What struck me most as I read Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko was the way that Behn describes the natives. She uses phrases like “native beauty” (ebook p. 9) to describe their appearance, which makes them into a commodity because it portrays them as a rare and exotic thing to be obtained. Such phrases could easily have been used to describe land that the English wish to colonize or goods to be imported abroad for consumption. Her descriptions suggests that prominent attitudes toward native peoples during the Early Modern Period were that natives were to be collected and consumed like goods, which explains the acceptance and rationalization of slavery throughout the book.

Behn also seems to idolize nature and look upon foreign lands as pure or free of corrupted influence from the West. Perhaps she is responding to the political turmoil in England during this period in the aftermath of the English Civil War. She described the natives saying, “these people represented to me an absolute idea of the first state of innocence, before man knew how to sin. And ’tis most evident and plain that simple nature is the most harmless, inoffensive, and virtuous mistress. ‘Tis she alone, if she were permitted that better instructs the world than all the inventions of man” (ebook p. 6). Here Behn seems nostalgic for simpler times and looks upon nature almost as utopic, which is signaled by her emphasis on innocence and comparison of it to man’s influence. Quotations like this seem to be a commentary on the state of affaires during which she is writing.

Finally I would like to raise a question. Professor Rabin mentioned that there were many novels similar to Oroonoko published during this period, and that it was a common type of book within its genre. This being said, I wonder why this particular book is so well known. Why not one of the countless others?

When I read the Bewitching of Anne Gunter: A Horrible and True Story of Deception, Witchcraft, Murder, and the King of England by James Sharpe, I could not help but wonder if Anne was pregnant and perhaps the bewitching was a clever cover up or distraction from an inappropriate pregnancy out of wed-lock.

What led me to this conclusion was when Sharpe mentions in passing that “under Bancroft’s care in the autumn of 1605 she fell in love, probably for the first time in her life, with one of his servants, and at least one contemporary recorded that the love was reciprocated, and marriage envisaged”(p. 5). He then goes on to note that her illness began with hysteria, “a medical theory of the period held to be a characteristically female complaint, originating from disorder of the womb” (p.6). Later, Sharpe says that “swelling in her belly, occasioned by the disease the mother [hysteria] she was oftentimes vehemently afflicted…and lastly she hath been fair in love with Asheley, servant to the Lord of Canterbury, and is still, hath sought his love long most importantly and immodestly (in a manner unfit to be written) and she doth now humbly and earnestly crave our furtherance that she may marry him” (p.180)    *** page numbers are from an ebook version, Kindle Addition.

Based on this information, it seems to me it is very possible that Anne fell in love with an unsuitable match, since her family was well off with a good name and the boy she fell in love with was a servant. She probably got pregnant, which would explain the hysteria, strictly as woman’s disease affecting her, as well as multiple remarks about her swollen belly. Additionally, pregnancy would explain why Anne’s father pushed her to go on with the trial. If Anne was pregnant with a child out of wed-lock from an unsuitable suitor, it is likely that her father would seek to hide that she was pregnant under the cover of bewitchment to preserve her eligibility for marriage to someone of higher rank. Furthermore, he would have every reason to hide an inappropriate pregnancy to persevere the family’s reputation, since women’s actions reflected on their family name and their name was well respected. Finally, the fact that Anne wanted to marry the boy she fell in love with further supports the idea that she might have been pregnant because people during this time were religious, and it is reasonable to infer that if she were pregnant that she would seek to marry the father of the child for religious reasons.

I am just speculating, but the evidence can definitely be interpreted this way. Perhaps further research and additional documents would solidify my arguments.

I have studied Gender and Women’s Studies, and throughout those courses the focus is on race and gender. However, it was never really explained why those two subjects were addressed together so often, which is odd because the college is not called “Gender, Race, and Women’s Studies;” the connection was not self-explanatory. Before, it seemed to me that race was stuck in with gender haphazardly, but after reading Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism, I finally have an explanation for why the subjects are addressed together.

In the book, Ania Loomba says, “what we call race does not indicate natural or biological divisions so much as social divisions which are characterized as if they were natural or biological.” and that “gender difference was equally crucial to the development of race as a concept. Racial difference was imagined in terms of an inversion or distortion of ‘normal’ gender roles and sexual behavior”

Loomba’s arguments drew my attention to the fact that people of different races and women were both made subordinate to white men because they were believed to be fundamentally lessor naturally. Women differed from men in terms of their sex, and it was believed that men were naturally superior to women. Sandra Bem’s theory of gender enculturation (1993) provides an explanation for this mentality. The theory includes three lenses: gender polarization, androcentrism, and biological essentialism. Gender polarization refers to the fact that males and females are different fundamentally and those differences are a principle for organizing social society. Androcentrism is the idea that males are superior to females and that male is the normative standard to which females are judged. Biological essentialism claims that the differences between males and females as well as male superiority are natural byproducts of the biological differences between the sexes. Bem’s theory reveals the reasons behind women’s subordination, which could easily be applied to subjugation due to race. As such, the way that white men saw women as inferior due to their differences was easily applied to people of other races because they too were different from the male normative standard. Neither difference, due to sex or race, was founded on natural inferiority, but socially any difference from white men was normalized to give those who differed lessor status. Therefore, race and gender are studied together because both women and race were subject to the same scrutiny because of their differences from white men, and were subordinated because of it.

What struck me most while I was reading Envisioning America, especially in “Inducements to the Liking of the Voyage Intended towards Virginia in 40. and 42. Degrees” written by Richard Hakluyt in 1585, was how the expectations for the New Wold seemed to evolve from earlier ones seen in Sources and Databases in 4.1, “What commodities would ensure, this passage once discovered” written by Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578. In the earlier source by Gilbert, the new world is portrayed as a productive place to send criminals and poor people. He suggests that they “inhabit some part of those countries [colonized lands] and settle there such needy people of our country which now trouble the commonwealth” (p.79). However in the later source, Hakluyt lists skilled workers who should be sent to the colonies. He lists all manner of skilled men who should go on the voyage such as fishermen, salt-makers, husbandmen, gardeners, and countless others. The transition of the colonies from a dumping ground for people who used the resources of the common wealth into an opportunity for skilled labor is singled by the differences in these two documents. The change also suggests a more informed and practical view of the colonies, and the reality that civilization as the English thought of it would need to be constructed and skilled labor was necessary in order to do that.

Another key difference between the earlier and later source is that the later source in Envisioning America seems to specify what the earlier source in Sources and Databases referenced more generally. In the earlier source Gilbert suggests that a benefit of colonization would be finding resources that England usually imported, ending England’s dependence on countries like France or Spain for trade (79). While Hakluyt specifically names the commodities that the English hoped to find in order to accomplish the goal of becoming independent in terms of resources and trade. He mentions in great detail “our Vines, our Olives, our Figge trees, our Sugar-canes, our Orenges and Limons, Corne, Cattell” (p.42). These commodities, while unlikely to actually be in Virginia, reveal a more detailed picture of what the English hoped to gain from colonization and how ideas attached to the colonies evolved in the time between 1578 and 1585.

Bossy’s Under the Molehill can be confusing and it is filled with seemingly endless details about the minutia of Elizabethan politics. However difficult Bossy’s writing is for readers to follow, it does shed light on the intricate and complicated nature of politics during this period because the period itself was sordid with religious and political conflicts bubbling below the surface as well as boiling over and causing a stir. Bossy captures this aspect of society, while thoroughly confounding readers about whom he is referring to at various points in the book. Nevertheless, the book clearly contains extensive research about an interesting topic in Elizabethan history, which was the relationship between Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scotts and between Protestants and Catholics.

With that said, the quote that I have chosen from Under the Molehill is much broader as it reveals the continuation of a focus on social order and anxieties toward those who challenged hierarchy.

Bossy discusses Maheut saying that he “changed his name on the grounds that he needed to pass incognito since the English hated him so much. When he was left on his own he got a severe reprimand from his superiors for ‘playing the great man’ and assuming the status of ambassador to which he had no title. He certainly invested in spectacular clothes, and borrowed and spent a lot of money for which his government refused to reimburse him.” (p. 42-43)

In his description of Maheut, Bossy draws attention to Elizabethan anxieties about status and social climbers. His reference to Maheut’s name change reveals that relations between the English and French are still tense as he changes his name because he is in England and his name is recognizably French. Bossy’s mention of his reprimand uncovers more than Maheut’s character, as it divulges that order remains a key facet of society during the Elizabethan period. Reprimand for dress, actions, and use of unearned title above his station indicates that Maheut threatened his superiors by upending social order that was kept in by place and displayed through such expressions. Furthermore, mention of him spending above his means to acquire clothes and that the government would not reimburse him for shows not only that people of higher rank would resent his ability to acquire goods that they were able to afford, but also acknowledges that the government did not accept his actions and the way that they challenged order and upset those of higher rank. Lack of governmental support discouraged challenges to order. This idea of order was formerly reinforced in England by Henry VIII and rulers before him in An Act Against Costly Apparel, which regulated who could posses certain types of clothing in great detail (Sources and Databases, Key and Bucholz,1.3, p.6).