Colonialism and Morality in The Moonstone and The Man Who Would Be King

Colonialism and Morality in The Moonstone and The Man Who Would Be KingLet us presuppose to begin with that the cursed jewel is an impossibility and the powers of the Moonstone or any other gem for that matter only exist on an atomic level ( i.e. the energies which bind such objects together and make them what they are). Additionally it should be considered that no such object is the means by which a being exerts powers and no such object consciously exerts powers itself. Notions of the cursed or powerful jewel can be seen as a bi-product of what Said terms Orientalism. Said describes The Orient as almost a European invention, a place of exotic beings and remarkable experiences. (Ashcroft et al ed. p.87) This hypothesis adequately compliments Wilkie Collins characterisation of the eponymous jewel in The Moonstone and the moral pattern the author forms around its adventures.

In the Nineteenth Century the jewel was the ultimate exotic object, Collins describes the Moonstone as a yellow diamond- a famous gem in the native annals of India, (Collins p.33) and clearly credits influence to the Koh-i-Noor in his preface to the novel. Collins builds upon the alien nature of such an object utilising the perceived mysticism of the Orient linking the jewel to a four handed Indian God (Collins p.33) [Saids exotic being ?] and superstition, the notion of the jewel feeling the influence of the deity who adorned it (Collins p.33) [remarkable experiences to Said?]. Collins rapidly develops the exotic object into the cursed object primarily to create a long involving tale with a successfully satisfying denouement. the novel is, of course foremost a detective story; how memorable or lengthy a tale would it have been if the misappropriated object were as English and as homely as say half a crown or a tin of boot polish? The jewel is portrayed as a fascinating invader in the Empires heartland, an English country estate, in theory its safest haven. The Moonstone is a narrative device which illuminates the text in multiple ways.

Such a device remains popular in western adventure literature and film, whether in the form of an Egyptian scarab or a monkeys claw. The mystical object with powerful properties is involved in adventure tales from Conan-Doyle through Indiana Jones, even one of the most famous of modern legends the fates of Carter and Caernarfon excavators of Tutankahmuns tomb involves a curse and shameful Orientalism. Perhaps the best indicator of such notions becoming part of western folklore is when they become utilised as simple metaphor. This is apparent in John Hustons 1975 film version of Rudyard Kiplings The Man Who Would Be King. The desire of the central protagonists; Peachy Carnahan and Daniel Dravitt to become Kings of an isolated region of the Indian sub-continent is built upon by the abundance of treasures that becomes available to them, an aspect absent from Kiplings original tale. Hustons version increases the greed of the two adventurers which in turn provides a more satisfying justification of their fates than we receive in the original short story.

Whilst admiring giant rubies Hustons Peachy remarks All we need do is fill our pockets and wed be millionaires. Dravitt then retorts that if they stayed they would be Kings. Carnahan subsequently remarks these here stones make the jewels in The Tower of London look like cheap family heirlooms. Surely one must assume that the desire to be visibly richer than the richest Empire is profoundly immoral. The cursed jewel blatantly becomes transmuted into that which it always signified: cursed greed. It is not the jewels that are bad it is the act of stealing them. This is a contrast to Kiplings original emphasis upon a different kind of immorality; Dravitts wish to break his contract, his word of honour and take a wife. The scratch of his brides finger nail being an indication to the natives that he is not in fact a God but composed of flesh and blood and hence his downfall. The scene has a more fitting place in the novel than the film which also utilises it as a moment of high drama.

A notion common to both forms of The Man Who Would Be King is that the immorality is revenged by the native people, in narrative terms they could be re-evaluated not as savages but as upholders of virtues forgotten by Empire builders. However, a similar reading of The Moonstone produces far more noteworthy results. The author seems to divest himself of the burden of taking an ethical standpoint. Moral balance becomes the responsibility of the native culture and people, this in turn is objectified in the Moonstone itself. Collins presents us with a for the want of a better term; discerning curse, a moral arbiter. At an extreme the cursed jewel can be seen as a universalist device dispensing sub-Christian morality. Virtuous characters pass on the jewel unharmed, Franklin Blake emphasised as being the innocent means of bringing the unlucky jewel into the house, (Collins p.47) or Rachel Verrinder another innocent youth. Alternatively bad non-virtuous characters are harmed, John Herncastle came back [from India] with a character that closed the doors of his family against him... (Collins p.63) Godfrey Ablewhite seems to suffer a death of Orientalisation; compare the original description of the character as having a beautiful red and white colour; a smooth round face, shaved as bare as your hand and a head of lovely long flaxen hair, (Collins p.89) to the later image of his disguised cadaver The mans swarthy face was placid and still with black hair and beard. (p.50). One can only conject that this is a transformation that is intended to strike the Ablewhites of the world with disgust rather than the more liberal.

If such ideas are valid and morality is placed with the colonised people rather than with the widely presumed superior of the time the colonist, are we thus viewing the suggestion of an enlightened pluralistic approach being presented by Collins and Kipling? What is normally the other is afforded respect in both stories uncommon for the time. Although the texts do not directly acknowledge the harm Empire may be doing to the colony, Indian culture is portrayed as the conscience of what Said would call European material civilisation and culture (Ashcroft et al ed. p.87) something of which he believes the Orient to be an integral part.

These texts and ideas have led me to construct a table which loosely reflects the moral attitudes put forward by Collins/Kipling/Huston in the discussed works. I do not claim it to be in any way universal and it is certainly a simplification of ideas yet I believe it to be a useful model for comparison to other texts and may facilitate future discussion.

Table: Actions and Moral Standpoints in The Moonstone and The Man Who Would Be King.ACTIONEQUALS?PERFORMED BY...

Direct looting.Bad Imperialism.John Herncastle, Godfrey Ablewhite, Daniel Dravitt (film/book),P.Carnahan (film).

Controlling of persons.

(Pseudo-looting in name of the crown?)Tolerated Imperialism.Peachy Carnahan (book).

Innocent appreciation of native culture.Good Imperialism.Franklin Blake, Rachel Verrinder, Mr Murthwaite, Narrator of The Man Who Would Be King (Kipling?)

Bibliography

Collins, Wilkie The Moonstone London: Penguin 1966

Kipling, Rudyard The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories London: Granada 1975

The Post-Colonial Studies Reader e. Ashcroft, Griffith, Tiffin, London: Routledge 1995

The Man Who Would Be King dir. John Huston 1975

PAGE 3