In Janeites, Rita Lamb wrote on June 7 (and
then again today, re-posted): "An archaeologist at West Florida, Margo
Stringfield, has posted further background to John Lindsay's relationship with
Belle's mother here: http://www.progresspromise.com/blog/belle-s-pensacola-connection Apparently it was a longer relationship than the
usual story suggests. If Ms Stringfield's research is correct then it wasn't
confined to the West Indies or Florida either, but continued for some time in
London."
Rita, I noticed when you posted the above 2 weeks ago, and read the linked article with interest for several reasons (including that I live in South Florida, the other end of the state from Pensacola in the ironically much more “Southern” Panhandle). It's very interesting how well Stringfield’s work fits with Steedman's earlier research which Ellen Moody just quoted from at length.
Rita, I noticed when you posted the above 2 weeks ago, and read the linked article with interest for several reasons (including that I live in South Florida, the other end of the state from Pensacola in the ironically much more “Southern” Panhandle). It's very interesting how well Stringfield’s work fits with Steedman's earlier research which Ellen Moody just quoted from at length.
That Captain Lindsay
conveyed the lot in Pensacola to Dido’s mother after he owned it 8 years, in
1773, fits very nicely with Steedman’s research otherwise showing the very long
term and strong double family that Lindsay managed (under the patriarchal
customs of the day) to create and sustain). Although… we can only wonder as to
how happy either of his wives, or any of his children, really were with the arrangement. And the film Belle does indeed slide by ALL of that….
I became curious to know something
about Pensacola while Captain Lindsay was there, and here, courtesy of
Wikipedia, is my edited down summary, which indicate that Captain Lindsay was
where the action was, as he probably was a participant in ”…Great Britain’s
victory over France in the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War) and its
aftermath. [I]n 1763 the British took control of Pensacola. During the British
occupation, the area began to prosper. Pensacola was the capital of British
West Florida.“Pensacola was becoming something more than a garrison town…There
were now a number of fine houses and structures and an especially impressive
Governor’s Palace while the fort had been strengthened and made more efficient.
It seems likely the town had over two hundred houses made of timber. Pensacola
was still, however, mainly a military and trading outpost, its principal link
to the outside world being primarily by sea.” After Spain joined the rebels of the American
Revolution in 1779, Spanish forces captured East Florida and West Florida,
regaining Pensacola. They held this area from 1781–1819. Following the War of 1812 and United States
victory over Britain, it negotiated with Spain to take control of Florida.
The British colony of West
Florida, with its capital at Pensacola, included all of the Panhandle west of
the Apalachicola River, as well as southwestern Alabama, southern Mississippi,
and the Florida parishes of modern Louisiana. …In 1763, the British laid out
Pensacola's modern street plan. This period included the major introduction of
the slave-based cotton plantation economy and new settlement by Protestant
Anglo-British-Americans and black slaves. …During the American Revolution
(1775–1783), the state of Georgia revolted against the British crown, but East
and West Florida, like the Canadian colonies, remained loyal to the British.
Many loyal to the king relocated to Florida during this period….”.
So it appears from the
above that the major introduction of slave-based cotton plantations to British
West Florida occurred exactly when
Captain Lindsay received his land in Pensacola.
In that regard, one thing
that Steedman wrote in her email to Ellen really struck me:
“Documents show
Elizabeth’s brother was still alive in 1783. What happened to him? why was he
not equally favored? were there no rumors because he was a boy and thus could
not have been anyone’s slave-mistress? We may infer that one reason this
familiar family pattern in slave- owning families has escaped the Mansfield
official histories is it is uncomfortable to people to have again to recognize that
a white man is bigamously living with two women, one of which is his overt
property (Elizabeth Lindsay’s mother) and the other his de facto property, Mary.”
I have since 2006 been of
the opinion (which Rozema’s 1999 film points in the direction of, when we see
Tom Bertram’s sketch of his father raping a slave woman) that JA means for us
to discern in the shadows of MP that:
ONE: Sir Thomas has for
several decades led a double life,
and that he has a second family in Antigua, including black slave wife and biracial
children; and
TWO: Somehow, some fuzzy way,
both Henry Crawford and Mary Crawford are part of Sir Thomas’s other family, such
that, in the character of Henry, we have the proverbial chicken coming home to
roost---very much (and not coincidentally) like the illegitimate son Frederick
coming home to (unwittingly) confront his own biological father, Baron
Wildenhaim, in Lover’s Vows. Again,
in a very small nutshell, it is no accident that Henry Crawford is initially
described as follows, as if he were a slave on the auction block being
evaluated by prospective buyers:
“Her brother was not
handsome: no, when they first saw him he was absolutely plain, black and plain;
but still he was the gentleman, with a pleasing address. The second meeting
proved him not so very plain: he was plain, to be sure, but then he had so much
countenance, and his teeth were so good, and he was so well made, that one soon
forgot he was plain; and after a third interview, after dining in company with
him at the Parsonage, he was no longer allowed to be called so by anybody. “
So, till now, I had always
thought Lord Mansfield was an allusive source for the character of Sir Thomas,
because Lord Mansfield, like Sir T., was the patriarch of a household with a
young (grand)niece who was brought to live there as a girl and then lived in
limbo between being family and slave.
But now, with the
combination of Steedman’s and Stringfield’s data aligning so closely, I infer
that JA, working the gossip network at Godmersham for intelligence, had by 1814
learned a great deal about Dido’s father (and mother and brother). And I speculate
that JA, as she often did in her novelistic subtextual allusions, blurred two
generations of a real life family together (as if to say, like father like
son—or in this case, nephew), such that Lord Mansfield’s nephew, Captain John
Lindsay, is, I believe, ALSO an allusive source for Sir Thomas!
And she wrote all of this
into MP in 1814, three years after JA’s initial engagement with the story of
Dido Elizabeth Belle, in S&S, when JA, perhaps not yet aware of all the
details of the real life (very) extended family of Lord Mansfield, had given
the brown-skinned Marianne Dashwood an East
Indian aura….
Cheers, ARNIE
@JaneAustenCode on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment