During the course of a discussion long long ago at the RoP, I came across some research done at the University of California, Davis which summarised farm incomes in England in the early 19th Century by district.
In that study, there were rents of an average of one pound per year per acre in Hertfordshire.
Since this was done after examining actual lease documentation, we can assume that Mr Bennet's two thousand per annum equates to an estate size of two thousand acres.
This is interesting, because Jane's Brother's estate was....ta daahhh, two thousand acres at that time. Indeed, Chawton House at that time had a small village associated with it as well. Like Meryton perhaps?
Now, of course this does not mean that Longbourn=Chawton.
However, Austen did write about what she knew about. The sizes could not be that much different without departing from the average. Further, Longbourn must have been big enough to need both a housekeeper and a butler, since we know the Bennets had a butler.
Now, of course this assumes that Mr Bennet's two thousand was AFTER estate expenses rather than gross. If it was BEFORE, then his income would be about five hundred pounds after expenses, and with his wife's portion invested in the funds, his income after expenses would be about seven hundred.
I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to that one, and it is important. I have, however, some confidence that Jane would have been working with some figures she knew well - and that favours the Longbourn=Chawton case rather than the reverse. However, if anyone can come up with an answer as to whether farm incomes were quoted as nett or gross in the Regency, I would be most obliged.
In that study, there were rents of an average of one pound per year per acre in Hertfordshire.
Since this was done after examining actual lease documentation, we can assume that Mr Bennet's two thousand per annum equates to an estate size of two thousand acres.
This is interesting, because Jane's Brother's estate was....ta daahhh, two thousand acres at that time. Indeed, Chawton House at that time had a small village associated with it as well. Like Meryton perhaps?
Now, of course this does not mean that Longbourn=Chawton.
However, Austen did write about what she knew about. The sizes could not be that much different without departing from the average. Further, Longbourn must have been big enough to need both a housekeeper and a butler, since we know the Bennets had a butler.
Now, of course this assumes that Mr Bennet's two thousand was AFTER estate expenses rather than gross. If it was BEFORE, then his income would be about five hundred pounds after expenses, and with his wife's portion invested in the funds, his income after expenses would be about seven hundred.
I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to that one, and it is important. I have, however, some confidence that Jane would have been working with some figures she knew well - and that favours the Longbourn=Chawton case rather than the reverse. However, if anyone can come up with an answer as to whether farm incomes were quoted as nett or gross in the Regency, I would be most obliged.