Australia and the World Past and Present

The case in the affirmative:

It can be argued that the novel obscures the lived reality of slavery.

It develops the fantasy of the “benevolent master”. Madame de la Tour and Margaret are portrayed as gentle masters.

Slaves appear loyal and grateful.

Violence is largely absent.

The lives of the 2 families and their 2 slaves in the valley represent an exceptional micro-world.

Most of the novel is not representative of plantation slavery.

There is no sustained depiction of forced labour, punishment or sexual violence. We don’t see slaves taken from their homelands, placed into bondage, transported in ships amid horrible conditions or sold at the slave market like pieces of chattel.

Slavery in the novel is softened. It is rendered intimate and benign.

Although Domingo any Mary are slaves, their story is embedded in pastoral beauty.

They live close to Madame de la Tour and Margaret. They are cooperative. They appear loyal, gentle and devoted. Neither Domingo nor Mary resist or express resentment. Neither of them attempt to flee.

On the one hand, they appear almost as members of the family, yet they remain slaves no matter how long they serve their masters.

It should be noted that the valley is portrayed as a feminine setting. The two masters are women. There are no male slave masters here. However, in reality, many plantations were rather masculine areas. The central authority figures were often plantation owners – most often men.

The story of Domingo and Mary is secondary to that of the two families. They play supporting characters in the novel.

The case in the negative:

Should we shift our standard of judgement from modern representational realism to an 18th-century moral viewpoint?

Saint-Pierre deliberately exposes and condemns slavery.

We should be cognisant of the limitations of the genre and of the time in which it was written.

Slavery was named, not erased. The novel explicitly acknowledges slavery. Saint-Pierre could have chosen to remain fully silent on slavery, but he did not. He chose to write about it.

Enslaved characters are present and given unique identities.

Saint-Pierre was more concerned with a moral condemnation of slavery than he was with documenting its social conditions. He doesn’t attempt a realist exposure.

The absence of brutality is more a genre choice than a denial of of slavery. He did describe the abject condition of the escaped slave. He mentioned her scars, even though we are not present when she receives them. Saint-Pierre notes the whip brandished by the planter. We see that once she is returned to the plantation, despite the promise of the planter, she has been chained.

Enslaved characters show compassion. Mary helps to raise the 2 children. One might interpret this as forced servitude, but others may interpret it as proof of her love – the light of her humanity despite her condition.

Domingo helps Paul in the garden. Although Domingo and Paul’s status are not the same (one is slave the other is not), they both work side by side.

Does the novel idealise colonial life? Some might argue that this is the case. But it should be noted that even though Paul and Virginia are removed from continental society, they are also somewhat removed from mainstream island life. The 2 families live by themselves. They are described as being cut off from the wider society. At times island life does encroach into their little world (the runaway slave, or the traders once it becomes known that Madame de la Tour has reconciled with her aunt), but their experience in the valley is not representative of wider life on the island. In many ways, these 2 families are not part of colonial life. They do not have a plantation, and they do not have much contact with people who do. They rarely go into town. The vast bulk of their cultivation is for personal use, not for impersonal markets.

It could be argued that the book should not be compared to 19th century slave narratives or postcolonial realism.

Saint-Pierre’s work was first published in 1788. Saint-Pierre was anti-slavery, which would have been a minority opinion on Île de France at the time.

For his 18th-century readership, his work would have seemed progressive.

Conclusion:

Paul and Virginia neither ignores slavery entirely nor confronts it directly.

When Saint-Pierre does address slavery, he encourages a sentimental experience of it rather than a social or political analysis.

Slavery is approached from a sentimental perspective. The emphasis is on evoking the feelings of the reader and sympathising with the slave characters in the book. The Enlightenment in Europe is associated with advances in human rights, political rights and individual rights. Paul and Virginia is not primarily concerned with legal human rights or the political reform of slavery. It does not come at slavery from that direction. Rather, Saint-Paul advocates a universal compassion and a shared humanity.