Jane Austen discussion

This is the thread for discussing the characters of Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram in Mansfield Park.

I like Sir Thomas so far in Vol. I. He's kind but a bit gruff in a fatherly or grandfatherly sort of way. He wants to be fair to Fanny but his role is outside the home and he's not in control. Then he goes off to Antigua and is absent just as his daughters need him to take a firm hand. Fanny interprets his gruffness as something mean or scary and that interpretation drives her in certain directions.

Qnpoohbear wrote: "I like Sir Thomas so far in Vol. I. He's kind but a bit gruff in a fatherly or grandfatherly sort of way. He wants to be fair to Fanny but his role is outside the home and he's not in control. Then..."

Those are insightful comments about Sir Thomas, Qnpoohbear. He is, in general, a good man, I think, and the rest of the novel bears this out.

He's good in his way but not especially deep. This is the man who married Lady Bertram! Sir Thomas allows Maria to marry Rushworth and for years he permitted Mrs. Norris far too much control. He is a very different man in the latter part of the book than he is in the earlier part. But perhaps his experience in Antigua changed him.

Yes, I think so too.

Plus he comes home to find the consequences playing out of this line of action, and he's not sure he likes it. He wants to change things, and in his own old-fashioned (?) way improve them, (view spoiler)[as shown by inquiring into Maria's feelings before her marriage to Mr. Rushworth, and by promoting Fanny's happiness more than before (hide spoiler)] but by then it's too late.

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "He's good in his way but not especially deep. This is the man who married Lady Bertram! Sir Thomas allows Maria to marry Rushworth and for years he permitted Mrs. Norris far too much control. He..."

I was struck this morning by the difference between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet and Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram. We're pretty sure that Mr. Bennet regrets his being taken in by a pretty face, but there is no hint anywhere of Sir Thomas feeling the same about Lady Bertram. Certainly Mrs. Bennet is louder and sillier, but aren't they both ... well, less than half of their marriages? This makes me like Sir Thomas more, because I think he's loyal and, yes, kind, in his own way.

I don't think Sir Thomas is to blame for too much of the problems in the novel, aside from the fact that he's a slave owner. He's a man at a time when women were supposed to deal with matters of the house and children. If he has regrets about who he married, he doesn't let it show. He may have thought she'd be a good hostess and housekeeper or maybe he was content to let her sister run the show and have his wife around because she was pretty and didn't challenge his authority in any way.

Sir Thomas is an interesting character, but I hardly think him "good". Other than being a slave-owner, of course, which is a side of him that JA doesn't comment on (though I suppose that speaks for itself?), nobody but Lady Bertram is sad that he is leaving, even Fanny. And when he returns he fails to properly punish his children for their actions (the theatre) or even have a word with his wife or sister-in-law about how they could have let such a thing happen under their very noses. He insists on Fanny marrying Henry, to the point of speaking very harshly to her even though he doesn't know the man well at all. And by the end of the story the only two people he thinks have done wrong were Mariah and Mrs Norris, both of whom are banished. By that time, however, it is too late anyway. What I mean is, his judgement is terrible. He is not a good father or guardian.

But I was left wondering why JA seems to indicate that the way the children turned out (all but Edmund, after all, have some spectacular falls by the end of it) was Mrs Norris's fault and not that of Lady Bertram and Sir Thomas, who are, after all, the parents.

Emily, Sir Thomas does try to talk to Mrs. Norris about the play, but remember, she puts him off and turns the conversation.

And I wonder if Austen indicates the 'credit' for how the children turned out is due to Aunt Norris because she had more to do with them than their parents did?

You are right, of course, Elizabeth - Mrs Norris is responsible because she was the one actively doing something, even if what she was doing was misguided or wrong. But then at least one of the parents was present at all times as this was happening. Surely it is their role to supervise whatever is happening to the children? Sir Thomas is easily placated or distracted by Mrs N., never challenges his wife about what has happened, and doesn't make much of a fuss about it with his children. I don't remember if he ever finds out what play was being put on? And then I remember his role in Maria's marriage - he is easily placated by her assurances that she wants to marry Rushworth, even though he can plainly see they don't suit. He is not so very far removed from Mr Bennet, I think.

Mr. Bennet was more entertaining, but Sir Thomas is as culpable as he, I think. Both of them, although for different reasons and characters, were not involved enough with the lives and the training of their children, and they and their children paid for it.

He did know what play was being put on.

p. 144 - ... the destruction of every unbound copy of Lovers' Vows in the house, for he was burning all that met his eye.

Sir Thomas did mean well, he did try to raise his children as well as he knew how, and never realized how ineffectual he was until far too late. I sometimes feel sorry for him.

Elizabeth wrote: "He did know what play was being put on.

p. 144 - ... the destruction of every unbound copy of Lovers' Vows in the house, for he was burning all that met his eye.

Sir Thomas did mean well, he did ..."

Somewhere doesn't Austen say something rather like "old heads on young shoulders" (in her own way)? It's easy to forget that these middle-aged parents were often youngsters when they began!

Karlyne wrote: "Somewhere doesn't Austen say something rather like "old heads on young shoulders" (in her own way)? It's easy to forget that these middle-aged parents were often youngsters when they began! ."

Do you know, I can't recall now reading any Austen where the parents of the MC are "good", except maybe in Northanger Abbey, where we don't see or hear anything of them at all (so they may not actually be good for all we know).

Maybe Mr. and Mrs. Dashwood? Although they have their faults, they seem to be good parents. Oh, wait, the loud, funny ones in Persuasion, Mary's in-laws, the Musgroves?

He means well at times but he does indeed have his faults. Something bad happened in Antigua. I wish we knew what but it seemed to give him a new appreciation for his family and a new outlook. He let the acting scheme slide without undue harshness. Why? Is it his parenting style? Did something happen in Antigua that makes him want to avoid unpleasantness? He's much kinder to Fanny after that and starts to redirect Mrs. Norris from being so horrid. He's welcoming to William and gives Fanny a ball. All this makes him a good man, aside from the slavery thing. (I want to know how he would have responded to Fanny's comment?)

Then, in Vol. III he turns back towards being unlikeable. He's harsh on Fanny for turning down Henry. I can see why he feels she should accept. By modern standards, he seems cruel, yet she has no good reason to reject Henry as far as Sir Thomas is concerned. If he's that hard on Fanny, whom he likes, what was he like on the plantation? I can only imagine how he chooses to keep his slaves in line.

Qnpoohbear wrote: "He means well at times but he does indeed have his faults. Something bad happened in Antigua. I wish we knew what but it seemed to give him a new appreciation for his family and a new outlook. He l..."

Isn’t it interesting: Sir Thomas leaves Antigua to its own devices and something bad happens. He leaves his home to its own devices and there, too, something bad happens. The manager he leaves in charge of home (Mrs Norris) is incompetent and cruel. I wonder if he does the same in Antigua (hence something bad happens there)? He returns and treats Fanny better, but he doesn’t fundamentally change her situation – she is still under the direct management of the cruel and unfeeling Mrs Norris, and beyond some superficial improvements (fire in room, carriage to dinner with the Grants, ball in her honour) she is basically in the same situation. Not until she is allowed to act in the service of her own happiness (by choosing her mate and acting according to her own moral compass), is she happy. I wonder if Austen meant to make the same commentary on slavery or whether I am reading too much into it.

I think many comments don't take into account that this book was written 200 years ago slavery is mentioned in one sentence in all of Ja writings and I don't think there is underlying meaning in it. As far as Sir Thomas is concerned I think he is as good as most heads of these huge housholds and lands were. He made a stupid marriage ( which seems to be common then as now (but now we have a way out) but treats his wife honorably. In my thinking his biggest mistakes were to give Mrs Norris so much power and say in his household (why did he do this?) and to let Maria marry even though he knew sha hated Mr rushworth

Mrs wrote: "I think many comments don't take into account that this book was written 200 years ago slavery is mentioned in one sentence in all of Ja writings and I don't think there is underlying meaning in it..."

From the things I read about Mansfield Park I don't think it is entirely impossible that Jane Austen could have wanted to say more than appears on the surface of her novel about slavery. It was written in fact in the very time when England had made slavery illegal, so I don't think that Austen, who had brothers in the navy would have been completely ignorant or uninterested in the issue (she would probably not have mentioned it at all if that were the case). We know, for example, that she admired the writings of certain abolitionists.

As to the underlying meaning, of course, it is debatable. But the time of its writing would speak for it, not against, I think.

Emily, I think your observations are very apt.

Since the early 1900s people have debating whether there's an underlying meaning about slavery in this book. I definitely think there is, given the fact she used Mansfield as the name of the estate and the debates over slavery that were raging at the time. The Austens were anti-slavery despite Rev. Austen managing property in the West Indies. She also mentions slavery in Emma. Mrs. E's fortune comes from the slave trade and there's also a correlation between being a governess and a slave. I think Jane Austen made a commentary about characters engaged in slavery = bad/superficial/lazy/stupid, etc. and characters who are put upon like Fanny and Jane Fairfax = good, noble, pure.

The estates in Antigua were badly managed and losing money, I didn't get the impression that anything specifically happened to send him over there but the state of his revenue.

Again, I don't think anything in particular happened over there to make him change, except perhaps to see how others lived, he was away from his family for over year and no doubt thought well of them the whole time, why would he not have missed them?

His response to Fanny was that they could do without slavery but not without order. He might not have liked what he saw but to simply set them free would have been to give up everything he had out there, which he simply couldn't afford.

Qnpoohbear wrote: "Emily, I think your observations are very apt.

Since the early 1900s people have debating whether there's an underlying meaning about slavery in this book. I definitely think there is, given the ..."

I agree, Qnpoohbear, that Austen is commenting on slavery and that she sees it in a broad light. Anytime that anyone has ascendancy over another human being, there is a form of slavery being practiced.

Have any of you read Belle: The Slave Daughter and the Lord Chief Justice? There is a section in here which makes the argument that Austen was indeed making a wider reference to slavery. Not only is there the Mansfield name link, but also one of the famous pro-slavery names was Norris. Austen was actually slightly acquainted with Lord Mansfield's great niece, the one who shared her upbringing with Dido Belle. I think it's very probable that these links to slavery are purposely there.

I think someone referenced it in a different thread?

Karlyne: Yes it is and I completely forgot about it - evidence again for the notion that Austen was writing about the slavery and that she meant people to try and think of the story she was telling with this context in mind.

Louise: Yes, I don't think anything specific happened (or I don't remember an incident being mentioned) only that the situation was bad, or worse, and needed his personal intervention (and it must have been bad or in need of his personal management to warrant his extended stay). But still I think the fact that his presence/absence made a difference is meaningful in the wider context of slavery. In other words, Jane Austen *may* have wanted to comment on the fact that whatever your intentions, whether you mean to be a good (or perhaps responsible is a better word here) father/slave owner or not, if you are in charge of another person's fate as you are if you have a slave or someone who is so wholly dependent as Fanny is (I tend to agree with some of you who liken Fanny's status as similar to that of a house slave), it is a responsibility no human can do justice to.

Nicely put Emily

When people have no choices in how their lives are played out due to another's dominance, I think we can say they are, at the very least, in a form of slavery.

Ceri wrote: "Have any of you read Belle: The Slave Daughter and the Lord Chief Justice? There is a section in here which makes the argument that Austen was indeed making a wider reference to sla..."

Yes I posted about that in the Mrs. Norris thread. I found it an interesting connection, one that Austen was aware of.

The Norton Critical edition elaborates on slavery and what sent Sir Thomas to Antigua and the editor suggests there may have been a slave revolt. I haven't read all the notes yet so I'll comment more later.

The Bertrams are similar to the Bennets except here we have one lazy parent, one indulgent aunt and one strict father to mess the kids up. I feel a little sorry for Sir Thomas to discover his daughters' true personalities. Their mother should not have been to lazy and selfish to counteract the polar opposites of the other two adults.

Sir Thomas begins to think differently of Mrs. Norris after returning from Antigua so I think something did happen that made him look more closely at his family and appreciate them more. Perhaps he did see a resemblance between Mrs. Norris and the plantation manager: both left unchecked go too far.

Qnpoohbear wrote: "The Bertrams are similar to the Bennets except here we have one lazy parent, one indulgent aunt and one strict father to mess the kids up. I feel a little sorry for Sir Thomas to discover his daugh..."

Good point! Some people do need to be supervised at all times.