JANE AUSTEN & MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT | Sense and Sensibility & A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

[@DrOctaviaCox]

If you like the work I do, then you can support it here: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N Thank you very much indeed for watching my channel.

[@jrpipik]

Brilliant. It's as if Austen read Wollstonecraft and said, I'm going to create an example of that for her!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Ha! - I do wonder. It seems also that Austen had planned a fuller exploration of this theme too in her novel 'The Watsons' (which she began but then abandoned, c.1804-5). Upon meeting each other for the first time, Emma Watson, the heroine, "saw that her sister-in-law despised her immediately". According to Cassandra Austen, the plan for the novel had been that "Mr Watson [Emma's father] was soon to die; and Emma to become dependent for a home on her narrow-minded sister-in-law and brother" (Family Record, ed. Le Faye, p.241). It's striking how "narrow-minded" remains, given that - as I said in the video - that was how Wollstonecraft had described the figure in 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'.

[@jrpipik]

@@DrOctaviaCox I was just in a discussion of the TV series "Mad Men," which I think is at its heart about toxic masculinity. We were talking about the first wife of the lead character, who was raised in a country club culture to have no life skills beyond getting herself a successful husband. I thought of Wollstonecraft and how the problems of women's education have persisted beyond primogeniture, or perhaps primogeniture has morphed into something else, particularly in the US.

[@rmarkread3750]

Now look what you’ve done! You’ve made me think! Shedding new lights on familiar texts, you have set my mind reeling. Until now, I had looked at the novels of Jane Austen as comedies of manners, informed by Jane Austen’s uniquely sharp eye for the absurd. In the words of Thornton Wilder, I have “missed (as most readers do) the whole purport of literature, which is the notation of the heart." Mr. Wilder goes on to say, "Style is but the faintly contemptible vessel in which the bitter liquid is recommended to the world.” Jane Austen’s novels are not comedies but satires. Satires as you described in your essay on Juvenal and Swift. Satires fueled by rage. It is a tribute to Jane Austen’s tact and taste that she can record the vicious, outrageous behaviors of Fanny Dashwood and so many others with apparent equanimity. Perhaps it is just this sort of self-editing that so offended Charlotte Bronte. Plainly, there is more going on here than has met my eye. Thank you for the enlightenment.

[@astrothsknot]

for me, you've just highlighted the issue with historical artworks and items and cultures. because we're only seeing things from our narrow interpretation of history through the filter of our current culture, we lose so many nuances and ideas of how things were that increases our understanding and why things are the way they are. I had to sit and explain to my cousin why Sherlock Holmes stories outside of the famous few were all about men forcing women to sign over their money. The idea that women wouldn't just keep their money or that previously they wouldn't just blew her mind. She knew about the sufferegettes and stuff, but hadn't truly understood the human story and cost. I read something a few years ago that uses clues from the text and sets it within the context of the time, that Heathcliff was black, likely born at the end of slavery. and reading it like that and so finding out about the actual effects of slavery in the UK was mindlblowing. Greatly improved the book. Readers in that time know these things, but they get lost as time moves on. Women weren't grasping when they wanted jewelry. they were making sure the hubs could actually support them and that if they fell on hard times they had stuff to sell to support themselves and their kids. As Snappy Dragon says in her videos (about restoring eliminated people to their rightful place in history) it's not that people weren't there, it's that they were deliberately erased.

[@tymanung6382]

The genius of Jane Austen is to synthesize various levels---- individual psychology and interactions, plus social issues critiques----- gender relations, racial ethnic relations, etc.--- all in any 1 novel, finished and unfinished

[@Ciara1594]

Re: Charlotte Bronte, she said that Jane Austen didn't know anything about passion and that her books were like "well tended gardens, prim and proper". She clearly hadn't read Persuasion or Northanger Abbey. I believe that she would have been personally offended by Northanger Abbey because Catherine Moreland would have reminded her of herself(!) 🤭

[@kirstena4001]

powerful video!!! Fanny Dashwood is one of JA's most frightening villains, because she both has power over the Dashwood women, and opts to use it maliciously. While on the one hand, she is something of a caracature, she has none of the amusing weaknesses of other JA 'baddies'. Rather like Mrs Norris.

[@bookmouse2719]

I like the scene when she is described as screaming her head off re Edward and Lucy. The character I always hated was Mrs. Ferres.

[@arabellamileham9978]

Really interesting post. In some ways, it sheds light on Caroline Bingley's treatment of Jane Bennett - a pre-emptive strike to maintain her position, although obvs neither her brother or potential sister-in-law were likely to ever behave like Fanny or John Dashwood. Although clearly Caroline herself would do in that situation. And, it also puts a historical context to the way that modern society, notably the media, still pits women again women. A lasting product of a patriarchal system...?

[@heathermatthies3638]

I really appreciated the historical correlations that were contemporaneous to Austen in this one.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

It's so interesting, I agree, to see Austen in her philosophical contexts. And also to consider how different those contexts were in the more radical 1790s when many of her novels were first drafted (Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Northanger Abbey) and the war-weary 1810s when they were published.

[@jennysedgley8284]

@@DrOctaviaCox Yes, social progress is not linear is it. I remember the 1970s as quite a radical time, and the 1980s as ... not.

[@eric2500]

I appreciated this also, particularly the connections to French and American thought, especially how the thought narrative of equal rights was continued all the way through as far as the Senaca Falls Declaration of the Rights of Women.

[@corvuscorone7735]

Fanny Dashwood is the reason I cannot read Sense and Sensibility again, because she makes me SO angry! (And reminds me of someone I am related to by marriage...) She is truly, maliciously evil, and it is high time I got my copy of Mary Wollstonecrafts Vindication off the shelf to read it at long last! Your observations and arguments are completely convincing. (And can I just say something very frivolous, and I mean this in no way creepily, being a woman myself, but that dress you wear is stunning! Those colours bring out the colour of your eyes perfectly!)

[@Cat_Woods]

Fanny always pushes my buttons, too, because I know people like that who scheme and manipulate behind the scenes to control everything in a very spiteful way. I can never believe how petty they are. It's not just that they want the best for themselves, but they literally want to hurt others. They can't abide someone else (whom they've picked out as their competitor) to even be okay.

[@dorothywillis1]

Interesting. I can stand Fanny, but Aunt Norris kept me from reading Mansfield Park for ages until my husband insisted I had to read it. He thinks Aunt N. hilarious!

[@pure46]

I'm always surprised how much I hate her when in real life there's no one who can bring out such feelings

[@corvuscorone7735]

@@dorothywillis1 I can't stand Aunt Norris, either, I mean, she is evil in her own rights. But somehow, I find Fanny worse, because she condemns an entire family of women to (almost) poverty, causing them to be excluded from all good society (they are lucky to have the Middletons!), which also means that the girls have even less prospects than before to get out of this lower status by an advantageous marriage. A status that they are not accustomed to, having been born into higher society, but unlucky enough to only be second wife's children, and thus having even less claim to anything. It is mor insidious, material, existential, and "dragged out" than what Mrs Norris does. Mrs Norris is petty and cruel, Fanny is trying to push an entire family into destitution, and she would succeed were it not for Sir whatsit Middleton and his mother in law, irksome as they may be.

[@corvuscorone7735]

@@Cat_Woods Exactly ;)

[@mrs.manrique7411]

I am trying to convince a book club I just joined to read Austen, but one of the members is uninterested. I am hoping by sharing your videos with them that they will want to read her before the end of the year!

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

Thank you for explicating the Wollstonecraft connection. Some of those quotes are so pointedly connected. ;-) It's not just inheritances, I think, it's also education: S&S has such a lot of commentary about what women do all day (stare into space like Lady Middleton, work on their drawing and music like Elinor and Marianne), how children should be parented (probably not switching between doting and ignoring), and what the point of going to an elegant seminary was (it enabled Lady Middleton and Mrs Palmer to erase their trade background and jump up a caste - plus teaching them some fancy embroidery. The fancy embroidery was totes important!)

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Indeed! Very important! I've always rather liked this quotation, illustrating the usefulness of 'elegant' schooling for young ladies: Mrs Jennings' London "house was handsome, and handsomely fitted up, and the young ladies were immediately put in possession of a very comfortable apartment. It had formerly been Charlotte’s [Mrs Palmer's], and over the mantelpiece still hung a landscape in coloured silks of her performance, in proof of her having spent seven years at a great school in town to some effect." (ch.26)

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

White work does take a lot of time and skill to make, for sure. :-) Thanks for your story

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

@@i.b.640 I do embroidery as a hobby, but it's more fun as something I might do for an hour while I'm watching TV than a side hustle that I need to do to buy sugar and clothes, for sure. 🙂 But that does also lead in to another Austen related question: what was the commercial value of a gently bred woman's accomplishments? She has several characters who could play the piano (reputedly) well, but who stopped as soon as they married. There _is_ a commercial value to Jane Fairfax's music: since she has no dowry, it means that she can command a higher price as governess. But with regards to fancywork, I keep thinking about the ailing Miss Smith in _Persuasion_. She went to a fine school with a baronet's daughter as a class mate, but when she needed to start earning her own money - the fine embroidery she presumably learned at school was no good to her - she had to learn how to knit and tat from a working class woman. Wollstonecraft's gilded cage indeed. (On the converse, there are Helen Graham from _The Tenant of Wildfell Hall_ and Caroline Norton in real life who were able to make a living through their art after leaving their husbands.)

[@ClariceH]

Loved it! It took fierce, outspoken women like Wollstonecraft to pave the way for equal rights for women. Austen may have been more polite and, well, decorous, but perhaps she helped by furthering these ideas in the minds of her upper-class audiences. No contribution is contemptible!

[@bonniehagan9644]

Hello Dr. Cox, Thank you for that fascinating treatment. The similarities between the two accounts are striking! Very thought provoking. Happy Friday!

[@cathrynpaterson7539]

If they had any brothers! I need to reread all her books now that I have found our channel. I enjoy the fact that you dissect every word and every paragraph. I never realized Jane Austen was so clever. In the 1960s we studied Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge but I don't think we dissected his every word, focusing more on the general story.

[@Mparthur]

After reading the passage on Julia's education from Mansfield Park, do you think here Jane Austen was speaking more directly to us? I know she always does but I'm reading it for the first time now and can't help but feel her voice much more present than in her other novels

[@DrOctaviaCox]

I certainly think a sense of didacticism pervades more obviously in Mansfield Park than in Austen's other novels.

[@mariahunter9882]

Thank you so much for this wonderful and thought provoking lecture. I really enjoy your teaching.

[@LindsaysWhimsies]

Such interesting historical connections and comparisons. Loved your insight here, thank you. It feels like I'm back in college again.

[@AW-uv3cb]

Excellent video, and one I should recommend to everyone who glamorises the society of those times (stable families, set gender roles, women as mistresses of the hearth, put on the pedestal etc etc). Of course there would have been many men who cherished their wives and sisters etc. As there would have been many wives who cherished their mother and sisters-in-laws. But you shouldn't have to rely on someone's kindness as a reassurance of your future, because it automatically puts them in the position of the benefactor and you - a supplicant. And what if that person does not want to help you? Just like in modern times: it's nice that the ultra-rich donate some of their money to charities etc., of course that's good. But wouldn't it be better if people could rest assured that if they fall on hard times, they will automatically have the support and healthcare paid for by everyone's taxes (including their own), than for them to have to hope for the generosity of others, which might or might not come?

[@Brooke-kk8vb]

It's very different in today's society because, regardless of someone's birth or gender, as a general rule, most people are able to work some type of job to support themselves. In Austen's time, women were unable to do so, and totally dependent on male relatives. (We're also talking about people of the "gentry" class here, not working class women such as servants, dressmakers, washerwomen, and even blacksmiths.) Today in America, we have no caste system, despite what some people think, and no person should be obligated to provide for a stranger who, unlike in Austen, may be very able to work. The other big issue with "taxing the rich" is one I think many people don't realize, and that is that, because "the rich" are often rich because they provide some sort of service or good on a large scale (such as, for example, people who rent out property, or who invent and sell products), that taxing will affect the little guy much more than it will the rich one. Because, to offset the extra tax burden and still make a profit, they will compensate by raising their prices.

[@douglaso6428]

Thank you so much Dr. Cox for another insightful and compelling video about Jane Austen’s work. I appreciate your precise presentation and the lengths to which you go to support your ideas with evidence. There are several of your videos I have wanted to comment on extensively but have not had the time! I hope I can remedy that in future. In the meantime, I will just say that there’s a wonderful demonstration of what you’re talking about in the Ang Lee and Emma Thompson film from 1995. (If I can find it on KZbin I will put a link under my comment.) It’s the brilliant drive in a carriage by John and Fanny at the very beginning of the film which reduces his bedside oath to his father to a superficial, self-serving half-promise from a weak minded man! But it’s all the better to highlight the depth and noble characters of the men with integrity (Colonel Brandon & Edward Ferrars).

[@douglaso6428]

m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYmZepyhqt9sq6s John & Fanny at their weak & petty “best” at the expense of everyone else… (wonderful adaptation of Jane’s brilliant work)

[@coloraturaElise]

As always, you bring so much to the table for us to digest about the great genius Jane Austen, who many in our modern age still think of as a romance writer!

[@tymanung6382]

Jane Austen combines individual and interpersonal level of romance BUT ALSO social critiques of male chauvinism and supremacism, and also racial chauvinism and supremacism in slavery. Some people mistakenly ONLY see the 1st, and miss the rest.

[@kyraburns7872]

Dr. Cox, is there a particular biography of Mary Wollstonecraft that you would recommend? She seems to have been a fascinating person with such a keen mind. I read Vindication when I was in college 30 years ago, but didn't know much about her beyond that. Thank you so much for drawing these parallels between Austen's work and her own. I've always felt that Austen was more radical in her own context than people today can really understand, so it's nice to see some underpinnings of that idea!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Claire Tomalin's biography ('The Life and Death of Mary Wollstonecraft') is a good place to start - it's comprehensive and readable. Janet Todd's 'A Revolutionary Life' is also good. If you are more interested in the family as a whole then William St Clair's 'The Godwins and the Shelleys' is well worth a read. It's my pleasure, Kyra. Thanks for watching. And yes, I think so too.

[@nickwilliams7547]

Thanks Octavia, this is yet another fascinating video. I appreciate all the effort that must go into putting them together.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Thanks Nick!

[@kiarona.]

When you read Mary Wollstonecraft's passage, the *first* person that sprang to my mind was Fanny Dashwood. I was immediately like "oh yes - she's the perfect example of this"

[@miriamtam3405]

You are so sweet and so smart.. I recently discoverd your channel and I keep listening since :D Could I suggest "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" for an analysis? Thanks!

[@veronicajaeger3604]

Excellent, excellent! Even if you had not mentioned Jane Austen at all but read only the extract from The Vindication of the Rights of Women, I would have thought of Fanny Dashwood immediately!

[@sarahmwalsh]

This is such a terrific look at these two women's writing side by side. Fanny Dashwood is just so deliciously hateful - and as you point out, she really revels in her own good fortune as she perpetuates a system that places her fellow women in straitened circumstances.

[@AD-hs2bq]

Brilliant!

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Thank you!

[@yusuffulat6954]

This is one of my favourite chapters to read as well, it's hilarious!

[@lynner1770]

Love your videos

[@julecaesara482]

It's always so interesting to see how writers are and were influenced by the discourse of their time! Just imagine what the world might have looked like if the personal life of Mrs Wollstonecraft hadn't been 'leaked' by her husband. I also wondered how her husband could make an affair of his lately deceased wife public without damaging his own reputation.

[@kkay3784]

This was an eye opener! And something I never once though of: how old was Charlotte Lucas? I always assumed she was older, but never wondered more about it.

[@lisamedla]

According to the text, she's older than Jane Bennett if I remember correctly

[@rachelport3723]

Austen's loss of income when her father died was not because of inheritance, though - it was because the income was from the Church, so it doesn't quite fit. I always thi.nk Miss and Mrs. Bates are closest to her own situation, but as you say, they were lucky to have her brothers' help. I've read that Fanny Dashwood was based on her brother Edward Knight's wife, and that he only gave them Chawton Cottage after her death.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

How do you interpret Austen’s Fanny Dashwood in light of Mary Wollstonecraft’s passage?

[@coloraturaElise]

She is the "cold-hearted, narrow-minded woman" who is jealous of any kindness showed to the sisters by her husband, and who uses cunning to undermine her husband's natural affection for his sisters; she uses tears and caresses to get her way. Of course, in Chapter 2 of S&S, we don't see the tears and caresses; perhaps they're not necessary in Fanny's case because she is cunning enough to work on her weak husband's innate selfishness. btw, I wrote this after only watching the beginning of the video, and I see that you cover this ground later in the video. :-)

[@mesamies123]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@kaferine]

Wonderful video, so much food for thought!

[@Amcsae]

Excellent topic as always!

[@beatrixscudeler]

Interesting links between Wollstonecraft and Austen on primogeniture, although I suspect Austen would not quite have seen society through the lens of 'human rights'. It seems to me that she inherited ideas of personal duty and voluntary charity from her Anglican upbringing and I wonder how alien the idea of framing society in terms of 'rights' would have seemed to her. I also think Wollstonecraft herself is in many ways not as 'radical' as we often suppose (at least by our contemporary standards). Legal scholar Erika Bachiochi has just published a book that I'm keen to read called 'The Rights of Woman', ' which I believe goes into detail about some of the ways in which we have forgotten or misinterpreted Wollstonecraft's moral vision!

[@Mciftci93]

I agree with Lady Disdain Reads. We need to avoid anachronisms, especially when we use concepts like human rights. Bachiochi’s book is really helpful for understanding what Wollstonecraft really wrote, rather than what we would have her write.

[@tymanung6382]

Why should we 1st use 200 years later ideas to critique 200 years earlier ideas ! We 1st need to see how they interacted with various others in their time and place. 2 nd, we can then use current ideas to compare with 200 years old ideas.

[@danielasarmiento30]

I lways found it incredibly interesting how Austen managed to make John and Fanny the most selfish, unfar and self absorbed characters, who somehow deluded themselves to think they are the kindest, fairest and most generous of all. Fanny to me is self delusion, and I honestly know a woman kind of like her. She doesn't delude herself to be the kindest, but definitely the most hard working and moral, while never actually working and stealing her parents's pension.

[@jgrib6102]

Excellent information.

[@ashleyclinton3485]

I had not heard of Wollstonecraft until I listened to you. What a shame that her husband discredited her work through his memoirs. No wonder she was so unhappy. You would hope that a person frustrated by inequality in their society would at least have an inner circle to support and raise them up. She ought to be a more significant character in the history books. I can name all of the tragic fates of the wives of King Henry the viii but my education of British history didn’t cover Mary Wollstonecraft - I doubt my HS teacher knew who she was.

[@sabinepayr7057]

William Godwin did his late wife a serious disservice with the memoirs (although I think the male-dominated society would have found other reasons to discredit her if needed). Godwin could have spent his time better by making his "Political Justice" more readable 😉 - But I am sure many more women read Wollstonecraft even after the publication of the memoirs than would acknowledge it. -- Thank you so much for this lecture, it chimes in perfectly with my explorations into this fascinating period where so many "modern" thoughts and social struggles emerged.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Godwin's _Memoirs_ were certainly counter-productive! Joseph Johnson (Wollstonecraft's publisher and friend, as I mentioned in the video, who also published the memoirs) wrote to Godwin when he was compiling the memoirs that "She was incapable of disguise". It was in this spirit that Godwin wrote about her life - disguising nothing. He wrote of his plan less than a month after her death : "I think the world is entitled to some information respecting persons that have enlightened & improved it. I believe that it is a tribute due to the memory of such persons" (4 October 1797, Letters, ed. Clemit, vol.1, p.251). But the world at the time clearly did not see it as 'a tribute'. The Romantic poet Robert Southey, for instance, described Godwin as "stripping his dead wife naked" for the world to gawp at. Thanks for watching. I agree - such an fascinating period!

[@anneclaffey2843]

@@DrOctaviaCox Thank you for putting Jane Austen in the same category as Mary Wollstoncraft. I think there is a serious injustice being done to JA today by those who read her only for the frilly dresses and the heroine getting her man on the last page. Possibly because of viewing film and TV adaptations rather than going to the texts? Ammunition for those of us who believe she's much more than this!

[@stevenlight5006]

Tis true men and women are created equal.from that point forward individuals are made.

[@Therika7]

Your jewelry in this one makes me think of Boadicea :)

[@markteltscher9746]

Do you believe Jane Austen is a World class writer despite been taken out of school at the tender age of eleven or that her talents shone through by coming from a family of writers and the personal education she received from her Father?

[@DrOctaviaCox]

JA's father was a home tutor, which meant of course that he had an excellent library at home - that always helps! And her family were very supportive of her writing from a young age.

[@markteltscher9746]

@@DrOctaviaCox I think one of those books may have been Cecelia by Fanny Burney. This quote from Burney is a carbon copy of a paragraph from Pride and Prejudice. Do you agree? 'She had met with an object whose character answered all her wishes for him with whom she would entrust her fortune, and whose turn of mind, so similar to her own, promised her the highest domestic felicity.' 'She began now to comprehend That he was exactly the man who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. '

[@lisamedla]

@@markteltscher9746 there has been speculation that P&P was fan fiction for it that morphed into its own. Seems to have been common at the time.

[@jennysedgley8284]

Do you think there is an element of internalised misogyny in the behaviour of Fanny Dashwood & the like?

[@eric2500]

In the meta sense it is not her fault she's a grasping b., but she is one, and we don't like her when we read her.

[@bookmouse2719]

The declaration of Independence (Life Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness) was written for free white men and didn't include women. This was later added in 1919 in the 19th Amendment the right of women to vote.

[@Cat_Woods]

It's really hard to know how blatantly unfair society was to women so recently. Not that it's not still blatantly unfair in many ways, but this stuff that enshrined into law such extreme injustices. Of course, nothing to the injustice of actual slavery, which was also enshrined into law. I can only wonder at people's "sensibilities" at the time, that could witness and participate in such injustices without any qualms. Sometimes it seems depressingly likely that bigotry is baked into the human genome. 🙁

[@JLCRH]

I'm fairly certain that Mary Wollstonecraft was the mother of Mary Shelley, the writer of Frankenstein and wife of Percy Shelley.

[@g.4863]

I've always seen John Dashwood as an example of what spineless men who cave to immoral women do to families and society.

[@Khatoon170]

If you please last most important part of my research the novel sense and sensibility which written by Jane Austen the main theme is danger of excessive sensibility the story not true but telling about dash wood family focusing on sister elinor and marianna personifications of good sense common sense and sensibility emotionality respectively he deserts Marianne for an heiress and she eventually makes sensible marriage with colonel Brandon it’s good novel richly rewarding story of manners one of greatest novelists full of feelings humor treasured for teens and adults it’s published in year 1811 tells story of dash wood sister Eli or age 19 and Marianne age 16 and half come of age they have an order half brother John and younger sister Margaret age 13 thank you again we appreciate your great efforts the KZbin channels are as open universities for every one especially us as foreigners subscribers as overseas students enjoy want to increase our cultural level improve our English language as well stay safe blessed good luck to you your dearest ones

[@rmarkread3750]

I am curious about primogeniture. Was it automatic? In the case of Emma Woodhouse, who is to inherit Mr. Woodhouse's estate? Would it go to Mrs. John Knightley, "poor Isabella," and her husband? Is there a chance that Emma might have been degraded to a dependent old maid had she not married the other Mr. Knightley?

[@emmaparkin8543]

I think Emma (my namesake!) must have been going to inherit as she talks to Harriet about deciding to never marry but not being worried about being an “old maid” as she won’t be poor xx

[@dorothywillis1]

Primogeniture was not automatic, it was just "the way things were done." The aim was to keep the estate large. Younger sons were provided for in the "gentlemanly" professions (army, navy, church) and daughters given what Charles Musgrove refers to as "daughters' portions," in ideal situations. But how often are situations ideal? Daughters and younger sons were often protected by passages in marriage settlements, and I think that is what gives Emma and Georgiana Darcy their fortunes. We are told that Henry Tilney is independent of the General because, "Of a very considerable fortune, his son was, by marriage settlements, eventually secure..." (I have always thought Mrs. Tilney's parents/guardians distrusted the General and set up the settlements to protect her and her children.)

[@erp1293]

It was not automatic but fairly common especially among gentry or nobility if there was at least one son. If there was no son only daughters, things varied. Some families would have the property go to a more distant male relative (e.g., the Bennett situation and likely what would happen in the Elliot family); some would split the property among the daughters (de Bourgh family though only one daughter and probably the Woodhouses).

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

They don't specify how Emma's portion is secured to her. If her father died intestate, because there are no sons, she and her sister would split the estate (by the Parcener rule). Their Dad could write his will anyway he liked so long as it was consistent with other extant settlements (and there are no titles to confuse things), but whatever legal papers exist, he just honestly seems to dote on both his daughters so it doesn't need to be specified.

[@dorothywillis1]

I am sure the two Mr. Knightleys would see to it that Mr. Woodhouse's estate was divided fairly.

[@karenbutler198]

Put in the same position as Elinor, Marianne, Margaret and Mrs Dashwoood, it is interesting to note that Fanny Dashwood would be in a much worse position. While her education is much more limited, her temperament and selfishness would make it very difficult to cope, never mind enjoy life. She'd end up bitter and twisted, and fighting with whoever she happened to be living with. Servants would find her an extremely disagreeable mistress. Supporting family members would tire of her manipulations and ingratitude too, as whatever was offered would never be enough, and she would find that they would become reluctant to supporting her in the way she would expect.

[@gracetaylor7351]

I did enjoy this a lot.fanny dash wood is not very liked at all . I like seeing the differents between Mary and Jane looking into they world .This got me thinking a lot of how these women lived .

[@crownedwolf8102]

With the risk of incurring the wrath of the comment section: it would we interesting to hear the arguments defending the practice of primogeniture from writers and thinkers of the time. Full discloser: I am a first born male. ;)

[@sabinepayr7057]

I assume that what is considered "normal" does not need explicit defense, so I have no idea whether anyone thought it necessary to defend what was well-established custom? - Primogeniture was not unreasonable especially for smaller landowners, or, in my country, farmers owning their land: these properties would have become too small to secure the livelihood of a family if cut up among several children. For the large landowners e.g. in England, it was of course also a question of power (titles, political powers of the peers = House of Lords, voting rights, were all bound up with land) - and still is. Just recently, I read that the degree of concentration of land ownership in the UK is still mind-boggling. Thomas Paine (drawing on Rousseau, I suppose) also had this idea that the land in its natural state belonged to all, and only the cultivation created a surplus value for the cultivator - who therefore should pay taxes on his land to support the landless poor. No wonder he was persecuted. Land and agriculture were still the main sources of wealth in Austen's time - industrialization was beginning to change all this, of course.

[@crownedwolf8102]

@@sabinepayr7057 Points well made Sabine. My comment was more in the vein of tongue-in-cheek. In the time we're living in (especially here in America), to those ignorant of history, the concept of primogeniture might come across as a crime against humanity. I suppose a better way to pose my question is this: how would those at the time have countered Wollstonecraft's arguments; which have have done so well. Curious: what country are you from? (hope I do not come across too forward)

[@sabinepayr7057]

@@crownedwolf8102 Tyrol = Alps/Western Austria. (yes, things were different in the Eastern parts, even if it’s a tiny country - more “feudal” there) - farmers were mostly freeholders, where primogeniture was almost a matter of survival, as I said, with a strong tradition of Commons (forests, pastures) which is still alive. - As to the arguments: strong traditions need no arguments/justification. At the time, a large majority still took it for granted that “God made the rich and the poor”, and that everyone should stay at their given place in society. Churches and ruling classes were hand in glove. Jane Austen applied her satirical talent to her clergymen, too, and lavishly (except, maybe, Edmund Bertram), and I wonder how that went down with her readers and critics -> @Dr Octavia Cox , wouldn’t that be another interesting subject?

[@crownedwolf8102]

@@sabinepayr7057 "...strong traditions need no arguments/justification." A could have said it better myself so I won't even try. Refreshing to know there are places in the world which still honor and practice traditional moral and family values, no matter how "outdated" and "backward" they come across to some members of modern woke society today.

[@floraposteschild4184]

@@crownedwolf8102 "...strong traditions need no arguments/justification" -- when they work out in one's favour.

[@cecilyerker]

Please do typed closed captions instead of auto generated ones.

[@floraposteschild4184]

You can contact the creator and volunteer to do this. You'll find typing closed caption take some time, though perhaps less if the creator has an exact script she read from.

[@smirnasmirna2075]

Sex specific.

[@cassandraseven3478]

Women's rights. Yawn. Austen tells great love stories written in perfectly straight normal order as Ezra Pound said.

[@floraposteschild4184]

Ezra Pound the fascist? Do tell.

[@eric2500]

How is it you don't pick up on the central theme of these love stories- that women should have the RIGHT (yes, men, too) to marry the person they actually love?* It is not a "yawn" that they should have the rights to do the education, the thinking, the personal development, civic engagement and eventually WORK to make that LOVE MARRIAGE possible.

[@cassandraseven3478]

@@floraposteschild4184 Okay. Because he was probably the greatest political commentator of the 20th C and was speaking against the coming war-- which would yield 85 million dead-- on worldwide radio, and because he advocated Social Credit and against the Money Power --like JFK was making moves but got his head blown off at high noon in front of the whole civilized world as a warning for anyone else to try it-- well, Pound didn't get his head blown off but in the best tradition of Communist Russia where "political dissidents" were declared insane and thrown into asylums where they were tortured and experimented on, Pound was thrown into St. Elizabeth's Hospital in DC where he was held without charge for 13 years in this great land of the free. Here's where Eustace Mullins met him. Mullins longed to be a great writer, and Pound had so much success with his proteges--TS Eliot, Hemingway, Yeats and Joyce-- that when his Prof suggested he go talk to Pound, well, boss, he went! But when he got there the first thing Pound asked him was to go to the Library of Congress and see what he could find out about the Federal Reserve! He's a speed reader so he read quite a lot, he even lived in the basement for six months! There's a theater down there with the necessary comforts and he kept reading. The result was Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Since you're knowledgeable about fascists you've probably already seen Aaron Russo's (produced Trading Places, The Rose) doc AMERICA From Freedom to Fascism. Amazingly it's still on you tube. And if you want to know where all these -isms come from, fascism, communism, capitalism, feminism, etc., Henry Makow's your man. Canadian, PhD in Eng Lit, ethnic Jew, wrote Illuminati--The Cult That Hijacked the World. On his website you can search who the perps were behind all these wars with such spectacular death counts, the major bloody revolutions, etc. You could probably search Pound on there too. Makow's covering this latest global takeover too, you know, the virus.......... Whew, there's so much to learn, it never ends.

[@cassandraseven3478]

@@eric2500 I just tired myself talking to Flora Post's child so I'll make this short. The stats don't look too good-- divorce, illegitimate kids, single moms, kids without dads, people on pills, depression, suicides..... It's REALLY GOOD for the Communist Party though, one of their aims is to break up the family unit, it's HARD to control a happy family. Henry Makow has a LOT about this on his website, it's almost his specialty. The central theme in all of Austen's books is a delicious love story. They're all good. Anne and the Captain used to be my favorite, Mansfield Park's is okay, but lately every time I read Northanger Abbey, Catherine and Tilney just get better and better. I'll leave you to your worrisome concerns and get back to what I was doing before I unthinkingly stepped into a swarm of Frankfurt School graduates reading Reg Hill -- There Are No Ghosts in the Soviet Union -- it's a hoot.

[@floraposteschild4184]

@@cassandraseven3478 Sure, Cassandra. If ONLY we had conceded to his leader's "last territorial demand". Czechoslovakia, Poland, France; as much as could be grabbed from the East. They weren't using that land, anyway. Probably appreciate a long journey sponsored by the country with the best train system in the world. Who could have predicted that enough people felt differently? Certainly not that thinker, Ezra Pound. Tsk. Nor you, apparently, despite your name.

[@annwhiteaker6144]

What an interesting alignment of thinking between Wollstonecraft and Austen. I first read Austens novels as a teenager and Sense and Sensibility was my favourite for many years. To me back then, her anger at the behaviour of many of the characters she had created and the nature of the confined society they inhabited burnt off the page and made the novel more intriguing than the later works. When I subsequently read biographies of Austen, her personal circumstances seemed sufficient and very justifiable grounds for her attitude. The connection you make here opens things out and shows the wider social implications.

[@pmarkhill519]

I always loved that Jane Austen was able to state the upsetting things of life, letting you know she understands even if the world is gaslighting and pretending all is well. She is a champion whether we notice or not.

[@suehamstead3007]

That was so interesting - thank you! Easy to see Fanny Dashwood as the villain, but it's her cold-hearted husband who broke his promise to his dying father. I wonder, in real life, how often it would have suited the man to play upon the insecurity of both wife and sister to make them think they had to compete.

[@janetsmith8566]

THANK YOU! Indeed!! However I see John Dashwood as primarily weak and clueless. Also materialistic and perhaps vain. Not much else.

[@eric2500]

John Dashwood seems a really self-involved fellow in the first place, having the tiniest moment where he wonders if he is really the great guy everybody tells him he is. His wife is obviously greedy, but why does he think so well of himself? I think it is because he was raised as a spoiled brat.

[@janetsmith8566]

@@eric2500 Yes, twice over he is the most important person in this family and is constantly treated as such. Mix this with flattery and a weak mind/ poor understating and you have John Dashwood. He inherited a few nicer traits but they are too weak and watered down.

[@studiogru3649]

Thank you for this one. My grad program professor was rather anti-Austen, and often positioned her as an anti-Wollstonecraft apologist for the patriarchy--we did not agree, since I've always seen Austen as much more subversive than that.

[@DaisyNinjaGirl]

I think Austen was demonstrating not just 'how the current system sucks', but 'isn't it great when men of money (Sir John Middleton, Colonel Brandon and Mr Knightly) act as they ought by providing for their poorer neighbours', which is a very Burkean idea. Overall, I think Miss Jane just really hated to be pinned down.

[@eric2500]

I think she was quite subversive at all times, depicting each character as fully human, and making clear that systems of social organization and moral behavior work only when the people involved are committed to the best values and the most selfless good deeds they can, instead of just lip service to these values.

[@kkay3784]

Truly? This makes me wonder if your grad professor ever read her.

[@studiogru3649]

​@@kkay3784 I don't really feel that suggesting she (or I) was lying about having read Austen is really conducive to having a conversation about how Austen has been read differently at different times within feminist critical theory. I was in grad school over twenty years ago. Feminist critical theory was in a different place at that particular time. It might be strange for a feminist literature professor to be hostile to Austen NOW, but that is after over two decades of some feminist theorists deliberately reclaiming Austen from the reactionism of first and second wave American feminism. I mean, my professor wasn't ALONE in that interpretation, at that time. I remember reading published papers that advanced similar arguments. Critical theory isn't a static body of collected thoughts or arguments; it changes through time as different contributors evolve their own positions and react to each other. You don't have to know that history, of course, to find something of value in whatever the shape of the conversation, whatever knowledge pool it holds, at the time you first discover it. But please at least hold some willingness to understand that the shape of that conversation has shifted and altered over time--that what you "know" as feminist is not going to be what people younger than you do.

[@jamberstone1]

I love this so much, i never heard any analysis about Jane Austen's possible/probable reading & interpretation of Wollestoncraft, and wondered whether it could be known. Thank you for providing this evidence where i was lucky to come across it! I guess i should thank youtube for popping it up after l was listening to audio of Emma recently... Regarding Fanny & John's justifications for pure selfishness etc, i have seen this sort of family dynamic play out many times, where one adult child in a more powerful position (whether a parent's favorite, or one with more legal resouces) manages to bully or cheat their less powerful siblings, while framing themselves as perfectly justified & always this scene comes to mind as a lesson of what may be expected from quite a few people who get a bit too much power over others .

[@darthlaurel]

Thank you for this very interesting discussion.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

It's my pleasure! - thanks for listening.

[@limerence8365]

I remember going down a Lord Byron rabbit hole on Wikipedia learning about all the wacky things he did (like have an affair with his sister) but I also learned about all the people he was connected with. For example, Ada Lovelace was his only legitimate daughter. But I also knew that Mary Wollstonecraft was Mary Shelley's mother. So I have now found a connection between my two favourite 19the centuary authors. Mary Shelley's mother was friends with Jane Austen friends. Of course Mary Shelly married Percy Shelley who was friends with Lord Byron and so on and so on.

[@bodnica]

Thank you

[@marcellafaria8246]

Excellent video, Professor! Could you also teach us a class about Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley? It amazes me that most people don't know the connection between them. I've just read Frankenstein and I was trying to see Woolstonecraft's influence on Shelley's work (not an easy task since their writing is so different!)

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Thank you, Marcella. Have you tried reading Wollstonecraft's novels? E.g. 'Mary: A Fiction' (1788) and 'Maria; or, The Wrongs of Woman' (unfinished but published in 1798). They contain similar Gothic themes of imprisonment, nature v. nurture, the oppressed self. In terms of the mixture of philosophy, dramatic geography, and fraught emotional energy, which are weaved throughout 'Frankenstein', you might consider Wollstonecraft's 'Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark' (1796) - quite an astounding piece!

[@marcellafaria8246]

@@DrOctaviaCox Thank you so much for your recommendations!

[@janetsmith8566]

I love Fanny Dashwood because she is so comic. Yes! The second chapter of sense and sensibility. Wonderful. And she does get her comeuppance at the end by getting stuck through her own stupidity with Lucy Steele. Which is one of the best things of all. This was extremely interesting to listen to. Thank you so much.

[@Ghostreader198]

When I saw the title my brain momentarily confused Mary Wollstonecraft as Mary Westmacott-aka the pseudonym Agatha Christie used when writing romance novels-and was very, very confused 😅

[@thepowerbill1]

Wow. Very nice to see A Vindication of the Rights of Women being discussed. That’s why I make sure I teach it to my High school students. Many thanks!

[@andalmccann3984]

This is a brilliant lecture and very technically impressive! As an admirer of both Austen and Wollstonecraft I had never thought of them in connection to one another. But as you demonstrate it seems Austen was putting Wollstonecraft's theoretical ideas into a narrative form.

[@maralisil]

Nearly the same topic as my Senior Essay, in History years ago! I called it: "The Bennetts Meet Frankenstein, Jane Austen and Mary Shelley" 😁

[@Nicciolai]

In many ways we women have been our own worst enemies. It fascinates and horrifies me that a large number of women were the accusers of other women of witchcraft. In fact I read somewhere that in some parts of Europe the percentage was in the 90s. This still goes on today, and I'm sure we can all think of many situations.

[@tomriley5790]

Rather thought provoking. There's quite alot of stuff in Jane Austen's Novels that directly relate to the social situations of her age, some of it I think is probably reflective of her own life experiences, some relating to her desire for a narative that involved peril. It's made me think a bit further back and consider that actually the idea of "men being created equal" as you say in both the French Revolution and the US constitiution was in itself a new concept and would have been relatively anti-establishment when written. There's almost a continuation (in Europe) from Slavery under Rome becoming an unecomic source of labour, to the establishment of coloni tied to the land and the owners of that land rather than individuals, to the development of fuedal lords as a result of this post rome, to the Magna carta establishing rights for "freemen" to the US constitution/French Revolution and then on to the Regency and Wollstonecraft's writings.

[@darthlaurel]

It seems very clear from Jane Austen's perspective that the defect in education and culture is a issue of character. Men and women equally share in her incisive wit on the subject. We see the very same issues today, though transmogrified by the differences of the age.

[@laurelanne5071]

Can't help but think of the Schuyler Sisters: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal--and when I meet Thomas Jefferson, Ima compell 'im to include women in the sequel,"

[@bethanieb.1350]

I would like to see a poll of who is the most disliked of Austen's characters: Fanny Dashwood, Mary or Henry Crawford, George Wickham, etc...

[@Amcsae]

I would say Willoughby was worse than Wickham- he got a girl pregnant and abandoned her and *didn't* end up marrying her, while Wickham was much the same, but at least bowed to the pressure to marry Lydia in the end.

[@julirowen3988]

Mrs. Norris is evil.

[@londongael]

@@Amcsae Didn't so much bow to the pressure, as accept the massive bribe! 😆 But yeah, Willoughby's worse.

[@Scribblore]

Willoughby causes more harm than Wickham, but Wickham is more heartless and calculating. Mrs. Norris is a top contender for her years of emotional abuse of Fanny. John Thorpe might be the most punchable.

[@davidwright7193]

@@Scribblore John Thorpe isn’t really a villain, he is too much of a pompous, ignorant fool to be that. General Tillney is the real villain of that novel along with his eldest son and Miss Thorpe. Still John Thorpe is one of the most irritating characters in the whole of Austin, almost as bad as Fanny Price.

[@janetsmith8566]

Dr Olivia: where can one contact you for general commentary? I have two or three burning suggestions which I’m sure you would like to drop everything for in order to immediately address them.! I’m currently reading through sense and sensibility and I must know your thoughts! Tongue in cheek everyone…. Thank you Dr O!

[@pure46]

Though I know sense and sensibility is a novel the first part makes me so angry that I can not read the first part

[@rufescens]

It's worth it. It was my favorite when I was younger--it's full of witty dialogue and delicious surprises. It's very, very clever, and fun.

[@DrOctaviaCox]

Wonderfully witty writing indeed!

[@darrenhaley3184]

Thank you for this interesting look at the social environment of the time. However, something was not addressed in the video which I think is important if we are to understand this topic in its historical context. That is, why did primogenitor inheritance laws exist in the first place? Was it because first-born sons were especially greedy and selfish and wanted everything for themselves? No, their purpose was to preserve the FAMILY fortune from generation to generation. A great deal of wealth at the time, as it is today, was in the form of property. Property which would have to be sold if all the children were to receive an equal share. Had the previous generations of Dashwoods not practiced primogenitor, no fortune would exist to be inherited by anyone. It would be spread out among hundreds of much poorer people they have never met. Our modern sensibilities may see that outcome as more fair, but at this time the survival and prosperity of the FAMILY were more important than the benefit of any one individual. When the system is working as intended, along with the fortune comes the enormous responsibility of providing for the welfare and flourishing of the FAMILY, including the younger sons and daughters. The fact that some people failed in that responsibility does not automatically mean the system was immoral or wrong. True, younger sons could get a job and support themselves, so they had that advantage. On the other hand, daughters could marry and be provided for in that way. Once again our modern sensibilities recoil at that idea, but we have to remember that these people faced a much more harsh and unforgiving reality than the one we enjoy in the 21st Century. Surviving in some measure of security and comfort beats starving in the street if those are your options. A better question might be why the eldest son and not the eldest, or most qualified, child regardless of sex? Here you do see real sexism. No one would dream of entrusting the family fortune to a WOMAN when there is a perfectly good MAN right there to take over. Maybe the man is a drunkard and gambler, while his sister practices excellent stewardship, but that's not the way things are done around here. Cheers.

[@tymanung6382]

Seems like daughters ONLY inherited as a last resort, when there were no men, or other rather unusual situations. In Pride and Prejudice, Lady DeBourg s daughter is inheritor. of her estate, Emma Woodhouse in Emma also is.

[@rachelsanger8629]

Thanks so much for this illuminating lecture linking two familiar writers and setting them in relationship to each other in their contemporary context. What a stimulating revelation. It's really heartwarming that you share your expertise in this way. Thanks again.

[@jonahtwhale1779]

Yes we can see in modern day Universities and colleges how educating young women leads to moral growth! Because of this education our society has managed to avoid an epidemic of anxiety and depression among young women! Their experience has led the to successful decades long increase in the metrics of life satisfaction for both young and older women. More and more women are successfully establishing their own families. The sale of wine and cat food are at decades lows. Oh, what - wait... what ... They are all wrong? Women are more anxious, depressed, alcohol dependent and less happy? Can't be! Impossible!

[@redandpink219]

Octavia, I found this enlightening. Your contextual comparison of the text to contemporary thoughr in wollstonecraft was insightful. I am appreciating austen in new ways. Would love to be a student in your classes!

[@Khatoon170]

How are you doing dr octavia iam so happy to watch your channel as foreigners subscribers as overseas students and as literature lover actually ijust read right now about famous celebrity you mentioned I gathered key points briefly here it’s Mary Wollstonecraft was born in 1759 died in year 1797 she was English writer philosopher and advocate of women rights until late 20 th century Wollstonecraft life which encompassed several unconventional personal relationship at time and received more attention than her writing today she is regarded as one of founding feminist philosophers and feminists often cite bother life and her works as important influence her most famous writing vindication of rights of women jane Austen was familiar with Wollstonecraft works although Austen never mentions Wollstonecraft in any of her novels or letters that have survived

[@ellie698]

47:30 and they're never going to want to buy any new clothes or in any way keep up with fashion, because they won't be seen by anyone will they? They won't have company and they wont go out to socialise, or ever visit bath or London or any seaside town. They will basically just exist in poverty, starvation and rags until they all die. They will exist rather than live. Fanny and Mr Dashwood are awful!

[@azubaafzal1195]

I like the idea of comparison mam . But the problem has been resolved yet still ppl in the east go through similar problems (I live in Pakistan) everyday despite such a technological world we are living in.women are less educated ,men get father's inherited while women are sent off with a dowry.

[@teresadelbianco5495]

This was so cool. The best video so far - and all the Jane Austen's videos on this channel are excellent!

[@annmorris2585]

Most enjoyable- thank you.

[@yvettem.holland5072]

I LOVE your videos. Thank you so much

[@Therika7]

Thanks!

[@HRJohn1944]

This is fascinating. Re Fanny Dashwood: I rather think that JA got her revenge on Fanny, using Lucy, who "..was in every thing considered, and always openly acknowledged, to be a favourite child [of Mrs. Ferrars]." And ".....setting aside the jealousies and ill-will continually subsisting between Fanny and Lucy..." etc (Ch 50) - I really don't fancy Fanny's chances when Mrs F draws up her final will. What a pity that professions were closed to women for so long. Mary Crawford would have made a great diplomat (Talleyrand and Metternich would have been outflanked). Lucy Ferrars would have been a brilliant PR officer. And when the peasants revolt against Darcy, Lizzy will be like Delacroix's "Liberty leading the people" (and getting Darcy to make a collective estate). For my own amusement, I recently drafted a letter from the now-separated Mrs Willoughby (formerly Miss Grey, about whom we have no first-hand information - only what her husband has told us and if he said that it was raining I would go outside to check) to Elinor seeking a reconciliation with her and Marianne: in this, Mrs W was influenced by her parents (both deceased) who, inter alia, admired Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Payne. I thought that I was being merely imaginative.

[@eric2500]

You mean radical parents turned rebellious Miss Grey into a sad but well funded conformist who rejected the Romantics and tried to buy love? Fascinating!

[@jacquelinemorris7409]

Fantastic analysis- depth of your knowledge & research is awesome. Thank you for sharing with us. Have you done an in depth look at Persuasion?

[@IreneLewisUK]

Sad to hear you use the archaic term ‘committed’ suicide. Suicide hasn’t been a crime for many years and using the term committed carries the impression of it still being a sin. Please try to use the much more acceptable and current term of Died by suicide or completed suicide.

[@amybee40]

For real? Crimes ands sins are not the only things a person can commit. "Completed" suicide sounds like a weird complement. Surely suicide should be viewed and discussed as a negative act. It is the ultimate negation of self.