The French eat snails! eew.

Sir Thomas’s absence in Antigua, when spoken about, hints at him being in constant danger, as Edmund, trying to dissuade Tom from the play, says to him,

“It would show a great want of feeling on my father’s account, absent as he is, and in some degree of constant danger.”

 

Corroborating this with Edward Said’s article which states:

“Between France and Britain in the late eighteenth century there were two contests: the battle for strategic gains abroad- in India, the Nile delta, the Western Hemisphere- and the battle for a triumphant nationality…..and not matter how intimate and closeted the supposed English or French “essence” appears to be, it was almost always thought of as being (as opposed to already) made, and being fought out with the other great competitor.”

We can thus theorize that the function of the colony with regard to the incident of the play is to illustrate the rivalry between the English and the French.  Sir Thomas, the representative of English morality, is competing with the French in his overseas colony, and simultaneously, the English and French morality are clashing at Mansfield Park, embodied by Fanny and Edmund, and the Crawfords, respectively.  In other words, while Sir Thomas was in constant danger abroad, English morality was in constant danger at home. The play being enacted, Lovers’ Vows, involving such language and such acts as being able to excite passions where none are wanted, puts Maria Bertram, who is already engaged and hence in a delicate situation, at risk. We might not have expected much from Maria, but Edmund, who is supposed to be THE figure of Christian morality, also falls prey to the seductions and temptations of French immorality, when he decides to act as Anhalt alongside Mary Crawford.  It is only with the return of Sir Thomas, after he has been successful in setting matters right in Antigua, that the English morality triumphs. His unexpected return, very much like a surprise attack on the enemy in battle, is the determining factor of the English victory.

“My father wished us as schoolboys to speak well but he would never wish his grown up daughters to be acting plays. His sense of decorum is strict.”

“….Frederick was listening with looks of devotion to Agatha’s narrative, and pressing her hand to his heart….”

“…Sir Thomas was in hopes that another day or two would suffice to wipe away every outward memento of what had been, even to the destruction of every unbound copy of ‘Lovers’ Vows’ in the house, for he was burning all that met his eye.”

Hence, even though Austen does not elucidate what happens in Antigua directly, she shows a parallel at home of what she thinks might be happening there. And this really does show us the intricate connections that exist between an empire overseas and domestic or national consciousness.  As Said states:

“….the far from accidental convergence between the patterns of narrative authority constitutive of the novel on the one hand, and, on the other, a complex ideological configuration underlying the tendency to imperialism.”

COLONY IN MANSFIELD PARK- Exploring the silence of Antigua

“ the Bertram’s could not have been possible without the slave trade, sugar and the colonial planter class” (Edward Said)

It is true that the imperialist theme is central to the whole setup that is Mansfield Park; Sir Thomas’s landholding’s in Antigua made productive by slaves, finances the extravagant lifestyle of the Bertram’s. However, as much as the Antiguan colony is what I call THE RUNNING ENGINE OF MANSFIELD and as much as Said emphasizes it as the “sustaining force”, he is irked by Austen’s lacking attention to the colony except for its few “casual references” and “reticent appearances”.  Even to me Lady Bertram’s connection to the colony  limited to “ I may have a shawl. I think I will have two shawls” or Sir Thomas’s “dead silence” upon Fanny’s question of slave trade in Antigua was disturbing. But Said’s frustration boils to an extent that from criticizing Austen as “only vaguely aware” he makes a more charged up remark :“…everything we know about Austen is at odds with the cruelty of slavery.” Well sorry Mr. Said but I beg to differ!

 Austen is not acting neutral towards Antigua by not rebelling against the colonial order of subjugation of the “other”, “There is meaning  in the silent, “uninflected, unreflective citations of Antigua”  which Said is CONFUSED about. Earlier on he acknowledges Antigua as a “usable colony”. This reflects the subject -object relationship at play between Sir Thomas and Antiguan people, which when expanded, creates master/slave, victim/victimizer and Self/Other dichotomies that penetrate from the outside (Antigua) into the inner domestic sphere of Mansfield - Fanny is viewed as a “transported commodity”.  Antigua is all about land’s utility. In projecting the colonizers gaze it MUST ONLY be mentioned in relation to “the poor returns” and “a large part of his income was unsettled,". This does not mean Austen is assuming the importance of Antigua to the situation at home.” The utilitarian approach of Sir Thomas materially links  Mansfield to Antigua, commodifies it, de-individuates its people, and strips it of its history. She show exactly that.

When such is the colonizer’s gaze, then what did Said expect from Austen? To give Sir Thomas extra lines that would elicit compassion for the slaves ?  Or show a change of heart that would shatter his authorial control?  Well, NO. The subjugation of the colony maintains the CONTINUITY of and order in Mansfield. One shouldn’t expect accountability or humanity from a character grafted in colonial worldview.  Said’s statement about Austen’s indifference to the slave condition  is an irrational attack  that undermines her mastery employed  in the silence of Antigua. As a literary device it speaks of the colonizers unconcern,  his selfish relation to the land, objectification of people and the silent stories of the slaves that would loose effect if verbally expressed. It evokes the inadequacy of language to portray the subjective experience: "... there is simply no  no common language for both" says Fanny. Perhaps, it is  in  “dead silence” that the unknown (Antigua) can be known.  So much for Said’s “contrapuntal reading” !

The failure of Mr Rushworth

“I think they might as well have staid for me”

       In my opinion this statement by Mr. Rushworth summarizes his character entirely. This was all he said to Fanny, when he was ‘illused’ by Maria Bertram and left behind in the woods, while she went off gallivanting with Mr Crawford, a man to whom she owed nothing other than a few pleasant conversations. What remained in the readers mind particularly after this point was a lack of the establishment of a norm of propriety in Maria and Mr. Rushworth’s relationship.

      At several points in the novel it has been reinstated that morality and propriety exists where it has been firmly laid down by the master. In the case of Fanny and the Bertram sisters, Sir Thomas is the centre of morality as it is his honour that the enslaved must uphold. Free from this bond of morality to her father after her engagement, it is now up to Mr. Rushworth to set a standard for propriety in Maria’s life.

      In Maria and Mr. Rushworth’s relationship what is most evident is the inability of the later to establish control over the former, therefore there has not been a successful transfer of ownership. Mary is free to do as she chooses without regard to the man she intends to marry, and as such there is a great lack of morality primarily because Mr. Rushworth is unable to enforce the bounds of propriety. He is the very picture of weakness, and stands in stark contrast to the often imperious Sir Thomas. He does not so much as bat an eyelash when his betrothed romances another man in the play, and is merely concerned with the colour of his sash and never takes it up with Maria. This indicates a collapse in the notions of propriety and morality, primarily because of the weakness of  a master. 

Amna's Post: The Ideal Man-- A Righteous Bore

*Note: Submitted Sunday midnight 

Edmund Bertram has been painted as the most desirable man in Mansfield Park, not because of his appearance, stature or financial prospects but because of the balance he offers in terms of sense and sensibility. Not only is he conscious of the conventions that propel his society but also tries to extend his apparent wisdom to those around him- his sisters, Fanny and the Crawfords- so that no wrongdoing is committed in his presence. His efforts are vain to an extent; he is unable to prevent his engaged sister from flirting with Henry Crawford; he becomes quickly embroiled in the shackles of Mary Crawford, who is far from a polite, decent young woman who would suit him; he also fails to stop his comrades from enacting “Lovers’ Vows”, in fact, he himself ends up acting a few inappropriate scenes with Mary, much to the excitement of his infatuated heart.

Moreover, Edmund starts out to be the only person who is sensitive to the position of Fanny and goes out of his way to  make her comfortable and defends her when she is in need. This can be seen as his need to help all around him. In his ambition to become a clergyman, Edmund deems it imperative to begin his role as a “preacher” at home, as he is often seeing giving advice to those around him and protecting them from moral hazards. This is especially evident when the young people are deciding which play to perform and Edmund expresses his strict disapproval of the one chosen by them. While Edmund has done his best to stop everyone from indulging themselves with a silly play, he is not the patriarch, and does not have his power or his authority, and can only do his best in the absence of his father, Thomas Bertram, whose sudden return quickly reinstates order at Mansfield Park.

There is a side of Edmund that takes pleasure in activities that his age fellows participate in, dancing, for instance, but there are many things of popular interest that do not attract him, like money and fashion, much to the dismay of Mary Crawford. Thus Edmund comes out to be the righteous young man who is able to deny himself materialistic and superficial things in life. As Edmund would not be able to afford such frivolities in future due to his choice of career, this can be seen as very sensible on his part. Simultaneously, it leaves the reader frustrated because we’d like to see Edmund step out of his shell and be bold, as that is what would make his character grow and become more dynamic. 

Rebbia Shahab's Post: Please, I incest!

*Note: Submitted at 1:11 a.m. Saturday

Edmund Bertram has been described throughout in the novel, Mansfield Park, as one of the most levelheaded and serious individuals who places great emphasis on propriety and the rightness of actions. Of course, he falls in love with the pretentious Mary Crawford but that only makes him human and so he can be easily forgiven for this minor lapse in judgment. However, a closer reading makes one wonder as to who Edmund really is? Is he as fair and moral as he is depicted to be? Or is there another side to him which remains unknown to the readers upon their first reading? Here are my thoughts on the oh-so moral Edmund Bentram:

The nature of Edmund Bertram’s romantic relationships in Mansfield Park can be interpreted as incestuous. The two women that he falls in love with and wishes to marry are both like his sisters though in different respects. Mary Crawford, the woman that he desires initially, is very much like his own sister Mariah. Both women are alike in terms of their beauty, vanity, materialism or their desire to pursue a man of great financial standing. They are so much alike in both behavior and personality that even their names are similar sounding.

Fanny Price on the other hand, who Edmund ends up marrying, can be construed as his sister in the sense that they grow up together as brother and sister. In fact, Edmund himself calls Fanny her sister in Chapter 15 of Volume 3 when distraught by Mariah’s and Julia’s elopement he comes to fetch Fanny and upon meeting her says, “My Fanny- my only sister-my only comfort now”.  Moreover, Fanny can also be seen as the only ‘true’ sibling of Edmund in the sense that strangely enough Edmund is most different from all his siblings as unlike him the latter are portrayed as superficial, arrogant, and even immoral. Therefore, even though Fanny is not part of Edmund’s immediate family, she is most similar to him in personality and character and so logically speaking Fanny is more likely to be his sibling than anyone else is.

 Furthermore, the elopement of Maria with Henry (Mary’s brother) can be seen as perhaps reinforcing the concept of an incestuous relationship as Henry too falls for a woman who resembles his sister a lot. This is not to say that this is precisely why Edmund later chooses Fanny but this can be read as for sure a catalyst in making him turn to her as this is when the true nature of Mary surfaces and Edmund realizes that he was chasing the wrong woman the whole time. In a nutshell, the elopement of Maria with Henry possibly justified incest in Edmund’s eyes as it showed him that such a relationship can exist though in his case it was of course neatly packed with morality. 

Maheen Khan's Post:

In Jane Austen’s novel, Mansfield Park, there is a strong presence of leading females but males certainly play important roles too. Austen’s novel depicts her own perspective on the role of men in a society and their masculinity. Among the many facets of masculinity Austen portrays an inspirational picture of certain characteristics such as economic sensibility, judgment, authoritarianism, and self-centeredness.  

          One such character possessing all these characteristics is of Henry Crawford.  Henry Crawford has great fortune and many girls were willing to make him the man of their lives but strangely he fell in love with Fanny, the poor cousin of Bertrams. He does not get attracted to Fanny straight away but as more he gets to know her the more serious he gets. Also the fact that Fanny’s reluctance made him get attracted towards her more clearly show a typical masculine side of his. His sense of economic sensibility came to forefront when, in Chapter 32, he used his influence to promote Fanny’s brother in Navy in exchange for Fanny’s approval for marriage. He does all this to prove to himself his power of conquest and achievement.

“I am quite determined to marry Fanny Price. … I am fairly caught.”

 When he forces Fanny to marry him, his masculine characteristics of authoritarianism and self-centeredness arise.

          A very typical nature of men is seen in this novel; they strive to get what runs away from them. Also, if Henry would have been in London, he would have never fallen in love with Fanny or even in Mansfield. It was only because of the absence of Fanny’s cousins, Maria and Julia, that he could admire Fanny’s personality. Henry’s constant struggle to get Fanny also shows his determined attitude but he eventually runs away with Maria.

Rida's Post: Kudos to Sir Thomas Bertram for being loyal to Lady Bertram!

Miss Maria Ward was a lifeless woman who spent half if not all of her life, sitting and smiling on the sopha. After captivating the baronet, Sir Thomas Bertram and giving birth to almost half a dozen children, she decided to hibernate for the rest of her life as the upbringing of her children was bestowed upon the ‘liberal housekeeper’, Mrs. Norris. Thank god, she dint consider sleeping with Sir Thomas a task or that would have been delegated to someone else too! Who knows? So, basically, Sir Thomas had married a lady who was as inert as the graves in Mansfield and yet he remained loyal to her, this situation itself sings hymns about Thomas Bertram’s morality. Okay, I agree, his morals were taking a holiday , when overcome with avarice he wanted to marry off Fanny Price to the wealthy Henry Crawford. But his greed can be ignored on the grounds that overall Sir Thomas was a family man; he cared about his family and his wife’s relatives and thus it is perhaps legitimate of him to want to extract some favour out of them after years of fostering them. True, at times he got controlling but that can also be justified to a certain degree for he took his role as the head of the family, quite seriously, and with great care comes the surge to control. Quite literally, I expected things to get fiery between Sir Thomas and the ass licking; always there Mrs. Norris because she showed more interest in the household and boosted his ego more than his dormant better-half.

A big pat on Sir Thomas Bertram’s back for remaining loyal to Lady Bertram for she was practically just the mother of his children and in no sense his wife and a companion in his ordeals. So 9/10 for Mr. Thomas for controlling his hormones, being the family man he is, running the house all by himself and for treating the slothful wife well.

Or, maybe Sir Thomas made use of his 12 month stay in Antigua to sort out his affairs!