Slavery in Aphra Ben’s Oroonoko: or, the Royal Slave Term Paper

Introduction

Oroonoko: or, the Royal Slave is a short fiction novel by Aphra Behn published in 1688. The author claims to be a first-hand witness to the events around the life of the main character, Oroonoko and presents the occurrences as first-person accounts. The novel focuses on Oroonoko’s life, love, rebellion, and eventual execution. The story covers his initial love life with Imoinda before her betrayal and sale to slavery while in Africa. Oroonoko is also tricked and captured to become a slave before transportation and sale to one of Surinam’s slave masters. He reunites with Imoinda, who becomes expectant with his child while working for the master. Oroonoko develops radical thoughts while in slavery and realizes he cannot raise a child in those conditions. He becomes rebellious and influences other slaves to revolt against him. Through a series of uprisings, Oroonoko tries to liberate himself, but this leads to Imoinda’s death and his eventual demise. The book highlights several themes, including slavery, and the writer’s view on the topic is clear. Aphra Behn supports slavery, as highlighted in several sections below, despite claiming neutrality; hence it is not an anti-slavery novel.

The Depiction of Slavery

Throughout the novel, the author describes the institution of colonialization and slavery yet never once condemns its evils and harm to people. When the ship captain invites Oroonoko to his ship and fastens him down with iron, he resists this act on solid grounds. The captain is successful in transporting the prince to Surinam and selling him to slave traders. This moment unravels the true nature of the narrator as she picks to condone the actions of the captain. She refuses to censor the actions of the captain, which amounts to betrayal and trickery, leading to slavery (Chibka). She states, “Some have commended this Act, as brave, in the Captain; but I will spare my sense of it, and leave it to my Reader, to judge as he pleases. It may be easily guess’d, in what manner the Prince resented this Indignity…” (Behn). The author regards the captain’s actions as treachery yet is hesitant to condemn them. She therefore takes a step back from passing her judgment on the infamous and inhumane act of the ship captain.

The author constructs and fortifies Africa in a manner that portrays the native attitudes colonizers harbored against the people. Behn informs readers about the changes that occurred whenever Christians bought slaves from Africa. The masters would change the native names of the slaves and give them European names because African names were regarded as barbarous to the masters. Oroonoko was given the name Caesar while Imoinda’s was changed to Clemen. “I ought to tell you that the Christians never buy any Slaves, but they give ‘em some Name of their own, their native ones being likely very barbarous and hard to pronounce so that Mr. Trefery gave Oroonoko that of Caesar, which Name will live in that Country” (Behn). The above assertion illustrates the writer’s attachment to the European values that transform the names and beliefs of the slaves, seeking to make them more ‘enlightened’ and less ‘barbarous’ (Elmore). The writer affirms that she would not call her African prince by his native name but instead by the European name of Caesar. The narrator appears to be inclined towards the view that the native African names harbor innate barbarous elements.

The African prince would be known in the European world by his new name, Caesar. The writer tries to desperately remain neutral in the face of the glaring atrocity against Oroonoko and eventually ends up siding with the domineering powers. Behn is involved in the extermination of Oroonoko into a new, disfigured body rich in white ideologies (Griffin). She contributes to the remodeling and reshaping of Oroomoko’s identity so he remains desirable to the settlers.

Behn endeavors to keep Oroonoko in slavery for eternity by diverting his initial purpose to pursue liberty. She speaks of the ‘false assurances’ Caesar is filled with by the slavers to ensure he does not consider revolting against this injustice. The narrator is massively involved in misleading Imoinda by narrating stories of Western civilization, especially tales about nuns. She helps her master maintain the yoke of slavery on these characters because these stories deter them from fighting. The stories about nuns give Imoinda a new perspective in life and deviate her towards cherishing a different outcome for her and her lover, Oroonoko. The narrator, who is the ‘Great Mistress’ of the hero, fills Oroonoko’s mind with tales of ‘great men’ and Romans. The efforts are geared towards changing his worldview and persuading him to eliminate the urge to liberate his people and return to his ancestral home.

Whenever the colonizers envisioned any sign of an uprising by Oroonoko and any of the slavers, they used the narrator. They urged Behn to convince them to wait for the arrival of Lord Governor Willoughby to Surinam. She did this by urging Oroonoko to take a brave journey to one of the indigenous Indians tribes. “She encourages the royal slave to take several pleasant diversion-hunting tigers, fishing, visiting Surinam Indians- the real purpose of which is to divert his thoughts from rebellion” (Behn). According to the writer, this effort is another entirely successful attempt at ending slavery, hence keeping Oroonoko at Surinam longer. In this instance, Behn seems to be acting entirely as a European, with her instincts directing her to contribute to the propagation of the evil of racism and slavery.

Behn contributes to the novel’s apparent racial and religious profiling in the instance of the ‘French-Man’. Oroonoko was enslaved along with a French-Man, who was his tutor and would be set free as soon as they were on land. The captain could not pretend to keep this white man as a slave and assured him that he was secure to ensure he did not act in favor of the prince. “Except the French-Man, whom the Captain could not pretend to keep Prisoner, but only told him he was secured, because he might act something in favor of the Prince, but that he should be freed as soon as they came to Land” (Behn). The above lines illustrate the discriminative nature of the institution of racism that was prevalent during the setting of the novel (Iwanisziw). Despite both Oroonoko and the French man being captured together as slaves, one of them is assured freedom based on his race. Slavery was a tool to dehumanize African people while assuring the prosperity of the fields owned by the Europeans.

The author appears to celebrate the liberation of the French man by the slavers upon landing. “So the ‘French-Man’ was granted freedom to earn his livelihood.an settlers” (Behn). This indicates her loyalty to her ethnic background of being white and Christian. She reinforces the inherent belief within the European world that belonging to that particular race and being Christian is enough shielding against racism. This is an inherent flaw in the views of Europeans regarding racism and slavery.

The pursuit of freedom and the process of decolonization is often a painful one, usually characterized by bloodshed and violence. Oroonoko realized that he needed liberty or that his race would be imprisoned by the settlers forever. The conception of Imoinda with his child made this urgent and he resolved to pursue freedom. He convinced the other slaves that the conditions they lived in were unfit for human beings and urged them to revolt against their masters. He reminded them that they were not won in battle but instead tricked into slave ships and sold as commodities. He alleged that their treatment was worse than that meted on beasts and that slavery was not just about them but their entire race for eternity. The slaves listened to him and staged a revolt against the colonizers with the hope of freedom.

The choice of words by the narrator is very telling and illustrates her views on the slaves and their struggle. “You may imagine this News was not only suddenly spread all over the Plantations, but soon reached the Neighbouring ones; and we had by Noon about Six hundred Men, they call the Militia of the Country, that came to assist us in the pursuit of the Fugitives” (Behn). Words such as ‘we’ and ‘us’ normally illustrate inclusivity and shared beliefs, and this was the case for the author. She claims that they assembled men in unison through the use of the word ‘we’ to quell the rebellion. This indicates she was part and parcel of the white people supporting slavery and opposing the pursuit of freedom. The word ‘us’ when describing the beneficiaries of the actions of the militia summoned to quell the African rebellion further affirms her position (Gupta). The use of these words shows that the revolt by the slaves endangered her life amongst other white people. She clearly would not support this endeavor that promised to ruin her and therefore suppress her.

The author contributes to the dehumanization of the African slaves as directed by her European instincts. The phrase “depriving us all the slaves” is a clear indication of how far apart the plight of the Africans the writer was set. She was worried that the revolt robbed them of a valuable workforce that had contributed to the growth of their economy and the prosperity of their plantations. If the writer was against the heinous act of slavery, her instincts would direct her to feel bad for the Africans. She would recognize their plight for freedom as a legitimate concern and indicate it through the narration (Class). When people are fighting for their freedom and one chooses to view it as a loss of slaves and laborers, that person cannot claim to be against slavery. The author’s primary concern was her livelihood and the welfare of her fellow settlers. Hence Oroonoko’s plight and push were insignificant.

The struggle for liberty was a tough and painful process for Oroonoko as he sought to free his entire generation. He realized Imoinda and her unborn child were in mortal danger and decided to kill her. He agreed with Imoinda that this was an act of mercy and would prevent the propagation of slavery (Sussman). He later launched armed resistance against the slavers and made deliberate efforts geared towards liberating himself. While hiding in the wilderness to prevent capture, the white people try to convince him to return. They urge him to report back to his former position with promises of better treatment and no repercussions for his actions. His identity is changed by the writer after Oroonoko engages in an armed struggle. The phrase “he Roar’d like some Monster of the Wood” illustrates the transformation (Behn). The author initially regarded him as a prince and painted a picture of royalty. She now regards him as a monster through her choice of words, indicating the author’s sentimentalization of slavery and slaves was complete. She had initially painted the picture of a settlement characterized by peaceful coexistence between slavers and slaves.

When Oroonoko is eventually returned to the settlement and the narrator tries to remind him of the promises they made him and that he could go back to his old position, he declines. Oroonoko tells them that he has acquired enlightenment and they must think very lowly of him by trying to implore him to accept slavery. “but he begg’d we wou’d not think so poorly of him, or of his love to Imoinda, to imagine we could flatter him to life again” (Behn). The contribution of the author in the process of convincing Oroonoko to continue being their slave shows her support for the institution. Her book does not, therefore, speak out against racism but instead propagates the vice (Ferguson). This is because her position in the household is guaranteed and the continued supply of cheap African labor for eternity is the desired proposition. She acts out of primal European instinct that allures her to establish her survival at any price, even if it involves the dehumanization of other people.

The realization by Oroonoko that the ‘Great Mistress’, who is also the narrator, was one of the colonizers is an eye-opener on the position of the author regarding slavery. This realization, however comes a little too late to the liking of the slaves in the settlement. The realization comes at a time when they have served their masters diligently for a long time and their ability to revolt is suppressed. The narrator had done a commendable job of brainwashing the slaves to become comfortable and settled in their treacherous state. The narrator was part of the repressive regime at the plantation and benefited from it, despite her insinuation to care for the welfare of Oroonoko. Her agenda was always constant to prevent any revolt against the colonizers (Sehat and Hedeshi). This intent was masked as a drive towards the enlightenment of the Africans and their reprieve from the shackles of being barbarous.

The final moments of Oroonoko’s life also indicate the position of the author and the novel regarding racism. Oroonoko is tied to a tree and given a cigarette during the entire period of his torture. His nose is cut and his limbs are dismembered from the rest of his body while he remains alive. The author’s vivid descriptions while in the proximity of the site of the heinous crimes are telling (Fogarty). At this point, a line is drawn on the sand for the writer and Oroonoko. One of them is at the mercy of a torturer who disfigures his body slowly up to his death, while the other is on the safe side watching (Poorghorban). During this period, there is no mention of solidarity for the African man at the painful end of the knife. There is no freedom for him other than death by his captors present during this execution. This scene alone is a clear illustration that the author was not neutral, as claimed earlier. The battle lines were drawn and the two sides of the divide were evident; the slavers and the slaves. The position of the author and the novel, therefore, is an obvious guess.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the novel is a great tale of the immense sacrifice, love, suffering, and betrayal. The inquiry about whether the book takes the position of anti-slavery is therefore inaccurate. The author and the novel, by extension, generally side with the oppressor despite initial claims of neutrality by the writer. During the capture of Oroonoko, the writer chooses to withhold her views, enabling the oppressor. She is involved in the transformation of the slaves into a form desired by the colonizers leading to the loss of identity. Behn jubilates the release of the French man, who was also a slave, showing the place of racism in this vice. She also derails Oroonoko from agitating for the freedom of African slaves through diversionary stories. She tries to convince Oroonoko to assume his previous position as a slave within the plantation before finally being a witness to his torture and execution. The above illustrates clearly illustrate that the author was a supporter and sympathizer of slavery who tried to sanitize their position by claiming neutrality severally. These attempts failed miserably as illustrated above as she enjoyed racism, was party to it, and benefited.

Works Cited

Behn, Aphra. “Oroonoko, Or, the Royal Slave: A True History.” Shorter Novels: Seventeenth Century., edited by Philip Henderson, Dent, 1967, pp. 145–224.

Chibka, Robert L. “‘Oh! Do Not Fear a Woman’s Invention’: Truth, Falsehood, and Fiction in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 30, no. 4, 1988, pp. 510–37, Web.

Class, Monika. ““’tis by Comparison we can Judge and Chuse [sic!]”: Incomparable Oroonoko.” Culture & Theory| Volume 258 (2022): 125.

Elmore, Jenifer B. “‘The Fair Imoinda’: Domestic Ideology and Anti-Slavery on the Eighteenth-Century Stage.” Troping Oroonoko from Behn to Bandele. Routledge, 2018. 35-58.

Ferguson, Moira. “Oroonoko: Birth of a Paradigm.” Troping Oroonoko from Behn to Bandele, Routledge, 2018, pp. 1–15,

Fogarty, Anne. “Looks that Kill: Violence and Representation in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko.” The Discourse of Slavery: Aphra Behn to Toni Morrison (2000): 1-17.

Griffin, Megan. “Dismembering the Sovereign in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko.” ELH, vol. 86, no. 1, 2019, pp. 107–33,

Gupta, Renu. “Ge de A ha Beh Oroonoko: A comparative analysis of the representation of Oroonoko and Imoinda.” WONDERER (2020): 93.

Iwanisziw, Susan B. “The Eighteenth-Century Marketing of Oroonoko: Contending Constructions of Maecenas, the Author and the Slave.” Troping Oroonoko from Behn to Bandele, Jan. 2018, pp. 141–73.

Poorghorban, Younes. “Slavery and Power in Behn’s Social Context; a New Historicist Reading of Oroonoko.” International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, vol. 2, no. 4, 2020, pp. 42–50.

Sehat, Ma’soome, and Alireza Qadiri Hedeshi. “Oroonoko: Royal or Slave; Bakhtinian Reading of Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko.” IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities), vol. 6, no. 2, Apr. 2020, pp. 15–37.

Sussman, Charlotte. “The Other Problem with Women: Reproduction and Slave Culture in Aphra Behn’s” Oroonoko”.” The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats 27.1 (1994): 11.