Persistence in property

Persistence in property

The teacher repeatedly tells me the importance of property. Because he knows the miserable death of K, who has no property, it is a serious persuasion that "I" will not suffer another miserable death.
This has not been mentioned much, but it is clear that, at least in relation to the marriage with the young lady, she was at a considerable disadvantage in the first place, given that she has some responsibility for the death of K. Would my mother want to marry a daughter without a father to K who was abandoned by the adopter and had no place to live?
In other words, K did not have any qualification to say to the teacher that he "deceived himself and passed out" or "had taken over the young lady". Considering the happiness of the young lady, she wouldn't have been able to fall in love with her, saying, "I'm taller and more handsome.
K's broken heart was visible.
What made it invisible was the teacher's frustration and guilt, and the behavior that was not bargaining like the bargaining of his wife and young lady.
Of course, Soseki intentionally misleads the reader. Even if I read repeatedly, I'm just drawn into the feeling that the teacher is being cornered in the teacher's letter.
However, the teacher isn't that bad if you think of her as a "daughter's mother" who can't empathize much.
The teacher's guilty of love may also mean the guilt of the person who ran the money. But it would be hard to say that it is bad to think about your daughter and your life.