Rosie J. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wickham could have been wrong in the other
> direction too. ;) (I don't actually think this.
> In fact, from the way Wickham worded it, it sounds
> like he was trying to low-ball the estimate.)
I agree it's not likely, but it is possible that Wickham exaggerated the amount of Darcy's income to highlight the point of the cruelty of such a rich man behaving in such a way as to cheat a poor man out of his legacy of the living!
>
> >
> Darcy appears to have more money to spare than
> Knightley, given his habit of spending half the
> year away from home. But he gave Wickham £3,000
> in lieu of the living - are we to believe he gave
> away 30% of his yearly income in one fell
> swoop? Never mind the amount of money it probably
> took to buy his silence after Ramsgate (which I
> know is never explicitly spelled out, but I
> imagine he was paid off) and the amount it took to
> get him to marry Lydia, both in the space of about
> a year.
>
> The idea that Darcy had to buy Wickham's silence after Ramsgate is from P&P2. There is nothing to indicate that he paid him a penny in the book. I don't think he needed to do that -- for Wickham to tell the story that he attempted to elope with a 15 year old girl who had 30,000 pounds would expose himself as an unscrupulous scoundrel and fortune-hunter. This is what Darcy said in his letter -- chap 35 --
"Regard for my sister's credit and feelings prevented any public exposure; but I wrote to Mr. Wickham, who left the place immediately,".
Darcy would have liked to expose Wickham, but that would mean exposing his sister too, so he kept silent for his sister's sake, while Wickham kept silent for his own sake. The 3,000 pounds compensation was paid to Wickham soon after Darcy's father's death five years ago, and the amount to get him to marry Lydia (also about 3,000 pounds -- re Mrs Gardiner's letter in chap 52 -- was recent).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wickham could have been wrong in the other
> direction too. ;) (I don't actually think this.
> In fact, from the way Wickham worded it, it sounds
> like he was trying to low-ball the estimate.)
I agree it's not likely, but it is possible that Wickham exaggerated the amount of Darcy's income to highlight the point of the cruelty of such a rich man behaving in such a way as to cheat a poor man out of his legacy of the living!
>
> >
> Darcy appears to have more money to spare than
> Knightley, given his habit of spending half the
> year away from home. But he gave Wickham £3,000
> in lieu of the living - are we to believe he gave
> away 30% of his yearly income in one fell
> swoop? Never mind the amount of money it probably
> took to buy his silence after Ramsgate (which I
> know is never explicitly spelled out, but I
> imagine he was paid off) and the amount it took to
> get him to marry Lydia, both in the space of about
> a year.
>
> The idea that Darcy had to buy Wickham's silence after Ramsgate is from P&P2. There is nothing to indicate that he paid him a penny in the book. I don't think he needed to do that -- for Wickham to tell the story that he attempted to elope with a 15 year old girl who had 30,000 pounds would expose himself as an unscrupulous scoundrel and fortune-hunter. This is what Darcy said in his letter -- chap 35 --
"Regard for my sister's credit and feelings prevented any public exposure; but I wrote to Mr. Wickham, who left the place immediately,".
Darcy would have liked to expose Wickham, but that would mean exposing his sister too, so he kept silent for his sister's sake, while Wickham kept silent for his own sake. The 3,000 pounds compensation was paid to Wickham soon after Darcy's father's death five years ago, and the amount to get him to marry Lydia (also about 3,000 pounds -- re Mrs Gardiner's letter in chap 52 -- was recent).