4/26 Thoughts


A basic question: Who are we as White Americans, and where did that identity come from?

Assumption: "White American" identity derived from English/British (where do Scots & Irish come in?), as opposed to French, Spanish, or other European immigrants.

Assumption: That identity has been forged in relation to two "darker" races: African and Amerindian, and cannot be separated from them (but does not partake of them, either; that is, it exists in contrast to them and as a result of confrontation with them.


Dryden and artificiality: (from "General Introduction" to John Dryden: Four Tragedies, Beaurline and Bowers, eds.)

Looking at the debate between Hector and Troilus again, we see that it does not proceed logically, nor do Troilus and Hector make a great show of reason; rather the whole impression comes from our awareness that their words project intense feelings by means of artificial devices, mannered contrasts, and patterned development: the movement from self-centered passion to public-centered compassion. The pattern has almost a life of its own; it is a desirable form by which to depict character and to excite the audience's sympathy, yet we are always conscious of the artifice, the bold turns and counter-turns. This sense of disjunction--of the gap between art and nature continually opening and closing but most often being maintained in surprising tension, wherein artifice restrains boldness and boldness itself becomes artificial in order to limit some contrary passion--this is Dryden's most characteristic mode, and it makes him, in modern terms, a distinctly "inorganic" artist. (p. 3)

-----------------

Reading The Indian Emperour, I was quite struck by the scene (4.1) in which Cortez is imprisoned and in chains and Almeria comes to murder him but cannot in the face of his absolute equanimity; instead, she falls in love with him. What a strange scene! Cortez does nothing but lie there and say, "I cannot feare so faire an Enemy," and Almeria is stopped in her tracks. She asks, "Whence can thy Courage come?" and he answers only, "From innocence." He is absolutely virtuous.
Along these lines, I'm wondering if there is something in the nature of Dryden's heroes, and in their connection to the libertine, which could be central to the developing sense of English identity during the Restoration (I sound like I know what I'm talking about...) I'm getting this from the introduction to John Dryden: Four Tragedies (1967, Beaurline and Bowers, eds.) in which the editors say that Dryden adapts the earlier English and continental hero "... to Restoration times and [depicts] him as a natural man who prized his freedom and self-respect above all things. That strain of primitivism was woven through contemporary libertine thought, and it was manifest in comedies of the age." They go on to cite contemporary ridicule of Dryden for making gallants into heroes. Then--I'm happy to say, because I read this after being knocked out by the prison scene--they discuss Cortez and the prison scene, and conclude that the virtue he shows in this scene (by remaining true to his first love, Cydaria, and honest with Almeria in the face of both his imminant death and her professed love) is repeated in subsequent scenes until "He wins both power and beauty, demonstrating that independence and truth to an inner code of natural virtue are finally consistent with power and public virtue."
So: Does Dryden's portrayal of this kind of hero (and the continued popularity of this and similar plays) reflect an attempt by the English to justify all the benefits gained through what they also seem to perceive as rapacious colonial mercantilism? Is it their attempt to have their cake and eat it too? How are our attempts to justify (and/or be blind to) White privilege similar to these earlier attempts? Are we doing the same thing, and, if so, are we re-producing, re-performing, the same behavior? And, if so, in what way do we behave the way we do today because of these earlier attempts? Or am I being entirely too simplistic?
I think these are the fundamental questions of my project.


----------------

Continuing to read The Indian Emperour

re-read 4.2: terrific debate on duty, virtue, and "our country's good", as Alibech tries to persuade Guyomar to go behind Montezuma's back to make peace with Cortez in the face of the starvation produced by the seige:

Alibech: When Kings grow stubborn, slothfull, or unwise
Each private man for publique good should rise;
As when the Head distempers does endure,
Each several part must join t'effect the cure.
Guyomar:
Take heed, faire Maide, how Monarchs you accuse:
Such reasons none but impious Rebells use:
Those who to Empire by dark paths aspire,
Still plead a call to what they most desire;

Entire scene is very interesting.


Thoughts after completing Indian Emperour:

Can't imagine what Indian Kings must have thought (even assuming they could understand Dryden's language, which I doubt). Fact that play was still in repertoire (was it command performance from them) is significant. Cortez as emblem of virtue in war and love (as opposed to all other Spanish). Noble savages. Female characters usually assertive only in negative aspects (unlike Southerne's heroine).

Scene in which Montezuma and his priest being racked,and in which he argues theology with Catholic priest very interesting. What would it be like to stage? Priest trying to convert and reason with M. as torturing him. Of course, intent is to affirm English anti-Spanish, anti-Catholic tendencies, and so to valorize English identity as the opposite (represented by Cortez, who rushes in to save M.).

Cortez has women fighting over him! What a man!