Forgive me for complaining, but some of my dear JA fanfic aficionados can suck the life out of Austen and the imaginative stories based upon her novels, by demanding that everything she said must be taken as an absolute. Much of the time, her statements have double, triple and more possible meanings. It's the shadings and the context that she challenges non-dull elves to get.
Must Darcy have only 10,000 pounds a year because the dim-witted Rushworth has twelve thousand a year, and we cannot allow Darcy to be bested? On the other hand, if Georgiana's fortune seems more in line with an income of ten thousand pounds for Darcy, consider this: The provisions for Georgiana would have been made before Mr. Darcy senior died suddenly. Perhaps he never got around to revising the will after his wife's death, and/or perhaps during that period, Mr. Darcy senior even considered remarriage -- and possibly having more ? Thirty thousand pounds for one is generous if you think other children -- sons or daughters -- might come along for whom you would to provide. Especially if you had to give them equal portions, and unlike Mr. Bennet, you planned to increase what they would receive from their mother's dowry that she had brought into the marriage.
Additionally or separately, consider this: The income from Pemberley during the lifetime of Mr. Wickham senior might have been ten thousand pounds a year but Wickham the younger has been out of the loop for years by the time he chats up Elizabeth. at her Aunt Philips'. He has not been allowed near Pemberley for years. He cannot speak with authority about how much the estate is presently returning and may not even know of other income Darcy the younger has developed since his father's death -- and, I also agree with Harvey that Wickham probably never had a full sense of the entire Darcy wealth before the elder's death. We know for certain that Mr. Darcy senior never meant Wickham to follow in his father's footsteps as the estate's steward.
The gentleman kindly treated the steward's boy to a gentleman's education for the purpose of his taking a living that in some families would have gone to a younger son. This strongly suggests that the Darcys had enough income even when Mr. Darcy senior was alive that he did not feel he needed to save that valuable living for a child of his own and could bestow it upon an employee's son. Or, perhaps it was a last minute thought for his will--in which case you might wonder why not at that time increase the bequest to Georgiana (assuming the thirty thousand pound fortune is her entire dowry)? Thirty thousand is not a paltry figure and perhaps Mr. Darcy senior was relying upon his son's judgment to increase it if he wished -- just as he relied upon Fitzwilliam to make the final judgment about giving the living to Wickham. It was provided provisionally only. We can infer from this that Mr. Darcy senior had a great of trust in his son's judgment and integrity and did not feel needed to impose upon him from the grave. Fitzwilliam will do the right thing.
Austen cannot be read as if she means for you to take every word as gospel. She makes us all Elizabeth in that we must think about what we are being told and see what makes sense -- and, yes, the greatest fun is when we can argue about that, as long as we are offering reasons and evidence based on her text and on knowledge of the times. We don't expect Regency folk to behave exactly as we would in the modern era so that must a factor in our judgment as we decipher Austen's meaning. I believe it increases the fun when participants approach with a sense of lightness, ready to agree that in many discussions of what Austen meant, no final and single answer stands unrefutable. Much more fun to come up with as many ways of looking at it as possible.
I realize, ironically, that my plea is itself black-and-white because it asks for uncertainty and demands acceptance of ambiguity. Darcy could have had only ten thousand pounds or he could have had more rather than he definitely had only ten thousand pounds because that is what the book said or he must have had more than ten thousand pounds. Or as the answer instead of either.
Must Darcy have only 10,000 pounds a year because the dim-witted Rushworth has twelve thousand a year, and we cannot allow Darcy to be bested? On the other hand, if Georgiana's fortune seems more in line with an income of ten thousand pounds for Darcy, consider this: The provisions for Georgiana would have been made before Mr. Darcy senior died suddenly. Perhaps he never got around to revising the will after his wife's death, and/or perhaps during that period, Mr. Darcy senior even considered remarriage -- and possibly having more ? Thirty thousand pounds for one is generous if you think other children -- sons or daughters -- might come along for whom you would to provide. Especially if you had to give them equal portions, and unlike Mr. Bennet, you planned to increase what they would receive from their mother's dowry that she had brought into the marriage.
Additionally or separately, consider this: The income from Pemberley during the lifetime of Mr. Wickham senior might have been ten thousand pounds a year but Wickham the younger has been out of the loop for years by the time he chats up Elizabeth. at her Aunt Philips'. He has not been allowed near Pemberley for years. He cannot speak with authority about how much the estate is presently returning and may not even know of other income Darcy the younger has developed since his father's death -- and, I also agree with Harvey that Wickham probably never had a full sense of the entire Darcy wealth before the elder's death. We know for certain that Mr. Darcy senior never meant Wickham to follow in his father's footsteps as the estate's steward.
The gentleman kindly treated the steward's boy to a gentleman's education for the purpose of his taking a living that in some families would have gone to a younger son. This strongly suggests that the Darcys had enough income even when Mr. Darcy senior was alive that he did not feel he needed to save that valuable living for a child of his own and could bestow it upon an employee's son. Or, perhaps it was a last minute thought for his will--in which case you might wonder why not at that time increase the bequest to Georgiana (assuming the thirty thousand pound fortune is her entire dowry)? Thirty thousand is not a paltry figure and perhaps Mr. Darcy senior was relying upon his son's judgment to increase it if he wished -- just as he relied upon Fitzwilliam to make the final judgment about giving the living to Wickham. It was provided provisionally only. We can infer from this that Mr. Darcy senior had a great of trust in his son's judgment and integrity and did not feel needed to impose upon him from the grave. Fitzwilliam will do the right thing.
Austen cannot be read as if she means for you to take every word as gospel. She makes us all Elizabeth in that we must think about what we are being told and see what makes sense -- and, yes, the greatest fun is when we can argue about that, as long as we are offering reasons and evidence based on her text and on knowledge of the times. We don't expect Regency folk to behave exactly as we would in the modern era so that must a factor in our judgment as we decipher Austen's meaning. I believe it increases the fun when participants approach with a sense of lightness, ready to agree that in many discussions of what Austen meant, no final and single answer stands unrefutable. Much more fun to come up with as many ways of looking at it as possible.
I realize, ironically, that my plea is itself black-and-white because it asks for uncertainty and demands acceptance of ambiguity. Darcy could have had only ten thousand pounds or he could have had more rather than he definitely had only ten thousand pounds because that is what the book said or he must have had more than ten thousand pounds. Or as the answer instead of either.