CONTINUE
“Dear me! but what shall you do? how shall you employ yourself when you grow old?”
“If I know myself, Harriet, mine is an active, busy mind, with a great many independent resources; and I do not perceive why I should be more in want of employment at forty or fifty than one-and-twenty. Woman's usual occupations of hand and mind will be as open to me then as they are now; or with no important variation. If I draw less, I shall read more; if I give up music, I shall take to carpet-work. And as for objects of interest, objects for the affections, which is in truth the great point of inferiority, the want of which is really the great evil to be avoided in not marrying, I shall be very well off, with all the children of a sister I love so much, to care about. There will be enough of them, in all probability, to supply every sort of sensation that declining life can need. There will be enough for every hope and every fear; and though my attachment to none can equal that of a parent, it suits my ideas of comfort better than what is warmer and blinder. My nephews and nieces!—I shall often have a niece with me.”
---
She thought that being wealthy and having numerous family (and that was the case with Austen), she could have a very comfortable life without being married. She didn't sacrifice anything for whatever imaginary principles modern feminist assigns to her. She just weighted the different options and chose the one that served her best.
reply
share
Jes' Sayin' (6466)
5 years ago
Quotes from Emma don't mean that's what Austen actually thought.
Austen wasn't all that wealthy either.
reply
share
kuku (3510)
5 years ago
She was wealthy enough to live comfortably. And she was not alone, she was often surrounded by her family and friends.
And yeap, quoting Emma doesn't mean that was what Jane Austen thought. But it's a well argued and reasonable position. If we're gonna assign to her some position about this topic, at least, let's assign to her something she reasonably argued instead of some imaginary feminist principles.
reply
share
Jes' Sayin' (6466)
5 years ago
Not wealthy enough to dress in current fashions. Seen as somewhat bumptious because of it.
Lived with one sister.
Quoting Emma is as arbitrary as anything else.
reply
share
kuku (3510)
5 years ago
She had half a dozen brothers and sisters and more than 30 nephews. And that's only family, not friends.
And while she was not rich enough to afford all kind of luxuries, I repeat, she could live comfortably without problems. This was her family house where she lived:
https://janeaustenshousemuseumblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/p1010902.jpg
It's not Downton Abbey, it's not rich, but I'd say it qualifies without problems as high middle class.
reply
share
whoanelly (1591)
5 years ago
She and her mother and sister lived at Chawton Cottage Only because her brother generously gave them the use of a cottage on his estate. Edward nearly lost the Chawton estate due to a challenge to the will that left it to him. He had to fight a very expensive court case in order to keep it.
The three women had very little money between them. Cassandra had a small inheritance from her fiance who died, and the naval brothers occasionally helped financially. Henry helped when he could, but had his own problems when his bank failed. Jane, Cassandra and Mrs. Austen lived like Mrs. and Miss Bates, not Mr. and Mrs. Bennet.
reply
share
kukuxu (5409)
5 years ago
From https://www.janeausten.co.uk/the-assistance-of-servants/
When the Austen family moved to Bath in 1801, they were in reduced circumstances and had to rely on “the bare minimum” of servants for a family of four. She wrote of their plans to her sister, Cassandra, “My mother looks forward with as much certainty as you can do to our keeping two maids… We plan having a steady cook and a young, giddy housemaid, with a sedate, middle-aged man, who is to undertake the double office of husband to the former and sweetheart to the latter.”
You're right. They had very little money. After all, they had to reduce their expenses to the point of having only 3 servants.
:-(
reply
share
whoanelly (1591)
5 years ago
You do realize that at that time, people could have little money and still have servants? Servants were cheap compared to the expense of something like keeping horses.
Btw, are you and kuku twins?
reply
share