Mansfield Park – A Love Story?

Dido Elizabeth Belle by David Martin

I am compelled to amend my blog post from February 2024, “Was Jane Austen a Closet Abolitionist?”, based on discovering Helena Kelly’s exceptional book, Jane Austen, the Secret Radical.  Kelly, an Oxford scholar and acclaimed author, uses the instincts of an investigative reporter combined with a deep and abiding understanding of Austen’s novels to reveal political and social insights based on the times in which the books were written.  Our modern-day view that Jane’s focus was writing captivating “love stories” belies the political climate and social restrictions of the time in which she lived.

The premise of Kelly’s book is that Jane Austen tackled weighty topics critical of societal, religious, and political standards with such nuanced subtlety that she was able to reveal her views subliminally with wit and humor and convey her opinions without risking accusations of heresy or treason during the times of upheaval in which she lived.  Instead, we become aware of what Jane’s contemporaries would have consciously read between the lines, a more “dark and somber” reflection.   

Which brings me back to my observations of Mansfield Park from a year ago and adds new insights on the topic of slavery and enrichment revealed in the novel. My earlier post examined a contention between writers, Edward W. Said who believed Jane Austen’s failure to openly condemn slavery indicates that she subscribed to it, and Corrine Fowler who contended the opposite, that Jane revealed her true feelings of opposition through naming devices, symbolism, and location references. 

My purpose is not to relitigate the original post but to add depth and color to my position based on Helena Kelly’s work with new and revealing details.  I also wish to correct a reference I made that a man named John Norris, a slave captain, was the inspiration for Mrs. Norris, the heartless, selfish aunt who was the scourge of Fanny Price’s life.  Instead, it was a more prolific religious leader, Henry Handley Norris, whom you will learn deserves the attribution.

 Jane made prolific use of names and places to remind her contemporary readers of key players on both sides of the slavery argument.  The title of the book is a reference to Chief Justice Mansfield, who adopted three nieces including one of mixed-race named Dido Belle.  Jane was acquainted with Elizabeth Murray, another of the nieces through her brother Edward and may have met the mulatto cousin.  In 1772 Lord Mansfield passed a judgement that effectively ended slavery on English soil leading to a later judgement in 1807 making it illegal for English ships to engage in the slave trade.

So well-known was the name Mansfield that Jane attempted to keep the title of her book undercover until it was published in 1814 knowing the name alone would raise alarm among the pro-slavery advocates. Significantly, Mansfield Park was the only one of her books that was not reviewed by The British Critic, a magazine owned by slavery apologist, Henry Norris. This was a significant omission but considering the owners, editors, and printers of The British Critic were heavily invested in supporting the Church of England, which promoted slavery under the guise of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Lands, it is hardly surprising.  They had no reason to promote a novel that exposed the Church. 

Mr. Norris went so far as to paint the accommodations on board a slave-ship in the most “glowing colours” claiming the were “fitted up as advantageously for them as circumstances could possibly admit: they had several meals a day; some, of their own country provisions, with the best sauces of African cookery.”  This claim was made to Thomas Clarkson, an abolitionist who toured port towns to get a better understanding of the situation and went on to write “History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade” which Jane was known to have read and admired.

“As far as The British Critic was concerned, then, women can write novels that ‘dabble in religion,’ provided the religion is entirely in line with Church of England thinking.” Later, when Emma was reviewed, “the final paragraph of the review had nothing to do with Emma, but the talk of ‘fanatical novels’ and ‘fanatical authoresses’ applies very much better to Jane’s previous book.  The reviewer seems to want Jane to know that he has understood – and heartily disapproved of – what she was doing in Mansfield Park.”

It may come as no surprise that in 1801Henry Norris was also the author of “Influence of Female Character on Society” which was a critique of female fashion later voiced by Mrs. Norris when she approved a neighbor’s decision to not hire a couple of maids because they dared to wear sheer “white” dresses that were the fashion of the time. 

While it’s easy to read Jane Austen’s novels with rose colored glasses and view them as delightful love stories with a charming view of polite society populated by appealing and sometimes deceitful suitors courting beloved heroines; she reveals so much more about her life and times, her feelings and observations, and was far more radical than you might think, when you look beneath the surface of her stories, delivered under the guise of romance.

As Kelly states, “Mansfield Park is about slavery.  The subject isn’t just brought up once or twice; it appears over and over again.  It’s relentless.  As February comes to a close, I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to amplify Black History Month by adding to my previous post which you can read here.  I look forward to sharing more interesting observations from Helena Kelly on other topics in future posts so please stay tuned.