed that he planned to live economically and "lay by a considerable sum" but that he died less than a year after inheriting the estate.

I read this right before she said it

Fanny's parents' marriage freaked me right out when I read MP as a young women a LONG time ago. Austen was quite brutal with the realities of life in that one.

Berating Fanny and sending her to Portsmouth as a "remedy" I would say is abusive. He had good intentions, at least he believed he had, that doesn't excuse his method though. I think he redeems himself in the end, but he really have a lot to make up for.

I agree. He's misguided but not bad. He tries to do what he thinks is the right thing. I remember one critic pointing out that Sir Thomas has financial anxieties which may suggest he is "new money." That would account for the fact that he didn't try harder to dissuade Maria from marrying Rushworth. He was sooooo anxious to shore up the family's legitimacy and fortune. I always found it odd that he was so eager to fob off Fanny to Mrs. Norris as if he wished to reduce the expense of keeping her. He was also assured by Mrs. Norris that she was saving whatever she could from her income to leave to his children. If he had anything like a substantial fortune, why would her assurance of this mean anything to him? So I excuse some of Sir Thomas's behaviour on the fact that he let money override common sense. He's redeemed at the end because he finally recognizes Fanny's worth and becomes "sick of ambitious and mercenary connexions, prizing more and more the sterling good of principle and temper." Any character that grows and becomes self-reflective is not bad. Note that Mrs. Norris never changes. I also think Maria's and Rushworth's marriage to be the very worst in all of the novels.

Ah, yes - I did mention this one briefly here in this video. It's another really interesting off-stage marriage, and I'm actually preparing a whole video on the narrative about Eliza and Brandon's brother. It's really fascinating, I think.

Although his methods were sneaky, there is no reason believe that Jane and Frank would not have been happy together. The mutual attraction was certainly there, and as he had his own fortune, it's not like he married Jane for money...

Mr. Knightley (while I don't think ever thought of Jane romantically) sees Jane in the best light always. Jane and Frank might not be top ten couples material, but they love each other and will have plenty of money to live on. Frank accepts and cares for Jane's family and has a generous heart. Jane is highly intelligent and has excellent taste and judgement. She will run the household to perfection. Frank's wealth and position will give Jane the access to the finer things in life she's always been one step removed from her entire life. I think they will be at least reasonably happy together.

Northanger Abbey & Mansfield Park are my top two favorite works of Jane Austen! I'll even go out on a limb and confess that Henry Tilney is my favorite "hero"...after all, is very amusing and knows muslin quite well..

And the prospect of children, who inherited her sanity, would greatly improve her condition, and make Mr Collins even more negligible.

Great question! And one I find it hard to answer. On the one hand, Jane Fairfax seems to have been miserable during the months covered by the novel, exacerbated in no small degree by Frank's behaviour. For example, by flirting with Emma in front of her face - which was completely unnecessary if not actively provocative. Also, the piano he sends her - while obviously a nice gift - does expose her somewhat, which is something he must have known would happen. On the other hand, he is found being kind to the Bateses (e.g. fixing Mrs Bates' spectacles). Perhaps his kindness will be brought out during the marriage?

We do have this tit-bit from Austen's nephew's memoir (James Edward Austen-Leigh, _Memoir of Jane Austen_ (1869)): "She would, if asked, tell us many little particulars about the subsequent career of some of her people ... [including] that the letters placed by Frank Churchill before Jane Fairfax, which she swept away unread, contained the word ‘pardon’" (ch.10). So, according to Austen (although not within the novel itself), Frank did apologise to Jane. So perhaps there is hope for them?

What do you think Ruth?

@@DrOctaviaCox do you think the same fate as lady elliot may befall jane fairfax in the long term as frank churchill is shown to be selfish and vain and often acts rashly. he may change a little for the better over time under jane's influence but maybe more likely she will continually make allowances for him. although they love each other and are devoted , their characters are so markedly different , that long term marital felicity seems dubious. frank is also somewhat lacking in the morals department, ( as often pointed out by mr knightley) and jane abhors any kind of deceit.

@@DrOctaviaCox I think it could go either way. Frank was thoughtless and immature. But he did love Jane and was remorseful and mortified by his actions. Like Emma he had lessons to learn. If Jane hadn’t broken their engagement I believe he would have continued with his inconsiderate behavior. Like Mr. Knightly I hope with Jane’s influence his character will improve.

Oh good - I'm glad you enjoyed it! Octavia

Excellent! Thank you.

Yes, and I think, also Fanny Price is rather boring. She has no interests of her own, and has a bad health in the beginning (been a while since I read it), and just adapt to the people around her. Even when she says stop it's something she will not do (acting). She is a "negative" character altogether, in the meaning having no positive traits. She wins her hero because she has no bad traits either, and because those around her have more intersting pesonalities, but they do not have the willpower to do what's right. I think the story Austen "crafted" here is her best in the way that she takes this totally unplausible heroine and "wiggles" her through events so that in the end, the marriage to Edmund and the esteem she gets is not just plausible, but the only possible way things could work out! (English' not my first language, but hopefully you'll get the idea)

@@christinae30 Totally agree about plausibility! I definitely have more of an appreciation for Fanny Price, now that I'm older. Going to give it another read when I get the chance! (And your English is fantastic 😊 )

Thank you! I will also reread it!

Thank you so much Mace. Much appreciated! Octavia [Ha! - it's completely _not_ my forte, but I am slowly trying to improve the tech side.]

Great idea!

Oh, Dorothea's decision to marry Mr. Casaubon broke my heart! I read "Middlemarch" in high school and very much identified with Dorothea. I could see myself making the same misguided decision in her circumstances, just for the joy of access to academic work.

Oh and from Hard Times by Charles Dickens: Louisa and Josiah Bounderby...or do I have that name wrong?

Thanks KA - I'm very glad you enjoyed it! In the early 19th century, the term "mother-in-law" was used more loosely than it is today. Austen herself refers to the relationship between John Dashwood and Mrs Dashwood as "mother-in-law" and "son-in-law": * "He survived his uncle no longer; and ten thousand pounds, including the late legacies, was all that remained for his widow and daughters. His son was sent for as soon as his danger was known, and to him Mr. Dashwood recommended, with all the strength and urgency which illness could command, the interest of his mother-in-law and sisters" (ch.1). * "No sooner was her answer dispatched [accepting Barton Cottage], than Mrs. Dashwood indulged herself in the pleasure of announcing to her son-in-law and his wife that she was provided with a house, and should incommode them no longer than till every thing were ready for her inhabiting it." (opening of ch.5)

@@DrOctaviaCox Aaah, thank you for the explanation! And here I mistook it for an error, my apologies! 😅

Perfectly said; I am a former English major. At 40, I'm just happy to snuggle down in the evening with my tea and toast. No wine and parties for me like on tv. I love listening and reading the comments because it IS just like that--very convivial, and everyone is cheerfully selecting debates. Thank you so much to Octavia for beginning it all!

Catherine is not very flighty.

Charles at least is good natured, and not devoid of sense. Mary is really unpleasant, shallow, and narcissistic. Over time it might be that these two could become really embittered. They certainly will lead separate lives under the same roof when possible.

It's not incest. But I agree he is one of Austen's least attractive ideas as a love interest.

I completely agree that Mr Bennet is shown to be severely lacking as a father! Both men are bad fathers, in their different ways - being either too overbearing (Sir Thomas) or too indifferent (Mr Bennet) means that your children suffer (as both _MP_ and _P&P_ show explicitly). For me, though, there is something sinister about Sir Thomas's desire to control those around him.

@@DrOctaviaCox I disagree though. I see nothing sinister about Sir Thomas. He merely had the misfortune of having to be the Only Sane Man in the family (Mr Bennet had Mr Gardiner, but Sir Thomas, quite literally, had no peer to depend on for advice - we know next to nothing about Rev Norris except that he was Sir Thomas's friend, and while Edmund filled this role for him slightly in the latter half of the book, still he was his son and not an equal). Obviously his daughters didn't feel it but only because they were petted and spoilt by their aunt in his absence so he felt he had to be the disciplinarian (though it's really hard to bring up any specific incident of any "oppressive" parenting towards the Miss Bertrams - his manipulative control towards Fanny in the Crawford affair was more apparent, but I see really no occasion for Sir Thomas to be demonized wrt his daughters other than the spoilt daughters of the house who were far too used to the greater freedoms their aunt allowed and almost encouraged in them than when they needed to be proper misses when their father's home from parliament season). It's really revealing that after a lengthy absence away from the duties of parental care, he came home from Antigua "to be happy and indulgent", only to discover that his ADULT children can't even be trusted to the nominal care of their aunt to behave with propriety. The difference between him and Mr Bennet is that one acted while the other didn't, and I find there's usually a greater deal of acceptance/handwaving for inaction than action when it comes to parenting failures.

@@DrOctaviaCox Moreover, one must not forget that when he found out about the true state of affairs between Maria and Rushworth when he returned, he spoke very gently with her and offered to break her engagement for her if she chose to, purely because he didn't want her to sacrifice her happiness even over such a long and public engagement, if her affections were not engaged.

I read Sir Thomas differently. As I said above, I think the conversation with Maria shows his self-interest. Here are Sir Thomas’s thoughts about his conversation with Maria about her engagement: “Sir Thomas was satisfied; *too glad to be satisfied, perhaps, to urge the matter quite so far as his judgment might have dictated to others* . It was an alliance which he could not have relinquished without pain; and thus he reasoned. Mr. Rushworth was young enough to improve. Mr. Rushworth must and would improve in good society; and if Maria could now speak so securely of her happiness with him, speaking certainly without the prejudice, the blindness of love, she ought to be believed. Her feelings, probably, were not acute; he had never supposed them to be so; but her comforts might not be less on that account; and if she could dispense with seeing her husband a leading, shining character, there would certainly be everything else in her favour. A well-disposed *young woman, who did not marry for love, was in general but the more attached to her own family* ; and the nearness of Sotherton to Mansfield must naturally hold out the greatest temptation, and would, in all probability, be a continual supply of the most amiable and innocent enjoyments. Such and such-like were the reasonings of *Sir Thomas, happy to escape the embarrassing evils of a rupture, the wonder, the reflections, the reproach that must attend it* ; *happy to secure a marriage which would bring him such an addition of respectability and influence* , and very happy to think anything of his daughter's disposition that was most favourable for the purpose.” (ch.21) Sir Thomas's "reasonings" about Maria’s marriage to a man he knows full well she detests are: * that she’ll be at Mansfield more often because she'll be more attached to her own family rather than her husband; * that he can escape any “embarrassing” rupture; * and - most crucially and damningly - that the marriage will bring himself “an addition of respectability and influence”. These are terrible - and selfish - reasons. In the opening sentence here, the narrative voice implies that he ought to have thought about the matter more, that his personal “glad[ness]” outweighs the "judgement" & consideration others would have felt the matter "dictated".

@@DrOctaviaCox There is no doubt that Maria's answer fed into his confirmation bias, but that he made the offer at all to Maria shows that he isn't quite the dragon imagined by Maria and Julia. And quite honestly, half his sin here is believing his daughter to know her own mind and to believe her principled enough to make her own decisions. He didn't even reproof his children for the theatre episode because he wanted to believe they knew what they did was wrong and repented. While there was certainly selfishenss in Sir Thomas's internal persuasions, neither did he really exhibit the controlling behaviour towards his daughters that he did to his niece. I maintain that any severity felt by the daughters was only because it was in direct comparison with the utterly encouraging aunt who spoilt and flattered them into being self-centered women.

The characters in her books are eccentric but not evil. There's no murder, wife beating, rapes, etc.

@@robinlillian9471 I'm sorry, I thought I'd put "evil" in quotations. Oh well. Another day being misunderstood on the Internet where tone can not be read.

@@DarksideBallerina most people totally understood you.

I think it is rather cruel to deprive your father's widow and children when you already have a great deal of money and safety yourself? As it so happens Sir John Middleton, a distant cousin of Mrs Dashwood's, comes to the rescue. But what would have happened to Mrs Dashwood and her daughters if he hadn't... ? A question posed by the novel it seems to me.

We are told in the opening chapter that Mr Dashwood could not have done much more for Mrs Dashwood and his daughters because of the way that the estate was arranged: "The old gentleman died: his will was read, and like almost every other will, gave as much disappointment as pleasure. He was neither so unjust, nor so ungrateful, as to leave his estate from his nephew [i.e. Mr Dashwood, Elinor & Marianne's father];-but he left it to him on such terms as destroyed half the value of the bequest. *Mr. Dashwood had wished for it more for the sake of his wife and daughters* than for himself or his son;-but to his son, and his son’s son, a child of four years old, *it was secured, in such a way, as to leave to himself no power of providing for those who were most dear to him, and who most needed a provision* by any charge on the estate, or by any sale of its valuable woods. ... Mr. Dashwood’s disappointment was, at first, severe; but his temper was cheerful and sanguine; and *he might reasonably hope to live many years, and by living economically, lay by a considerable sum* from the produce of an estate already large, and capable of almost immediate improvement. But the fortune, which had been so tardy in coming, was his only one twelvemonth. He survived his uncle no longer..." (ch.1) Basically, Mr Dashwood dies too soon after inheriting the estate to save enough money to provide for his wife and daughters. This is unlike, for instance, Mr Bennet in _Pride and Prejudice_ who had over twenty years as master of his estate, which ought to have been enough time to save enough to provide for any widow and daughters after his death.

@@DrOctaviaCox yes Sir Middleton certainly acted very kindly and promptly to provide for them and although he is somewhat comical and sometimes nonsensical, he displays genuine concern for the well being of the dashwood women and is also very kind to colonel Brandon.

The parental marriage in _Persuasion_ might be said to have been good for Sir Walter and terrible for Lady Elliot! I agree with you that the marriages of John & Fanny Dashwood and Sir Walter & Lady Elliot are ripe for comparison. John & Fanny Dashwood ( _S&S_ ch.1 ): "He was not an ill-disposed young man, unless to be rather cold hearted and rather selfish is to be ill-disposed" Ouch! You've got to love the narrative voice's understatement here. "Had he married a more *amiable* woman, he might have been made still more *respectable* than he was:-he might even have been made amiable himself; for he was very young when he married, and very fond of his wife. But Mrs. John Dashwood was a strong caricature of himself;-more narrow-minded and selfish." Sir Walter & Lady Elliot ( _Persuasion_ ch.1 ) "Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and *amiable* ; whose judgement and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence afterwards.--She had humoured, or softened, or concealed his failings, and promoted his real *respectability* for seventeen years; and though not the very happiest being in the world herself, had found enough in her duties, her friends, and her children, to attach her to life, and make it no matter of indifference to her when she was called on to quit them." The narrative voice states explicitly, that if John Dashwood had "married a more amiable woman, he might have been made still more respectable". This is exactly the same diction that the narrative voice uses in describing Lady Elliot - she _was_ "amiable" and did promote her awful husband's "real respectability" during their marriage. One can surmise from this, perhaps, that if John Dashwood had been married to Lady Elliot (well, Elizabeth Stevenson as she was), then the fate of the Dashwood women would have been different because John would have been less selfish and more amiable towards them?

@@DrOctaviaCox yes John dashwood certainly acted very unjustly , mainly under the influence of his dominating wife, although how much would he have done without her influence is uncertain as he is shown to be meek, indecisive and selfish himself. Fanny only exploits these tendencies in him.

Oof controversial! But a very intriguing take.

How dare you! Impugn the marriage of Lizzie and Mr. Darcy? 😂

Well, Austen notes that Lizzy does teach him to, if not laugh at himself, accept being laughed at by her.

@@kayzazajac7896 THERE!

Willoughby might not be in love with Miss Grey, but she goes into it with open eyes and he will probably be pleasant and polite, I think our modern idea of happiness in marriage must equal passion and love, I think a marriage could be quite happy just being friendly and cordial in the regency era. Wickham though I think will be bored with Lydia and she will be very unhappy when she matures enough to realize how little he loves her.