Taylor Phillips

Dr. O’Farrell

English 481

December 8, 2012

Mansfield Park: Class-based Colonialism in a Pre-Colonial World

Jane Austen’s much-maligned novel Mansfield Park has long been a point of

contention for Jane Austen fans and critics alike. The novel’s problematic heroine, Fanny,

remains a cipher even for close readers, with camps divided among those who see Fanny as

a moral exemplar, a humorless killjoy, and a stereotypical infatuated female willing to do

anything to impress Edmund. However, critics have found the novel equally problematic

due to the economy of Mansfield Park (the estate), the tangential mentions of slavery and

slave uprisings, and Sir Thomas’ position as a moral authority within the novel.

In this essay, I will examine the role of colonialism in Mansfield Park, paying

particular attention to how it works in conversation with Fanny’s growth as a character,

from an unwanted waif into the effective mistress of the estate. By offering a post-

colonialist rereading of key passages, as well as an overview of the critical conversation

regarding colonialism in the novel and some historical information, I will offer a reading of

the novel that understands Fanny’s relationship with the Bertrams to be a form of

colonization itself that implicates the Bertrams within a classist project. I will argue that to

an extent, Fanny’s characterization can be read as a metaphor for colonialism itself, as well

as opposition thereto; her alternate and problematic presentation as both strong-willed

and a “weak willed” person corresponds to the ethical gray area of slavery and the lack of

moral or ethical absolutes within the slave trade. To engage in this analysis, I will offer a

thematic reading of key passages coupled with evidence from the critical conversation.

First, however, it is important to offer a basic definition of what precisely we mean by

colonialism.

In 1990, Edward Said launched – or at least brought into the mainstream –

conversations about the theme of colonialism in Austen’s work, as he used the prior work

of Raymond Williams to address aspects of the novel that had previously been ignored.

“We should …regard the geographical division of the world – after all significant in

Mansfield Park –as not neutral, but as politically charged, beseeching the attention and

elucidation its considerable proportions require. This question is not only how to

understand and with what to connect Austen’s morality and its social basis, but what to

read of it” (Said, The Edward Said Reader 348). Said’s project was not to dismiss Austen’s

importance, but instead “to jettison simple causality in thinking through the relationship

between Europe and the non-European world, and lessening the hold on our thought of the

equally simple temporal sequence” (Said, The Edward Said Reader 349). That is, Said’s

understanding of the novels of this era sought to achieve a mode of analysis that “is not

temporal but spatial” (Said, The Edward Said Reader 349).

Important questions in this mode include issues such as: “How do writers in this

period …situate and see themselves and their work in the larger world?” (Said, The Edward

Said Reader 349). Said insists that as a partial answer to this question, “We…find them

using striking but careful strategies, many of them derived from expected sources –

positive ideas of home, of a nation and its language, of proper order, good behavior, moral

values” (Said, The Edward Said Reader 349). The strategies used by Austen are of concern

Phillips 2

to us in this essay. However, before we engage in a detailed analysis of the text, it is

important to ground our definition carefully.

Drawing on Edward Said’s canonical writings on colonialism, the practice of

colonialism is defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as follows: “colonialism is

a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another” (Kohn).

In essence, one can understand “colonialism as a broad concept that refers to the project of

European political domination from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries that ended

with the national liberation movements of the 1960s” (Kohn). This paper also works on the

assumption that it is possible to read pre-colonialist works, such as Jane Austen’s novels,

through a post-colonial lens that seeks to illuminate relationships defined by domination

and subjugation. Another fundamental assumption for this work is the idea that even

within cultures, colonialism can occur, as we will see in my reading of Mansfield Park.

During the time of Mansfield Park, however, colonialism had not yet been defined. In

order to contextualize what was truly thought about the practice, it is useful to engage in a

study of the novel itself and to read it through this post-colonialist lens. By doing so, we

may uncover useful information regarding Austen’s own perceptions of the British Empire.

Why Mansfield Park? In addition to the plot’s specific mentions of slavery, it also spans the

longest timeframe of any of Austen’s novels. More interestingly, it is the only of Austen’s

novels to depict a child heroine (or a heroine as a child). While other Austen heroines

mature only through their progress in a novel of manners (e.g., Elizabeth Bennett, Emma

Whitehouse), Mansfield Park follows Fanny on a nearly lifelong journey – one that begins

when she is weak and vulnerable and follows her through what is essentially a trajectory of

power.

Phillips 3

Much of the way the first few chapters of Mansfield Park “works” is due to the

contrast between the foreboding, impressive, stately mansion, and the frail, scared young

Fanny. She is introduced to the reader in the following passage:

Fanny Price was at this time just ten years old, and though there might not be much in her first appearance to captivate, there was, at least, nothing to disgust her relations. She was small of her age, with no glow of complexion, nor any other striking beauty; exceedingly timid and shy, and shrinking from notice; but her air, though awkward, was not vulgar, her voice was sweet, and when she spoke her countenance was pretty. Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram received her very kindly; and Sir Thomas, seeing how much she needed encouragement, tried to be all that was conciliating: but he had to work against a most untoward gravity of deportment; and Lady Bertram, without taking half so much trouble, or speaking one word where he spoke ten, by the mere aid of a good-humoured smile, became immediately the less awful character of the two. (Austen 30)

Fanny is described in negatives: she has nothing to “disgust her relatives,” who seem to

regard her as a primitive creature in need of “encouragement,” meaning education in the

manners they prefer. Specifically, the characteristics that reflect the goals, values, and

tendencies of the Bertrams – a “sweet” voice, a “pretty” countenance – grant her

conditional admission. The narrator here makes an effort to use specific word choices that

immediately characterize the Bertrams’ benevolence as rather self-serving: Lady Bertram

is only “the less awful character” of the two; Sir Thomas is only conciliatory. Their kindness

extends only to the extent to which Fanny can adjust herself to her relations’ expectations.

Indeed, later in the chapter, Fanny’s introduction to the Bertrams goes poorly, as the

distinction between their expectations and Fanny’s needs as a child far from her family

leads to miserable experiences for them all:

Mrs. Norris had been talking to her the whole way from Northampton of her wonderful good fortune, and the extraordinary degree of gratitude and good behaviour which it ought to produce, and her consciousness of misery was therefore increased by the idea of its being a wicked thing for her not to be happy. The fatigue, too, of so long a journey, became soon no trifling evil. In vain were the well-meant condescensions of Sir Thomas, and all the officious prognostications of Mrs. Norris

Phillips 4

that she would be a good girl; in vain did Lady Bertram smile and make her sit on the sofa… (Austen 81)

Read through a colonialist lens, these early chapters and passages reveal a discourse

of power relationships that mirrors the colonialist tendency or the “white man’s burden”

(Kipling). That is, the hyperbolic relationship the Bertrams are attempting to establish

reflects their perception that it is their duty or obligation, as members of the privileged

class, to instill their own values into the weak, helpless Fanny, whose deficits are harshly

described in this early chapter. Unaware of the larger socio-economic context that

surrounds life at Mansfield Park, though perhaps aware of her relations’ own colonialist

trend towards her, Fanny settles into a problematic, if materially improved existence

amongst her cousins, aunt and uncle.

The concept of free will is apropos to an examination of these passages, as some

could read the events as codifying Fanny’s lack of will as she gives up former habits and

manners in order to attempt to fit in at Mansfield Park. Indeed, here it may be fruitful to

return to Said: “Almost all colonial schemes begin with an assumption of native

backwardness and general inadequacy to be independent, ‘equal,’ and fit” (Said, Culture

and Imperialism 80). Fanny’s relations are in effect “colonizing” her into their way of life,

given their overt assumptions that she is backward and incapable of being equal with them

without their tutelage.

Later, when Sir Thomas leaves for the distant Antigua, his absence structures the

lack of morality felt in the household, as seen when Fanny and Edmund object to the

performance of a controversial play, Lovers’ Vows. Fanny exhibits an almost hyperbolic will

here to make a largely symbolic stand against the performance of a play she felt was

Phillips 5

immoral (due to its depiction of adultery). The response to Fanny’s attempt to engage in

steadfast morality is Mrs. Norris’ harridan-like response: “’I am not going to urge her,’

replied Mrs. Norris sharply; ‘but I shall think her a very obstinate, ungrateful girl, if she

does not do what her aunt and cousins wish her—very ungrateful, indeed, considering who

and what she is’" (Austen 140). Read through a colonialist lens, this quotation serves as a

sharp reminder that despite Fanny acting in accordance with the morals she presumes the

Bertrams share, the most important features they see in her are her background and her

origins. Susan Greenfield reminds us in her discussion of the nineteenth century literary

culture with which Austen would have been familiar that “it is worth noting that Fanny’s

and Sir Thomas’s reaction to Inchbald’s play is the same reaction one would expect them to

have to a suggestive novel. Novels were typically accused of representing and encouraging

female misconduct, and what Fanny finds most objectionable about the play is that it

depicts female characters whose romantic experiences are [immodest]” (Greenfield 309).

That Fanny’s morally-based and well-intended objection is received with such

hostile reminders of her origins reiterates the colonialist project aspect of the novel: even

the stand that Fanny takes, which should rightly be a credit to her character, is read by the

colonialists as only a reminder of her lack of gratitude and difference from them.

Yet the reason for Fanny to have to exercise this moral stand is because Sir Thomas,

largely the voice of morality at Mansfield Park, is absent – so he can instruct his son in the

manners of running an Antigua estate:

Sir Thomas found it expedient to go to Antigua himself, for the better arrangement of his affairs, and he took his eldest son with him, in the hope of detaching him from some bad connexions at home. […]

Phillips 6

The necessity of the measure in a pecuniary light, and the hope of its utility to his son, reconciled Sir Thomas to the effort of quitting the rest of his family, and of leaving his daughters to the direction of others at their present most interesting time of life. He could not think Lady Bertram quite equal to supply his place with them, or rather, to perform what should have been her own; but, in Mrs. Norris's watchful attention, and in Edmund's judgment, he had sufficient confidence to make him go without fears for their conduct. (Austen 46)

Sir Thomas’ actions are carefully considered and he, as seen above, feels the utmost

confidence in Edmund and Mrs. Norris as moral stand-ins. However, the threat of

performing the immoral play creates a disjuncture between what Fanny expects from her

family and what they do – it leads to a conflict between Fanny’s inner desires and the

external values she must appear to hold in order to maintain her position with the

Bertrams. This creates a problematic hierarchy of morality and causes the reader to call

into question Fanny’s actions: is her moral stand simply an attempt to emulate someone

whose “off-screen” actions implicate atrocities? The moment at which Fanny exhibits her

own will by refusing to perform in the play can be read, through a post-colonialist lens, as a

small act of subversion that is poorly received by the colonialists.

Indeed, Fanny’s actions are derided by Mrs. Norris and the Bertrams, and her will or

desires are often dismissed – particularly when she rejects Henry’s proposal– as being

childish or without thought, since she is urged to always consider the larger context, which

includes the strings Henry pulled to obtain William’s promotion. Fanny’s feelings are

portrayed more explicitly here than in previous chapters: “She was feeling, thinking,

trembling about everything; agitated, happy, miserable, infinitely obliged, absolutely angry.

It was all beyond belief! He was inexcusable, incomprehensible! But such were his habits

that he could do nothing without a mixture of evil” (Austen 265-266). Her feelings,

Phillips 7

however, are not validated by her uncle: “’I am half inclined to think, Fanny, that you do not

quite know your own feelings’” (Austen 279). Again, a colonialist reading reveals that the

Bertrams believe that they are so superior to Fanny that they even understand her mind

and feelings better than she herself. The use of the word “know” here implies that Sir

Thomas does know Fanny’s feelings; it is only the colonized subject that does not.

It is in the dénouement of the novel that the work takes, in my opinion, its strangest

turn. Fanny ultimately becomes the effective – though unofficial – mistress of Mansfield

Park, and therefore is herself imbricated in the complex socioeconomic system of slavery.

By this structure, read through a post-colonialist lens, Austen seems to depict not only a

maturation of the character who began the story as helpless and unwanted, but a

complicated means of portraying the post-colonialist situation: a legacy of hurt feelings,

betrayals, and uneven power structures giving way to the ascendance of a post-colonialist

ruler.

This is because ultimately, Fanny assimilates: she becomes the mistress of the estate

in a dénouement that brings to a halt any nascent opposition to slavery that she might have

felt, as well as any opposition to the Bertrams’ condescending aims:

In her usefulness, in Fanny's excellence, in William's continued good conduct and rising fame, and in the general well-doing and success of the other members of the family, all assisting to advance each other, and doing credit to his countenance and aid, Sir Thomas saw repeated, and for ever repeated, reason to rejoice in what he had done for them all, and acknowledge the advantages of early hardship and discipline, and the consciousness of being born to struggle and endure.

[…]

…[Fanny and Edmund] removed to Mansfield; and the Parsonage there, which, under each of its two former owners, Fanny had never been able to approach but with some painful sensation of restraint or alarm, soon grew as dear to her heart,

Phillips 8

and as thoroughly perfect in her eyes, as everything else within the view and patronage of Mansfield Park had long been. (Austen 408)

These final, conclusive sentences are damning not only of Sir Thomas, but of Fanny.

Sir Thomas congratulates himself for his benevolence to Fanny and William, taking credit

for all their actions, which he sees as consequences of his decision to extend the benefits of

his privilege to them – that is, his decision to use his class position to colonize them. Yet

Fanny becomes the estate’s effective mistress, and suddenly everything “within the view

and patronage of Mansfield Park” was – and had been – perfect. Her ascendance to this role

changes her view, as well as her rewriting of her own history, so that she now understands

that everything related to the Park is perfect, and she has always considered it so. Austen’s

use of the “had been” tense in this final sentence is deliberate and intriguing, as within this

colonialist reading, this seems to indicate a totalizing process. With this final sentence, a

colonial reading indicates that the process of colonizing Fanny has completed.

The young girl who arrived at the estate is now a woman, not by dint of the passage

of time, but due to her acceptance of and engagement with the workings of the estate.

Instead of asking hard questions to her uncle, and spurring the famous “dead silences,”

Fanny is now fully a part of the project- a colonial subject who is now the colonizer.

When reading the story through the lens of colonialism, however, it becomes clear

that in these passages, Fanny’s relationship to the power holders at Mansfield Park mimics

that of colonists’ relationships to indigenous people, and Fanny’s “betrayals,” with respect

to the play incident and Henry’s proposal, represent a reaction of someone at the limits of

colonialist subjugation (albeit emotional and class-based subjugation). This pattern –

especially once Fanny begins to assert her own will regarding what is right – seems a

Phillips 9

comment on the growing opposition to slavery in England in the early part of the 19th

century. In keeping with the idea of free will – an important concept in post-Enlightenment

Europe – the theme of silence is also vital to Mansfield Park, and in keeping with certain

political and discursive acts at the time with respect to the slave issue.

However, this textual analysis can only be illuminated by triangulation with

prominent critical discourse on the subject. How have others incorporated Said’s reading of

the novel into their own? How has recent historical research complicated, confirmed or

challenged Said’s claims?

George Boulukos writes, as he amends Said’s interpretation of the novel, that he

seeks to “establish a detailed context for Austen’s reference to the slave trade,

demonstrating that it called to mind a politics of ‘amelioration:’ a position on slavery that

would have been familiar to Austen’s early nineteenth century audience. Proponents of this

position held that slavery and colonialism were morally redeemable and potentially even

heroic pursuits for men such as Sir Thomas Bertram” (Boulukos 362). All the text alludes to

is the deafening silence in response to Fanny’s questions about the slave trade (“’Did you

not hear me ask him about the slave-trade last night?’ ‘I did…it would have pleased your

uncle to be inquired of farther.’ ‘And I longed to do it – but there was such a dead silence!”

(Austen 181-182)), and this silence creates a rhetorical contrast with the noise caused by

Fanny’s refusal to perform the racy play, as well as a lacuna that can be filled with others’

assumptions about this silence.

As Boulukos notes, it is likely that this is due to the Bertrams’ adherence to the

moderate idea of amelioration, which was defined by Markman Ellis as follows:

Adjacent to these two discursive formations [pro-slavery and anti-slavery discourse] is a third position, called … ‘amelioration,’ that argued for

Phillips 10

the mitigation of the conditions of slavery, but not its abolition. Influential in the late mid century, this position has a distinctive voice of its own, that of the sentimental, and a precarious but coherent logic, which seeks to transform the peculiar asymmetries of power endemic to the slavery economies, but without destroying the ideology or economy of slavery. (Ellis 87)

Additionally, Deirdre Coleman understands the role of abolition within the society

of Austen’s novel as a relationship tied up not only with the heritage of Enlightenment

philosophy and discourse, but also with gender:

In Austen’s work the slave trade and abolitionism play an important role in the analysis of power relations, especially those arising out of gender-based oppression. The abolitionist movement’s sentimental appeal to universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity engaged several key philosophical and political issues, such as the imagining of kinship, claims to personhood, and the vexed relations of equality and difference – relations which, galvanized by widespread agitation against slavery, touched not just on issues to do with class but with both sex and race, simultaneously. (Coleman 293)

Coleman’s understanding of the novel hinges on abolition’s relationship to other

dominant discourses at the time; unlike Said, she understands the novel as being part of a

Kristeva-like web of interconnected concepts, rather than a single text that can be

understood through its relationships of space (Kristeva and Guberman). Other critics have

attacked Said for what they feel is his omission of gender and class politics from his

analysis of the colonialist project of Mansfield Park: “Said’s typing of Austen is…

symptomatic of a more general gender politics underlying his postcolonial project”

(Fraiman 807). Other critics, such as Greenfield, claim outright that Austen had some

interest in not only gender but in class issues: “By patterning her text after Inchbald’s

[author of the scandalous play Lovers’ Vows], Austen marks both her interest in the play as

a form of literature and her sympathy with Inchbald’s critique of the gender and class

Phillips 11

system” (Greenfield 310). Yet it is Austen’s relatively privileged position that allowed her

even to engage in this critique, especially as the constraining features of the system

(publishing anonymously, not having to work for a living) worked in her favor in order to

allow her to offer a critique.

However, my post-colonialist reading leads me to offer another complication: While

Said has been understood, reanalyzed, lambasted, and critiqued for errors, omissions, or

inclusions, few have attempted to extend his understanding of colonialism to the issues of

social class, yet a post-colonialist reading of the book reveals the Bertrams’ interest in

Fanny to be a project stunningly similar to that of colonialism in its aims, methods, and

goals, and particularly in the ‘infantilization’ of Fanny herself and the denial of her own

emotions.

Tantalizingly, Austen never exactly outlines Fanny’s specific beliefs regarding

slavery, but the post-colonialist lens offered here offers the likelihood that Fanny’s anti-

slavery or ameliorative stance stood in opposition to the Bertrams’ pro-slavery, or perhaps

ameliorative beliefs. The question one is left with is who is sentimental and who would

argue for radical change. These discursive stances reflect a larger issue with respect to the

European perception of the slave trade at the time, which Debbie Lee describes as a

consequence of distance, in keeping with Said’s definition of colonialism in these novels:

The truth was that slavery … was bound to ideas of proximity and distance. Before [the Somerset case], Europeans had been able to look with cold remove on the slave trade because of its sheer physical distance from them….but more important than physical distance was psychological distance. Slave owners, up until the late eighteenth century, seemed to have both in their favor. They frequently argued that because of the geographical remoteness of the colonies from Britain, they were absolved of any crime against the Africans. The vast majority of people who were not slave owners felt even more psychologically remote…therefore, it was psychological distance from the plight of slaves, not just geographical remoteness, that seemed an even more ironclad notion. (Lee 5-6)

Phillips 12

These dual notions of distance complicate the Bertrams’ situation in Mansfield Park,

as the vast majority of the novel occurs within the estate’s boundaries; indeed, Fanny

seems to have the widest traveling experience of any of the women in the story, and her

lower-class brother William, due to his naval experience, gets to see many different areas.

However, Fanny’s emotional connection to her uncle and his direct connection to the slave

trade put her in an awkward in-between position. The distance that protected her as a

“normal” civilian (i.e., one who was not close to anyone involved in the slave trade) was

suddenly gone. The psychological distance seems to dominate here, rather than the spatial

difference described by Said.

Lee attempts to connect historical and intellectual milestones by aligning slavery

and Romanticism, within which Mansfield Park is presumably at least roughly situated

(although Austen is rarely aligned directly with the Romantics, questions of genre are

unfortunately outside the scope of this paper, and Lee’s concern is more historical than

generic). Noting the prominent shared vocabulary among common Romantic works, Lee

observes that “…although many of these writers may seem to be using the terms ‘slavery’

and ‘freedom’ in abstract and even universal ways, in the sense that everyone is a slave to

something and seeking freedom from it, the terms are…grounded in the historical

specificity of the transatlantic trade and plantation slavery, the stories of which surround

these writers” (Lee 22). Lee uses primary historical documents to assert that many of the

great writers of the age, even those concerned with human rights, were aware of slavery,

and to varying degrees, they incorporated their concern with the issue into their own

writing.

Phillips 13

To return to Austen, as well as to return to Said, it is clear that the tangential asides

referring to slavery in the novel are an attempt to grapple with what Lee calls “the greatest

moral question of the age” (Lee 21). The concept of slavery in Mansfield Park is structured

by its absence.

This historical information illuminates our reading by offering several conclusions

from which we can work to a deeper understanding of Fanny as more than merely an

atypical Austen heroine. While a fuller reading of the entire novel and its engagement with

colonialism, post-colonialism, and the development of Fanny’s character is necessarily

outside the space limitations, this essay has sought to provide a post-colonialist reading of

Mansfield Park.

Specifically, this post-colonialist reading allows us to conclude that Fanny’s

relationship with the Bertrams functions as a sort of doubling or mimicry of anti-slavery or

colonialist feeling at the time, particularly in the moments in which Fanny opposes her aunt

and uncle: The Bertrams have engaged in a class-based form of colonialism in their

relationship with Fanny, and Sir Thomas himself has also directly engaged in the slave

trade. To further complicate the situation, the entire novel unfolds at an estate – the

eponymous Mansfield Park—largely funded by a socioeconomic system dependent on

slave labor.

The critical understanding of colonialism as being a spatial practice can be expanded

upon with the example of Mansfield Park, which uses a practice of social class-based

colonialism. Therefore, future work could consider expanding the mode of colonialism to

include class-based colonialism, as seen in this story, to fully understand these discourses

of uneven power relations and how they played out in nineteenth century Britain.

Phillips 14

Works Cited

Austen, Jame. Mansfield Park. New York: Signet Classic Editions, 1964/1989.Boulukos, George E. "The Politics of Silence: "Mansfield Park" and the Amelioration of

Slavery." NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction 39.3 (2006): 361-383.Cleere, Eileen. ""Reinvesting Nieces:" Mansfield Park and the Economics of Endogemy."

Novel: A Forum on Fiction 28.2 (1995): 113-130.Coleman, Deirdre. "Imagining Sameness and Difference: Domestic and Colonial Sisters in

Mansfield Park." Johnson, Claudia L and Clara Tuite. A Companion to Jane Austen. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. 292-303.

Ellis, Markman. The Politics of Sensibility: Race, Gender and Commerce in the Sentimental Novel. Vol. 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Ferguson, Moira. "Mansfield Park: Slavery, Colonialism, and Gender." Oxford Literary Review 13.1 (1991): 118-139.

Fraiman, Susan. "Jane Austen and Edward Said: gender, culture, and imperialism." Critical Inquiry 21.4 (1995): 805-821.

Greenfield, Susan C. "Fanny's Misreading and the misreading of Fanny: women, literature, and inferiority in Mansfield Park." Texas Studies in Literature and Language 36.3 (1994): 306-327.

Kipling, Rudyard. "The White Man's Burden." McClure's February 1899: 290-291.Kohn, Margaret. "Colonialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." 10 April 2012.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 5 December 2012 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/>.

Kristeva, Julia and Ross Mitchell Guberman. Julia Kristeva: Interviews. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

Lee, Debbie. Slavery and the Romantic Imagination. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvainia Press, 2004.

Park, You-Me. The Postcolonial Jane Austen. New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc, 2004.Perkins, Moreland. " Mansfield Park and Austen’s Reading on Slavery and Imperial

Warfare." JASNA 26.1 (2005): n.p.Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage, 1994.—. The Edward Said Reader. New York: Vintage, 2000.Wiltshire, John. "Decolonising Mansfiled Park." Essays in Criticism 53.4 (2003): 303-322.

Phillips 15