What was initially most notable to me was how class roles were maintained even in slavery. Oroonoko has the other slaves fall at his feet in reverence even after his royal “habit” is replaced. I was also interested in the rapport that Trefry has with Oroonoko, he goes as far as to say he is pleased that he has been reunited with Imoinda (“a little satisfy’d, that Heaven was so kind to the Prince as to sweeten his Misfortunes by so lucky an accident” (Aphra Benn)). The idea that a slavemaster could be kind to a slave in some way is not inconceivable, but to have a kind of casual relationship with a person whom you are keeping imprisoned for the purpose of performing slave labor seems ludicrous. I would be interested to read oral histories of slaves describing the demeanor of their enslavers to see if this attitude was present in history.

“[…] he [Oroonoko] saw a kind of Sincerity, and aweful Truth in the Face of Trefry; he saw honesty in his Eyes, and he found him wise and witty enough to understand honour: for it was one of his Maxims, A Man of Wit could not be a Knave or Villain.”

If I understand this quote correctly, Oroonko has a kind of reverence for Trefry. I would like to better understand Oroonoko could not see the irony in Trefry’s maxim as it seems a man of wit has now enslaved him.

My question is: was it regular throughout history for slaves formerly possessing royal titles or who could speak multiple languages, including English, to be treated better?

Post 1 Oroonoko

Right of the bat, the quote that resonated with me in the book the most is “And these People represented to me an absolute Idea of the first State of Innocence, before Man knew how to sin: And ’tis most evident and plain, that simple Nature is the most harmless, inoffensive and virtuous Mistress. ’Tis she alone, if she were permitted, that better instructs the World, than all the Inventions of Man: Religion would here but destroy that Tranquillity they possess by Ignorance;” I feel like this quote right smack in the beginning of the book resonated with me for many reasons the main one being that this would spark a conversation in two of my philosophy classes since it can be argued that religion alters and affect one’s perspective of happiness and she is saying that their naiveness to religion is what preserves their happiness. This quote also foreshadows the story in so many different ways on how everything plays out. I feel like this book depicted African Americans in a stereotypical way (besides Oroonoko) which makes me curious to think again on where racism is rooted in how far back can it go and what impact Euro-centic ideology has on it(I know this is a little bit of a stretch but this is what I thought while reading page 18 of the pdf) It shows that she is simply a product of her time since at the time this is how they addressed African American people(WHICH IS WRONG but this is the literature she is known for and the time it was in so)

The first mention of the Queen  took me as well in the way she is addressed, especially how Behn says she is too great for anyone but someone of her own nation to adore. It took me off to some degree, as she could have anyone and it keeps me on my toes to see who she ends up with. I think the one thing I love about the book is the bashing of christianity and how it teaches men to sin and how Oroonoko and Imanda are hornorful and have pure intentions in their morals because they lack religion.

I don’t like the king personally between trying to keep Imoinda for himself, then selling her into slavery because she got caught trying to keep in contact with him and sleeping with oroonoko. I feel like this was significant to how the rest of the story went because if he had not done this, maybe Oroonoko would’ve ended up happy with Imanda and their unborn child. It is a tragedy how the book ends between the revolt to free the salves lead by him(in main doing to save his love Imanda) and how she would rather not live if they got caught because of what slavery is like so not only does he kill his lover and wife, he gets killed by some european guy (can’t remember his name byran?)  And he ends up dying too. It feels like a Shakespearean tragedy like Othello and it sucks how the characters can’t just end up happy.

One critique I have for the novel is that Oroonoko is one of the smartest men described in the book, and I understand back then (During Shakespeare time) if a person could prove they spoke Spanish in jail, they basically had a free pass. Wouldn’t there be any sort of way back then to have known that he could’ve been used for something more or greater than everything he was used for, or as a free pass for someone who has been enslaved( this could have saved Imandaf. I also want to complement the way the novel is written, it keeps your attention and allows you to dived into that world, even tho it was 200+ years ago.

On the surface, I thought Oroonoko to be a remarkable work; a seventeenth century novella written by a woman, featuring a Black man as the protagonist, how rare is that!? Though still, even with the incredibly progressive background of the piece, the question, quite remarkably, arose last class: “Was Aphra Behn racist?” As a result, I felt compelled to write the following blog post in defense of the writer.

I think it best to begin my argument with a case of undeniable racism, as a kind of benchmark to judge what constitutes the hideous sin. In the early long eighteenth century, a future scholar by the name of Francis Williams was born into a family of freed blacks in Jamaica. Reportedly, one Duke of Montagu funded his education in Britain, though regardless of his origins, Williams most certainly went on to become a distinguished mathematician and astronomer. Sometime in the 18th century, he was considered for fellowship in the Royal Society of London, but was denied solely “on account of his complexion.” Unquestionably, that, treating another wrongfully because of their ethnicity, is racism. What I would argue is not racism, in the awful sense, is the motive behind the Duke of Montagu’s actions. He funded Williams’s education to experiment whether a black man could be trained as an intellectual by European standards. In this time, black scholars by European standards were largely unheard of, so that, investigating the general differences between races out of genuine curiosity, while certainly terrible in today’s standards for not just being taken as a given that all races are capable of any level of intelligence, “should not be considered, in the awful connotation of the word, racist.” Is what I was going to argue until I wrote it out and realized what I was saying, but I repent from this viewpoint and realize that it is indeed objectively racist to not from the start consider all races capable of the same things, but the point is that it is not as bad as treating others worse, especially in the 17th century.

Back to Behn, is she guilty of the former, blatantly treating a racial other worse, or the latter, exploring possible differences between races? “he was adorned with a native beauty so transcending those of his gloomy race” She writes on page 12 of my pdf. Clearly, she does consider European physique better to that of others, but should this really be considered a matter of prejudice, or of one’s personal taste? It is most certainly wrong to say one race is less attractive than another, what is not wrong however is having one’s general preference in looks. It seems like Behn, however, is indeed saying what I said was morally wrong, that one race is overall inferior in looks, and so she is indeed guilty of that. But did she ever mistreat someone, or justify something like that, because of race? Not directly in the story, but it’s safe to she’s a bystander to the atrocities of slavery throughout, though nowhere I can find, a justifier of them.

So in conclusion, I tried to defend Aphra Behn, but over the course of my argument realized that indeed there are attitudes of hers that are absolutely racist, though it’s important to note that she isn’t guilty directly, anywhere I can see, of the worse form of racism, that is mistreatment of someone based on race.

What I found most valuable while reading Oroonoko was how Behn described both Oroonoko and Imoinda. She describes the two as admirable people by appearance. She writes about how Oroonoko isn’t the kind of black that’s rusty but instead ebony and jet black. She describes Imoinda as beautiful and kind, in which hundreds of white men adore her. However, she adds how she deserves to be with someone from her nation. A passage that stood out to me was, “ but as by the Laws he could not, and from his Royal Goodness would not take from any Man his wedded Wife; so she believ’d she should be the occasion of making him commit a great Sin, if she did not reveal her State and Condition; and tell him she was another’s, and could not be so happy to be his.” (Behn 19) I found this passage to be powerful because it shows how loyal Imoinda is to Oroonoko. Similarly, Oroonoko swore to love her no matter if old age or wrinkles would change how he sees her. A question I have about the text is why Behn began the novel by talking about how she admires Oroonoko before she begins to tell his narrative.

My experience reading Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko novel was so akin to The Life of Olaudah Equiano which, funnily enough, was published a century later. I think that both novels involve themes of racial identity through the experience of slavery. They both contribute to the greater conversation/debate on the existence of slavery and more specifically the harm that it poses on a legal, economic, and moral/ethical level. Behn and Equiano both argue that slavery is inherently subhumanizing as the labor of enslaved Africans/black people is exploited ten fold under heinous conditions. Behn frames this in a social aspect. She has this interesting way of framing this unnamed narrator as its own character and narrative role to the story. 

His Face was not of that brown rusty Black which most of that Nation are, but a perfect Ebony, or polished Jet. His Eyes were the most aweful that could be seen, and very piercing; the White of ’em being like Snow, as were his Teeth. His Nose was rising and Roman, instead of African and flat: His Mouth the finest shaped that could be seen; far from those great turn’d Lips, which are so natural to the rest of the Negroes. The whole Proportion and Air of his Face was so nobly and exactly form’d, 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. (Behn, 19) 

Upon initially reading this, I heavily criticized the racial/social connotations behind the way Behn describes Oroonoko. He’s being propped up in comparison to his peers due to his “Eurocentric” features. The framing of this creates a monolith with black people and indicates that features are innate to race not to mention the way it’s seen as ugly in comparison. I found that some elements of Behn’s writing are definitely melded in with the common sentiments and conceptualizations surrounding the era(the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade). I’d definitely agree that she has institutional power and benefits from slavery but I’d probably argue that this is done to somehow foreshadow the tragic fate and betrayal of OROONOKO. Despite him possessing these favorable attributes and almost a feasible proximity to whiteness, his status is still stripped from him. 

Something I find notable is how the text discusses race, especially through characterization and theme. Its relevance is foreshadowed and maintained throughout, even in the beginning with the introduction of the setting. There are many moments in the story in which, both directly and indirectly, themes regarding racism and colorism become relevant, particularly since dark skin seems to be associated with unattractiveness and other negative qualities, while light skin is viewed as more desirable and more positive overall. I find it reveals a significant amount about the time period in general, the viewpoints of the narrator and how this might affect the plot, and how this affects the characters and subsequently the reader. Furthermore, one passage that stands out is the introduction: “I do not pretend, in giving you the History of this Royal Slave, to entertain my Reader with the Adventures of a feign’d Hero, whose Life and Fortunes Fancy may manage at the Poet’s Pleasure; nor in relating the Truth, design to adorn it with any Accidents, but such as arrived in earnest to him: And it shall come simply into the World, recommended by its own proper Merits, and natural Intrigues; there being enough of Reality to support it, and to render it diverting, without the Addition of Invention.” (12) Even so early in the piece, the emphasis on foreshadowing and narrative perspective are apparent. Similarly, my question is regarding how this established framing, and the narrator throughout the story, affect the plot and its interpretation from the reader overall. How does the story change in first vs. in third person perspective, and how does this decision affect the story thematically?

Oroonoko was notable in the sense that the novel is a slave narrative that seeks to portray a holistic view of the slave’s personhood. It’s interesting with the historical context that the novel is considered one of the first novel’s written in English, by the “first” professional woman author. Within the text, I found that the King/Oroonoko’s grandfather’s conquest of Imoinda is what drives the conflict. Both Oroonoko and Imoinda are enslaved and ultimately killed as consequences of colonization.

A passage I’d like to explore is, “But they were no sooner arrived at the Place where all the Slaves receive their Punishments of Whipping, but they laid Hands on Cæsar and Tuscan, faint with Heat and Toil; and surprizing them, bound them to two several Stakes, and whipped them in a most deplorable and inhuman Manner, rending the very Flesh from their Bones, especially Cæsar, 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 ador’d him as something more than Mortal, now had a Whip to give him some Lashes, while he strove not to break his Fetters; tho’ if he had, it were impossible: but he pronounced a Woe and Revenge from his Eyes, that darted Fire, which was at once both aweful and terrible to behold.” This passage is one of many instances that display Oroonoko’s silence and “rage” in moments of great pain, and I would like to understand the character better by analyzing this.

I’m curious how Oroonoko’s story being narrated by an English woman/his story being told through the lens of the “oppressor” is meant to impact the themes of the novel.

What I found interesting in the text was the way the words flowed as it was telling the story. As I was reading the text it almost felt like something that could have been a bedtime story. The use of imagery was also pretty effective throughout the story and helped it flow. The way some things were described in the text were a bit confusing, but it had a unique aspect. A quote from the text that stood out to me is “but their prayers were vain, and it was put in execution accordingly, and with so much secrecy, that none, either without or within the Otan, knew anything of their absence or their destiny.” When I read this, I felt it was supposed to be a turning point in the text, but I didn’t fully understand what was happening. As I was reading, I was confused on many parts because of the way the text flowed so I don’t really have any specific questions.

I thought the role of the narrator was an interesting aspect of this novel. There are moments where it’s easy to get lost in the plot and the series of events, especially during those longer sections of what appears to be a sort of omniscient third person narration. Because of that, it always took me a little bit by surprise when the narrator would reinsert herself and draw attention to her own awareness of recounting this story for readers. I think there’s also a compelling mix of her voice and observations about the characters, both of their physical appearances and certain personal qualities, which are truly subjective but recounted in such an assured and matter of fact way. The story seems to float in between those two registers of personal voice and omniscient truth. 

“Nevertheless, he shone thro’ all, and his Osenbrigs (a sort of brown Holland Suit he had on) could not conceal the Graces of his Looks and Mein; and he had no less Admirers than when he had his dazling Habit on: The Royal Youth appear’d in spite of the Slave, and People could not help treating him after a different Manner, without designing it.” (62-63) I liked this moment in the novel, even though there are many moments when the narrator is being complementary to Oroonoko, because it felt like such a vivid depiction of his strong sense of self. Even though he tried to avoid the attention by changing his clothing, his character could not be hidden. 

The deaths in this novel were so brutal. I wonder how those moments were received, and what the audience was for this book.

(1) Most valuable/ notable:

• What I found most valuable/ notable in the material was Behn’s firsthand perspective on Surinam intriguing, as it provides a rare 17th century European woman’s viewpoint on colonialism. However, her portrayal of race and the romanticized notion of slavery raises questions about her ultimate stance on the issues she presents. The themes that are being highlighted here are romance, honor, and betrayal. I say this because although Behn humanizes Oroonoko she still reflects on the biases of her time.

(2) A passage:

• “He had heard of and admired the Romans; he had heard of their great name, but never was dazzled with the lustre of their glory till he read himself in Alexander and Caesar.”
• This passage stood out to me because it frames Oroonoko as a hero but in a western tradition. I would like to understand this part of the passage better what does it highlight or reinforce?

(3) a question:

• One thing that stood out to me while reading the story was Behn’s role and I wondered how her role as both a participant in and a critic of colonialism shapes the way she portrays Oroonoko’s story? I feel as if she admires Oroonoko but she is also very accepting of the slavery system but to what extent is her admiration and acceptance limited by what she writes?

The scene where Oroonoko kills Imoinda is deeply moving because of the raw emotion it captures. Oroonoko’s decision to end her life stems from love and desperation. He cannot bear the thought of her suffering at the hands of the colonists, and he believes death is the only way to save her from that fate. The passage describes “As the passage describes, “with a thousand Sighs, and long gazing silently on her Face, while Tears gush’d, in spite of him, from his Eyes,” (pg 73) it’s clear that Oroonoko is struggling with this decision. His love for Imoinda is so intense that he sees death as a form of mercy rather than cruelty. Imoinda’s response, rather than resisting, she pleads with him not to let her fall into the hands of their enemies. She is willing to die by his hand because, in their culture, she believes it will grant her peace in the afterlife. The passage notes that her face is “smiling with Joy” (pg 73)at the thought of dying by his hand, which shows her complete trust in Oroonoko, even in this devastating moment. 

Oroonoko and Imoinda are driven to this extreme act because of their circumstances, forced to make a choice that no one should ever have to face. It highlights how slavery destroys even the purest forms of love, turning it into something tragic and violent.

The scene also raises difficult questions about power and agency. Imoinda, as both a woman and a slave, has no control over her life or death.

Oroonoko is constantly compared to a white man from the very beginning of the narrative. Whether it is his nose or the way he behaves, he is constantly awarded privileges not given to the other African men around him. This highlights two things 1) the beauty standards at the time viewed by Aphra Behn, but also 2) the theme of the story, the preservation of what we deem as beautiful. The most interesting part of this story for me is how Imoinda is murdered. As a sacrifice, but also in preservation of beauty. “and a Heart breaking within, gave the Fatal Stroke; first cutting her Throat, then severing her yet Smiling Face from that Delicate body.” (Behn, 60) My question is not so much about the text, but more if any of my classmates perceived her murder in a similar way.