University of California Santa Cruz Romance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ ROMANCE: THE EMULATION OF EMPIRE A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LITERATURE by Martha E. Bonilla December 2016 The Dissertation of Martha E. Bonilla is approved: __________________________________ Professor Susan Gillman, chair __________________________________ Professor Kirsten Silva Gruesz __________________________________ Professor Catherine A. John _____________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Martha E. Bonilla 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..iii Abstract………………………………………………………..…………..……..iv Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………..vi Chapter 1 Romance as the Desire for Empire: An Introduction…………………….………..1 Chapter 2 The Tempest, a Romance for a New World of Empire…………………….…..…58 Chapter 3 Remembering to Forget: Desire, Emulation, and Romance in J.F. Cooper’s The Pioneers……………………..…………………….………….113 Chapter 4 Benito Cereno’s Black Letter Text: The Unread Story of Empire……..…..……159 . Chapter 5 The Happy Resolution and the Solace of Amnesia……………..……………..….204 Epilogue The Don of a Pervious Age…….……..………………………………..…………227 Bibliography………………………………………………………….………..….251 iii ABSTRACT Martha E. Bonilla Romance: The Emulation of Empire This dissertation offers a symptomatic reading of romance and explores the ideological force of the genre’s chiastic structure. The trajectory of this project follows the temporal and spatial migration of romance from the colonial context of early seventeenth England, beginning with William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, then enters the American post-revolutionary context of the early and late nineteenth century with James Fennimore Cooper’s The Pioneers, Herman Melville’s “Benito Cereno,” and ends with Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton’s The Squatter and the Don. This study examines the contradictory narrative desires within romance. While the genre is identified with foundational narratives that bespeak a desire for national unification, it is also associated with a desire for conquest and empire. I argue this paradoxical genre constructs an equally paradoxical heroic national identity that forgets its tragic beginnings by imperialistically asserting its right to rule (its authority) in emulation of those whose rights it would usurp. The heroic figure, after tragically losing his authority and identity to a rival, begins as a desiring subject whose quest for fulfillment and recognition initiates the romance plot. The hero finds recognition by emulating the actions of the rival who originally usurped his identity. Through the pathos of emulation, the hero is able to forgive and share the bonds of national kinship with his rival. By imitating the iv actions of his rival, the hero is translated into a representation of his rival. The hero’s earlier tragic identity is foreclosed and projected onto another who is foreign to the hero’s struggles. This “foreign” other becomes a representation of the hero who is himself a representation of the rival. Hence, the apparent threatening other is transformed into a representation of a representation, the rhetorical condition of the genre itself. The dark intent projected onto the foreign other in these romance narratives indeed originates with the hero, but the hero’s dark design is in fact an emulation of the antagonist or rival’s action. The imperialistic quality of the genre is a result of its repetitive and crossed structure that calls into being more imperial subjects, but the inclusion promised by national romances is dependent on the tragic exclusion of objectified others. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this project would not have been possible without the love and encouragement of my daughters Rebeca and Elise Bonilla-Myers as well as my dear friends Kathy Thompson and Ana Ramos who, on our long hikes and too infrequent sangria afternoons, helped me believe, with a plan, all things are possible. But, to come to fruition, even the best laid plans require friends whose intellectual rigor, generosity of time, considered advice, inspire us to do more and whose calming influence is a buttress against self-doubt. I am truly fortunate to have such friends in Becky L. Roberts, Robert S. Oventile and Brian P. Kennedy, all three of whom generously read drafts of my chapters, asked difficult questions and unfailingly answered my (sometimes doleful) phone calls. The life of this project owes much to these esteemed friends and colleagues as well as to the memory of my mother who taught me to kept hope alive. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my faculty advisors on this project Susan Gillman, Kirsten Silva Gruesz, and Catherine John for their help, faith and kind encouragement. I am extremely grateful to the kind assistance of Sandra Yates whose navigational skill saw me through the administrative quagmire that is always a part of this process. I am also grateful to the faculty in Literature Department at University of California, Santa Cruz, whose discussions, research, and course work, during my time on campus, helped shape this project: Thomas Vogler, Norma Klahn, Susan Gillman, Kirsten Silva Gruesz, José D. Saldívar, and Hayden White. I would also vi like to acknowledge the intellectual debt I owe to my former professors Joel Fineman and Stephan Greenblatt, whose work continues to inspire me. I am truly grateful to the staff and Librarians of The Huntington Library for their assistance and the wealth of the library’s holdings that enriched my research. As this project gathered steam during a sabbatical year, I would like to acknowledge the institutional and professional support of Pasadena City College, as well as the kindness of my colleagues in the English Department who have been motivational and a constant source of good cheer. Finally, I wish to thank my students who have inspired me to complete this long deferred goal, if only to say in turn, sí se puede! vii CHAPTER 1 Romance as the Desire for Empire: An Introduction “America […] the largest empire that ever existed…we cannot but anticipate the period, as not far distant, when the American Empire will comprehend millions of souls, west of the Mississippi” –Jedidiah Morris, American Geography, 1789. As I held my daughter for the first time, in August of 1990, images of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait flashed across the television screen along with the news of Operation Desert Shield and the deployment of American troops, sent to secure the sovereignty of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. I worried about the future my daughter would inherit but did not consider how many in her generation would lose their lives to protect the United States’ (U.S.) interests abroad. This lack of foresight reflected the luxury of denial many Americans afforded themselves in the later part of the twentieth century concerning their relationship to empire. Moreover, the rhetoric associated with the “police action” allowed Americans to perceive themselves as reluctant imperialists involved in a military action to protect the liberty and sovereignty of a foreign state while they also, almost by happenstance, secured their own economic interests so dependent on foreign oil.1 Imperialism, after all, does not require the direct occupation associated with colonialism that older forms of European empires utilized to enlarge their economies. Yet, the relationship of dependency at stake in Operation Desert Shield skewed the traditional definition of 1 imperialism predicated on the social and economic “relations of dependency and control” of a foreign state that are ensured through the transnational mechanisms of “finance-capitalism.”2 This first Gulf War did not represent the expansion of U.S. national sovereignty so much as it represented the economic inter-dependence of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and the privileged position the U.S. occupies in the new form of empire that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri see as a “new inscription of authority:”3 a unitary power that overdetermines and resolves conflicts between competing imperialist powers through a restructuring of norms by way of a new “legal instrument of coercion.”4 While Hardt and Negri contend this new form of empire recalls the structure of the Roman Empire, it is nonetheless associated with “the expansive tendency of the democratic republic” of the United States.5 It is conceived as a universal republic, a network of powers and counterpoweres structured in a boundless and inclusive architecture. This imperial expansion has nothing to do with imperialism, nor with those state organisms designed for conquest, pillage, genocide, colonization, and slavery. Against imperialisms, Empire extends and consolidates the model of network power.6 But, for all the expansiveness and openness of this new empire, globally there remain lines of demarcation that continue to forcefully exclude others—as witnessed today in places like Hungary—and that continue to defensively define the sovereignty of nation-states.7 Older forms of imperialism continually test the verity of the newer form of empire, as evidenced along the Russian boarder with Ukraine. Moreover, this 2 newer form of empire is plagued by the same paradoxical impulses that characterize the democratic project in the U.S. that continues to exhibit the expansive tendencies of the English Empire from which it originated. Indeed, as I will contend, the democratic project within the U.S. was compromised early on by new nation’s cultural emulation of England’s desire for empire, translated as a national romance. As historian Richard W. Van Alstyne argues, in The Rising American Empire (1960), the expansionist impulse of the English Empire also characterized the new nation of the United States. He remarks that before the Seven Years War the meaning of the term “British Empire” was circumscribed by the Latin word imperium, meaning both power and sovereignty. While imperialism in our modern sense of the word was unknown in the eighteenth century, after 1760 the meaning of empire was enlarged to include a sense of territorial expansion and sovereignty over the people who lived within that territory.