You're right, I probably did get that from P&P2. It's not unreasonable, but also not supported by the text itself. I was too busy finding an obscure bit of Emma, apparently, to look that up properly. ;)
£3,000 is still almost a third of Pemberley's annual income, though, and to do that twice would be a pretty big dent either in Darcy's lifestyle or his annual savings. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about the topic, though. It heightens the sacrifice he was willing to make, first to keep Wickham out of the clergy while honoring his own father's wishes, and second to preserve Elizabeth's family's honor, if it really was a significant portion of his income. But it's also not unreasonable to infer from the amounts he settled on Wickham that his income was significantly higher than reported.
(Not ridiculously higher, though. We're not talking about Rockefeller or Carnegie here.)
£3,000 is still almost a third of Pemberley's annual income, though, and to do that twice would be a pretty big dent either in Darcy's lifestyle or his annual savings. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about the topic, though. It heightens the sacrifice he was willing to make, first to keep Wickham out of the clergy while honoring his own father's wishes, and second to preserve Elizabeth's family's honor, if it really was a significant portion of his income. But it's also not unreasonable to infer from the amounts he settled on Wickham that his income was significantly higher than reported.
(Not ridiculously higher, though. We're not talking about Rockefeller or Carnegie here.)