What may we imply from the writings of Jane Austen regarding her feelings about slavery since, like many global events during her lifetime, she did not directly address the topic? There is more than one school of thought on her opinion about slavery and, since Mansfield Park is the primary novel to broach the subject, it has been scrupulously studied for evidence of her beliefs. Some accuse her of subscribing to the benefits of plantation wealth and suppressing any further discussions of it in her novels, while others maintain her true opinions are more implicitly rendered in her writings.
In a fascinating and particularly scholarly article written by Corrine Fowler and published by Cambridge University Press, the author takes exception with an earlier opinion published by Edward W. Said expressing his view that Mansfield Park “highlights Sir Thomas Bertram’s plantation wealth, which mak[es] possible his values to which Fanny Price (and Austen herself) finally subscribes.” This is based on the theory that British colonialism was embraced at the time with the slave trade directly funding newfound wealth, elegant country estates, and luxurious lifestyles.
This claim that she supported colonialism refers to a conversation between Sir Thomas Bertram and Fanny when he returned from the West Indies. Fanny asks a single question about the slave trade (although we don’t know exactly what she asked or how Sir Thomas answered) but she doesn’t follow up with any other questions that might shed light on the author’s feelings and leads to the conclusion that Jane is guilty of willful silence.
However, this underestimates the strength of Austen’s pro-abolitionist feelings and the subversive ways they are revealed. Jane provides hidden gems by ingeniously creating characters that share the names of key figures in the national abolition debate. “Mansfield” references Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, who ruled in 1772 that slavery on English soil was unsupported by common law. The name of the spiteful Mrs. Norris may allude to the brutal slave captain John Norris, who was condemned by abolitionist historian, Thomas Clarkson, whom Austen was known to admire. Maria Bertram, upon becoming Mrs. Rushworth, acquires a house in ‘town’ formerly owned by the Lascelles who were known to have been slave owners that profited enormously from the practice.
According to Fowler, “If Mrs. Norris was named after a slave-trader, and Mansfield Park was named after a man who prevented slavery on British soil, then Sir Thomas’s reflections acquire a political dimension. Not only is he anxious for his wealth to be disassociated with its point of origin, but his self-seeking relatives begin to look like the morally bankrupt offspring of an economic system that relies on colonial cruelty.”
Lady Bertram is depicted as indolent, self-centered, and lacking in moral judgment. She is troubled neither by the source of Sir Thomas’s wealth nor the moral corruption of his involvement with slavery. Fowler writes, “Indications of Austen’s distaste for the upper-class consumption of empire is not restricted to Lady Bertram’s unsympathetic character alone. It is also suggested by the link that Austen draws between the fictional Bertram family and the real-life Lascelles family.”
The efforts to obscure the colonial origins of new money is revealed throughout the novel. That Mansfield Park is a recently built house suggests that the Bertram family was newly wealthy and, like many beneficiaries of colonial profiteering, wanted to establish their affluence by constructing a great country house, acquiring luxury goods, and infusing the largesse into the local economy. Jane’s subtle reference to Lady Bertram’s desire to acquire a cashmere shawl through Fanny’s brother is a symbolic example. “William must not forget my shawl if he goes to the East Indies.” If anything, it parodies the tastes of the newly rich, who craved expensive goods from British colonies, with Lady Bertram entreating that William should bring back “anything else that is worth having.”
Another reference is to the use of mahogany imported from the West Indies which was popular to showcase wealth in newly built country homes. In Mansfield Park, Jane writes that a “profusion of mahogany” was installed at Sotherton Court. This could be an oblique commentary on the consumption of colonial goods by wealthy Britons, but it also supports the broader observation that these goods were a familiar feature of upper-class domesticity.
“Biographical work on Austen reveals ever more personal connections to empire, highlighting the influence of pro-abolition figures in Austen’s family, while studies of her reading reveal her approval of pro-abolitionist writers like Cowper, Thomas Clarkson, and Helen Maria Williams,” according to Fowler’s article.
Consider Jane’s unfinished work, Sanditon, which introduces a mixed-race character, Miss Lambe, who closely resembles Dido Belle, the adopted daughter and blood relation of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield. Jane knew Dido’s cousin and possibly met Dido herself who was a freeborn, half mulatto woman with an independent income of her own, much like Miss Lambe.
Supporters argue that Austen did not detail slaves’ suffering in her writings because it was a well-worn and an emotionally charged topic to which Austen’s readers had, by then (1814), been exposed for some decades. There is also evidence that the abolitionist movement was generally supported by women of Austen’s time. Jane was never one to proselytize when she could more discretely reveal her thoughts and opinions through the characters and situations about which she wrote. I don’t believe the woman who wrote Pride and Prejudice would support prejudice against others because of the color of their skin nor would she tolerate the unconscionable cruelty that slavery represented.
I would like to thank a fellow Facebook fan, Prachi K, for sending me a link to the article upon which I based this content. February is Black History month and he, along with many others, responded to my post asking about the racial heritage of Henry and Mary Crawford based on the description of them. It was generally agreed that Jane was referencing hair color rather than skin color because the term ‘black’ was not commonly used to describe people of color at the time. It’s a bit of a slog to read the entire article but I found the information fascinating and tried to encapsulate some of the key concepts in my writing. If you choose to tackle the lengthier version, here’s the link.