By Anna Roberts
Recent readings of both the social class and colonial commentaries in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park produced vastly differing arguments; however, most scholars agree that Fanny Price and her class status parallel Austen’s references to colonialism, such as Moira Ferguson (1993) and Lynn Voskul (2014). Both authors examine Austen’s incorporation of colonialism into the text, mainly through the ways in which relationships between members of the English household reflect dynamics at the plantation in Antigua. Ferguson states that communities in Mansfield Park “reenact and refashion plantocratic paradigms” and that Fanny falls into the “grateful slave” trope (121-124).
More recently, in 2020, James M. Morris refutes Ferguson’s ideas by claiming that Fanny has an immense amount of freedom relative to that of enslaved individuals, making her unfitting of the grateful slave trope (Morris 236). Instead, Morris proposes that Fanny is “a victim of domestic abuse whose experiences of maltreatment at home are linked by Austen to colonisation in the West Indies” (236). Morris furthers this idea by asserting that, despite being mistreated at Mansfield Park, Fanny elevates herself morally and societally by educating herself on global topics outside of Mansfield Park and England.
Other scholars in the past have supported Morris’s reading of Fanny as a victim of domestic abuse in the Mansfield Park household who is then able to grow intellectually and morally. In her 2009 work, Kathleen Anderson examines the conditions of Fanny’s mistreatment and argues that her disabilities and physical condition parallel her “social precariousness” in the household (342). Anderson furthers this idea by arguing that as Fanny grows morally, her physical limitations diminish.
Ula Lukszo Klein (2020) suggests that Fanny’s physical condition affects her position on the social class binary and ties her condition to larger colonial themes in the text. Klien refuses Anderson’s metaphorization of Fanny’s disabilities. Instead, she proposes that Mansfield Park is a social critique which “pushes back against the marginalization of [the] poor and disabled” when told through Fanny’s perspective (Klein 581). Klein argues that the Bertrams’ expectation that Fanny maintains her role as a “dependent” proves that they view her as a “servant or commodity.” Therefore, their expectations of Fanny’s role in the Bertram household “mimic imperial movements” (582).
In conversations regarding colonialism in Mansfield Park, scholars tend to agree that Fanny Price’s position at Mansfield Park is linked to the colonial storyline that sits just outside the narrative; however, they disagree about the specifics of this connection and the intent behind it. Although scholars have explored how Fanny’s social class contributes to discussions of colonialism in the novel, I will build on this idea through further analysis of Fanny’s role in the Bertram household and the complex desires of the men surrounding her. Fanny is deliberately excluded as an outcast in the Bertram family, largely due to her social class, which leads to her mistreatment. Consequently, many scholars have argued for an analogy between Fanny and enslaved individuals on Sir Thomas’s plantation. Fanny’s class status leads her to be treated in a way that mirrors colonial affairs tied to the Bertram family. However, Fanny’s ability to display agency related to her romantic desires distances her from this analogy.
Fanny’s lower-class status results in her alienation and mistreatment in the Bertram family, and as a result, the members of the Bertram household treat Fanny in a way that imitates Sir Thomas’s colonial activities in Antigua. Before taking her in, Sir Thomas insisted that Fanny must be well treated and provided for “or there would be cruelty instead of kindness in taking her from her family” (Austen 7), yet Fanny is regularly treated as a servant by Lady Bertram and Mrs. Norris. While the tasks assigned to her by the family are often menial, occasionally Fanny’s weakened physical condition results in painful experiences. When Mrs. Norris forced her to do gardening work until she was fatigued and in excruciating pain, Edmund was the only one who questioned why Fanny had to do such extreme tasks. Lady Bertram responded to his questions by saying that she worried “it would be too much” for Fanny, “but when the roses were gathered, [his] aunt wished to have them,” thus making it Fanny’s duty to bring them to her (53). Despite knowing these tasks would adversely affect Fanny’s health, the family cared more about trivial things, such as flowers. This lack of concern for her health demonstrates her subservient role to the Bertrams and reinforces her lower-class status. Her mistreatment is a direct result of her role as a lower-class dependent, and her disability can be seen not as a metaphor, as Anderson proposed, but rather as a factor which exacerbates the mistreatment that Fanny faces.
Fanny’s mistreatment holds a mirror to the mistreatment of individuals in Antigua. Her lower-class status prompts the Bertrams to ignore Fanny’s needs and instead exert control over her actions and well-being. While Morris argues that the novel’s lack of direct discussion of slavery destabilizes analogies between Fanny and enslaved people, Austen’s notable indirect discussion of slavery reinforces this connection. As many scholars argue, the novel’s title, Mansfield Park, could be seen as a reference to Chief Justice Mansfield, the judge who ruled on the Somerset case in 1772, which established a precedent instrumental to the abolitionist cause in England (Ferguson). Furthermore, slavery is mentioned yet dismissed during a dinner when Fanny says that “there was such a dead silence” when she asked Sir Thomas about the slave trade (Austen 136). This quote illustrates how discussions of abolition are overlooked by the family, just as Edmund’s concerns about Fanny’s maltreatment are. These two elements of the novel make reference to abolition, indicating that the novel itself has a larger purpose related to the themes of colonialism and slavery. While lacking outright depictions of Sir Thomas’s colonial affairs, Austen reflects the actions of slaveowners like Sir Thomas through his mistreatment of Fanny. He reduces her to a subject and an object through the denial of her emotional experiences and by exerting control over her life. This treatment functions as a parallel to the much harsher experience of dehumanization Sir Thomas inflicts on enslaved individuals at his plantation.
In a novel centred on love and marriage, Fanny’s alienation due to her social class results in the Bertram family viewing her as unworthy of marriage until the very end of the novel. As Klein argues, “Fanny, as a disabled and impoverished woman, is often treated by the other characters as having no future worth considering” (580). Until Henry’s proposal, the family did not consider marriage to be a part of her future due to her social class. Instead, they expected her to remain in the role of a dependent in order to continue mistreating her. Sir Thomas did originally consider Fanny’s future, as he intended to “[g]ive a girl an education, and introduce her properly into the world” so that “she has the means of settling well” (Austen 7). Additionally, he once feared the possibility that Fanny would develop a relationship with one of his sons, ironically quelled by Mrs. Norris. However, once Fanny arrives at Mansfield Park and falls into her lowly place in the family, he no longer considers her emotions and potential romantic feelings. On the level of colonial oppression, Sir Thomas’s enslavement of the individuals in Antigua also relies on a lack of concern for their personhood and emotions, as well as denies them other potential futures. However, this concept is taken to a much further extent as enslaved individuals are treated in a fully dehumanized manner. The Bertrams’ lack of consideration for her desires and future furthers the analogy between Fanny and enslaved individuals that is popular in scholarly discourse.
Despite the family rejecting the idea of Fanny having any romantic prospects, she still becomes an object of desire for many of the men at Mansfield Park; however, this desire is centred around control. Sir Thomas, Edmund, and Henry Crawford all take an interest in Fanny. In addition to wanting control over her, Sir Thomas has a desire for ownership. Due to Fanny’s role as a lower-class dependent, Sir Thomas claims control over Fanny’s future and life, mirroring his control over the lives of the individuals on the Antigua plantation. Edmund also desires control over Fanny however he focuses on influencing her morals. Austen writes that “he recommended the books which charmed her leisure hours, he encouraged her taste, and corrected her judgment,” thus priming her to have the same morals as him and stand with him in future disagreements in the Bertram household (18). Additionally, Henry Crawford desires to have control over Fanny’s emotions in order to fuel his ego. He tells his sister that “[he] cannot be satisfied … without making a small hole in Fanny Price’s heart” because he had “never met with a girl who looked so grave on [him]! [He] must try to get the better of this” (157). Fanny’s disinterest leads him to view her as a challenge, thus desiring to control her emotions. This desire for control over Fanny stems from her position in the household. As a lower-class dependent and a woman, she inhabits a role where the men of the novel feel an entitlement over her. Furthermore, this sense of entitlement and desire for control provides proof of the connection between Fanny and the treatment of slaves in the Antigua plantation, due to Fanny’s precarious place in the household and forced subjugation to the whims of upper-class British men.
The men of Mansfield Park articulate a desire for control over Fanny, yet Fanny exhibits a great deal of agency by rejecting Henry’s advances. Her rejection of Henry’s proposal represents a rejection of the hierarchy of power and structure of desire exhibited against her. Due to her role in the Bertram family as a dependent and someone of the lower class, everyone expects her to graciously accept the proposal, especially after Sir Thomas explicitly requests for her to do so. However, Fanny ignores the expectations of the household and instead centers her own moral values and romantic feelings. When questioned on why she refuses to marry Henry, Fanny simply states, “we are so very, very different in all our inclinations and ways, that I consider it as quite impossible we should ever be tolerably happy together, even if I could like him” (Austen 236). Rather than making a decision based on the demands of Sir Thomas, she prioritizes her own desires and happiness. By doing so, Sir Thomas can no longer view her the same way he views the people in his Antigua plantation. Ferguson states, “To Sir Thomas, Fanny Price’s feelings are as irrelevant as slaves’ feelings; she is his object,” which is pertinent until Fanny disobeys him and makes it impossible to ignore her feelings (124). Additionally, this disrupts Ferguson’s idea that Fanny falls into the “grateful slave” trope. She is a character who resists the dominant patriarchal force by claiming her own agency as a person and breaking free of Sir Thomas’s objectification. Furthermore, Fanny’s decision deteriorates the analogy between Fanny and the enslaved people of Antigua, as Fanny has a substantial amount of freedom and the ability to reject the order of Sir Thomas. Fanny display of agency and acknowledgement of human experience disproves the theory that Fanny functions as a parallel to enslaved individuals.
The men’s desire for control does lead Henry and Edmund to develop a more genuine romantic love for Fanny; while both men originally desire only to control Fanny, both end up developing romantic feelings due to her character and merits. While Henry’s interest in Fanny started as a means of fueling his ego, it quickly developed into love, to the point where he had “nothing to dwell on but Fanny’s charms. Fanny’s beauty of face and figure, Fanny’s graces of manner and goodness of heart … The gentleness, modesty, and sweetness of her character were warmly expatiated on” (Austen 200). Likewise, Edmund comes to realize that he loves Fanny, despite his prior romantic fixation on Henry’s sister Mary. The novel’s closing paragraph states: “with so much true merit and true love, and no want of fortune and friends, the happiness of the married cousins must appear as secure as earthly happiness can be” (321). In this line, Austen asserts that their marriage is based on mutual romantic love, which is both genuine and stable. Despite being critiqued by others for her unlikability, Fanny manages to have two men fall in love with her personality and desire to marry her. The fact that Edmund and Henry are vastly different characters, yet both experience romantic attraction toward Fanny, solidifies her as someone worthy of love despite her family’s prior denial. Her marriage to Edmund, a decision based on her own desires that allows her social mobility, leading her to claim a new role in the household and distance herself from alienation and mistreatment. This reinforces the agency that refuses the analogization of Fanny to enslaved individuals.
Fanny’s social class is central to how the other characters of the novel view her. It results in mistreatment during her youth at Mansfield Park and motivates many of the men’s complex desires to control her. Her treatment by the British upper class due to her social class thus parallels Sir Thomas’s colonial affairs in Antigua. However, Fanny’s ability to act based on her own desires and the focalization of love directed at her by two of the men who originally desired control over her breaks down this analogy and rejects the comparison of Fanny to slaves. Scholarship regarding Mansfield Park could be progressed by further defining the nature of this complex analogy between Fanny and enslaved people in Antigua and how this reflects on the potential abolitionist nature of the narrative.
Works Cited
Anderson, Kathleen. “Lounging Ladies and Galloping Girls: Physical Strength and Femininity in Mansfield Park.” Women’s Studies, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 342-358. Taylor & Francis. doi.org/10.1080/00497870902724760. Accessed 20 Mar. 2024.,
Ferguson, Moira. “Mansfield Park: Slavery, Colonialism, and Gender.” Oxford Literary Review, vol. 13, no. 1, 1991, pp. 118-39. Edinburgh University Press, doi.org/10.3366/olr.1991.006. Accessed 24 Feb. 2024.
Jane, Austen. Mansfield Park, edited by Claudia L. Johnson, New York City, W.W. Norton & Company Inc, 1998.
Klein, Ula Lukszo. “Fanny Price as Disabled Heroine in Mansfield Park.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol. 60, no. 3, 2020, pp. 577-95. Project MUSE, doi.org/10.1353/sel.2020.0024. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.
Morris, James M. “Austen’s Cosmopolitanism: Women and the World in Austen’s Fiction.” Women’s Writing, vol. 27, no. 2, 2020, pp. 234-52. Taylor & Francis, doi.org/10.1080/09699082.2019.1586136. Accessed 22 Feb. 2024.
Voskul, Lynn. “Sotherton and the Geography of Empire: The Landscape of Mansfield Park.” Studies in Romanticism, vol. 53, no. 4, 2014, pp. 591-615. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/43973873. Accessed 26 Feb. 2024.