The Romans are Coming! The Romans are Coming!
It is said that the Romans were the greatest conquerors of modern history. They are therefore an obvious and convenient subject for comparison in The Heart of Darkness to the modern conquering English. The main character, Marlow, does just this in the first few pages of the novel in his “yarn” told to the crew of the Nellie. His comparison is interesting and also slightly nebulous. Because of the certain ambiguity that seems to be characteristic of the novel the reason for and meaning of the comparison can be looked upon with some objective interpretation both for its face value as well as on a deeper level. It is interesting to look beyond Marlow’s perspectives on Roman conquest and to consider what message the books author, Joseph Conrad, is voicing through his narrators story. The words are the same but the messages are different.
I was at first perplexed by the comparison. Actually, I should say that I was at second perplexed, having only looked deeper into the comparison upon my second reading of the novel. Because it was my second pass I had already established firmly in my mind that the author of the novel saw conquest as something that darkens the land and is in general negative, yet his main character speaks of it as something noble both when done by the simple Romans as well as by the English who elevated conquest to “more humane” colonialism. This positive perspective on conquest was, to me, a contradiction to the main themes and messages of the novel, i.e. any form of European expansion as negative.
Let me first quickly justify what led me to believe that Marlow saw conquest in general as positive before discussion of the purpose of the Romans comparison in general. I have come to this conclusion from Marlow’s statement that the land around the Thames was dark before the Romans conquered. And, “Light came out of this river since.” The idea that light is classically thought of as something positive in narrative fiction is what solidifies this viewpoint. Themes of light and dark in Les Miserables is a good example of such thought.
As said, conquest as positive conflicts with one of the largest themes of the novel. I could not understand why the main character would have “the wrong” ideas. It wasn’t until I stepped back and looked through and past Marlow’s opinion to the underling perspective of Conrad himself that things began, I say began, they haven’t fully yet, became clear.
Conrad’s storytelling technique is interesting in the dialogue. His deceptive method of making one thing seem obvious while really meaning the opposite is what makes his writing stimulating. The comparison between the Romans and the English is at first set up to make the reader form a connection between the Romans and the English as being very similar to each other. It is easy to see that their similarities are abundant. Both stories, that of the Romans and that of the narrator’s journey up the Congo appeal to the sailor’s life as romantic. Both the Romans and Marlow’s journey travel through hostile environments. The drive for promotion and financial gain are motivations of both the Romans and the Eldorado Expedition. Somewhat more deeply entwined in the story is a fascination that the Romans as well as Marlow have with abomination. Marlow states this as true of the Romans, the reader will glean it from Marlow. The description of the Roman journey up the Thames is a mirror to Marlow’s journey up the Congo. This is what makes Marlow’s description and in the end his statement that the Romans are dissimilar to the English slightly disorienting. He says, in reference to a decent young Romans emotions on such a journey, “Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this.” All of the savagery of conquest that the reader thinks that Marlow is saying all Europeans have been participating in is shot down. This is only deception by the author used for effect. Things get interesting when Marlow participates in “colonialism.”
Yes, the similarities are seemingly obvious. What makes the comparison interesting is the narrators own perceived dissimilarities. The best way to go about dissecting the true meanings and reasons for the inclusion of Marlow’s Romans dialogue is to discuss the mentioned dissimilarities that Marlow sees. Through this we will see Conrad’s perspectives, and solve our contradiction problem.
To Marlow what makes the English different from the Romans is that modern Europeans are more “efficient” than the less refined Romans, who Marlow calls conquerors. Marlow calls himself and the others on the boat colonists, a much more eloquent designation. As a colonist they have more than just the “brute force” of the Romans and the English’s strength is more than just “an accident arising from the weakness of others.” It is evolved and refined. The ways of the English are superior to the Romans because they can think about what they are doing. They use their minds and strategy. They are right, most noble, the chosen ones, that it is their God given right to take what they want form the earth. God is on the side of the English because they are smarter, more deserving and also whiter than those they conquer. The single designation of efficiency is what Marlow proposes makes them different or better than the Romans. It seems like a weak and vague argument, perhaps posed purposefully by Conrad. Marlow ends rather vaguely and inconclusively with “the idea,” which I do not fully understand but gather that he is pointing to the fact that being a conqueror sounds good in theory as long as you think of it as the idea of conquering only and try as much as possible to shy away from looking deeper into what the act of conquering actually entails. Is this what he means by English efficiency, ignoring or not noticing the process of colonialism? Is he too blind to see?
Now with all this justification from our stories main character of colonialism I as the reader naturally side with Marlow at first. What the English are doing is not violent conquering but more gentle and noble colonialism. Marlow is the main character and therefore a sympathetic person to identify with. But when you step back and consider The Heart of Darkness not as a hero story but as a spoof on the modern adventure tale the comparisons takes on a new light. This is the heart of my argument. The idea that The Heart of Darkness is parody is central to seeing the true meaning of Marlow’s comparison. It becomes ironic when all of the greed, killing, and violence that goes on in the jungle of the expedition that makes up the remainder of Marlow’s story is considered. Conrad intends Marlow’s dialogue to be paradoxical. Marlow and, more to the extreme, the others who went into the jungle with Marlow are EXACTLY EVERYTHING that Marlow says they are not. This is the point of the Romans dialogue in The Heart of Darkness. It is included so that Marlow can denounce the ways of societies that conquer weaker societies. With the criticism of the Roman ways he is ironically commenting on and denouncing himself. The English cannot see their ways and therefore look stupid for not recognizing their own similarities to simple brutes.
Hopes of further discussion and clarification is the reason that I post. Feel free to comment, critique and tell me that I am wrong. I am interested in the discussion.
I was at first perplexed by the comparison. Actually, I should say that I was at second perplexed, having only looked deeper into the comparison upon my second reading of the novel. Because it was my second pass I had already established firmly in my mind that the author of the novel saw conquest as something that darkens the land and is in general negative, yet his main character speaks of it as something noble both when done by the simple Romans as well as by the English who elevated conquest to “more humane” colonialism. This positive perspective on conquest was, to me, a contradiction to the main themes and messages of the novel, i.e. any form of European expansion as negative.
Let me first quickly justify what led me to believe that Marlow saw conquest in general as positive before discussion of the purpose of the Romans comparison in general. I have come to this conclusion from Marlow’s statement that the land around the Thames was dark before the Romans conquered. And, “Light came out of this river since.” The idea that light is classically thought of as something positive in narrative fiction is what solidifies this viewpoint. Themes of light and dark in Les Miserables is a good example of such thought.
As said, conquest as positive conflicts with one of the largest themes of the novel. I could not understand why the main character would have “the wrong” ideas. It wasn’t until I stepped back and looked through and past Marlow’s opinion to the underling perspective of Conrad himself that things began, I say began, they haven’t fully yet, became clear.
Conrad’s storytelling technique is interesting in the dialogue. His deceptive method of making one thing seem obvious while really meaning the opposite is what makes his writing stimulating. The comparison between the Romans and the English is at first set up to make the reader form a connection between the Romans and the English as being very similar to each other. It is easy to see that their similarities are abundant. Both stories, that of the Romans and that of the narrator’s journey up the Congo appeal to the sailor’s life as romantic. Both the Romans and Marlow’s journey travel through hostile environments. The drive for promotion and financial gain are motivations of both the Romans and the Eldorado Expedition. Somewhat more deeply entwined in the story is a fascination that the Romans as well as Marlow have with abomination. Marlow states this as true of the Romans, the reader will glean it from Marlow. The description of the Roman journey up the Thames is a mirror to Marlow’s journey up the Congo. This is what makes Marlow’s description and in the end his statement that the Romans are dissimilar to the English slightly disorienting. He says, in reference to a decent young Romans emotions on such a journey, “Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this.” All of the savagery of conquest that the reader thinks that Marlow is saying all Europeans have been participating in is shot down. This is only deception by the author used for effect. Things get interesting when Marlow participates in “colonialism.”
Yes, the similarities are seemingly obvious. What makes the comparison interesting is the narrators own perceived dissimilarities. The best way to go about dissecting the true meanings and reasons for the inclusion of Marlow’s Romans dialogue is to discuss the mentioned dissimilarities that Marlow sees. Through this we will see Conrad’s perspectives, and solve our contradiction problem.
To Marlow what makes the English different from the Romans is that modern Europeans are more “efficient” than the less refined Romans, who Marlow calls conquerors. Marlow calls himself and the others on the boat colonists, a much more eloquent designation. As a colonist they have more than just the “brute force” of the Romans and the English’s strength is more than just “an accident arising from the weakness of others.” It is evolved and refined. The ways of the English are superior to the Romans because they can think about what they are doing. They use their minds and strategy. They are right, most noble, the chosen ones, that it is their God given right to take what they want form the earth. God is on the side of the English because they are smarter, more deserving and also whiter than those they conquer. The single designation of efficiency is what Marlow proposes makes them different or better than the Romans. It seems like a weak and vague argument, perhaps posed purposefully by Conrad. Marlow ends rather vaguely and inconclusively with “the idea,” which I do not fully understand but gather that he is pointing to the fact that being a conqueror sounds good in theory as long as you think of it as the idea of conquering only and try as much as possible to shy away from looking deeper into what the act of conquering actually entails. Is this what he means by English efficiency, ignoring or not noticing the process of colonialism? Is he too blind to see?
Now with all this justification from our stories main character of colonialism I as the reader naturally side with Marlow at first. What the English are doing is not violent conquering but more gentle and noble colonialism. Marlow is the main character and therefore a sympathetic person to identify with. But when you step back and consider The Heart of Darkness not as a hero story but as a spoof on the modern adventure tale the comparisons takes on a new light. This is the heart of my argument. The idea that The Heart of Darkness is parody is central to seeing the true meaning of Marlow’s comparison. It becomes ironic when all of the greed, killing, and violence that goes on in the jungle of the expedition that makes up the remainder of Marlow’s story is considered. Conrad intends Marlow’s dialogue to be paradoxical. Marlow and, more to the extreme, the others who went into the jungle with Marlow are EXACTLY EVERYTHING that Marlow says they are not. This is the point of the Romans dialogue in The Heart of Darkness. It is included so that Marlow can denounce the ways of societies that conquer weaker societies. With the criticism of the Roman ways he is ironically commenting on and denouncing himself. The English cannot see their ways and therefore look stupid for not recognizing their own similarities to simple brutes.
Hopes of further discussion and clarification is the reason that I post. Feel free to comment, critique and tell me that I am wrong. I am interested in the discussion.
posted by Matthew at
8:01 PM
4 Comments:
Geez, a literary critic! When did you have time? Co-incidentally, I have been thinking about the comparison between the Roman and the European expansions and conquests as well, but I think I saw it somewhat differently.
I think the unidentified narrator of the frame story expresses the traditional view of imperialism from the perspective of the dominant culture. This is a nationalistic perspective which views conquests of other cultures as adventurous, profitable, and noble, if not sacred. The unidentified narrator views those who conquered unknown lands and built the British Empire as “men of whom the nation is proud,” as “messengers of the might within the land, bearers of a spark from the sacred fire.” He continues,
What greatness had not floated on the ebb of that river into the mystery of an unknown earth! The dreams of men, the seed of commonwealths, the germs of empires.
Marlow, quickly begins his narrative by saying, “And this also…has been one of the dark places of earth.” This foreshadows Marlow’s negative point of view.
When speaking of the Roman conquest Marlow says, “Light came out of this river since – you say Knights?” Notice it’s a question. I think he’s challenging the unidentified narrator’s view of imperialism, not expressing his own attitude.
Marlow follows up by saying, “Yes, but it is like a running blaze on a plain, lake a flash of lightning in the clouds. We live in the flicker – may it last as long as the old earth keeps rolling! [it may not]. But darkness was here yesterday.” With this, he dismisses the grandeur of the great British Empire and the legacy of the great Roman Empire, as insignificant in the larger scope of things.
More later
Then for my own clarification on who and what is dark, positive/negative, etcetera, let me post my current stream of thoughts and reconsiderations.
The quote, "And this also has been one of the dark places on Earth" in the beginning of the narrative refers to the times of Roman conquest and portrays them and what they are doing as negative (dark). Correct?
The quote, "Light came out of this river since" is Marlow referring to the more humane ways of the British and their colonialism although stated with an air of challenge to its validity then.
The possible insincerity of this previous statement sets up the next statements regarding the possibility that the light will flicker out and the area will again become dark if the British continue participating in colonialism and conquest.
"But darkness was here yesterday" at the end of the sentence group is a reiteration of Marlow's perspective of the dark Roman past and is a transition sentence into an exploration of just what exactly made the Romans conquest dark. Description of this darkness follows in the text.
Is this a correct breakdown of Marlow's meaning, use and designation of the term dark?
My confusion was rooted in thinking that "And this also has been one of the dark places on Earth" was referring to the times before the Roman conquest and that times after were considered light as in "Light came out of the river since." Perspective changes when rethinking the darkness as not a state before the Romans but during.
All of these designations do, however, create some conflict with Conrad's next use of the word darkness when he says that the Romans "were men enough to face the darkness." That darkness being part of the conquered land, camps "lost in a wilderness" and "death skulking in the air, in the water, in the bush." The land is clearly dark. This is a direct contradiction to the idea that the Romans are the ones who brought the darkness to the land. The assignment of "...this also has been one of the dark places on Earth" as resulting from the Romans is wrong now.
With further reasoning one can come to say that if Marlow is referring to the world that the Roman is conquering as dark and if conquering is a battle (good vs bad, bad vs good) then there are opposing forces involved, one dark, one light, and if light is good then the Romans are good because the land is dark.
Leaving that behind and deciding that Marlow actually agrees that "Light came out of the river since" because even though he asks it as a question he does say "yes" after without a question mark. The question is then who made the "flash of lightning in the clouds"? The Romans because we can consider them good? No, because Marlow says that "light came... since," since meaning since the old times of the Romans that he had just finished mentioning. This conflicts with my previous paragraph and makes it wrong.
It can only mean that it was the British who made the light and that Marlow is cautioning that the light will fade if they do not change their methods.
(CONTINUED)
On another level if we ignore all of the contradictions and go with the idea that both Roman conquest and British colonialism is seen as positive then The Heart of Darkness isn't a critique on imperialism at all which is definitely not true. They both cannot be light.
The only way that the initial interpretation of my "comment" can be considered to be true and for the designations that follow it to be true is that if the Romans are fighting darkness with darkness and everything is dark, except the British who are the perceived light but who Marlow actually sees as dark also.
Is there no good in the world of Conrad? All of this reading and thinking and talking and writing just to find out that everything is dark? The horror!
My error is in assuming that things are either black or white when they are in fact all black. This does negate the flash of lighting in the clouds as being assignable to either the Romans or the British though and therefore meaningless unless it is only Marlow saying such a thing to appease his audience.
I am and have been going in circles with this and have to stop before my head explodes. After this ranting I now have to convince myself that I am not psychotic or schizophrenic because this post kind of makes me feel like it. And... we haven't even made it to the discussion of what Marlow means when he says that what saves everyone on the deck of the Nellie from all of this is "efficiency."
I noticed that I missed another reference to darkness in the dialogue. The missed instance is very revealing in to our discussion but further clouds exactly who and what the author considers to be dark.
The lines are, in reference to the Romans, "It was robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind - as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness."
This seems to makes it clear that the land is what is dark which would lead me to believe that the Romans are battleing to conquer it, to make it light. This is the traditional thought of a battle of light versus dark.
That the Romans are light is however not what I have come to believe. My opinion in regard to who and what Conrad sees as dark is that he sees everyone as dark, as light, no one. The Romans are darkness conquering a dark land and the British are dark in their ways as well, although Marlow plays to his audience and calls them light in reference to light coming out of the river since the Romans. His personal opinion is that they are dark.
It is possible that light came after the Romans and in between the imperial British when times were more civilized but the light is now slowly fading with the ways of colonialism which would explain how Conrad could see the land as dark, the Romans as dark, and the British as dark.
That, I think is the perspective I will maintain unless someone can convince me otherwise. Everything is dark.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home