Jim G.M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Allowing his children to run
> wild? In Meryton, a place with an assembly
> every full moon, and ogling a few soldiers in
> daylight but never being out alone after dark( or
> in daylight for that matter) ? Should he smack
> their legs with a baking spoon maybe, or ground
> them during daylight hours, stop them from going
> for walks or window-shopping, or maybe ban then
> from visiting Aunt Phillips or going to the
> library? Should he make lives even more unpleasant
> by constantly battling with Mrs Bennet's "
it's
> only for spending" attitude, or have his
> daughters unable to compete with others on the
> fashion scene? There are several instances of Mr
> Bennet's temper shown in P&P, thankfully few and
> with just cause, is that how five girls would have
> their father? Is that the sort of father they
> needed?
I can see you are exaggerating for rhetoric purposes. Still, on the first point: yes, Lydia and Kitty are definitely running wild, even if they are not out in the dark (not untill Lydia elopes in Brighton, that is). They don't have even the semblance of any accomplishments. They run over the street to join a superficial male acquaintance and his unknown companion and flirt with them. They behave in a loud, unrefined, brash and unladylike way in public all the time.
Mr. Bennet should have prevented them from growing up like that. He ought to have hired a governess to instill better manners into his daughters and made sure they had the necessary accomplishments since Mrs. Bennet did not have a genteel education nor good sense. He might have explained her that the girls would have a better chance to marry well this way. Mr. Bennet could have stopped the younger girls from being out in society until they could show good manners in public. He could have practiced consistent discipline and set the boundaries of acceptable behavior early on instead of lackadaisical out-of-proportions setdowns like we witness on Kitty after Lydia's elopement. This is the sort of father they needed.
And how on earth could he put £1,000 a
> year away when the family were spending double
> that for normal purposes? Money, he has enough to
> manage himself and his family of six in the short
> term (ie, whilst he's alive) but not to save. Not
> he a Mr Darcy or Bingley who are heroic in the
> story on the backs of left fortunes from wealthy
> fathers. Not even a sensible Mr Gardiner then,
> who appears a rather wealthy merchant, or a Sir
> William also comfortable from trade. Mr Bennet got
> an entailed estate that Mr Collins will own when
> he dies.
>
I don't know how much they could have saved but any amount would have been better than nothing at all. It was his job to determine what level of comfort they could afford from their present income and how much was to be saved. Maybe the girls would have to give up the image of being the best dressed girls in the neighbourhood (if that was the case). Maybe they should have to help out in the kitchen like the Lucas girls. There are ways of economy if one bothers enough to find them. But Mr. Bennet ought to have faced the situation and made decisions accordingly. To spend all one's income on present level of comfort is not a resposible behavior. Even today we know that we need to invest into our children's education and future, maybe at the price of affording present luxuries.
> Is Mr Bennet then a man surrounded by perfect
> people in a perfect world? Is he servile and
> foolish like Mr Collins, ( heir apparent to
> Longbourne estate) self-important like Sir William
> Lucas, (Owner of Lucas Lodge) mega rich like Darcy
> or Bingley, or smelling of port like Mr Phillips?
> Should he have insisted Lizzie marry a foolish man
> she couldn't respect, never mind love? Is he a
> drinker, gambler or fornicator like Wickham for
> instance?
> Is he even proud, arrogant, rude and pompous like
> Darcy who eventually wins the laurel wreath?
The fact that other people have also faults and that Mr. Bennet could have had worse faults doesn't excuse his existent ones, again a rhetoric trick. Also, we don't know how much Mr. Philips drinks; Sir William's self-importance doesn't endanger the future of his children; Darcy isn't pompous and he has several very important virtues that make him win the laurel wreath. What are Mr. Bennet's virtues to compare with him?
And one more thought about a potential son breaking the entailment. In a recent discussion about entailments (not sure if it was on this board) the idea came up that entailmetns were put in place exactly to prevent what Mr. Bennet intended to do: to cut up the family estate for the wellbeing of the present generation. If Mr. Bennet had had a son, he ought to have brought him up to be an extraordinary selfless and caring person as well as a very good estate manager to agree to diminish the standing of his future children (by splitting up the present estate) and to counteract his loss of land by managing the remaining estate very well.
