Goal for today: To consider how a couple of important eighteenth-century writers understood the relationship between European countries and the rest of the world. We've had one such example with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and the Turkish women she encountered and sought to understand--but of course she viewed those women as her counterparts in class, wealth, and social standing, which made her conclusions about their relative freedom directly relevant to her.
"The Dying Indian" is a very different kind of encounter with and depiction of the experience of non-European people.
Let's start here: What do you think the author is saying with this poem? As we discussed in class, Montagu was pointing out, in her letter, that Turkish women are less oppressed than Europeans like to think. What is Warton trying to convey about "Indians" through this poem?
If you remain baffled about what precisely is going on in "The Dying Indian," feel free to post (at least until 11am) to the "Dying Indian" for credit blog post thread below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
What is interesting to me is that in this poem Warton appears to be pushing back against "civilization", seemingly in a defense of the "noble savage" archetype, yet, at the same time, it seems as though some of the virtues he is glorifying are really quite horrendous. For example, in lines 14-17 the narrator talks of disgracing the body of a "traitor" who committed grave acts against the naturalistic religion of the Indians. To a civilized viewpoint this is petty, yet clearly Warton is more interested in the motivation behind such a base revenge rather than the revenge itself; a clarity of mind that leads to action, a logical system of an eye for an eye. This is reinforced by lines 21 and 22, where the Indian mocks those who "eat their god", that is, Christians who take the sacrament of communion. To this Indian, such a gesture makes little sense, his religion is based on pure power dynamics, appeasement must be had through sacrifice and violence. There are no convoluted, nonsensical rituals, just straightforward naturalistic ones. Thus, once again, we see a glorification of the simple and logical, over the complex tenets of civilized life. Perhaps these simple rituals being brutal goes hand in hand with the nature of the thing; nature is not pretty, and neither is Warton's Indian, and yet in both we can see some savage virtue.
Craig identifies some of the ways that the poem stresses the Indian's brutal world view (while at the same time hinting, as Will pointed out on a different post, that Western culture has its own forms of repellent violence, like "eat[ing] their God").
To what end is the Dying Indian's comfort with violence asserted? Is it just, as Craig argues, to "glorify the simple and logical"?
Is the life of the Indian simply one of violence? Are there other ways that the author stereotypes/distorts/romanticizes the life of the "primitive"?
It's not immediately apparent to me that the Indian's polytheism is straightforward, simple, logical, what have you. Perhaps someone would care to clarify.
I think that the author romanticizes the life of the Indian rather than distorts it, in the way that he describes their environment. He says "I shall soon arrive at the blest island, where no tigers spring on heedless hunters..."(2-4). He describes it as one of beauty that the Indians get to enjoy day after day.
I agree with Whitney's statements regarding the poem's first few lines. Also, I would point to the "virgins of the sun" as a place in the poem where the natives are not portrayed savagely, but the foreigners are. According to the footnote: "'The Virgins of the Sun' were housed in a convent at Cuzco, and were never allowed to see a man, not even the Inca himself. They spent their time offering sacrifices to the sun and spinning garments for the monarch." It is the "bold christian" who "first dar'd deflour" them, not the more primitive (and, as alluded to, perhaps more violent) natives. This line, I suppose, could be viewed as either the poet romanticizing the natives, or as the poet vilifying the foreigners (and, perhaps in an abstract way, the European way of life.
The life of the Indian is not simply a life of calculated violence where revenge becomes a never ending circle of hatred. The Indian understands that if revenge continues to progress and escalate between the Spanish and the Natives that his culture along with his entire race will be obliterated. For example, the Indian says "Preserve this crown / With sacred secrecy" (391). The Indian does not solely advocate violence for the glorification of noble heroism, but also supports that idea of preservation. The idea of surviving peacefully in secrecy rather than becoming a commodity of minuscule worth seems to be the desire the dying Indian passes on to his son. Moreover, Warton's tries to portray, as Craig mentioned earlier, the Indian as a "noble savage". He presents the Indian as a honorable savage warrior; however, the mere mentioning of preservation takes the Indian beyond the point of "noble savagery" into the realm of sophistication.
I thought the first few lines (specifically 2-8) described an imagined depiction of the afterlife. The image of the "forefathers feast[ing] / Daily on hearts of Spaniards!" suggests to me that the "blest island" is an analogue to the Christian conception of Heaven. But, I think that this depiction romanticizes the Indian's view of things, suggesting that the afterlife is inclined in the direction of the natural, especially in comparison to the supernatural idea of the Christian Heaven.
Andrew suggests that the Indian's religion (as depicted in this poem) is not "simple, logical, what have you"? What do we know about the Indian's religion as represented in this poem?
Why does he tell his interlocutor (his son), to "kindly stab her [his mother, the Dying Indian's wife]"?
Is the Dying Indian interrupting the cycle of revenge, as Alonzo suggests, or simply taking his son's vengeful response for granted?
Possibly relevant rabbit that I can now pull out of my hat: it's not coincidental that this "Dying Indian" sees the Spanish as the historical enemy ("my forefathers feast/Daily on the hearts of Spaniards"). Those who fully supported British colonization in the C17 and C18 often drew self-serving parallels between the behavior of British colonists and their Spanish counterparts. Where the Spanish plundered, raped, and killed (so the argument went), their British counterparts simply instituted peaceful and mutually beneficial lines of trade.
A further question: how does the poet use literary technique and language to make this Indian's voice sound compelling and authentic?
I agree with Cameron in terms of the poem portraying the foreigners as savages. Not only do the foreigners “deflour / The virgins of the son,” as Cameron states, but they also steal they sacred artifacts (11-12). As Warton explains, the foreigners “Robb’d Vitzipultzi’s statue of its gems” (13). I think the greater meaning behind the poem is ultimately the idea of “cultural misunderstandings,” which can still viewed in today’s world. In my opinion it’s in our nature to believe that our ways of life are the best, and that everyone else’s is just idiotic or in this case “barbaric.” When the foreigners came to the new world and saw the natives, it is for certain that they thought their ways of life were that of barbarians. This piece is interesting because it shows that the natives think the foreigners are just as barbaric as the foreigners believe them to be—which to the foreigners at this time would seem outrageous.
With regards to K.W.'s question about how the poet makes the Indian's voice sound authentic by using literary devices, I think that the allusions to other events in history such as the "dart of Izdabel" and the reference to Vitzipultzi help add to this. I think by adding these allusions, the poet sounds enlightened and educated in the current events of the times, and thus makes for a more reputable argument.
"Why does he tell his interlocutor (his son), to 'kindly stab her [his mother, the Dying Indian's wife]'?"
I think Warton makes it clear that the Indian wants his son to stab his mother once she eventually becomes sick and aged to put an end to her suffering: "And when disease / Preys on her languid limbs, then kindly stab her / With thine own hands, nor suffer her to linger, / like Christian cowards, in a life of pain." For the Indian's culture, this matricide is seen as "kindly" in contrast to the Christians, who force the sick and dying to continue to suffer through their ailments. This seems to tie back in to the idea that the Dying Indian (and presumably his wife as well) will go to an afterlife where "no tigers spring / On heedless hunters;" which is preferable to the suffering they have on earth.
I agree with Alonzo when he says the Natives race will eventually be obliterated. The Dying Indian seems to already know that the Europeans will eventually take them over completely, thus ending the violence between them. In lines 21-22 when it says "Tell her I ne'er have worship'd with those that eat their God", the Dying Indian sounds as though bragging about this fact. Almost as if the Indian knows he will be one of the last Indians to die without being overtaken by the Europeans. This poem seems to be written at a time where Indians would die fighting to keep their way of life before succumbing to the ways of people that "eat their God."
I agree with Ian. When the dying Indian tells his son to "kindly stab her/ With thine own hands, nor suffer her to linger" he does so with no other intent than to minimize the suffering she will inevitably feel at the end of her life. I also agree that it can be assumed that "great Copac beckons" the dying Indian to the "blest island" mentioned in the first few lines of the poem. Moreover, I feel that Warton includes these instructions from a dying father to his son in an attempt to characterize the Indian as the "noble savage" that we have been discussing. He is seen to be compassionate in this killing when compared to the "Christian cowards" who sit idly by and watch their family suffer. I feel that the dying Indian relays these instructions to his son in order to not only provide for his wife, but to also emphasize the idea that the foreigners are really the barbarians.
Sorry to backtrack a bit but in response to the literary technique/language question and Whitney's post...
I think with this poem being noted as the earliest dramatic monologue, there is a lot of emotion packed in. Even the title suggests the end, downfall, struggle of the Indian.
The literary technique and language feeds into the tone of the poem. Whitney noted the historical allusions made him seem more educated and credible. I think this is true but I think it also distinguishes the speaker and his culture. The footnotes helped me understand these allusions. But it is obviously events, people unique to that population. This historical language therefore makes the poet sound authentic.
Also some words that stood out to be that grabbed my attention and spiced up the language were "poison" or "torrents whirl" or "venom" or "carcass" and "languid." There is the thread of death imagery here which again is compelling to the reader, or at least for me who noticed the language the most.
This poem has a distinct, powerful voice that offers insight into such violence.
To answer to the question of whether the Indian's religion is simple or logical, I would agree with Andrew that there is no straightforward answer. The arguments the dying Indian makes against the Christian religion (eating of the sacrament) could be brought against the Indians as well. The alter of Vitzipultizi, for example, is a statue where human sacrifices were made. This could be argued as backward as Christian traditions, and there is no simple "naturalistic" explanation for the practice. The two religions, however, seem to hold virginity and their founding fathers (Christ to Copac, for instance), in high regard. Thus there are similarities and differences, but not enough to make an argument for the dying Indian's religion versus the non-verbal Spaniard portrayed.
I agree with Lauren that the tone of this poem explores the violence of the time... and perhaps only to glorify such violence. The language is almost propagandist in nature, with the speaker depicting how he "tore [the] carcass [of the "bold christian"] from the earth, and left it a prey to poisonous flies" (l. 16 and 17), yet bids his son to "preserve this crown with sacred secrecy" (l. 17 and 18. Although their manner of life is seemingly primitive without any overt reasoning behind it, the sense that this culture of "the noble savage" focuses on practicing such values through such the adherence of strict ritual prevails. However, as brute as this lifestyle may communicate, the stabbing of the son's own mother when she is ill also reveals a concern for the more humanistic qualities of this culture.
So, all told: is this a sympathetic portrayal of the Dying Indian or not?
What do you think Wharton is trying to communicate with this dramatic monologue, voiced by a victim of colonial subjugation?
Alternatively: what questions do you have about this poem?
I believe that the son commits matricide, as mentioned by Ian, as a form of Euthanasia. However, I think the disease mentioned by the dying Indian is a metaphorical representation of Christians' ideal beliefs. The dying Indian knows that the Christians will force and map their cultural traditions upon his native land and people and in order to prevent a wide spread infection the son will have to kill his mother for the good of his people. I'm assuming that the mother was already tainted because Warton writes "if e'er returns / Thy much-lov'd mother from the desart woods / Where as I hunted late, I hapless lost her" (391). I am also assuming the reason the dying Indian's wife didn't return was because she was captured and I think that's what the Indian also believes which is why he informs his son to kill his mother if she becomes ill.
Although this poem contains a lot of violent imagery, I think that it is a sympathetic portrayal of the Dying Indian. K.W, you said earlier that "Where the Spanish plundered, raped, and killed (so the argument went), their British counterparts simply instituted peaceful and mutually beneficial lines of trade." These Indians "feast daily on hearts of Spaniards" (7-8), but it is because of the abuses that they suffered at the hands of the Spaniards. The Spaniards raped their women, forced them to worship Christ, and stole their gems. The Dying Indian's request for the son to stab his mother is also merciful, as Alonzo and Ian point out. Once she is dead, she, as well as her husband, will not have to suffer the further injustices brought upon them by the Spaniards and will live in their untainted version of Heaven "where anana's bloom thrice in each moon; where rivers smoothly glide..." (ll. 4-5). Because they would not have been violent otherwise and because they still show acts of mercy to one another, I think that this depiction is meant to be sympathetic.
I was wondering about the mix-ups in Indian religion. Can we say that these mix-ups are there purposely to reflect British faults in colonization, or are they just honest mistakes?
In response to Kelsey's question, I think it was an honest mistake. The introduction seems to imply that Warton was mistaken when he used the Aztec god Vitzipultzi in the poem, and therefore later "In the 1766 edition Warton changed 'Vitzipulzi's statue'(13) to 'Pachacamac's altar', Pachacamac being the Peruvians' name for'the Divine Majesty', according to Garcilaso de la Vega (The Royal Commentaries of Peru,2:2)." With this change, he acknowledged and corrected his earlier error of confusing the Incas with the Aztecs. I'm sure Professor Wilcox is more familiar with the poem than me, though, so I look forward to seeing her response.
Again, it's hard to say whether it is a sympathetic view or not, but I think that it is in fact sympathetic and is in the best interest of the Indian and his culture. A lot of the negative language in the poem is aimed at the Spaniards and the almost endearing language is aimed at his life in the tribe and his family. Similar to what Kelsey said about how the Indian relates to the mother, he uses words such as "cherish," "much-lov'd" which portrays that which the Indian remembers in his last but of life. This pushes the readers to sympathize with the Indian and that which the Spanairds apparently ruined or tried to take away. As to previously mentioned of the violence of the poem, I think that it is key to the poem and the tone of the poem because it is in some ways adding to the Indian's nostalgic memories of the past and how he lived his life, therefore pushing for the sympathetic point of view even more.
I think a lot of what Wharton is trying to do is possibly contrast between the countries that have ventured to other lands for colonizations. The author is marking out that which the Spaniards did wrong and what the British will do right through the voice of the dying Indian, such as "Preserve this crown..." or again "cherish her age..." etc.
I think that this poem is a sympathetic portrayal of the Indian's culture. If anything, he laments about the violence in which the Spaniards threaten upon his people, and how his people are only reacting in a manner to preserve their lifestyle; "preserve this crown" etc (l. 17).
In answer to Ian and Kelsey: I think the mistakes and inaccuracies in the poem are, well, maybe not "honest" mistakes, but mistakes that reflect the fact that Warton wasn't trying to give an anthropological account of indigenous religion; he was simply trying to convey a certain kind of impression and appeal to a certain C18 taste for the (seemingly) primitive and uncivilized.
Further to the comment I just posted: what is the appeal of the poem? It sympathetically presents a world-view that valorizes violence (yes, the proposed matricide is loving and justified euthanasia, but that "stab" is meant to shock, too). Readers at the time loved it--this poem was widely reprinted and anthologize. Feel free to speculate a bit about why.
As you were!
Well, the poem definitely has a triumphant and victorious sort of feel and is certainly different than probably anything the British society had ever encountered. The poem romanticizes the life and death of a native of a foreign land, so whether or not the poem is accurate, it still draws many readers in. The appeal is the language and the imagery and the violence adds adventure, so it would ultimately draw in a crowd looking for that in what is seen as a savage land.
The Indian is rather dramatic, especially in the last line as he yells out "I go! great COPAC beckons me! farewell!" and portrays the life of the Indians as pretty intense and demonstrative. So to reiterate what I was saying before, I would see this piece of literature as more of a piece of entertainment almost instead of an insightful text of a wronged, dieing Indian from a far away land.
I agree with Jill that the poem romanticizes the life and death struggles of a native. It seems reminiscent of Diderot's Enjoyment and Tahiti because it takes the culture and people of a foreign land and completely romanticizes their beliefs and actions. I think this would appeal to people who take a cosmopolitan look at the world and try to identify with other cultures.
I think appeal of the poem is ultimately the grittiness it presents. I agree with Jill in what she stated prior, that “the language and imagery play a major role in drawing in the crowd.” The language and imagery that Warton uses create this image of “pure savages” that represents not only the natives and their acts but of the Spaniards as well. Such detailed language and imagery in my opinion would open many reader’s eyes at this time and sequentially create a fascination with this text because it exposes them to perhaps unknown cultures and their respective acts.
I agree with Jill and Cara. Although there is a lot of truth to the depiction of the native, it is very romanticized. It primarily romanticizes the natives, in a way that does not give the British citizen true insight into the hardships and life of the natives. It allows them to identify with the culture, and agree with Jill to some degree that it could be simply a form of entertainment because the life of the dying Indian is so far removed from their daily lives and culture.
I swayed to think that at least part of the appeal of this work among its 18C English readers was due to its depiction of the Spanish as the villainous corruptors,ie a nationalist appeal. Though the primary contrast is Christian v native, I think that the appeal of the work may be understood as an instance of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' paradigm, where the Spanish are seen as both the disliked perpetuarators of this "civilizing" of the "noble savage" and as an enemy of the nationalistc English.
Jill and Cara's statements about Wharton romanticizing life and death seems to be a pretty accurate description of this poem. The dying Indian does not quietly slip out of this world unnoticed, but gives a valiant, and seemingly sincere speech to his son. He makes sure to mention how he is dying, "The dart of Izdabel prevails!", he paints a picture of where he is going (lines 2-8), and also gives his son instructions on how to carry on with life and how to treat his widowed mother, and is able to wrap up his thoughts into a cohesive statement of farewell before he dies. Nothing is left unsaid; there are no loose ends.
That being said, I definitely think this is a romantic version of death, but it also makes me think that Wharton wanted to hyperbolize this death scene to bring value to a non-Christian death. The dying Indian is going on to an after life, but he makes it explicitly clear it is not the Christian afterlife: "Tell her I ne'er have wroship'd/with those that eat their God." He also shows disdain for the Christians when he mentions the "virgins of the sun".
While Wharton is not pretending to accurately portray this alternate religion, he is trying to show value in alternate thought processes and religions.
Well I would like to add that the military practices of the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain placed discipline and valor as its most important characteristics. Discipline meant loyalty to country, on the battlefield, and the ability to execute personal convictions. The passage, “Approach, and bring my crown, deck’d with the teeth Of that bold christian” sparks the interest in the imagery of bloodlust and retribution. Whether to who that passions are intended, the discipline to execute such dastardly actions accumulates Valor instead of public dread. The appeal of Valor is intimately tied with violence and the proclivity to do so on a grand scale. Hence, the romanticized image of the noble savage is so far removed from British society that his death, the matricide, and old religions are footnotes compared to the displays of fancied valor.
A lot of great answers here that convey the multi-faceted appeal of this poem to its contemporary readers:
--the scope it gives British readers to feel superior to their Spanish counterparts
--the scope it gives readers to feel "cosmopolitan," as Cara says, allowing them to revel in their ability to recognize and identify with the circumstances of very different people
--its honest (if partial) acknowledgment of the pain inflicted by Western colonialism
There's also an important quality to this poem that Brian insightfully glosses as "grittiness": it captures and makes authentic and vivid an intensity of feeling by drawing unapologetically on images of violence, pain, brutality. More on that in my next blog post...
By Wharton choosing to use the word "stab" to describe how the son should kill his mother should she become ill, he is definitely playing up the readers sensitivity. He juxtaposes "stab" with "kindly". The son is supposed to "kindly stab" his mother. Really? kindly stab her? The best way to kindly stab someone (as if I somehow am an expert at this activity??) I would think, would be to do it swiftly, as to avoid a slow lingering pain. Perhaps it might even mean doing it unexpectedly so she does not have time to dwell over her fate. However, it also seems that kindly might entail including the mother in on the plans. Letter her know when it is going to happen. Both ways show some kindness, but are over powered by the violence of the act.
Is Wharton only suggesting this act so the Indian can show complete opposition to Christianity? He does not want his wife to suffer "like christian cowards, in a life of pain". However, would that really be the same kind of pain? Is the Indian requesting the son unnecessarily shorten his mothers life just to be sure nobody questions that he was in fact opposed to the Christians? Or is he in fact doing it for the benefit of his wife?
I completely agree with Jill, this poem glamorizes the life and death of the Indian. Because of this it would be interesting to read to a C18 reader (and to us). It creates a story that people would want to hear, one that flows nicely and excites the reader. It takes a culture that people were unsure of and portrayed it as "heroic".
As far as Don Tucker's comment, I never thought of that. But the way you explained the fact that the English would read this because they could identify with the Indians in their hatred of the Spaniards is very interesting. I find myself swaying in my decision as to why the C18 readers read this toward your statement.
As KW points out, the poem draws on the violence, pain and brutality of both cultures explicitly considered in the poem, the Spanish and the natives. However, to me this is simply a tool of the author to appeal to the stereotypes of the masses. Everyone wants to read about the violence and the pain outside of themselves- look at the news we view today. Warton's dying Indian, while an intriguing and complex poem, is simply a pulling from images that are gruesome and appealing to his culture. People want to know about those mysteries across the ocean, The "othering" is so great that like Omai and Johnson, people want to know about how the "other" works like some sort of biological study. It seems to me like Warton is drawing on this trend in popular literature.
Post a Comment