I have long wondered about this question, and critics have analyzed it from every angle. There are no clear answers, but here’s what we do know:
- Austen wrote one black character, Miss Lambe, in the unfinished Sanditon. Miss Lambe is an heiress of mixed race from the West Indies.
- Austen read and admired the works of Thomas Clarkson and William Cowper, both abolitionists.
- In particular, Austen praised Clarkson’s History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade, a two volume account that details the brutality of the African slave trade and England’s abolitionist movement. Austen wrote, “I am as much in love with the author [Clarkson] as ever,” referring to The History.
- Three of Austen’s brothers were engaged in the abolitionist movement. Captain Charles Austen wrote of the terrible conditions endured by enslaved people aboard a ship. Henry Austen served as a delegate to the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840. Frank Austen was part of the petition to the House of Commons that ended the slave trade in the West Indies.
Always Austen author Collins Hemingway has an informative post on the above points that offers more details.
Austen’s reading choices and her brothers’ views suggest she may have been sympathetic to the abolitionist movement. But what do her books say on the subject? Very little…however, two of her novels, Emma and Mansfield Park, mention the slave trade. In this post, I’d like to dive into those references.
Emma
Emma’s reference to the slave trade comes from a dialogue between Jane Fairfax and Mrs. Elton. Jane Fairfax starts the conversation by talking about her future life as a governess, and Mrs. Elton responds about the slave trade:
“When I am quite determined as to the time, I am not at all afraid of being long unemployed. There are places in town, offices, where inquiry would soon produce something—Offices for the sale—not quite of human flesh—but of human intellect.”
“Oh! my dear, human flesh! You quite shock me; if you mean a fling at the slave-trade, I assure you Mr. Suckling was always rather a friend to the abolition.”
“I did not mean, I was not thinking of the slave-trade,” replied Jane; “governess-trade, I assure you, was all that I had in view; widely different certainly as to the guilt of those who carry it on; but as to the greater misery of the victims, I do not know where it lies. But I only mean to say that there are advertising offices, and that by applying to them I should have no doubt of very soon meeting with something that would do.”
It’s a brief mention, but for Austen, who wrote so little of history, it was deliberate.
First, who was Mr. Suckling, that minor, off page character? He was Mrs. Elton’s brother-in-law, married to her sister. Here’s what we know of Mr. Suckling:
“And all the grandeur of the connexion seemed dependent on the elder sister, who was very well married, to a gentleman in a great way, near Bristol, who kept two carriages!”
So Mr. Suckling is wealthy and lives near Bristol.
Now, what to make of the dialogue? Here’s one way to interpret it:
Jane: The governess trade is the worst. Women in Regency England have no career options.
Mrs. Elton: Mr. Suckling is not part of the slave trade!
Jane: Uh, who’s talking about the slave trade?
So…Austen is telling us that, yeah, Mr. Suckling was definitely part of the slave trade.
It’s important to note that both characters are talking about the slave trade, not slavery as an institution. The slave trade was abolished in 1807 in England, well before Emma was published in 1815. Slavery as an institution was not outlawed until 1834.
There are numerous interpretations of this scene in Emma, but my favorite is that Austen is subtly taking a jab at the upper classes who supported the slave trade but then flipped their opinions when it was abolished. Mrs. Elton is a personification of that mindset, mostly likely supporting the trade and her brother-in-law before public opinion turned against the slave trade, and is now quick to say, “I was never for it!” Austen is mocking people who base their morality on what is fashionable or trendy.
What about that uncomfortable parallel Jane Fairfax draws between being a slave and a governess: “as to the greater misery of the victims, I do not know where it lies.” I think Austen is pointing out that both a slave and a governess are treated like property, uprooted from their homes and families, sometimes abused. Still. The slave trade was worse, obviously. Did Austen not understand how brutal and inhumane slavery was? Or do I not understand how often governesses were sexually harassed and raped? Either way, the comparison is uncomfortable. Maybe that was Austen’s point—to say something shocking that made us react—because everyone knew the slave trade was stomach turning but unthinkingly accepted the governess trade.
Mansfield Park
Critics see Mansfield Park as Austen’s novel that comes the closest to speaking about slavery. Here’s why:
- Lord Mansfield, who gives the novel its name, freed a slave in England, ruling that the slave trade was not supported by English law. This was a landmark ruling.
- Mrs. Norris, one of the novel’s morally questionable characters, was perhaps named for Robert Norris, a slave ship captain who appeared at first to support abolitionists but later double crossed them.
- Fanny reads Cowper and Johnson, both noted abolitionists.
- The novel itself draws parallels to slavery. Fanny is taken from her home to live with people who are “above” her. She is given a room in the attic and expected to do chores for her aunt Norris, who treats her like a servant. The other characters see her as inferior.
- Sir Bertram is a slaveholder. His wealth comes from his plantation in Antigua, which relies on slave labor. He leaves for two years to manage this plantation, leaving his children with the morally indifferent Mrs. Norris and Lady Bertram, and when he returns, his children are largely morally indifferent as well.
Despite these points, the novel only has one passage that directly addresses the slave trade (again, not slavery as an institution). It is a dialogue between Fanny and Edmund, opening with Fanny saying that she asked Sir Bertram about the slave trade:
“Did not you hear me ask him about the slave-trade last night?”
“I did—and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”
“And I longed to do it—but there was such a dead silence! And while my cousins were sitting by without speaking a word, or seeming at all interested in the subject, I did not like—I thought it would appear as if I wanted to set myself off at their expense, by shewing a curiosity and pleasure in his information which he must wish his own daughters to feel.”
That “dead silence” is hotly debated! What does it mean?
Critics have many interpretations, but my favorite is that it is not an angry silence. Edmund says that Sir Bertram would have been “pleased” for Fanny to continue the discussion so, despite being a slaveholder and probably voting against the abolition of the slave trade in Parliament, Sir Bertram did not feel Fanny’s inquiry was combative. He was happy to talk further. The “dead silence” seems instead to come from the other Bertram children, who are so indifferent that they don’t respond. This, I think, is Austen’s point: The upper class, who are sitting in their fancy estates paid for by slave labor, are so bored by the moral question of slavery that they don’t even hear it being asked.
It’s so subtle, though! And Austen loved Clarkson’s work, which described the slave trade in all its brutality. Her brothers were politically active abolitionists! She must have had an opinion! Why didn’t she say more?
But Austen is subtle. She didn’t witness the slave trade, and Austen famously wrote what she knew. In Mansfield Park, she depicts a passive slaveholder and father whose children make morally questionable decisions that harm them. Maybe Austen was showing us the effects of slavery that she could witness—that it corrupts its beneficiaries, that it creates a passive upper class. Maybe she was saying, I don’t know what happens in Antigua, but I know what happens in England, and it’s evil.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Here are a few sites I found helpful while writing this: about Austen’s brothers, about Emma, about Mansfield Park, another about Mansfield Park, and, again, Collins Hemingway’s post.
More Austen posts:
How the Christmas Tree Tradition Took Root
Leave a Reply