The Moonstone and Imperialism; with an Intertextual Tip at the End

The Moonstone and Imperialism; with an Intertextual Tip at the End

Concurring with John Reed, Margery Sabin, Barry Milligan, etc. in their fundamental perception of The Moonstone as an anti-imperialist text, this paper proposes to present the kind of textual evidence that shows its author at his editorial planning of an appropriate method to convey his message concerning British imperialism. The British general public being hysterical about what they perceived as “Indian threats” at the time of writing and publishing of this novel, Collins is viewed as representing rather surreptitiously the “unacknowledged crime of imperial depredation” the English as a whole has committed towards India. The apparent scapegoat, Colonel Herncastle, whom Collins lets the other British people outrage against and thereby resolve their troubling psychology with respect to the Indian problem, is argued to prove not a scapegoat but Collins’s own editorial medium that enables him to present his ultimate message concerning British imperialism. Mr. Ezra Jennings is viewed as a resurrected version of the Colonel in a later stage of his illness based on several important clues embedded in the novel - their ostracized condition of existence, their opium addition, their scholarly tendency one manifestation of which is their penchant for chemical experiment, etc. The Colonel and Mr. Jennings take their turn setting up the drama of the sudden disappearance of the Indian gem from Rachel’s Indian cabinet and then solving the mystery with the thieves turning out to be the seemingly innocent Mr. Blake and Mr. Ablewhite. Thus, the Colonel, Blake and Ablewhite, all blood relatives as men of the Herncastles, turn out to be not much different from each other as far as the theft of the Indian gem is concerned. The arguable differences between them are attributed as a function of beautification and mystification purposely thrown into the text by the author. In addition to the evidence offered in the form of the editorial presence embodied in the two men, the Colonel and Mr. Jennings, the intertextuality working between the novel and Robinson Crusoe is also adduced as another important clue to Collins’s ironic treatment of the so-called respectable English people, especially their “English ideas” which cannot square with the “impertinent” Indian ideas or threats.

Concurring with John Reed, Margery Sabin, Barry Milligan, etc. in their fundamental perception of The Moonstone as an anti-imperialist text, this paper proposes to present the kind of textual evidence that shows its author at his editorial planning of an appropriate method to convey his message concerning British imperialism. The British general public being hysterical about what they perceived as “Indian threats” at the time of writing and publishing of this novel, Collins is viewed as representing rather surreptitiously the “unacknowledged crime of imperial depredation” the English as a whole has committed towards India. The apparent scapegoat, Colonel Herncastle, whom Collins lets the other British people outrage against and thereby resolve their troubling psychology with respect to the Indian problem, is argued to prove not a scapegoat but Collins’s own editorial medium that enables him to present his ultimate message concerning British imperialism. Mr. Ezra Jennings is viewed as a resurrected version of the Colonel in a later stage of his illness based on several important clues embedded in the novel - their ostracized condition of existence, their opium addition, their scholarly tendency one manifestation of which is their penchant for chemical experiment, etc. The Colonel and Mr. Jennings take their turn setting up the drama of the sudden disappearance of the Indian gem from Rachel’s Indian cabinet and then solving the mystery with the thieves turning out to be the seemingly innocent Mr. Blake and Mr. Ablewhite. Thus, the Colonel, Blake and Ablewhite, all blood relatives as men of the Herncastles, turn out to be not much different from each other as far as the theft of the Indian gem is concerned. The arguable differences between them are attributed as a function of beautification and mystification purposely thrown into the text by the author. In addition to the evidence offered in the form of the editorial presence embodied in the two men, the Colonel and Mr. Jennings, the intertextuality working between the novel and Robinson Crusoe is also adduced as another important clue to Collins’s ironic treatment of the so-called respectable English people, especially their “English ideas” which cannot square with the “impertinent” Indian ideas or threats.