Another quandary I’m having writing my sequel to “The Portrait of a Lady” regards the money. We know Isabel inherited from her uncle Daniel Touchett a sum of 70,000 pounds. With this inheritance, so vast it would seem, Gilbert Osmond was convinced by his friend and former mistress Madame Merle to make an “effort” for Isabel. She was referred to as “very rich.” They marry and live in a palace in Rome, lavishly furnished in Osmond’s irrefutable taste, and I would wager that taste runs to the expensive as he’s busy turning the palazzo into a museum. Isabel herself is regal in her brocade gowns and velvet capes.
I’m not sure if this 70,000 pounds was the total sum of the bequest or if it was the annual sum. In Jane Austen's novels, every character is thoroughly dissected and judged by his or her annual income so I’m not sure if Isabel’s bounty was 70,000 or 70,000 annually although James never uses the word “annually.” Would 70,000 pounds be so remarkable if it had to last a young woman of twenty-three her lifetime with enough to spare to disburse a share to her sisters which she immediately did? Even if today you multiplied it by ten, would having 700,000 pounds be “very rich” in these inflated times? 700,000 pounds a year would be pretty dang wealthy in my opinion but 700,000 total could be gone through pretty quickly if you were to buy a palace and redecorate it? Or would those 70,000 pounds be more like seven million today? I’ll have to look into it.
In the nineteenth century living in Europe was still inexpensive, American dollars went a long way which is why there was such a large expatriate community; it was a way to make a meager fortune go further and I believe life in Italy was quite the bargain. Mrs. Touchett lived in a cavernous palace of historical importance in Florence but she was really, really, rich though James does not say in numbers how rich that was.
Then we come to the questions regarding marital money: Does Osmond immediately come into possession of Isabel’s fortune as her husband? Is the reason she hesitates to leave him because he now has possession of the money and property? Or like today, half of it? I don’t know what the laws in Italy on such matters were. I would suspect they favor men. Is the fortune, in English pounds, in an English bank not subject to Italian laws?
Then there is Osmond’s property in Florence. He owned a modest though attractive villa on a hillside with splendid views. Did he sell it when they moved to Rome which enabled them to buy Palazzo Roccanera or do they now own both? In fact, are they renters and not homeowners at all? Will they ever run short of money if they spend too much on a lavish lifestyle? All these things are a consideration when writing the sequel because money has a great deal to do with complications arising between a couple. Does Osmond have complete freedom with the checkbook or does Isabel have control over the finances? Does he get an allowance, like a kept man? That could explain some of his animosity. Does she lord it over him or is he a spendthrift out of control?
All these factors have to be considered. Much of it I can make up but it would be good to know the exact details for correct understanding. Money is always an important framework in fact and in fiction. It is what makes the world go ‘round and life run smoothly. Jane Austen understood this completely and never left us in any doubt as to who possessed it, who needed it, and how much there was for building a life together. She understood not all lifestyles are created equal and didn't mind spelling it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment