Suzanne O Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly she is making fun of the good people of
> Meryton when she describes the way that Darcy's
> popularity waxes and wanes so rapidly at that
> first ball, but that's no proof that their report
> isn't accurate. The first report about Bingley's
> wealth, which Mrs. Bennet quotes in the very first
> chapter, before he's even arrived in town, proves
> to be accurate. If either Wickham or the
> townspeople had given a different number from the
> other, then I think that would definitely be a
> clue that we aren't supposed to regard either of
> them as reliable. But the fact that they both gave
> the same number seems rather confirmation of the
> opposite.
You make a good point, Suzanne. Still, I cannot help thinking that maybe our darling author was smiling behind her hand as she floated reports of the wealth of both Darcy and Bingley. Perhaps these were much in the vein of her starting line, that is, more truths universally acknowledged. Just because "everyone" hears it and is repeating it does not mean it is true.
What we know for certain is that Darcy and Bingley are rich enough to be good catches for any local girl--strike that, make it brilliant catches. We know that Darcy has more money than Bingley but ends up being discounted by the local populace because he makes it painfully obvious he will not play along with their aspirations. The man with more money is not worth much to the Merytonnites. That is amusing, much more than exactly how much money.
I think their exact monetary worths being gossiped about fall into the same category as Papa Bennet saying he cannot see Wickham marrying Lydia for less than ten thousand pounds. Earlier in the story Wickham stopped pursuing one of the Bennet girls when an heiress of ten thousand pounds presented herself. But readers know from Mrs. Gardiner's letter to Elizabeth that Wickham ended up taking much less than ten thousand pounds to finally marry a Bennet girl.
The joke is on Wickham but, of course, it is also on the Bennet family, and mostly on Mr. Bennet, who knows his indolence and neglect have brought him such a son-in-law. Exactly what did they pay Wickham to marry Lydia? The point is not the exact number but that however much it was, it was too much.
How wealthy is Darcy? Would twelve or fifteen or eight thousand pounds a year really make any difference in the story? What does the specific number matter in this instance? Yes, I think there is a chance that Austen was playing with us and dangling more of the univeral truths so loved by those of us who gossip. To think, two hundred years later she still has her readers buzzing about the exact number in much the way the Merytonites oohed and ahhed it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly she is making fun of the good people of
> Meryton when she describes the way that Darcy's
> popularity waxes and wanes so rapidly at that
> first ball, but that's no proof that their report
> isn't accurate. The first report about Bingley's
> wealth, which Mrs. Bennet quotes in the very first
> chapter, before he's even arrived in town, proves
> to be accurate. If either Wickham or the
> townspeople had given a different number from the
> other, then I think that would definitely be a
> clue that we aren't supposed to regard either of
> them as reliable. But the fact that they both gave
> the same number seems rather confirmation of the
> opposite.
You make a good point, Suzanne. Still, I cannot help thinking that maybe our darling author was smiling behind her hand as she floated reports of the wealth of both Darcy and Bingley. Perhaps these were much in the vein of her starting line, that is, more truths universally acknowledged. Just because "everyone" hears it and is repeating it does not mean it is true.
What we know for certain is that Darcy and Bingley are rich enough to be good catches for any local girl--strike that, make it brilliant catches. We know that Darcy has more money than Bingley but ends up being discounted by the local populace because he makes it painfully obvious he will not play along with their aspirations. The man with more money is not worth much to the Merytonnites. That is amusing, much more than exactly how much money.
I think their exact monetary worths being gossiped about fall into the same category as Papa Bennet saying he cannot see Wickham marrying Lydia for less than ten thousand pounds. Earlier in the story Wickham stopped pursuing one of the Bennet girls when an heiress of ten thousand pounds presented herself. But readers know from Mrs. Gardiner's letter to Elizabeth that Wickham ended up taking much less than ten thousand pounds to finally marry a Bennet girl.
The joke is on Wickham but, of course, it is also on the Bennet family, and mostly on Mr. Bennet, who knows his indolence and neglect have brought him such a son-in-law. Exactly what did they pay Wickham to marry Lydia? The point is not the exact number but that however much it was, it was too much.
How wealthy is Darcy? Would twelve or fifteen or eight thousand pounds a year really make any difference in the story? What does the specific number matter in this instance? Yes, I think there is a chance that Austen was playing with us and dangling more of the univeral truths so loved by those of us who gossip. To think, two hundred years later she still has her readers buzzing about the exact number in much the way the Merytonites oohed and ahhed it.