"Love follows knowledge."
"Beauty above all beauty!"
– St. Catherine of Siena

Monday, June 15, 2020

Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave by Aphra Behn, Part 3


This is the third and final post in a series on the novel, Oronooko or the Royal Slave  by Aphra Behn. 
You can find Part 1 here.  
Part 2 is here.  



Continuing with the various themes…

Kingship
The importance and nature of kingship is I think the central theme of the novel.  It is around this that Behn’s vision creates both character and plot.  The grand nature of Oronooko, his military prowess, his commanding presence, his exploits, his moral code, his intelligence and mien, and his reduction to a slave from which breaks free, if not in life than in death, shows a man with divine properties.  It is his innate, instinctive qualities that make him for Behn a natural born king.  He is a prince, so genetically he is endowed by Providence.  The narrator’s first reaction upon seeing him is one of encountering the sublime:

[Oronooko] was adorned with a native beauty so transcending all those of his gloomy race, that he struck an awe and reverence, even in those that not his quality; as he did in me, who beheld him with a surprise and wonder, when afterwards he arrived in our world.  (79)

And from his countenance, the narrator intuits:

He came into the room, and addressed himself to me, and some other women, with the best grace in the world. He was pretty tall, but of a shape the most exact that can be fancied; the most famous statuary could not form the figure of a man more admirably turned from head to foot… The whole proportion and air of his face was so noble, and exactly formed, that, bating his colour, there could be nothing in nature more beautiful, agreeable and handsome. There was no one grace wanting, that bears the standard of true beauty… Nor did the perfections of his mind come short of those of his person; for his discourse was admirable upon almost any subject; and whoever had heard him speak, would have been convinced of their errors, that all fine wit is confined to the white men, especially to those of Christendom; and would have confessed that Oroonoko was as capable even of reigning well, and of governing as wisely, had as great a soul, as politic maxims, and was as sensible of power as any prince civilized in the most refined schools of humanity and learning, or the most illustrious courts.  (80-81)

What we see here is that Oronooko is naturally aristocratic, divinely blessed with all the gifts of a great warrior and philosopher king. 

One should note the immediate history of Kingship in England as Behn, sympathetic to the monarchist, would have seen it.  Henry VIII by his succession of wives, infidelities, and dissolving of the bond with Rome and becoming the head of his own church was seen as a dissolute King.  It is quite possible that Oronooko’s grandfather, as King of the fictional African country, with his temper tantrums and concubines, was an allusion to Henry VIII.  England then passed through a national religious crises and a crises in succession, which culminated in the installment of Charles I as King.  Charles had a high monarchist view of the Kingship—that is as divine right—and conflicted terribly with Parliament.  That was the central question of 17th century England, where do the powers of the King end and what should be the powers of the parliament.  In addition, the English cultural landscape was still undergoing a crises in religious constitution.  While Catholicism had been alienated and diminished, a struggle had ensued between the Puritans (named so because they wished to purify the English Church of Catholicism) and the High Anglicans who maintained liturgy and many Catholic practices.  The conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy was not on the surface a religious conflict, but religious conflicts of the day intertwined with the political.  Charles I was a High Anglican, but had married a Catholic.  Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, was Puritan.  In short, a civil war developed, Charles I was executed, Cromwell ruled until his death, upon which Charles II, son of Charles I, restored the monarchy.  Charles II was also High Anglican, but he too had married a Catholic, and his sympathies may have been with Catholicism even more so than his father.  Charles II died in 1685 (converting to Catholicism on his death bed, by the way), replaced his brother James II.  James II was an outright Catholic and within three years in 1688, the year Oronooko was written, was deposed for a Protestant King.

It is within this context that Behn writes of kingship in Oronooko or The Royal Slave.  That is the full title of the work.  Calling Oronooko “royal” is a loaded word in her historical context.  It certainly calls up a political position, and given Oronooko is a natural, divinely graced king, it is clear that Behn is supporting the royalist position.  If Oronooko’s grandfather alludes to Henry VIII, Orinooko, as gallant warrior king, philosopher, and gentleman courtier alludes to Henry V.  Undoubtedly, Behn had either read or seen Shakespeare’s play on the great monarch.  Recall that Henry V is valiant in battle, noble in spirit, and gentle with Catherine of Valois.  Oronooko is an African Henry V.

Christ-Figure
Behn uses several allusions to either move the plot and characterize Oronooko within the story.  I have mentioned Achilles and Henry V, and there is also Othello in the killing of his wife, but the last sections Oronooko clearly becomes a Christ-figure.  When he gathers the slaves into a group, we see them abandon him, betray, and once captured scourged by his own fellow slaves.

But they were no sooner arrived at the place, where all the slaves receive their punishments of whipping, but they laid hands on Caesar and Tuscan, faint with heat and toil; and, surprising them, bound them to two several stakes, and whipped them in a most deplorable and inhumane manner, rending the very flesh from their bones; especially Caesar, who was not perceived to make any moan, or to alter his face, only to roll his eyes on the faithless governor, and those he believed guilty, with fierceness and indignation. And, to complete his rage, he saw every one of those slaves, who, but a few days before, adored him as something more than mortal, now had a whip to give him some lashes, while he strove not to break his fetters, though, if he had, it were impossible. But he pronounced a woe and revenge from his eyes, that darted fire, that ’twas at once both awful and terrible to behold. (131)

Oronooko does survive this and once returned to the safety of Parham plantation, plots his revenge.  The Governor, not satisfied with Oronooko surviving that ordeal, demands he be handed over from Trefry.  One could see this as a sort of Pilate and the Sanhedrin haggling over Christ’s fate.  Once recovered, Oronooko kills Imoinda (with her consent) and decides to make a last stand to seek his vengeance.  At this last stand, cornered and angry, he cuts flesh from his neck and throws it at the band who are after him.  This is the scene where some have suggested an allusion to the Eucharist:

[Oronooko] held up his knife in a menacing posture, ‘Look ye, ye faithless crew,’ said he, ‘’ tis not life I seek, nor am I afraid of dying’, and, at that word, cut a piece of flesh from his own throat, and threw it at them, ‘yet still I would live if I could, till I had perfected my revenge. But oh! it cannot be. I feel life gliding from my eyes and heart, and, if I make not haste, I shall yet fall a victim to the shameful whip.’ At that, he ripped up his own belly, and took his bowels and pulled them out, with what strength he could, while some, on their knees imploring, besought him to hold his hand. (138)

Even this is not the end of incredible Oronooko.  He is taken back and surgically patched together.  While recovering, Major Bannister at the command of the governor forcibly took Oronooko, tied him to a stake to be burned.  Stoically he stood fixed at the stake. 

He had learned to take tobacco, and when he was assured he should die, he desired they would give him a pipe in his mouth, ready lighted, which they did, and the executioner came, and first cut off his members, and threw them into the fire. After that, with an ill-favoured knife, they cut his ears, and his nose, and burned them; he still smoked on, as if nothing had touched him. Then they hacked off one of his arms, and still he bore up, and held his pipe. But at the cutting off the other arm, his head sunk, and his pipe dropped, and he gave up the ghost, without a groan, or a reproach. (139-140)

Subsequently his body is quartered and each quarter sent to a plantation for spectacle.  “Thus died this great man, worthy of a better fate,” concludes Aphra Behn.

Oronooko stoically smoking a pipe while tied to a stake, fire smoking around him, and being hacked body part by body part has to be one of the most incredible images in all of literature.  Oronooko or The Royal Slave may be early for Gothic fiction, but, my Lord, that has to be among the most imaginative gothic endings I can recall.  It’s either brilliant or absurd. 

Clearly we can see the rudiments of a Christ passion narrative in the elements of Oronooko’s demise.  Oroonoko is betrayed, abandoned, scourged, and affixed to a pole until dead.  While there are some intervening events in the Oronooko narrative that are not in the passion narrative, the association is clear.  But for what end?  Actually that Oronooko is framed as a Christ-figure makes sense.  If the central theme of the novel is the indignity of enslaving a divinely graced king, then what better to associate with him with the Kingly Servant of Jesus Christ?  I think Behn in the novel is upholding the sacred nature of kingship, which reflects on the political crises in her day. 

Behn creates Oronnoko as a natural king, and that implies a certain divine authority granted to him.  Think of it as Christ the King authorizes a representative on earth.  The Church is Christ's representative on the theological and moral realm; the monarchy is Christ's representative in the administrative realm.  While it not being a sacrament, the installation of a king did (it may even still) involve a religious ceremony.  Kings of England are usually installed by the Bishop of Canterbury, even under Anglicanism.  I don't know how far back it goes, but Charlemagne had the Pope crown him as Holy Roman Emperor.  This practice of anointing kings goes back to Kings Saul and David and the other Kings of the Old Testament.  Shakespeare in Richard II dramatizes the sin of regicide, even when the king is reprehensible.  Behn makes Oronooko out to be a Christ-figure because she sees him as a divine king. What about the suggestion of the Eucharistic parallel to Oronooko cutting his flesh off for others that my friend Mary Sue asked me to evaluate?  Frankly I don’t see it.  But I could be wrong but let me say why I could be wrong first and then get to why I don’t think so.  The reason I could be wrong—and wrong being that Behn meant it as a Eucharistic parallel—is that the words ceremony and sacrifice do run through the novel.  What is the relationship between ceremony and sacrifice in Oronooko’s experiences?  Frankly I can’t piece anything together.  I just don’t see any ceremonies and what are deemed sacrifices seem like mere deaths.  Either I’m missing the importance of ceremony in the novel, or Behn intended it and didn’t communicate it well or she didn’t intend it at all. 

As to why I don’t think there is a Eucharistic parallel, there are several reasons.  First, the bare descriptive facts don’t suggest it: “and, at that word, cut a piece of flesh from his own throat, and threw it at them.”  No one eats his flesh.  He doesn’t offer it to be eaten.  Christ offers His body and blood to His apostles and believers.  Oronooko is throwing it at the mob that wishes to kill him.  Second, Christ doesn’t cut flesh off His body.  He transforms bread and wine into His body and blood.  Even the blood spilled at the crucifixion, no one drinks it.  Oronooko is physically cutting flesh off his neck in what seems like a moment of frustration.  (And what an odd place to cut flesh off one’s body.)  If Behn is creating an analogue, it strikes me as a very poor one.  Third, the Eucharist is a spiritual union with Christ and therefore God.  Jesus establishes the theological grounds in the Gospel of John, chapter six.  He says:

“I am the bread of life.  Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.  (John 6; 48-57)

There is no implication that feeding off of Oronooko’s flesh has any theological or spiritual implications.  There is nothing in Oronooko’s act, physically or spiritually, that would suggest an analogue to the Eucharist.

I may be off here, but I don’t see the differences between Christians as being an important theme in the novel.  Yes, the hypocrisy of Christians is dramatized, but it’s a general Christianity that is identified.  I don’t see anything that would distinguish between Puritan, High Anglican, or Roman Catholic.  I couldn’t find any citation to identify Behn’s Christian denomination.  My guess—pure speculation—is she’s High Anglican like Charles II, and perhaps she’s sympathetic to the Catholicism, like the King.  I don’t, however, see any Catholicism in the novel.

It’s also possible, perhaps even likely, that the ending is not meant to allude to a crucifixion at all.  England had developed a rather barbarous execution technique for the worst criminals, hanged, drawn, and quartered, going back from Behn’s day at least four hundred years.  Per the Wikipedia entry, the sufferer would be “hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces).”  Oronooko is not hanged and he only disembowels himself, but he is emasculated, hacked to pieces, and quartered for spectacle.  I think this cultural meme is on Behn’s mind, though hanged, drawn, and quartered is in itself a form of crucifixion.  The practice was famously used against hidden Roman Catholics in Elizabethan and Civil War times.  Perhaps some sort of allusion is meant. 

###

Final Goodreads Review:
This fascinating little novel was written in 1688, a generation before Daniel DeFoe, who is typically considered the first modern novelist in English, and written by a woman no less.  The novel follows Oronooko, an African prince who is tricked into slavery by so called “Christians.”  At its core, the novel is about the nature of kingship, which was the big political issue of its day, the Restoration period of English history, but in doing so Aphra Behn creates a narrative of the indignities of slavery, a social position well ahead of her time.  Her woman’s voice and perspective—the tale is told in the first person of Behn as a character in the story—also gives dignity to the female characters.  The prose is dated to Behn’s time, but it is good and rhythmic prose, but some may not enjoy reading that.  Partly woman’s amatory novel, partly heroic action story, and partly slave narrative, the novel doesn’t always seem to know what it should be, but I do think the story holds together.  The story holds together because Behn creates an indelibly memorable character in Oroonoko, who at times recalls Henry V, at times recalls Othello, and other times a Christ-figure.  This novel should be more widely known than it is, at a minimum for its due placement in the history of the novel. 

I initially gave the novel three stars with a statement of three and a half stars if I could be more precise.  My mind still sees it as three and a half stars but I give it four stars as I lean to the higher side.  On reflection the novel has grown on me.



No comments:

Post a Comment