However, rather than this making me alter my opinion of Sir Thomas, I intend instead - in true 'ostrich' fashion - to sweep my findings under a metaphorical carpet.

Isn't the whole book like that? You have a biblical patriarch with a bad sideline, a vicar's wife/widow (surely the epitome of good) who is spiteful and nasty, a heroine without any heroic qualities (except perhaps her stubborn clarity of purpose,)a kind hero who is innocently and unthinkingly cruel to the heroine, a lazy and foolish matriarch who nevertheless utters great wisdom...need I go on? I think JA is at her most Richardsonian here- she's showing every facet of every character in turn, contrasting one with another, reflecting one off the other, and utterly confusing just about every stereotype there ever was. Perhaps Jane herself put her metaphorical head in the sand, or forced her readers to do the same,I don't know... I'm going to persist in believing that JA deliberately set up Sir Thomas as an ambiguous anomaly, perhaps to force her readers to confront all the anti- and pro-slavery propaganda that was flying about. A sort of "Hey! these are people too, y'know!" After all, she must have known quite a few plantation owners herself, and probably liked a few of them, personally.

There's a HUGE article one of my Regency 'Gentleman's Magazine's' whose author argues, not that slavery is acceptable, but that there are far worse horrors that need mending at home before the social ills of those living in foreign lands shoud be addressed.

Well, you know I wouldn't be averse to reading anything you think is relevant ! ;-)

I can imagine Austen accepting that point of view too - although I can't justify my reasons in any way - so please don't ask how!

I can , too..and can even think of a tiny bit of "evidence" which might start to support it. Several of the bios mention the fact that JA, who gave about 25% of her own money to charity, always put that money in the same place. She directly helped the poor in her own neighbourhood, providing them with clothing and food. And she supported the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, rather than the Foreign Lands Bible Socitey or the Society for the Propogation of the Gospel. When you look at what these groups did, something interesting emerges. The SPCK was concerned with the reformatin of morals, the doing of practical good in the community, and the printing of educational materials. The SPCK aided in the finding of apprenticsihips for orphans, printing of "useful" cheap books about trades aand industry (sort of a poor man's encyclopedia stuff), and since it was CofE, in promoting and improving the methods of the established church. As an aside, we have an example of SPCK stuff in the archives- Marie Bernadette's post on the nmanufacture of pins. The SPG was the missionary arm of the evangelicals, IIRC, and concerned itself with promoting Christianity in America. I believe the FLBS was Baptist in origin,and was concerned with translating the bible in to foreign tongues. If you take this evidence and add it to JA's definite preference for a small country village with three or four families, I think you can safely say that she really did believe that "charity begins at home", and that, as an ineffectual woman, she devoted ther attentions to things local, where she would be able to do good, rather than to great causes that involved the whole of mankind.

(Insubordination in Antigua) It's due tomorrow or the next day, and you must allow me to post a bit from it, if it seems relevant. Pretty please!

Of course! ;-)

Even though I suspect that this thread is getting a wee bit too long for comfort, as only the three of us are now taking part.

That's fairly normal with L&T... if it's relevant to JA, it's worth discussing further...