Wednesday 2 October 2013

Aphra Behn, Part 11

Midrashing the New World


In short, by reshaping older material, and, with it, constructing new memories of sacred practice and spade, the rabbis could present their own hegemony as a natural continuation of the past rather than, as it truly was, a sharp break from it.[i]

We have said that Jewish tradition since the Fall of the Temple—and from earlier times, as is evidence in the meta-critical redacting of Torah in the period between the two Temples—operates through a process of midrashing, that is, not only of “cleverly reading” (as Dov Weiss puts it, following Naftali S. Cohen) ancient texts as though they already always were aware of and could apply to modern instances, but of operating covertly and subversely in the real world of history where, by all accounts of dominant and hegemonious cultural continuity and development, Jews were excluded (except as victims of events they brought upon themselves and witnesses of their own sinfulness).  They adopted, adapted, contravened in seemingly satirical acts of madness and folly the dominant iconographies and historical tropes to find protected enclaves, to gain psychological and epistemological advantage over those whose power they could not otherwise resist, defy or escape.

Take the role of the native peoples in Aphra Behn’s Oronooko.  They are at once stupid to the point of infantile ignorance and lack of self-control, and yet intelligent enough to understand and apply knowledge gained from natural experiences.  Though they cannot stand up to European intrusion and retreat to the interior of the jungles of Surinam, they exploit differences between French, Dutch and English settlers, and they play off African slaves against ignorant colonists.  

Not only were Indians, Judeans and Jews confounded in the tropes of New World propaganda, for and against, but the imagery of the Black Legend of Spanish Conquest emphasized the cruelty of the European conquerors by showing native peoples being dismembered, their body parts strewn around as in a shambles or hung on hooks over open fires as in a kitchen.  Previous depictions of the newly-named Indians as cannibals has tried to cast that grotesque light on their savage habits, but especially in Protestant Lands the inverting mirror of satire would attempt to present a vision of suffering Noble Savages in order to discredit brutish Catholics.  Indeed, it has been argued that the propagandistic cartoons developed during the Religious Wars of the early seventeenth century, fought mostly in German-speaking lands of Central Europe, first in vented these scenes of torture and abuse, but then transferred them to so-called scientific illustrations of heathenish customs in the New World, from which then would return to be exploited in further anti-Catholic posters and booklets.  In the midst of this farrago of partly-true and partly-concocted imagery, the role and the likeness of Jewish suffering were also played out—sometimes from older filthy, scandalous pictures of rabbis capturing, killing and cutting up innocent Christian boys for the purposes of ritual slaughter (in early instances of the Blood Libel),[ii] sometimes in both verbal and visual accounts of anti-Jewish massacres and pogroms from the Crusades through to the Cossack Uprising in the mid-seventeenth century.  For Jess especially these last icons of martyrdom and suffering would be recognized as similar to drawings and paintings of the Fall of the Second (King Herod’s) Temple[iii] illustrating passages from Josephus’s Jewish Wars.  It is in this half-light, this deliberate obscurity of expression, that we need to approach the grotesque emblems in Oronooko.  But the implications of a Jewishness behind the other themes in the mixed narrative—comedy, tragedy, pastoral, satire—are not merely to be inferred by retrospective knowledge of who and what Aphra Behn was or might have been.

We should note as well, as rabbis always did in midrashic exercises, the peculiarities and apparent infelicities of language, logic and narrative order in the text, divergent spellings, misplaced lexical units, breaks in syntax, solecisms of grammatical usage, gaps and repetitions.  For instance, look at the repetition of the word resolution/irresolution as the leitmotif of the long passage discussed above. In its obvious primary meaning, it signals the triumph of will over passion, the heroic decision made by both the African husband and wife to endure pain and suffering in order to prevent mockery, scorn and humiliation—in other words, to save face.  Common usage, however, gives to resolution the sense of reaching a way to break an impasse, of choosing between alternatives, of solving a problem and reaching an agreement between disputing parties.  But within its etymological history and its semantic development, resolution also signals a way of breaking down a difficult, finding a way to harmonize a discordant problem, dissolving something hard into something soft or fluid—to get moving that which is stopped up.  In medical terms, it refers to the subsidence or disappearance of a swelling, an inflammation, a fever.  From se-luere meaning to set something free, to unblock, to loosen, resolve comes to mean its opposite: to harden one’s determination and to fix one’s will.  To be resolute is to dig one’s heels in and take a determined stand for or against something, that is, to become free of doubts and hesitations, to accept the inevitable and to place oneself where the powers of fate can break themselves against one’s will.  
   
This word complex leads us to an approach into the person and persona of the author and the evaluation of her long strange narrative called Oroonoko: or, The Royal Slave. A True History by Mrs. A Behn (London, 1688).  Notice that here the attribution of the text to Mrs. A Behn is made part of the book title, part of the complicated set of peculiar and puzzling elements that precede any reading of the narrative as such.  These elements, these particles of information, are at once fragmentary relics of something that fictionally is claimed to belong to an historical events, with all its persons, places, and events, so that a much larger text lies behind it, something as yet unwritten, perhaps recalled by the narrator and her sources, and partly created out of literary reminiscences that can be shared by all those who belong to the same cultural matrix as the putative compiler and formal rememberer; in other words, what is presented here in terms of historia—a mode of argumentation, a style of articulating and expressing a narrative, a protocol of rhetorical persuasion and movement—is also a parody of travel writing, an imitation of anthropology, a pretense at natural history (“science”), a crypto-message of “intelligence” (a spy’s coded report and a forerunner of a spy novel); and thus something that needs to be resolved, brought into focus, re-organized in the eye and mind of the reader.  There are similar interpretive problems that arise when we consider the role of the various European components of the colonial society forming in the area, as well as contesting its possession and governance, the place of the indigenous local Indian tribes who are at once savage (forest-dwelling and hence “primitive” in terms of technical achievements and complexity of government) other taken as part of the fauna in the descriptions of the value of the future colony as well as manipulators of a cumulative knowledge based on natural experience,[iv] and the imported black slaves from Africa who are treated as mere chattel and yet perceived as noble, heroic and romantic figures of literature.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
In other words, this kind of study of Aphra Behn and her most famous prose-narrative named after its nominal heroic protagonist Oroonoko (one still hesitates to call it a novel) raises several interesting questions:

  1.  The extent to which one may approach the author and her works from a Jewish perspective, because the absence of acknowledgment of its setting near Joodensavaan is an acute allusion to the Sephardic refugees who reached the contested English-Dutch region of Guyana (Surinam) in the first half of the seventeenth century, and their need during the open negotiations, military skirmishes and secrets wheeling-dealing to maintain (in part and for a short time) their masks while operating in the mirror of history:[v] and thus further—

  1. What a Jewish perspective means in regard to such an ambiguous, fluid and controversial topic.  This raises the two subordinate questions of, first: how far a Crypto-Jewish or Marrano literature (they are not synonymous though they occasionally overlaps and reinforce one another) needs to draw indirectly from rabbinical writings, customs and ethical ideals or project itself through the language, concepts and iconography of Christian traditions and practice before it becomes something distinct both from the kosher body of Judaism and the orthodox dogmas of the Catholic Church; and second, in what ways the books of these putative set of generic categories engages in the process of midrashing private, communal and historical experiences and memories into textual phenomena.  And then:

  1. More generally, how far is it legitimate to create contexts for a mid-seventeenth-century book like Oronooko that draw on attitudes, insights and information available two or three hundreds of years later? Or even from two hundred or two millennia earlier?  In other words, what is the critical reader’s role in resolving the tensions, fitting together the pieces of the puzzle, generating adequate answers to the riddles asked, and other acts of interpretation and application?



[i] Dov Weiss, “Anachronism and Authorty,” review of Naftali S. Cohen, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012) on H-Net Reviews  (September 2013) at http:www.h-net.org/reviews/showrevphp?id=38222.

[ii] Another scene commonly recalled in visual art and dramatic performance was the Massacre of the Innocents, when Herod sent his soldiers to slay young children born around the time of Jesus’s nativity in order to ward off the threat to his own kingship.  Only a few artists would, however, be conscious of the potential in these scenes to show Jewish children and their mothers—for who else were the inhabitants of the towns and villages of Judea where the Herodian militias were sent?  As I have argued in my essays on The Second Shepherd Plays, the authors, script-redactors, players and even some of the audience would contain Crypto-Jews and/or Marranos who were aware and would take the opportunity to express their own deepest, most secret feelings.

[iii] Actually the third, as Herod rebuilt the Second Hasmonean Temple, and recent archelogy suggests that development of the Temple site continued after Herod’s death right up to the time of the Roman investment and eventual destruction of that House of Holiness (Bet Kodesh).

[iv]  It should not be forgotten that very soon after the arrival of Spanish and Portuguese sailors, explorers, and missionaries, the image of the indigenous peoples-=-the “Indians”—was confounded with that of the Jews, “Idumeans”, “Judeans”, Lost Tribes, and mysterious mixed-peoples or Creoles who may have from the very beginning self-formed out of run-away slaves, absconding exiles from the Inquisition and various nomadic groups themselves escaping from Inca, Aztec and other fanatical sacrifice-obsessed empires or engaged in mythical-mystical peregrinations to discover magical edenic other worlds.

[v] Norman Simms, “Being Crypto-Jewish in Colonial Brazil (1500-1822): Brushing History Against the Grain”, Parts 1 and 2”,  Journal of Religious History 31:4 (2007) 421-450

No comments:

Post a Comment