Inquiring readers, This fascinating post written by author Clyve Rose explains to film viewers who have not read Emma the short, confusing scene shown in Autumn de Wilde’s 2020 film adaptation of Austen’s novel. Ms. Rose reviews the history of Gipsies or Gypsies in Regency England and Europe in general, and provides insights into why this nomadic group was shunned and feared.
Public domain image of a young Gypsy woman with a tambourine, painted by Kārlis Teodors Hūns, 1870. Wikimedia Commons.
In Chapter 39 of Austen’s Emma, we come upon a curious incident. Miss Harriet Smith (the pretty and ‘natural daughter’ of no-one-yet-knows), out walking with a companion, is accosted by a ‘group of gypsies’. This incident is curious for many readers, and for many reasons.
For modern readers who may not understand the fear and attendant danger of such an episode, it is worth remembering that merely associating with “such a set of people” was judged to be a crime in Regency England. From the 1500s onwards the Crown made several attempts to rid their green and pleasant land of these ‘other’ residents, including deporting them to the colonies and attempting to legislate them out of all existence. By Austen’s time, any conversation or ‘consorting’ with ‘gypsies’ was considered a criminal act for which one could be incarcerated — or worse. A case in 1782 saw a fourteen year old girl hanged for such acquaintance, on the orders of the local magistrate.
That Harriet Smith speaks to the ‘gypsies’, offers them money, and then pleads with them would have been enough to see her in trouble with the law. While the local Highbury magistrate (our hero, Mr Knightley) would be unlikely to order Harriet hanged (I doubt even Austen could redeem a hero who sentences his heroine’s ‘particular friend’ to the gallows), Miss Smith still, technically, commits a crime in this scene. Leaving aside the impact this moment has on the romantic machinations of Emma and her friends, it affords us a rare glimpse into a Regency England that is not often represented in contemporary works.
Austen’s England is a very specific place. A place inhabited only by the English themselves. It is very interesting that one of the few glimpses her readers ever receive of the scaffolding behind this construct, is in the novel where her heroine is labelled by the author herself as ‘an imaginist’ – because, of course, the ideal of a homogenous England is pure imagination: Especially as the empire was at its height at the time, both from a cultural and a mercantile perspective.
There are hints of a similar façade – and Austen’s awareness that this is a façade – in Mansfield Park as well. Sir Thomas Bertram’s references to the slave trade in Jamaica, and its importance as the mainstay of his wealth, is touched upon. He even suggests introducing some of his ‘stock’ at Mansfield Park, but this is not taken seriously. What happens in Jamaica must stay in Jamaica. England is only for the English, Sir Thomas!
The British Empire once spanned a quarter of the known world, but at no point were the native-born residents of these colonies truly deemed to be ‘English’. These antipodeans were not, after all, actually resident in England itself. At least, not most of them. What if the ‘non-English’ people were not ‘out there’ in the colonies? What if they did, in fact, live in England right alongside the Bertrams, the Woodhouses, the Knightleys – and even the Bennets?
Which brings me to the Romany of England: Their position in these narratives is unique; almost as unusual as their place in Regency England – because of course they had one. They lived, loved, and mattered in the same geographic spaces as Emma Woodhouse and Harriet Smith.
The fact is, this ‘England-only-for-the-English’ was peopled by another culture entirely. England was, and is, a shared land. Two cultures, so vastly different in so many ways, coexisted for centuries, and rarely peacefully. The English Romany were as present and alive and wonderfully romantic as the Regency English. Coming from a mostly oral tradition, Romany stories from that time are rarely found in print but that they were there, and experienced this period, and undoubtedly have stories to tell about it – is visible even in the work of authors determined to showcase only their ‘own England’ to their ‘own’ readers.
Austen’s England has the backing of every powerful institution of her day. In terms of crafting the dominant narrative, the English are able to draw on the Crown, the Military, the Law, and of course the Church, which played such a vital part in the lives and lovers of Regency England. Even Heaven sides with the English in Austen’s world view. Her father, let’s not forget, was a clergyman. In the incident ascribed above, Austen does not specifically accuse the ‘gypsies’ of being heathens, but they are clearly depicted as ‘other’; outside the town limits of Highbury itself and dark, terrifying, criminal, and dangerous. They certainly do not ‘fit’ in Austen’s England, and are quite unsatisfyingly removed from Emma’s tale as soon as they have served their rather meagre narrative purpose: “The Gypsies did not wait for the operations of justice: they took themselves off in a hurry.”
Or rather, the author moved them quickly off her bleached white pages and out of ‘her’ England – despite the truth that there were non-English people present in Austen’s England; other voices with their own perspectives and their own stories worth telling, and worth writing. Contemporary Regency writers can not erase these different voices from their tales, because these real people existed all around them, finding their way into these ‘English-only’ narratives with the same kind of side-eye once given to the Irishman and the Scot. The cultural difference between these latter still-European folk and the Romany is, however, far greater – which may account for the fact that their treatment at the hands of English Regency writers seems to have been far worse.
It is difficult to be born into a place that never allows you to become a part of it without a fight, a plea, an effort to assimilate and cut away the parts of you that discomfit the powerful dominant culture all around you. It is more than difficult; it is painful and damaging. The very term ‘marginalisation’ is an admission of the lack of narrative ‘space’ allotted to the voices fiction has chosen to leave unloved, and unnoticed.
The term ‘marginal’ itself bothers me. It is almost (but not quite) a pejorative, which is why I place it in single quotes. I have here done the same with the term ‘gypsy’. I am aware that neither term is universally regarded as harmful. Debates rage all over this, on may fronts. I am only one writer; one voice among many and I have no answers. That there is ongoing debate however, is encouraging.
For myself, born into a marginalised culture with a mostly oral tradition, the ‘minor’ incident in Emma stands out. After all, my own tribe has quite a bit in common with the Romany. There was once a link made between the Romany of Europe and the Lost Tribes of Israel. It turned out to be incorrect, but the placement of ‘other’ in an otherwise ‘native’ land is a context embedded into my lived experience every day – and that’s quite apart from the grim reality shared in the concentration camps of Europe during World War II; a shared history I am sure not even an imaginist like Austen – or Emma – could envisage. Its very surreality is what allows deniability to play so plausibly in the minds of those focused on the façade, rather than any kind of ‘real’ history.
Real history is profoundly unromantic – and yet, somehow, we still try. There is beauty in stories, in narratives of the tales about long-ago lovers and their imagined worlds. There is much solace to be found in story – I love re-reading Austen (although Emma is not my favourite of her works), but in between the wonder of her words, I find myself reading for traces. Traces of others who were there – and whose stories deserve to be told.
Image of Clyve Rose. Permission of her publicist Andrea Kiliany Thatcher, taken by photographer Kira, http://www.artphotobykira.com.au
About Clyve Rose:
Clyve Rose has been writing historical romance fiction for the best part of two decades. Her newest work, Always a Princess, published by Boroughs Publishing Group, debuts this September. She works in the historical romance, fantasy, and speculative fiction genres. She also creates literary novels under an alternative pen name. In between her devotion to fiction writing, Clyve researches various mythologies and historical periods, often basing her characters on actual historical personalities.
One of her novels was longlisted for a Hachette Development Award for Fiction while her paranormal short story, The One Below, won the Passionate Ink (RWA) award for best Speculative Fiction Short.
Visit her online at:
Connect with Clyve Rose at ClyveRose.com and Instagram.com/ClyveRose, in which she writes “Clyve Rose is an award-winning Regency Romance author. New Regency release out on 8 Sept. 2020.”
Jane Austen's World 
Very interesting background info. I think ethnical groups are also used by an author to illustrate points about the character of the protagonists, and the class that they spring from. The author does not necessarily share their POV, although they may. For instance, even in current times in Derry Girls, their insular fear of the `gypsies’ (when encountered enroute to the concert they are sneaking off to) is pointing out their shelteredness and prejudice on a brief sojourn from a town where political/religious violence has been the norm. And Evelyn Waugh, writing from the 20s on, often uses his characters’ foibles and prejudices to make statements about them.
This is one reason to read annotated versions of classics, because some of the historical subtleties are lost on us modern readers.
I think this is a useful point Leslie. I enjoy annotated versions as well. I find the notes often send me to sources I may have struggled to find on my own.
Interesting article on the Romani. I was aware of their history prior to this, but it should be very helpful to others.
denise
I hope so! It’s such an interesting juxtaposition of cultures as well because English values are so very different from those of the Romani.
Fascinating view of the Romany. They presumably were speaking a dialect of the Romani language (which is related to languages of northern India), and I wonder if Harriet could even understand them. That would have frightened her even more, I think. Though I would imagine they must have understood enough English to know what she was saying.
One question, though–You said about Sir Thomas Bertram, “He even suggests introducing some of his ‘stock’ at Mansfield Park, but this is not taken seriously.” I have searched for the word “stock” in MP and can’t find this. Can you give us the quote you are referring to?
Perhaps that comment is confusing Austen’s written work with the numerous film adaptations. I catch myself doing that at times, as it all starts to blend together in one’s memory, causing a certain amount of conflation.
Hi Leslie,
Thank you for your understanding – yes I did indeed do this. I find it happens more when several of film adaptations of the different novels are released close together.
Hi Brenda,
They may indeed have been supposed to be speaking in their own language but Roma / Romani / Romany as a people have been resident in England since the 1600s so it is more likely they would approach Harriet using English – especially if they had a request to make of her. That said, where there is a language barrier, the fear of one (or both) parties being a threat is heightened. It is a fact that Romany people have been portrayed as such in many works of the period.
Regarding the Mansfield Park reference, the textual reference in Austen is oblique. It is made more overt in the Frances O’Connor film version. There is quite a lot of scholarly debate regarding whether or not Austen herself was an abolitionist, due to the novel’s title. The film references an actual case.
(Apologies for the long digression but it’s SUCH a great story and someone ought to write it up):
An American businessman, Mr Charles Stewart arrived in England with his slave James Somersett. A few days after their arrival, Somersett escaped. Stewart had him recaptured and imprisoned on a ship bound for Jamaica The intent was to sell Somersett. However, Somersett’s family and friends claimed the man’s imprisonment was not lawful and he could not be sold as a slave as slavery was not lawful in England at this time (though it was still quite legal in Jamaica and many other colonies). The press and many abolitionists backed Mr Somersett and a hearing was ordered by the nation’s leading Judge – Lord Mansfield.
The case was heard in February 1772 and the judgement was deliberated by 12 judges and handed down in June 1772 (due process indeed!). Lord Mansfield and his peers. Mansfield declared that a slave owner could not force his slave to leave the country with him, as in England the man was not his slave. He also wrote:
“The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.”
Mr Somersett was accordingly a free man, although a very long way from home.
That Austen used ‘Mansfield’ for the name of Sir Thomas’s home is not lost on Austen scholars of course. I do not have my earliest edition of MP with me and am using a Project Gutenberg ‘mess’ of one (I am isolating and awaiting test results), but I have no doubt you are correct. I do sometimes misremember the written and film versions.
In going back over it, the textual reference is very subtle. It’s just this really:
“Did not you hear me ask him about the slave-trade last night?”
“I did—and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”
In fact, Fanny is not referencing the issue much at all. What has been noted though, is that Austen put in a very specific reference to it, which is unlike her and it is from this and the name of the Bertram house that much of the speculation that she was an abolitionist has come.
There is an entire body of work (mostly conjecture) that Sir Thomas heads out to Antigua to ‘re-arrange’ his interests there in a more humane way (i.e, less a slave plantation and more of an employer/employee arrangement in line with the growing anti-slavery movement).
I will try to find the two or three essays on this and come back with links if anyone would like. There is a quite a lot of written pieces on this idea.
A timely post Clyve in the time of Black Lives Matter and the wrestling with structural racism in our society. You describe overt racism, in Emma, but the uncomfortable feelings and reactions of Harriet are structural.
Hi generalgtony,
I doubt it was considered overt by the author. That’s sort of the point. She described the Romany the way ‘everyone’ did then, which doesn’t make it right of course. Their appearance in the book is very much a plot device. As characters, they are hardly even drawn.
As you say though, structural prejudice is so ingrained. I can imagine readers at the time projecting themselves into the scene, and of course, they would identify with Harriet because, after all, she is the only ‘one of them’ there.
As a white privelaged male living in Britain I am becoming aware that racism is often an unconcsious thing. “We,” are hardly aware we are doing it, unless of course you are a member of the National Front. I am working with a group on this at the moment. You are right that JA probably didn’t think in terms of racism, (was the word invented then?) but she and the other white privelaged of the time were definitely racist. JA’s genius I always think is the way she has human relationships spot on. That is why we can empathise and learn from her novels but one aspect of human relationships is missing or abruptly dealt with and curtailed in this scene in Emma and that is relationships with the ,” other,” the ,”marginalised,” as you term it.If JA lived now her novels would probably engage with the issues.
I think much of it is unconscious as you say, and it takes a deliberate effort of will and focus (for those of us living a privileged existence), to remind ourselves *of* ourselves in a way.
Whether ‘racism’ has been around since Austen’s time or not, constructing differences as ‘other’ has probably been happening for as long as people have had tribes or families. The unfortunate flip side of a tribal or ‘our group’, mentality, is that where there is a path to inclusion, there is equally a way to exclude. That’s not Austen. It’s just people, though I like to believe we can do better. I hope we can be humanists too. I hope that when we feel fear, we may seek to understand and engage before attempting to denigrate and turn away.
But then, I’m an optimist :-)
I would have really appreciated it if you had added the name of the court case and the town it was in in your reference to the 1782 case.
I believe the case was referenced by Suzannah Fullerton, author of Jane Austen & Crime. Click on this link for a discussion by Sarah Emsley in “The Gypsies in Emma”, although the details are vague there as well.
This is correct. Her book ‘Jane Austen & Crime’ is an excellent resource and a wonderfully insightful read.
I’ve met Suzannah. She’s not only a wonderful woman–so energetic and such fun–but well versed in all things Austen. The Land Down Under is lucky to have both you and Suzannah promote Austen so well. Thank you for engaging my readers and answering their comments! Articles like yours make this blog come alive in ways that are welcoming to so many of its readers.
Thanks to this article and comments I ordered Jane Austen and Crime, which just arrived. It is a lovely book, printed on quality paper, and includes many illustrations. It looks very informative and I will be up all night reading it🙄.
I bought that book recently, too, Leslie! I’m looking forward to reading it soon.
“Sir Thomas Bertram’s references to the slave trade in Jamaica, and its importance as the mainstay of his wealth, is touched upon. He even suggests introducing some of his ‘stock’ at Mansfield Park, but this is not taken seriously. What happens in Jamaica must stay in Jamaica. England is only for the English, Sir Thomas” What text in Mansfield Park does this refer to?
The only bit in the book concerning slavery that I can think of is when Fanny asks Sir Thomas about it on his return from Antigua, but received no reply. I suspect that Ms Rose is thinking of the puerile 1990s movie adaptation, though I don’t wish to watch it to confirm. If that is so, it is hardly fair to present something a screenwriter made up as evidence of Jane Austen’s attitudes.
Yes, perhaps that is it. I’m not an economics expert, but I see no reason to buy slaves to bring to England, unless you want a black page boy to pose with you in your Gainsborough portrait. Labour was cheap and abundant in England, in surplus, in fact.
Hi Lona,
Yes it may have been only to show off – see the details of the case decided by Lord Mansfield in James Somersett’s favour. The American businessman who brought his slave to England had cause to regret it.
Hi Polly, that puerile 1999 film was directed by Patricia Rozema and was quite controversial at the time. I answered Lona’s comment, but included you, as many scholars have written about this topic. Thanks for visiting this blog!!
Hi Vic,
I remember the fallout from that production. It split Austenites the world over. I do remember thinking it was a good film, but not a good version of an Austen novel. There was a lot more of Jane (updated) than Fanny and for many fans, that was just too much, too far, and too modern. I enjoyed it as a film, but not as an Austen film.
It’s a pleasure to be here by the way! :-)
I did confuse the film with the book. It was not a good adaptation imo.
Personally, I have not yet seen a version of MP brought to screen that does the book – or Fanny – justice (very subjective I know, but I am quite fond of Fanny and do not like it when film makers try to ‘spice her up’).
The compliments to Sir Thomas in that film are made by Edmund in the book – which gives them an entirely different impetus in the narrative.
I do not believe I was inferring these attitudes were Austen’s and I did not intend to do so. As stated above, there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate she did not support the slave trade. While much of this is inference only, Mansfield Park is the novel most cited in support of this belief. I’ve read quite a few arguments that she may have been an abolitionist. If I can find these essays, I will post the links in here. I think it’s likely she may have been, but of course impossible to know for sure.
*compliments attributed to Sir Thomas (my apologies)
Clyve, thank you for your interesting article, and for engaging with the comments. Funny that your original discussion of an incident in Emma has turned into a discussion of Mansfield Park, but one-thing-leading-to-another is one of the joys of reading and discussing Jane Austen. I agree with you that we have yet to see a filmed version of Mansfield Park that does justice to Fanny (and I might add, the actual themes of the book).
Hi Polly – yes it’s interesting that the discussion led to MP. I agree with your thoughts re: the themes of MP have yet to be portrayed well on screen. It’s more layered than it’s often given credit for, which is a shame. I have a sense in my head than Fanny and Anne Elliot may have been excellent correspondents. I can see Fanny growing more into a character like Anne as she matures.
Have you seen the 83 6 part TV version? With Sylvestra Le Touzel as Fanny, and Anna Massey as Mrs. Norris, it is very faithful to the novel. I found all the characters true to their original depictions. It really is quite difficult to do justice to any major novel in a 2 hour movie adaptation, and critical parts are always omitted.
Hello Lona and Polly, Thank you for your observations.
This topic of slavery in Austen’s novels generates many questions and often skepticism. It did with me at first. My answer (I hope Clyve Rose corrects me if I am wrong) includes sources from Devoney Looser, Foundation Professor of English at Arizona State University; Margie Burns in an article for the Jane Austen Society of North America; and Moira Ferguson in a 1991 article in JSTOR, one of my go-to research sites.
Devoney Looser (author of The Making of Jane Austen) writes in an article for the Washington Post–“Five myths about Jane Austen,” March 6, 2020:
“Anti-slavery commentary appears in “Emma,” when elegant Jane Fairfax decries the dehumanizing slave trade and governess trade, comparing the sale of human flesh to that of human intellect. It’s also been argued that the title of “Mansfield Park” intentionally echoes the name of Lord Mansfield, the judge whose 1772 ruling said chattel slavery was unsupported by English common law. (Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807, though slavery in its colonies continued until 1833.) Austen herself isn’t known to have had direct ties to the abolition movement, but her naval brother Francis expressed abolitionist views.” Ms. Looser writes more and I highly recommend that you read this piece.
Marge Burns writes an article entitled “Pride and prejudice” and Slavery in America” for Persuasions On-Line, Vol 40, No. 1–Winter 2019. In this article she traces the origin of the phrase “pride and prejudice” and wrote:
“In addition to approximately one dozen examples previously found by scholars, there were at least 120 other published uses of “pride and prejudice” by as many individual authors before Austen’s Pride and Prejudice in 1813. This discovery changes the old question about Austen’s title phrase from where Austen got it to why she chose it.” Burns’s article is a detailed but fascinating piece of detective work, which I highly recommend in context of this discussion.
The third article can be accessed for free on JSTOR, but you’ll need to register for this highly useful site for scholars and Austen fans. You do not have to belong to an institution, but can register as a free agent. Normally you are allowed to read four free articles online per month, but during this COVID pandemic, JSTOR generously allows us to read 100!. In 1991, Moira Ferguson wrote “Mansfield Park: Slavery, Colonialism, and Gender” for the Oxford Literary Review. In its 22 pages, she posits that “following the successful Abolition Bill in 1807, Mansfield Park initiates a new chapter in colonialist fiction.” Later in her opening paragraph she states: “Jane Austen transforms Sir Thomas Bertram of Mansfield Park–who is also a plantation-owner in Antiqua–from a characteristically imperious ‘West Indian’ planter–stock figure of ridicule in contemporary drama, poetry and novels–into a benevolent, reforming land-owner.”
All my best, Vic
…and you beat me to it! My apologies, I will have to move more quickly in future – and yes, the Ferguson article is the one I had in mind. JSTOR is a wonderful resource and it’s well worth signing up.
Hi, Vic! Just to add to your excellent references–As I’m sure you know, Austen did make a remark in her letters that indicates she supported abolition. She talks about a book she recently read, and says “I am as much in love with the author as I ever was with Clarkson or Buchanan.” Thomas Clarkson was a leading abolitionist, whose works revealed the horrors of the slave trade and slavery to the British public. Her being “in love with” Clarkson indicates her support for abolition.
(FYI, Claudius Buchanan, the second author she mentions, was a Christian missionary to India who wrote a book about what he saw as the spiritual needs of India.)
Thank you Brenda – this letter is referenced in the sources above as well.
Awesome!
Thank you Vic, but I was specifically questioning the bit about Sir Thomas talking about bringing “stock” to England. My Mansfield Park trilogy features the West African Squadron, and some of the famous abolitionists of the day make cameo appearances in my books.
I have a query out to the author of the piece regarding that term!
The reference to ‘stock’ does not come from Austen. I believe it is however, how some slave traders referred to their ‘merchandise’. I read a record of a privateer where he uses this highly unflattering term repeatedly to reference his human cargo. The account of his journeys covered a period from 1771-1803.
Thank you VIc, Ms. Rose and all the commenters for such a fascinating discussion and read! This blog brings so many of us together for amazing analysis of both modern and latter day culturers
My pleasure! I will post back with additional links and sources for followers here who are interested. There is an excellent biography of Lord Mansfield by Edmund Heward that I recommend as well for background reading.
Hello, these are not “Romani” or “Romany” — they are GYPSIES or GIPSIES. My Gipsy grandfather proudly referred to himself as a GIPSY, as have all the many other GIPSIES I have known or met (including, well, myself). I use Gipsy spelling rather than Gypsy, which comes from the belief that Gipsies originated in Egypt. In fact, Gipsies came from India and many still retain Indian physical features, altho’ these features are less obvious in Irish Travelers. Gipsies brought bubonic plague to Europe with them which is in large part why they were reviled. BTW, Gipsies believe that begging and thievery are legitimate career choices. And there is no need to capitalize the non-name of romany, but you should capitalize the *real* name of Gipsy..Many thanks and regards.
Thank you for this fascinating insight, Janis. I’ll make the changes in my commentary. Vic
I just came across a contemporary (1807) Dissertation on the Gipseys on Google Books. page ix is particularly interesting https://bit.ly/33ULTof
Very interesting, Lona, as a way to see what contemporary attitudes (and prejudices) were towards these people. Good research!
Beautiful post, and most timely. I came across it while searching for books to read as comps to my historical fiction wip.
Thank you, Shira, for your supportive comment. This topic is so apropos for today.
Indeed it is, and thank you again for writing about it. Warmest regards from across the pond, Shira