I find the death scene of Imoinda very interesting, and I think it's worthy of close consideration within the theme of the entire work. In particular, I would like to focus on the sense of "ownership" by Oroonoko of Imoinda and how that plays out in her death scene. I find very similar themes in the death of Lavinia, Titus' daughter in Shakespeare's tragedy, Titus Andronicus.
I confess that here I am thinking particularly about the film adaptation of Titus, directed by Julie Taymore (Anthony Hopkins, Alan Cumming, Jessica Lange). Titus is hosting a banquet for the ceasar, Saturnine, and his Goth (barbarian, not funereal subculture) queen Tamora. Unknown to those assembled, Titus has killed Tamora's murderous sons, Chiron and Demetrius, and they have been cooked and served up as the main course. As Saturnine and Tamora eat, Titus asked Saturnine if a certain Roman was justified in killing his daughter after she had been raped. Saturnine says yes, because the daughter is a constant reminder of the father's grief and shame, and this can only be eased by killing her. In the film, Titus responds by embracing his daughter, who was raped by Tamora's sons, before snapping her neck and then revealing what those assembled have been eating. The ending is predictably gory.
Compare this to the scene of Imoinda's death:
"He considered, if he should do this deed...he left his lovely Imoinda a prey, or at best a slave...'Perhaps,' said he, 'she may be first ravaged by every brute, exposed first to their nasty lusts, and then a shameful death.'...he told her his design first of killing her...he found the heroic wife faster pleading for death than he was to propose it..." (Behn 71). Oroonoko's fear is that Imoinda will be subject to sexual violence, which at its core would be an insult to him as her possessor. Imoinda has worth as possessed by him and only him. This hearkens back to the struggle between the old chief and Oroonoko over who would possess Imoinda. When the chief conspires to sell her into slavery, she begs instead for death, and much emphasis is placed on her virginal state when Oroonoko succeeds in bedding her. After Oroonoko has claimed her in this manner, she becomes literally his property to dispose of: "when a man finds any occasion to quit his wife, if he loves her, she dies by his hand, if not, he sells her" (Behn 71).
After Lavinia is raped by Tamora's sons, she becomes literally worthless. In Taymor's Titus, her death is shown as a relief to both to herself and Titus. Is Lavinia's value is in her virtue, what is the purpose of continuing to live after what has happened to her? Similarly, any violation of Imoinda is a direct insult to Oroonoko, as it devalues her as a possession.
Lavinia and Imoinda's deaths, I think, could be viewed in the context of honor killings. But whose honor? Titus kills Lavinia because she has no prospects for marriage after what has happened to her, and she serves as a constant reminder of his pain. A formerly valuable property, she is valueless. Likewise, Oroonoko kills Imoinda ostensibly to save her from what might happen after he dies. But one wonders (at least I do) what would have happened if Imoinda had wanted to live and take her chances? What happens to property after the owner is gone?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Oroonoko, honor killings, and Shakespeare: If I can't have you, no one can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Great posting, Alana.
The flip response to your question, "What happens to property after the owner is gone?" is "She belongs to someone else."
This may seem simply sarcastic and cruel at first, but it's a good way of getting to the heart of Oroonoko's actions in that "chilvary" tradition.
I'm glad you tapped into the virginal-possesion motif of "Oroonoko," because I think it's one that was overlooked for quite some time in the history of literature. It's easy for some to explain away southern gentility, medieval chivalry, and even the current fad of father-daughter purity balls (an example: http://www.fatherdaughterpurityball.org/). Why exactly does the father walk the woman down the aisle to give her away to the groom? The original reason for bridesmaids was to protect the bride and dowery from bandits on the way to the church. Hardly romantic.
Now, I'm not trying to promote promiscuity with my critique of the purity ball thing, but I believe it is a subtle continuation of the commodification of female virginity that Alana sees in "Oroonoko." You're certainly right, Alana, to relate it to Titus' actions. According to the apparent mores of all of the societies depicted in "Oroonoko," the story is hardly about slavery or owning people. Ownership of people is commonplace - the otan, Imoinda's virginity to Oroonoko, slavery. What is so strange about Behn's work is its critique of such ownership. Oroonoko is hailed for his vows to Imoinda - he promises to be only for her, though he is allowed more wives. The otan, though legal, is obviously somewhat villinous, or at least antagonistic. Slavery itself is a fate worth than death. If we forget intentionality (and I love to do that), we have an interesting interpretation at hand for viewing Oroonoko's treatment of Imoinda; indeed for her treatment of herself.
I would take issue with the idea, Alana, that these women are killed because they are worthless. Rather, I think Titus kills Lavinia in mercy (according to him) and shame; I think Oroonoko kills Imoinda because of her worth to him and the fear of another man owning her. It seems to be more about jealousy and pride than anything else.
Both Alana's and Kris's posts make very interesting points about the "commodification of women"--especially in light of our discussion last class about female authorship. I wonder what you think about the fact that it is Behn, a royalist and a Tory anda woman writer in a man's literary world, who creates the characters of Oroonoko as well as Imoinda? A lot of research has been done on Behn's narrator's relationship to Oroonoko, and some has been done on her relationship to Imoinda. In general, she seems to use the conventions of amatory fiction and traditional romance to identify with Oroonoko's nobility, though this is not without its tensions. Critics are often interested in the "likeness" and the "difference" between the narrator and her chief subject, a black royal man who has become a slave and yet is "naturally above it." Yet, the narrator is also using Oroonoko to make narrative, specifically narrative from a "female pen" (40). Similarly, the narrator places herself in an ambiguous position vis-a-vis Imoinda--with much less "idenfitication" than in Oroonoko's case. Imoinda seems repeatedly, as Kris mentions, "killed off"--first by Oroonoko's grandfather, then by Oroonoko, and ultimately, by Imoinda. How can we read this in terms of the narrator's power, her agency? Thoughts?
Post a Comment