Sama Alaa El Feky-
Professor Justin Kolb
October 29, 2015
Introduction To Literature
Paper Two: Aphra’s & Oroonoko’s hypocritically unusual perspectives on slavery
Why does slavery remain such a touchy subject? Why can’t we properly talk about it with no
fear of voicing the wrong thoughts? Why do African Americans never acknowledge that other
races were enslaved too? Why do we have such a negative perspective on slavery while in the
17th century, it was considered ordinary? Those questions have no right or wrong explanation.
They can be critiqued for eternity but an answer will always have another opposing answer
against it. After reading Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko, The Rover and Other Works, It became quite
clear that individuals at the time genuinely had their own reasons as to why slavery should exist
and it had nothing to do with evil deeds. The world nowadays considers slavery as such a
sensitive, risky topic that should be criticized very carefully so no one would be offended. In
Oroonoko’s time, however, slavery, in its glory, was almost as natural to chat about as eating and
sleeping. Aphra, the narrator, and Oroonoko, the protagonist, certainly had an oddly intrigued
approach to slavery. While Aphra underrated the act of slavery to the point where it seemed she
was romanticizing it, Oroonoko hypocritically justified slavery as long as it did not involve him.
Aphra pictured slavery as an inhumane entity throughout the act scenes; she narrated the
maltreatments that those captivated as slaves suffered on the hands of their masters. Throughout
the book her narration betrays that slavery is a serious condition that leads to the loss of human
identity as it is revealed to the readers that individuals had to be given new names when
enslaved. Even though Aphra did a complete justice to the description of the horrifying reality of
slavery, it was all through her narration of Oroonoko’s miserable story. When the readers,
however, would get just a simple glimpse of Aphra’s perspective of slavery, it would seem that
she underestimated the significance of the issue. Behn’s flat tone gives the impression she was
talking about the beautiful weather rather than slavery.
Aphra's attitude towards slavery certainly confuses readers as to whether she was with slavery
and colonialism or against them. She seems to describe the relationship between the English
masters and the slaves as based on mutual respect and understanding. "With these people, as I
said, we live in perfect tranquility, and good understanding, as it behooves us to do;” (P.204)
How could that be? Was she oblivious to the truth? Or did slaves pretend to accept situation?
The narrator possibly chose to stay in the dark; she most probably blocked herself from reality so
she would not have to face the cruelty slaves suffered. Was she only narrating what she thought
was suitable? It is possible she chose to tell the story of Oroonoko simply because she admired
the prince. The romantic side of his journey might have been the main reason she chose to
narrate this specific story.
Behn's writing obviously exposes her soft lust side for Oroonoko. There is too much infatuation
running deep between the lines of her pages for this man. She chose to tell his story because she
fancied him personally. How was he different from any other prince or any other slave? The fact
that she held back some truth, as in the slaves' misery, quite possibly reveals that slavery was not
supposed to dominate this story as much as it did. He begged Trefry to give him something more
befitting a slave, which he did, and took off his robes: nevertheless he shone through all, and his
osenbrigs…could not conceal the graces of his looks… he people could not help treating him in a
different manner.” (P.220) Oroonoko's romantic journey might had been her sole purpose
throughout her entire story and slavery just happened to exist then.
Great narrators never expose which side they are truly on, as they have to naturally objective in a
way. Behn failed to do that, as she always focused so much clear attention on Oroonoko that
easily exposed which side she prefered. “He had an extreme good and graceful mien, and all the
civility of a well-bred great man.” (P.206) The tone she used to elaborate on slavery was
consistently blunt throughout the story, as if she was bored with the issue. Even when she
described the torture Oroonoko endured because of slavery as barbaric, there was no compassion
in her tone. “They spared Imoinda, and did not let her see this barbarity committed towards her
lord.”(P.232) The narrator seemed to only have emotions in her tone when she was praising
Oroonoko's beauty, intelligence and royalty.
The cases of manipulation and persuasion that British masters engaged to haunt slaves never
overshadowed the reasons as to why they did that. Behn described that the British wanted the
slaves for their ability to have some much needed natural resources. Some British treated the
slaves well as they feared a potential uprising. "We find it absolutely necessary to caress ’em as
friends, and not to treat ’em as slaves, nor dare we do other, their numbers so far surpassing ours
in that continent.” (P. 205)
While Behn seemed to be neutral towards slavery and colonialism, Oroonoko was in fact with
slavery on certain terms. The prince was an incredibly proud, arrogant and most importantly
hypocritical man. His pride and honor of his position remained with till his death. Being sold
into slavery did nothing to ease down some of the ego Oroonoko held. He believed that it was
unfair for him to be a slave because he was a prince. Hypocrite much? How can he justify
slavery as okay for others but not him? He was a loving man to Imoinda even though he did use
his ego and power to have her. never let her go. She is his desire, and he must have her, or he
will not be satisfied. “He made her vows she should be the only woman he would possess while
he lived; that no age or wrinkles should incline him to change, for her soul would be always fine
and always young” (Behn 17) Oroonoko only listened to his wishes and wants and so it must
have been torturous for him to be ordered around, as a slave.
Although Oroonoko was this arrogant untamed prince, he had a huge respect for loyalty and
decency. The prince thought everyone had the same moral stand as him; his obvious
generalization made him incredibly naïve. Oroonoko's naivety is not only the reason as to what
tricked him into falling right in his enemies' trap but it is also the reason he has such false
perspective on slavery. “Come, my fellow-slaves, let us descend and see if we can meet with
more honour and honesty in the next world we shall touch upon” (Behn 41). His naivety
ultimately made him a blind man.
The prince believed slaves were necessary for those people who needed a hand with their daily
wishes and wants. Oroonoko genuinely believed though that slaves should be won, or more like
haunted, through wars. Would he have been okay with being a slave though if he had been
captured in a war? Unlikely. Oroonoko's ego would never let him be under anyone's control.
"Have they vanquished us nobly in fight? Have they won us in honourable battle? And are we
by the chance of war become their slaves? This would not anger a noble heart, this would not
animate a soldier’s soul. No, but we are bought and sold like apes or monkeys… Will you, I say,
suffer the lash from such hands?” (Behn 62).
Oroonoko can never submit to anyone no matter how good the master is. His talks about honesty,
decency and virtuous don't hold a candle to his actions. How can approve on slavery being a
common trade between enemies? It simply goes against everything he stands for. Oroonoko
couldn't even tolerate slavery for the short time he was captured. He felt it was cruel, tragic and
simply intolerant. After discovering his imoinda is pregnant with his child, he became even more
determined to free himself and his family from slavery. He tried to form a strike along with the
other slaves but as expected though, he did not really care about them one bit. When his plan
failed, Oroonoko honestly believed that the only way to free himself and his family is death.
How could he expect other slaves to handle slavery when he considered death to free himself
from such a state? While tears trickled down his cheeks, hers were smiling with joy she should
die by so noble a hand and be sent in her own country (for that is their notion of the next world)
by him she so tenderly loved and so truly adored in this,” (Behn 71). After the death of his wife,
Oroonoko, full of misery and grief, was chopped by the English into pieces.
Aphra and Oroonoko spoke of slavery as if they knew how the situation of it really was. Once
Oroonoko experienced the misery of slavery, he literally thought death was a better option than
to live this way. He could not handle it for himself or his family and so he is the biggest
hypocrite to want such a destiny for other individuals. Aphra, on the other hand, described the
perks of slavery extremely well, her flat tone, however, exposed that she had no clue what she
was discussing. She was simply only narrating without any experience of how torturous slavery
really is. No one can really judge slavery better than an experienced.