Miscellaneous materials originally intended for contribution to the never-realized AUSTEN-L FAQ (In no particular order) [For information, not necessarily up-to-date, about the AUSTEN-L mailing list, see the web page at http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html For comments on Jane Austen sequels, and on Georgette Heyer, see the additional "Pre-FAQ" text files at: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/alfaqseq.txt http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/alfaqctu.txt http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/alfaqpra.txt http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/alfaqhey.txt ] Motto for FAQ: "It appeared to her that he did not excel in giving those clearer insights, in making those things plain which he had before made ambiguous." -- _Northanger Abbey_, Chapter 9 Q: What are some of the terms connected with carriages? A1: Curricles and gigs are light two-wheeled carriages open in front. They generally seat no more than two people (one of whom is the driver), and are favored by young men. A curricle is drawn by two horses, a gig by one. A2: A phaeton is a four-wheeled carriage which is open (completely unenclosed), and therefore appropriate for a fair-weather excursion around the park at Pemberley, as proposed by Mrs. Gardiner in _Pride and Prejudice_. A3: A chaise is generally an enclosed four-wheeled carriage seating up to three people, and driven by a rider mounted on one of the horses (i.e. "postilion"). The more or less standard vehicle for families which are respectable, but not extremely wealthy. A4: A Postchaise is a chaise used with rented horses (switched off at "posting" stations in the case of longer journeys). A "hack" post-chaise is itself rented. A5: A barouche has two rows of seats in the compartment, so that the passengers sit facing each other (unlike a chaise, in which all the passengers face forward). Barouches are "convertible" -- they can be partially opened in good weather. They are intermediate in carrying capacity between a chaise and a coach. The driver sits on the "box" in front. A6: A "coach" is a large enclosed four-wheeled carriage, drawn by four or more horses, and usually with seats on the top etc. as well as in the compartment. The driver sits on the "coach box" at the front. Used by wealthy families, and by companies that convey passangers in long-distance travel. Q: What is the equivalent of Darcy's income of 10,000 pounds a year in current American dollars? A: To simply give a single raw number would actually be somewhat misleading, since there are a number of basic problems: some things cost relatively much less in Austen's day than now (for example, household help), some things cost relatively more, and many things which are now essentials weren't purchasable at all in 1813. That said, economists and historians who have made the attempt to construct an equivalence have come up with various multipliers in the area of 30 to 50. (If one simply compares the currency value of gold between the two eras, one comes up with a multiplier of about 100.) In any case, it is clear that someone who leads a lifestyle similar to Darcy's (large estate, many servants, etc.) nowadays would have to be very wealthy indeed. Date: November 13, 1996 at 18:53:57 From: Inko In my Norton Critical edition of _P&P_ (edited by Donald Gray) there is a long footnote about wealth and its equivalent value today: ``Charles Roberts (quoted in James Heldman "How Wealthy is Mr. Darcy Really" [_Persuasions_ 12 (1990): 38-49]) calculates that an 1810 pound is worth about $33.00 in current U.S. dollars. (Roberts used the value of the dollar in 1988 in his calculation, and for these necessarily imprecise estimates, his equivalences are still useful.) Mr. Bennet's annual income is therefore about $66,000; Darcy's annual income is over $330,000 (L10,000); and Bingley's about $165,000 (L5,000). Because taxes on income were relatively low, labor cheap, and landowners like Darcy and Mr. Bennet could partially supply their households from their own farms, the purchasing power of these incomes was undoubtedly greater in Austen's time than in our own. Perhaps a more accurate measure of the affluence of Austen's characters is that in 1810 the nominal annual income of agricultural laborers was L42, of skilled laborers between L55 and L90, of clerks L178, and of lawyers L447. (B.R. Mitchell, _British Historical Statistics_ [1988] 153).'' Date: November 25, 1996 From: Richard Harter In those days it took less money to be poor and more to be rich. [[For further information, see the Colquhoun social income tables below.]] Q: Did her sister Cassandra Austen destroy many letters? A: Certainly the surviving letters from Jane Austen must be only a fraction of her total epistolary output, but actually her letters to Cassandra have a better survival rate than those to most of her other correspondents. Many of her letters to other branches of the family were apparently lost through carelessness or excessive housecleaning zeal (for example, we know that one of her brother Frank's daughters destroyed Jane Austen's letters to him after his death). However, Cassandra would have been the most likely recipient of intimate confidences, and whether or not one thinks that Cassandra deliberately supressed many letters, it is certainly suspicious that none of Jane Austen's letters to Cassandra from June 1801 to August 1804, in which Jane probably would have alluded to Bigg-Withers and the Great Unknown (see the question "Which men have been romantically linked with Jane Austen?"), have survived. It was not until long after Cassandra's death in 1845 that Jane Austen's reputation became firmly established, and her letters a matter of public interest. Q: Jane Austen never wrote a scene with dialogue between men only -- with no women present or overhearing -- right? A: Not at all -- as pointed out on AUSTEN-L by the keenly observant Elvira Casal, at the beginning of Chapter 20 (Vol. II Chapt. II) of _Mansfield Park_ Edmund "see[s] his father alone", and there is some quoted speech. Q: What were some of the proprieties governing young women, and relations between the sexes, in Jane Austen's day. A1: There were several. One basic principle is that a youngish genteel never-married female cannot set up a household of her own, but must always be staying with a member of her family, or with a older or married person approved of by her family, or at a family-approved school, or (if very poor), with a family-approved employer. (Only if her father and mother have both died, and she has "come of age" and inherited a substantial amount, can young never-married female set herself up as the head of a household -- and even here she must hire a respectable older lady to be a "companion".) If a young woman leaves without her family's approval, this is always very serious (a symptom of a radical break, such as running away to marry a disapproved husband). A2: Similarly, it was not considered quite proper for never-married "genteel" young women to travel on public coaches unescorted. This is one reason why General Tilney "acted neither honourably nor feelingly -- neither as a gentleman nor as a parent" in dismissing Catherine Morland near the end of _Northanger Abbey_, and why Fanny Price's stay in Portsmouth is prolonged in _Mansfield Park_. A3: Young unrelated unmarried members of the opposite sex cannot give personal gifts to each other (though gifts to an entire family are allowed), especially not objects of taste and feeling (as opposed to items of more humble domestic utility). This is why Henry Crawford is not entitled to give a necklace to Fanny Price, and why when Mary Crawford allows herself to be used as the conduit through which the necklace is given, she is committing a violation of etiquette or protocol (and in doing this without Fanny Price's knowledge or consent, she is not acting with much discretion or kindness toward Fanny). On the other hand, something such as giving a gift of game (venison etc.) to your beloved's family is always safe. A4: Similarly, a correspondence between two unmarried and marriageable young people of the opposite sex is a sign that the two are engaged. So Elinor Dashwood in Jane Austen's novel _Sense and Sensibility_, when she sees a letter from Edward Ferrars to Lucy Steele, thinks "a correspondence between them by letter could subsist only under a positive engagement, could be authorised by nothing else", and, when she is unsure whether or not Willoughby and Marianne are engaged, says "If we find they correspond, every fear of mine will be removed". Similarly, Captain Wentworth says to Anne Elliot in _Persuasion_: "...if I had then written to you, would you have answered my letter? would you, in short, have renewed the engagement then?" (i.e., she only would have answered the letter if she had also decided to renew the engagement). And since Mary Crawford and Edmund Bertram in _Mansfield Park_ could not legitimately correspond, the correspondence between Fanny Price and Mary Crawford is used as a conduit between them. This rule isn't so rigid as to prevent Elinor Dashwood in _Sense and Sensibility_ from starting to write a one-off letter to Edward Ferrars (which was to be more a business than a social letter); however, for a continuing correspondence to be carried on in the absence of an engagement is a breach of propriety (a significant point in Marianne's conduct in _Sense and Sensibility_ -- though Jane Austen dismisses the topic more lightly at the end of _Northanger Abbey_). This is why Darcy thinks it advisable to hand-deliver his famous letter to Elizabeth (it would be awkward if anyone at Rosings or Hunsford Parsonage were to see a letter addressed from him to Elizabeth), and an important reason why Elizabeth doesn't answer the letter. A5: It is _NOT_ a rule of propriety in the society of Jane Austen's day that an unmarried unrelated young man and young woman must never be together by themselves. The rules of propriety were actually somewhat more subtle and flexible than this, and even a perfunctory reading of Jane Austen's novels will turn up plenty of counter-examples -- think of Charles Musgrove handing Anne Elliot over to Capt. Wentworth for a walk uptown near the end of _Persuasion_, or Bingley arranging with Mrs. Bennet for Darcy and Elizabeth to take "a nice long walk" alone to Oakham Mount, etc., etc. (strict rules of chaperonage belong more to the Victorian era than to Jane Austen's day). The main thing to be avoided was too long or too frequent meetings between the _same_ woman and man -- just as it was bad etiquette for the same couple to dance too many dances together at a ball (two sets of two dances each was the conventional upper limit). Thus in _Northanger Abbey_ Mr. Allen doesn't much object to Catherine Morland having gone on a carriage ride with John Thorpe once, but does object to a possible repetition. In Jane Austen's very first surviving letter (January 9, 1796), she makes fun of herself for having somewhat violated etiquette, by being "particular" in this way with her "Irish friend" Tom Lefroy (see the question "Which men have been romantically linked with Jane Austen?"): "we had an exceeding good ball last night... Mr. H. began with Elizabeth, and afterwards danced with her again; but _they_ do not know how _to be particular_. I flatter myself, however, that they will profit by the three successive lessons which I have given them. You scold me so much in the nice long letter which I have this moment received from you, that I am almost afraid to tell you how my Irish friend and I behaved. Imagine to yourself everything most profligate and shocking in the way of dancing and sitting down together... But as to our having ever met, except at the three last balls, I cannot say much; for he is so excessively laughed at about me at Ashe, that he is ashamed of coming to Steventon, and ran away when we called on [his aunt] Mrs. Lefroy a few days ago." Q: Are lovers ever reported as kissing in Jane Austen's novels? A: No, not as such. Willoughby kisses a lock of Marianne's hair in _Sense and Sensibility_. An important moment in _Emma_ is when Mr. Knightley _fails_ to kiss Emma's hand (kissing a woman's hand was a common social gesture then, like handshaking now). Elizabeth Jenkins has said that when Edmund Bertram gives Fanny Price "the affectionate farewell of a brother" when she leaves for Portsmouth at the end of Chapter 37 of _Mansfield Park_, this means he kissed her. Q: Who were Jane Austen's siblings, and important nephews and nieces? A1: Her eldest brother was James (1765-1819) was studious, went away to Oxford university at the age of 14 in 1779, and was ordained a clergyman in 1787. He took on the duties of the Steventon parish after his father's retirement. His second wife, Mary Lloyd, was not a favorite of Jane Austen's. A1.1: His daughter Anna (1793-1872), was Jane Austen's first niece; she married Benjamin Lefroy. During Jane Austen's life, she worked on a never-completed novel (to be titled "Which is the Heroine?"), and there are several interesting letters to her from her aunt with advice on novel-writing, but eventually she destroyed the manuscript after Jane Austen's death. A1.2: Anna's younger half-siblings were James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) and Caroline (1805-1880), who both wrote down their memories of Jane Austen (he published the 1870 _Memoir_). A2: Edward (1767-1852) was steady and business-like, and in the early 1780's was adopted by rich childless cousins of the Austens, Thomas and Catherine Knight. He was sent by them on the "grand tour" of continental Europe in 1786-1788, and eventually inherited their estate of Godmersham, Kent, and took the last name of "Knight". A2.1: His oldest child was Fanny (1793-1882); her mother died before she was sixteen. She asked her aunt Jane's advice about several of her unsettled romantic courtships, and about whether or not to break them off. (She finally married a baronet after Jane Austen's death; her son Lord Brabourne edited the first edition of Jane Austen's letters.) A3: Henry Austen (1771-1850) was Jane Austen's favorite brother; he was witty and enthusiastic in whatever he did, but not always successful. He entered Oxford University in 1788, married Eliza de Feuillide (who died in 1813), and eventually ended up as a Calvinist-leaning minister, after a business bankruptcy in 1815. He saw Jane Austen's novels _Persuasion_ and _Northanger Abbey_ through the press after her death. A4: Cassandra Elizabeth Austen (1773-1845) was Jane Austen's only sister, and her closest confidante (over a hundred letters from Jane Austen to Cassandra have survived). Cassandra's fiance' Thomas Fowle died of yellow fever in the Caribbean in 1797; he had gone there as a military chaplain to get the money he and Cassandra needed to marry. After this, Cassandra never married. Cassandra (like Jane) frequently visited her brothers and their families, and other relatives and friends (it was the separations between herself and Jane, resulting from visits on which they did not both go, that necessitated the letters between them). A5: Frank (1774-1865) and Charles (1779-1852) both entered the Royal Naval Academy at Portsmouth at the age of 12, fought in the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, and both eventually rose to become admirals (long after Jane Austen's death); Nelson once called Frank Austen "an excellent young man". This naval connection influenced Jane's novels _Mansfield Park_ and _Persuasion_. Frank was away at sea in the Far East from age 14 to 18. Q: Which men have been romantically linked with Jane Austen? A1: In 1795-6, she had a mutual flirtation with Thomas Lefroy (an Irish relative of her close older friend Mrs. Anne Lefroy). Many years later (after he had become Chief Justice of Ireland), he confessed to a nephew that he had had a "boyish love" for Jane Austen; however, it was always known that he couldn't afford to marry her. On January 14th and 15th 1796, when she was 20, she wrote (somewhat sarcastically), in a letter to her sister Cassandra: "Tell Mary that I make over Mr. Heartley and all his estate to her for her sole use and benefit in future, and not only him, but all my other admirers into the bargain wherever she can find them, even the kiss which C. Powlett wanted to give me, as I mean to confine myself in future to Mr. Tom Lefroy, for whom I do not care sixpence. Assure her also, as a last and indisputable proof of Warren's indifference to me, that he actually drew that gentleman's picture for me, and delivered it to me without a sigh. Friday. -- At length the day is come on which I am to flirt my last with Tom Lefroy, and when you receive this it will be over. My tears flow at the melancholy idea." A2: A year later, Mrs. Lefroy (who had disapproved of her nephew Tom's conduct towards Jane) tried to fix Jane Austen up with the Revd. Samuel Blackall, a Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, but she doesn't seem to have been very interested. The Revd. Samuel Blackall should not be confused with the Great Unknown (see below). A3: Sometime during the first few years of the 1800's Jane Austen's most mysterious romantic incident occurred. All that is known is what Cassandra told various nieces, years after Jane Austen's death, and nothing was written down until years after _that_. While the family were staying somewhere on the coast (probably in south Devonshire, west of Lyme), during a sea-side holiday, Jane Austen met a young man who seemed to Cassandra to have quite fallen in love with Jane; Cassandra later spoke highly of him, and thought he would have been a successful suitor. According to Caroline "They parted -- but he made it plain he should seek them out again"; however, shortly afterwards they instead heard of his death! A4: On December 2nd. 1802, when Jane Austen and Cassandra were staying with the Bigg family at Manydown, near Steventon, Harris Bigg-Wither (who was six years younger than herself), proposed to Jane, and she accepted, though she did not love him (though prosperous, he was "big and awkward"). However, the next day she thought better of it, and she and Cassandra showed up unexpectedly at Steventon (where their brother James was now the clergyman), insisting they be taken home to Bath the next day. Q: Frank Churchill went to London just to get his hair cut, right? A: NO! This was a cover story for his ordering a piano to be delivered to Jane Fairfax. Q: Could Mrs. Clay of _Persuasion_ have been a divorce'e, rather than a widow? A: No. As somebody on AUSTEN-L has pointed out, in Chapter 17 it says: "Mrs. Clay, who had been present while all this passed, now thought it advisable to leave the room, and Anne could have said much, and did long to say a little in defense of _her_ friend's not very dissimilar claims [...] She left it to himself to recollect that Mrs. Smith was not the only WIDOW in Bath between thirty and forty with little to live on, and no sirname of dignity." But this statement actually would not have resolved any suspense in the minds of Jane Austen's readers, since in the pre-1857 era pretty much the only grounds for divorce was the wife's infidelity, so that a divorced woman would have been almost guaranteed to have a flaming scarlet reputation in genteel rural society; also, the husband receives automatic custody of children in a divorce, while Mrs. Clay had her children with her at her father's (though we don't hear much about them, and she doesn't take them with her to Bath). Furthermore, getting a divorce cost quite a bit of money, in order to go through the baroque legal procedures which included getting a bill passed in Parliament, and anyone who was likely to marry the daughter of Mr. Shephard probably couldn't _afford_ a divorce (thus the reason that the widowed Mrs. Clay has to re-enter under the paternal roof, instead of being able to set up a separate household of her own, is that her husband had been "unprosperous"). Q: Was Mr. Collins the son of a deceased sister of Mr. Bennet? A: NO! Not only is it said at the beginning of Chapter 7 that "Mr. Bennet's property... unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a _distant_ relation", but the default type of entail by male primogeniture never favors a male heir's sister, or sister's descendants, over his own daughters (to summarize, such an entail doesn't indiscriminately favor males over females, but rather favors males who can trace a male-only line of descent from a past owner over all other descendants, both males and females: see the answer to "What is an entail?"). This standard entail is the type that Jane Austen knew would be in her readers' minds if she did not specify any further legal details. Q: Are the widowed Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters in _Sense and Sensibility_ impoverished by an entail? A: Not wholly so, and possibly not at all. The money that Mr. Henry Dashwood's first wife had brought into the marriage was reserved by "marriage settlements" for her own offspring (namely John Dashwood), and could not be given to Mr. Henry Dashwood's daughters by his second wife. This legal device has nothing to do with an entail -- in fact marriage settlements are actually designed to protect women (as opposed to an entail, which keeps wealth away from women), since such settlements ensure that the wife's money will ultimately revert to her or her children, and prevent her husband from misappropriating the money for other purposes (as he would otherwise legally be entitled to do). And the late uncle of Mr. Henry Dashwood chose to put stipulations in his will which effectively held his estate in trust for John Dashwood's son Harry (see the genealogical chart of characters from the novel at the Jane Austen Web site); this also is not necessarily accomplished by means of an entail. Q: Is Fanny Price in line to become the next Lady Bertram at the end of _Mansfield Park_? A: No (despite what some noted critics have said), unless there is some new unforseen occurrence that bumps off Tom Bertram: towards the end of the novel, Tom is recovering from his illness (and still marriageable). Q: What about the book _What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew_ by Daniel Pool? A: It is apparently advisable not to take all the statements in this book as the gospel truth; it has been claimed that there are some inaccuracies, and especially that it doesn't always meticulously distinguish between Jane Austen's era and the quite different later mid-Victorian period. Q: What do "Lady", "Lord", "Sir", etc. tell about the status of people who are entitled to such honorifics? A: The following table covers the _basic_ rules for the system of honorifics prefixed to the names or titles of British persons of noble or chivalrous rank, as a background to Jane Austen's writings. (The table only includes common shorter forms, and ignores vocatives, such as "my Lord", and third person references, such as "your Ladyship", which are not accompanied by a name or title -- as well as archaic alternatives, Scottish peculiarities, etc.) Table of Aristocratic Honorifics Title Self Wife Son Daughter ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Duke Duke of +title Duchess of +title Lord +first Lady +first Marquis Lord +title Lady +title Lord +first Lady +first Earl Lord +title Lady +title Hon. Lady +first Viscount Lord +title Lady +title Hon. Hon. Baron Lord +title Lady +title Hon. Hon. Baronet Sir +first Lady +surname Mr. Miss Knight Sir +first Lady +surname Mr. Miss (Barons and above are "peers" who sit in the House of Lords. Hereditary titles are the rank of Baronet and all higher ranks.) Notes: 1. _Title_ in the table above means the name of the noble title itself, which is _not_ necessarily the same as the surname of the person holding the title (i.e. "John Carteret, Viscount Dalrymple", is known as "Lord Dalrymple", not "Lord Carteret"). 2. _First_ in the table above means that the surname can also be added, but the first name _cannot_ be omitted -- i.e. Sir Walter Elliot, Baronet, can be referred to as "Sir Walter", but never as "Sir Elliot". 3. _Surname_ means that the honorific must be followed directly by the surname (e.g. "Lady Lucas" is the wife of "Sir William Lucas", a knight), and that the first name _cannot_ be added in (unless, of course, the wife of a knight or a baronet also happens to be the daughter of an earl or higher, as Lady Catherine de Bourgh is). 4. _Hon._ in the table is an abbreviation for "The Honourable". This was usually omitted in all but very formal contexts (so Mr. Yates is usually referred to as such, without his "Hon"), and could also be prefixed to "Miss" or "Mr." (e.g. "The Hon. Miss Carteret"). 5. _Lord_ + first name for sons of Marquis and up is a separate usage from _Lord_ + subsidiary noble title -- the latter being used for the eldest sons of peers (from Earl on up) who happen to have subsidiary titles. 6. Peeresses who have inherited a noble title in their own right are given the same honorific usage as wives of peers, and their children have the same honorifics as children of peers, but their husbands are not given any special honorific usage. (Nowadays woman knights have the honorific "Dame".) Notice that the honorific "Lady" is actually used in _three_ different and distinct ways -- with name of title for wives of Barons and up; with surname for wives of Baronets and Knights; and with first name for daughters of Earls and up. _____________________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 08:06:14 +0000 From: Robert Bowman Darcy Veach writes: > `...the Napoleonic wars gave England a desperate shortage of > gentlemen for about a decade...' I find this surprising. It was my impression that until the final years Britain's role was limited to very small campaigns, to the war at sea, and, of course, to the larger affair in the Peninsula. But even in this last theatre, according to A.D. Harvey, Wellington's entire command in 1812 was less than 50,000 men. This is fewer men than were killed in the first day or two of the Somme in 1916 in the first World War. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:10:30 EST From: Mark Turner Subject: British War Losses A while ago there was some speculation on how many men Britain lost in the Napoleonic Wars. I foolishly thought that this would be an easy thing to look up, but was I ever wrong. The figures proved very hard to find, and eventually required a trip to the U.S. Naval Academy Library and essential help from John Schneider, who maintains a Napoleonic Wars Web page. This research became a temporary obsession. In the end, I never did find a single figure for casualties, and Lewis asserts that a reliable number can't be ascertained. As an approximation, I tracked down figures for the most important battles. As you can see, even this information is not complete. Sources and notes follow the list, which should look nice and orderly if you have a fixed-width font. British Battle Date Losses Source ------------------- ---- ------ ------ First of June 1794 1,098 Lewis Cape St. Vincent 1797 300 Lewis Camperdown 1797 825 Lewis Nile 1798 895 Lewis Copenhagen 1801 941 Lewis Trafalgar 1805 1,690 Lewis Rolica 1808 485 Featherstone Vimiero 1808 ? Corunna 1809 7,035 Featherstone Sahagun 1808 ? Talavera 1809 4,521 Featherstone Coa 1810 333 Featherstone Busaco 1810 626 Featherstone Torres Vedras 1810 ? Fuentes de Onoro 1811 1,286 Featherstone Albuera 1811 4,139 Featherstone Cuidad Rodrigo 1812 446 Featherstone Badajoz 1812 2,983 Featherstone Salamanca 1812 3,129 Featherstone Burgos 1812 ? Vittoria 1813 3,675 Featherstone Maya/Roncevalles 1813 1,704 Featherstone Sorauren 1813 1,941 Featherstone San Sebastian 1813 1,696 Featherstone Vera/Bidassoa 1813 573 Featherstone Nivelle 1813 2,241 Featherstone Nive 1813 2,773 Featherstone Orthez 1814 1,645 Featherstone Toulouse 1814 2,103 Featherstone Bayonne 1814 809 Featherstone Quatre-Bras 1815 2,505 Bowden Retreat to Waterloo 1815 108 Bowden Waterloo 1815 8,458 Bowden Total 60,478 Sources: "Campaigning with the Duke of Wellington and Featherstone" by Donald Featherstone "Armies at Waterloo" by Scott Bowden "Social History of the Navy" by Michael Lewis Figures are usually for British killed and wounded. Sometimes missing and/or prisoners are included. Getting British figures for these campaigns is especially hard because almost all the land battles had British units fighting alongside allied troops, and books generally report only the totals for the combined forces. These figures also don't include those who died in smaller engagements, epidemics, accidents, etc., which certainly would add significantly to the numbers. How many of these were officers, i.e. those most likely to have been part of Jane Austen's social class? The officer/men breakdown is only available for a few battles, but it seems to have been between 5% and 8%, so perhaps between 3,000 and 5,000 in number. If anyone has better figures or can help fill in some of the gaps, I'd like glad to hear about them. Mark Turner ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 00:43:12 CST From: "Darcy E. Veach" Subject: Re: Napoleonic War casualties My bias has not changed. I think the important facts are: 1) the population was smaller, so each death was more significant (statistically as well as emotionally); 2) the deaths by disease were much larger than those in battle -- no antibiotics or sulfa drugs, in any battle more are injured than die, and the wounded are in danger of infection, becoming debilitated and other problems; and, 3) when the officers or soldiers left for the war, they left for years -- it was not the 25-year conscription foisted on the Russian serf, but while they were away from England they were out of the marriage market. ________________________________________ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 19:22:13 -0500 From: Henry Churchyard Below is a table which gives the approximate number of familes in each social/occupational stratum in England in 1803, and also an estimated average income per family; this table is taken from Patrick Colquhoun's _A Treatise on Indigence_ (1806), by way of Harold Perkins' _The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880_ (1969). Most of this must have been estimated by Colquhoun and probably wouldn't satisfy a modern demographic statistician, but Colquhoun did have available to him the results of the first rudimentary census of England in 1801. Note that all the numbers in the first column refer to families, not individuals (so there are no listings for servants, governesses, etc.) -- except in the case of the "lunatics and vagrants". The total number of families in this table is about two million, as compared to a population of about nine million people at the time. Since the only income information given is an average family income for each social category, there is no way to figure out from this table how many people there were with an income of over 10,000 pounds a year (much less to figure out how many eligible bachelors under 35 there were with incomes of at least 250 pounds -- more or less the pool of available males in the "genteel" marriage market). (Note that "aristocracy" is used loosely below, and that "esquire" was not a formal title. "Freeholders" are landowners who aren't big enough to be considered landed "gentlemen".) DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME, ENGLAND AND WALES 1803 Estimated Aggregate Families Average Income Income per Family (in 1000's) I. ARISTOCRACY Sovereign 1 200,000 200 Peers 287 8,000 2,296 Bishops 26 4,000 104 Baronets 540 3,000 1,620 Knights 350 1,500 525 Esquires 6,000 1,500 9,000 Gentlemen 20,000 700 14,000 Fundholders (included above) ---- 5,056 ______ ______ Subtotal 27,204 32,801 II. MIDDLE RANKS (1) Agriculture Freeholders (higher) 40,000 200 8,000 Freeholders (lower) 120,000 90 10,800 Farmers 160,000 120 19,200 (2) Professions Civil offices (higher) 2,000 800 1,600 Civil offices (lower) 10,500 200 2,100 Law 11,000 350 3,850 Clergy (higher) 1,000 500 500 Clergy (lower) 10,000 120 1,200 Dissenting clergy 2,500 120 300 Arts, Sciences 16,300 260 4,238 Education (higher) 500 600 300 Education (lower) 20,000 150 3,000 Naval officers 3,000 149 1,043 (447?) Army officers 5,000 139 1,816 (695?) Half-Pay Officers 2,000 45 181 (90?) Theatrical 500 200 100 Lunatic keepers 40 500 20 (3) Industry and Commerce Merchants (higher) 2,000 2,600 5,200 Merchants (lower) 13,000 800 10,400 Manufacturers 25,000 800 20,000 Warehousemen 500 800 400 Shipbuilders 300 700 210 Shipowners 5,000 500 2,500 Surveyors, engineers 5,000 200 1,000 Tailors, etc. 25,000 150 3,750 Shopkeepers, etc. 74,500 150 11,175 Innkeepers 50,000 100 5,000 Clerks, shopmen 30,000 75 6,750 (2,250?) ______ ______ Subtotal 636,460 124,633 III. LOWER ORDERS Artisans 445,726 55 24,515 Hawkers, pedlars 800 40 32 Mines, canals 40,000 40 1600 Seamen (common) 67,099 40 2684 " (naval) 38,175 38 1451 Soldiers 50,000 29 1450 Labourers 340,000 31 10,540 Lunatics [[2,500]] 30 75 Debtors 2,000 25 50 Pensioners (forces) 30,500 20 610 Paupers, cottages 260,179 16.4 6,869 (4,267?) Vagrants [[222,000]] 10 2,220 ______ ______ Subtotal 1,274,479 families 52,096 and 224,500 individuals ====== ====== GRAND TOTAL 1,938,143 families 209,530 and 224,500 individuals (Some of the numbers in the last column aren't equal to the numbers in the first two columns multiplied together, as shown with question marks.) ________________________________________ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 11:04:14 -0700 From: Lura R Subject: Navy Salaries I found information on how much money people earned in the Navy as salary, and also information on how prize money was distributed. I'll post the prize money information later. This data is from "Men-of-War: Life in Nelson's Navy" by (who else?) Patrick O'Brian. This is a factual book, not one of his novels. These salaries reflected the improvements made to the British Navy after the Spithead mutiny in 1797, which was more like a labor strike, requesting better conditions. The pay was in lunar months (13 lunar months to the year). The pay is noted as x.y.z, where x is pounds, y is shillings, and z is pence. The chaplain's salary also shows one farthing. There are 20 shillings in a pound, 12 pence to a shilling, and 4 farthings to a pence. Sailor's salaries were held in arrears by 6 months -- it was an inducement to not jump ship. The ratings of a ship had to do with how big they were and how many cannons they carried. A first rate had 100-112 guns (cannon) and 841 men. Ships ranged down to a sixth rate which had 20, 24 and 28 guns, with 138, 158 and 198 men. Multiply the following by 13 to get an annual salary. Officers 140.0.0 Admiral of the Fleet (x13 = 1820 pounds/year) 98.0.0 Admiral 70.0.0 Vice-Admiral 49.0.0 Read-Admiral 32.4.0 Captain of a first rate ship 16.16.0 Captain of a sixth rate ship 16.16.0 Master and Commander 8.8.0 Lieutenant ---------------------- Non-Officers (most skilled) 12.12.0 Master of a first rate ship 7.7.0 Master of a sixth rate ship 4.16.0 Boatswain, gunner, purser 3.1.0 Boatswain, gunner, purser of a 6th rate 5.16.0 Carpenter 4.16.0 Carpenter of a 6th rate 3.16.6 Master's mate 2.12.16 Master's mate of a 6th rate 2.15.6 Midshipman 2.0.6 Midshipman of a 6th rate 11.10.9 1/4 Chaplain (plus 5 pounds/year from each midshipman and 1st class volunteer, and 20 pounds/year for schoolmaster duties) ------------------------- Sailors 1.13.6 Able Seaman 1.5.6 Ordinary Seaman 1.2.6 Landman (maybe from press-gang, or county quota system by which they got rid of their undesirables) 9.0.0 /yr Boy 1st class 8.0.0 /yr Boy 2nd class 7.0.0 /yr Boy 3rd class Subject: Navy Prize Money Here is part 2 of my post on the Navy -- this time describing the prize money they could earn if they captured a ship. My earlier post today on Navy Salaries illustrated that salary alone was hardly enough for an officer to establish a comfortable living, as we have come to know it in Jane Austen's novels. Here again, the information is from Patrick O'Brian's non-fiction book, "Men-of-War: Life in Nelson's Navy". He notes that "after great fleet action the admirals were given peerages, huge presents of money and pensions of thousands a year; the victorious frigate-captain was made a baronet; first lieutenants were promoted commander and some midshipman were given their commissions", but for tangible advantages the ship's company looked to prize money. When a captured ship was brought in and sold, the proceedings were shared as follows. Those in a given category had equal shares of the fraction of the prize money. Before 1808, a captain had to give one of his eighths to the flag-officers under whom he served, after 1808, one third of what he received. If he were not under an admiral's direction he kept it all. Before 1808 After 1808 3/8 2/8 Captain 1/8 1/8 Lieutenants, master, captain of Marines 1/8 1/8 Marine lieutenants, surgeon, purser, boatswain gunner, carpenter, master's mates, chaplain 1/8 * Midshipmen, lower warrant officers, gunner's, boatswain's and carpenter's mates, Marine sgts. 2/8 * Everybody else 4/8 (* The last two categories combined) It was far more lucrative to capture a merchant or treasure ship than a warship, whose cargo would be cannon balls and guns. The richest prize ship ever recorded was the "Hermione" in 1762, whose cargo and ship amounted to 544,648 pounds 1s 6d. It was jointly captured by the "Active" and the "Favorite", whose prize was divided as follows (rounded to pounds): Pounds Recipient 64,963 Admiral and commodore Ship "Active's" share: 65,054 Captain 13,004 Each commissioned officer 4,336 Each warrant officer 1,806 Each petty officer, including midshipmen 485 Each seaman, etc. Ship Favorite's share was 825 pounds less, because she was not entitled to head money for the 165 prisoners. So getting back to Jane Austen, Capt. Wentworth in _Persuasion_ had accumulated 25,000 pounds in prize money, which made him an acceptably prudent catch for Anne Elliot. I hope this has given those of you interested some background in how that happened. I recommend Patrick O'Brian as an easy to read source of information to better understand the life of the Navy men in Jane Austen's fiction and real life. Lura ________________________________________ Q: The word `condescending' seems to also have a positive meaning in Jane Austen (or at least some characters, like Mr. Collins, think it does), in addition to its current negative meaning. ________________________________________ Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 22:58:29 -0600 From: Henry Churchyard Subject: "Condescend" list Here's a list of occurrences of the word "condescend" in the e-texts of Jane Austen's writings which are available to me. I don't know if I detect any obvious patterns, other than that _Pride and Prejudice_ is definitely the novel of condescension. _________________________________________________________________________ Emma As Harriet now lived, the Martins could not get at her, without seeking her where hitherto they had wanted either the courage or the <> to seek her; for since her refusal of the brother, the sisters never had been at Mrs. Goddard's; and a twelvemonth might pass without their being thrown together again, with any necessity, or even any power of speech. Emma did not repent her <> in going to the Coles. [Chapter 15:] She was quite one of her worthies -- the most amiable, affable, delightful woman -- just as accomplished and <> as Mrs. Elton meant to be considered. Mansfield Park In vain were the well-meant <> of Sir Thomas, and all the officious prognostications of Mrs. Norris that she [Fanny Price] would be a good girl; in vain did Lady Bertram smile and make her sit on the sofa with herself and pug, and vain was even the sight of a gooseberry tart towards giving her comfort; she could scarcely swallow two mouthfuls before tears interrupted her, and sleep seeming to be her likeliest friend, she was taken to finish her sorrows in bed. Persuasion He [Sir Walter] had <> to mortgage as far as he had the power, but he would never <> to sell. The party drove off in very good spirits; Sir Walter prepared with <> bows for all the afflicted tenantry and cottagers who might have had a hint to show themselves. Pride and Prejudice "Undoubtedly," replied Darcy, to whom this remark was chiefly addressed, "there is meanness in _all_ the arts which ladies sometimes <> to employ for captivation. The subject elevated him to more than usual solemnity of manner, and with a most important aspect he protested that he had never in his life witnessed such behaviour in a person of rank -- such affability and <>, as he had himself experienced from Lady Catherine. She had even <> to advise him to marry as soon as he could, provided he chose with discretion; and had once paid him a visit in his humble parsonage; where she had perfectly approved all the alterations he had been making, and had even vouchsafed to suggest some herself, -- some shelves in the closets up stairs. "But she is perfectly amiable, and often <> to drive by my humble abode in her little phaeton and ponies." "Twice has she <> to give me her opinion (unasked too!) on this subject; and it was but the very Saturday night before I left Hunsford -- between our pools at quadrille, while Mrs. Jenkinson was arranging Miss de Bourgh's foot-stool, that she said, ``Mr. Collins, you must marry.''" "She is all affability and <>, and I doubt not but you will be honoured with some portion of her notice when service is over." The power of displaying the grandeur of his patroness to his wondering visitors, and of letting them see her civility towards himself and his wife, was exactly what he had wished for; and that an opportunity of doing it should be given so soon was such an instance of Lady Catherine's <> as he knew not how to admire enough. Her ladyship, with great <>, arose to receive them; and as Mrs. Collins had settled it with her husband that the office of introduction should be her's, it was performed in a proper manner, without any of those apologies and thanks which he would have thought necessary. There is but one part of my conduct in the whole affair, on which I do not reflect with satisfaction; it is that I <> to adopt the measures of art so far as to conceal from him your sister's being in town. When they parted, Lady Catherine, with great <>, wished them a good journey, and invited them to come to Hunsford again next year; and Miss De Bourgh exerted herself so far as to curtsey and hold out her hand to both. "Our plain manner of living, our small rooms, and few domestics, and the little we see of the world, must make Hunsford extremely dull to a young lady like yourself; but I hope you will believe us grateful for the <>, and that we have done every thing in our power to prevent your spending your time unpleasantly." "They agree with me in apprehending that this false step in one daughter will be injurious to the fortunes of all the others; for who, as Lady Catherine herself <> says, will connect themselves with such a family." "After mentioning the likelihood of this marriage to her ladyship last night, she immediately, with her usual <>, expressed what she felt on the occasion; when it become apparent, that on the score of some family objections on the part of my cousin, she would never give her consent to what she termed so disgraceful a match. [Mr. Bennet:] "He is the kind of man, indeed, to whom I should never dare refuse any thing, which he <> to ask." But at length, by Elizabeth's persuasion, he was prevailed on to overlook the offence, and seek a reconciliation; and, after a little farther resistance on the part of his aunt, her resentment gave way, either to her affection for him, or her curiosity to see how his wife conducted herself; and she <> to wait on them at Pemberley, in spite of that pollution which its woods had received, not merely from the presence of such a mistress, but the visits of her uncle and aunt from the city. Sense and Sensibility Elinor joyfully profited by the first of these proposals, and thus, by a little of that address which Marianne could never <> to practise, gained her own end, and pleased Lady Middleton at the same time. [Mrs. Dashwood:] "You will have much pleasure in being in London, and especially in being together; and if Elinor would ever <> to anticipate enjoyment, she would foresee it there from a variety of sources; she would, perhaps, expect some from improving her acquaintance with her sister-in-law's family." Letter of March 23 1817 to Fanny Knight Tell Wm. that Triggs is as beautiful and <> as ever, and was so good as to dine with us to-day and tell him that I often play at nines and think of him. Lady Susan "He [Mr. De Courcy] was actually on the point of leaving Churchill! It would have been trifling with my reputation to allow of his departing with such an impression in my disfavour; in this light, <> was necessary." The Watsons The thankfulness of Mrs. Blake was more diffuse; with a look most expressive of unexpected pleasure and lively gratitude, she turned to her neighbour with repeated and fervent acknowledgments of so great and <> a kindness to her boy. "Upon my honour, ladies," said he [Tom Musgrave], giving a glance over his own person, "I am highly indebted to your <> for admitting me in such dishabille into your drawing-room. The Three Sisters Then turning to Mary, "Well, Miss Stanhope, I hope you have _at last_ settled the Matter in your own mind; and will be so good as to let me know whether you will <<_condescend_>> to marry me or not." Frederic & Elfrida On her entrance into the city of London, which was the place of Mrs. Williamson's abode, the postilion, whose stupidity was amazing, declared & declared even without the least shame or Compunction, that having never been informed, he was totally ignorant of what part of the Town he was to drive to. Charlotte, whose nature we have before intimated was an earnest desire to oblige every one, with the greatest <> & Good humour informed him that he was to drive to Portland Place, which he accordingly did & Charlotte soon found herself in the arms of a fond Aunt. The Visit: A Comedy in Two Acts "And now my amiable Sophia, <> to marry me." Henry and Eliza With every expression of regard did the Dutchess introduce her [Eliza] to [her daughter] Lady Harriet, who was so much pleased with her appearance that she besought her, to consider her as her Sister, which Eliza with the greatest <> promised to do. [Here the situation is that Eliza is actually without family, and would be destitute if she hadn't gotten a recommendation to be a paid companion to the Duchess and her daughter.] _________________________________________________________________________