Quote:
Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
Hardly.
Maria had destroyed her own character, and he would not, by a vain attempt to restore what never could be restored, by affording his sanction to vice, or in seeking to lessen its disgrace, be anywise accessory to introducing such misery in another man’s family as he had known himself.
Your dismissive "hardly" is unjustified by your quotation. The quote is clearly meant to represent Sir Thomas's argument with Mrs. Norris, not the narrator's assessment. Of course we know that Sir Thomas thinks Maria has "destroyed her character" and should be banished -- whether his opinion is correct is exactly what is up for discussion. Here's a longer version of the quote:
Quote:
Where she could be placed became a subject of most melancholy and momentous consultation. Mrs. Norris, whose attachment seemed to augment with the demerits of her niece, would have had her received at home and countenanced by them all. Sir Thomas would not hear of it; and Mrs. Norris’s anger against Fanny was so much the greater, from considering her residence there as the motive. She persisted in placing his scruples to her account, though Sir Thomas very solemnly assured her that, had there been no young woman in question, had there been no young person of either sex belonging to him, to be endangered by the society or hurt by the character of Mrs. Rushworth, he would never have offered so great an insult to the neighbourhood as to expect it to notice her. As a daughter, he hoped a penitent one, she should be protected by him, and secured in every comfort, and supported by every encouragement to do right, which their relative situations admitted; but farther than that he could not go. Maria had destroyed her own character, and he would not, by a vain attempt to restore what never could be restored, by affording his sanction to vice, or in seeking to lessen its disgrace, be anywise accessory to introducing such misery in another man’s family as he had known himself.
Sir Thomas also "hopes" his daughter is penitent, but that is irrelevant to his banishing her. So much for your argument that the banishment is due to her lack of repentance.
Quote:
Since forgiveness presupposes repentance, your moral standards are way lower that those of Jesus, Mansfield Park or Jane Austen.
I'd suggest that by thinking owning slaves is sinful, my standards are way HIGHER than those of Mansfield Park. I won't mention Jesus in this regard, although some atheists use His acceptance of slavery against Him. Nor (unlike you) would I tar Jane Austen or Jesus with the accusation that they have similar standards to those of Mansfield Park. Why did Jane Austen name the Park after a famous judge who decided two notorious cases in favor of abolition? Why did she have Sir Thomas own a plantation in Antigua? Are these mere coincidences? Wasn't abolition a glaring political issue when Austen wrote MP? If "good literature is a jigsaw" shouldn't these pieces fit into the puzzle?
Sir Thomas is an autocrat -- a distant, unloving father. He is wrong in thinking that his daughter's deficiencies are due to a lack of moral instruction. Here's the quote (again, the narrator is speaking from Sir Thomas point of view):
Quote:
Here had been grievous mismanagement; but, bad as it was, he gradually grew to feel that it had not been the most direful mistake in his plan of education. Something must have been wanting within, or time would have worn away much of its ill effect. He feared that principle, active principle, had been wanting; that they had never been properly taught to govern their inclinations and tempers by that sense of duty which can alone suffice. They had been instructed theoretically in their religion, but never required to bring it into daily practice. To be distinguished for elegance and accomplishments, the authorised object of their youth, could have had no useful influence that way, no moral effect on the mind. He had meant them to be good, but his cares had been directed to the understanding and manners, not the disposition; and of the necessity of self–denial and humility, he feared they had never heard from any lips that could profit them.
Bitterly did he deplore a deficiency which now he could scarcely comprehend to have been possible. Wretchedly did he feel, that with all the cost and care of an anxious and expensive education, he had brought up his daughters without their understanding their first duties, or his being acquainted with their character and temper.
Why was Sir Thomas unacquainted with Maria's and Julia's "character and temper"? Because he didn't love them, didn't spend time with them, and didn't value or nourish their love for him. Would Maria have been tempted to marry Mr. Rushworth if she had a loving, close relationship with her father? I think not. Sir Thomas' parental failures are failures of love, not of educational style. Since, as Paul pointed out, "Love never faileth", Sir Thomas failed to really love his daughters in the first place. He has NOT learned his lesson by the end of the book, and continues to fail to love his daughters.
I do have a couple of disagreements with the narrator. She says:
Quote:
Fanny was indeed the daughter that he (Sir Thomas) wanted. His charitable kindness had been rearing a prime comfort for himself. His liberality had a rich repayment, and the general goodness of his intentions by her deserved it. He might have made her childhood happier; but it had been an error of judgment only which had given him the appearance of harshness, and deprived him of her early love; and now, on really knowing each other, their mutual attachment became very strong.
OK, great. Sir Thomas' charity is repayed with "a prime comfort to himself". Perhaps loving and accepting his eldest daughter would involve some discomfort -- but that's life. If one loves only those who provide him with "comfort", what moral merit attains to that? Sir Thomas, at the end of the novel, is comfortable, and the narrator seems happy about it, but (in my opinion) he hasn't learned his moral lesson.
In addition:
Quote:
Could he (Henry Crawford) have been satisfied with the conquest of one amiable woman’s affections, could he have found sufficient exultation in overcoming the reluctance, in working himself into the esteem and tenderness of Fanny Price, there would have been every probability of success and felicity for him. His affection had already done something. Her influence over him had already given him some influence over her. Would he have deserved more, there can be no doubt that more would have been obtained, especially when that marriage had taken place, which would have given him the assistance of her conscience in subduing her first inclination, and brought them very often together. Would he have persevered, and uprightly, Fanny must have been his reward, and a reward very voluntarily bestowed, within a reasonable period from Edmund’s marrying Mary.
Here the narrator supports my notion that Fanny is protected by her secret love for Edmund. Fanny sees things through a light filtered by that love and admiration. Indeed, the narrator seems to think less of Fanny's moral uprightness than I do; I don't buy that she would ever marry Henry Crawford, nor would I suggest that she should. But if (as the narrator suggests) she would have accepted his proposals once Edmund had married Mary, what does that say about how clearly she sees things? Doesn't it suggest that both her moral and practical points of view are shaped in part by her secret and illicit (by Mansfield's standards) love?
Good points, Jackson. I certainly don't defend Henry Crawford, and it is possible that Maria would be more comfortable abroad. However, I don't think that advocating familial love and support suggests that my moral standards are "lower" than anyone's (well, I'll grant they may be lower than Jesus's, but I think He would agree with me in this dispute, not with Gladys).
