I'm not sure of why you think Austen would not have expected her readers to do math, Nikki. I always find it hard to read Austen's mind, but maybe you are correct and she would have been aghast at her readers doing, or attempting to do, math.
Certainly, she gives us hints that we should read critically and not take everything at face or first value. For example, when the townspeople are expecting Charles Bingley&Friends at the Meryton Assembly, estimates of how many men and women Mr. Bingley will bring vary wildly. The reality turns out to be far different from the rumors.
I think Austen wants us to realize that all Mr. Bennet has is his income from Longbourn. She tells us directly, as the narrator:
That is clear.
But she (the narrator) never specifies Darcy's income in the same way. We hear rumors of 10,000 a year. These rumors were at the Assembly even before Wickham apparently knew Darcy was in town, so Wickham was probably not the source of those rumors. In response to Elizabeth's statement about Darcy's income, Wickham mentions the same figure. One could argue that given two different sources for the 10,000 figure, it has journalistic veracity. But, on the other hand, the way in which Wickham refers to the figure suggests it is specifically Pemberley's contribution. There may be other sources of Darcy income -- and his is an old family, with perhaps other properties and bank holdings, not to mention, family jewels that are probably sizeable in value. Families tend to collect stuff and pass it on. I think we are meant to conclude as readers that Darcy is a wealthy man but I am not sure we have to limit him to the 10,000 a year that Pemberley returns (underlining mine):
Certainly, she gives us hints that we should read critically and not take everything at face or first value. For example, when the townspeople are expecting Charles Bingley&Friends at the Meryton Assembly, estimates of how many men and women Mr. Bingley will bring vary wildly. The reality turns out to be far different from the rumors.
I think Austen wants us to realize that all Mr. Bennet has is his income from Longbourn. She tells us directly, as the narrator:
Quote
MR. BENNET'S property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand a year, which, unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a distant relation; and their mother's fortune, though ample for her situation in life, could but ill supply the deficiency of his. Her father had been an attorney in Meryton, and had left her four thousand pounds.
That is clear.
But she (the narrator) never specifies Darcy's income in the same way. We hear rumors of 10,000 a year. These rumors were at the Assembly even before Wickham apparently knew Darcy was in town, so Wickham was probably not the source of those rumors. In response to Elizabeth's statement about Darcy's income, Wickham mentions the same figure. One could argue that given two different sources for the 10,000 figure, it has journalistic veracity. But, on the other hand, the way in which Wickham refers to the figure suggests it is specifically Pemberley's contribution. There may be other sources of Darcy income -- and his is an old family, with perhaps other properties and bank holdings, not to mention, family jewels that are probably sizeable in value. Families tend to collect stuff and pass it on. I think we are meant to conclude as readers that Darcy is a wealthy man but I am not sure we have to limit him to the 10,000 a year that Pemberley returns (underlining mine):
Quote
"About a month," said Elizabeth; and then, unwilling to let the subject drop, added, "He is a man of very large property in Derbyshire, I understand."
"Yes," replied Wickham; -- "his estate there is a noble one. A clear ten thousand per annum. You could not have met with a person more capable of giving you certain information on that head than myself -- for I have been connected with his family in a particular manner from my infancy."