The narrator describes the native people as being “in the first state of innocence, before man knew how to sin”, seemingly comparing them to Adam and Eve. What is the significance of describing the natives like this? Are they meant to contrast with the British? If yes, how so?
ENGL 201 | British Literature to 1800
Myra Seaman | Fall 2012
This description of the natives of Surinam is significant because it shows their pureness. It shows how untainted the land is, before the British enter. Of course the Surinam are in direct contrast with the British in the text. At one point, the Surinam people even assume a British man who agreed to a meeting is dead when he does not attend. Upon finding out he is indeed alive, the Surinam ask the English word for a man who does not keep his word. It’s as if they have no concept of sin. The narrator goes on to say the Surinam have no vice unless taught vices by the British, this again, shows a contrast between the Surinam and British. This may be Behn trying to say something about the corruption caused by industrialization.
It is apparent that Behn is drawing parallels from the natives of Surinam and Adam and Eve. It is pretty blatant allusion as our narrator describes “as Adam and Eve did the fig leaves, the men wearing a long strip of linen, which they deal with us for.” These people don’t see shame in nudity or sexuality, just as Adam and Eve did prior to their fall from paradise. Surinamese haven’t been exposed to the knowledge of western sin.
I think that Behn is absolutely making the comparison of the natives to Adam and Eve. This is not to say that they are necessarily exactly the same or that the natives are as pure or “great” as Adam and Eve. It is a simple assumption that the natives are pure because they know no evil, or sin. The comparison in this case is used to again show the difference between the natives and the British who disrupt the peace.
I agree that there are some very obvious parallels drawn between Adam and Eve and the people of Surinam. Comparing the natives to Adam and Eve emphasizes how pure and innocent they are having never been influenced by the outside world. I do not think though that the British are comparable to Satan however, they are meant to directly contrast with the innocence of the natives. The natives unlike the British have no concept of shame or sin. I believe that with this the narrator is attempting show how far society (Britain) has fallen from their original nature as exhibted in the people of Surinam.
I agree that Behn is not comparing the British to Satan. The fact that she focuses more so on the physical description and their customs and ways of doing things, not more or less on their character is key to this. I think in a way, she is comparing Surinam with Paradise. Why else go into such detailed and vivid description describing the natural beauty of the people and the place? And comparing them and the way they live to Adam and Eve is all very reminiscent of how we saw them living in Paradise before the fall. I think Behn here is demonstrating that such a place exists that is not impacted by man-made machines and sin and the negative characteristics that all those things bring about. She is witnessing the purist form of humans and environment that only previously existed in Eden.
I do think that the description that the narrator gives compares to the story of Adam and Eve because it relates to how they were created so pure, but once they acted sinfully on temptation impurities came about. However, as Julia and Mimi have said, I would not directly relate the British to the ways of Satan. There is definitely a relation between nature and the way things are originally to be pure and once the nature is changed by man it becomes a more negative form.
The narrator does make several direct references to Adam and Eve when speaking about the people of Surinam. I think the purpose of making this comparison is to convey the profound difference between these two cultures. She goes on to say that “religion would here but destroy that tranquility they possess by ignorance, and laws would but teach them to know offence, of which now they have no notion” (1109). This is very like the idea of Adam and Eve being changed by the knowledge of good and evil. I also find it interesting that she includes religion as one of man’s inventions. All in all, I think the Eden concept is used as a simple concept all readers would have understood and, more usefully, sympathized with.
Aphra Behn compares the natives to Adam and Eve to show how innocent and pure they are. She emphasizes their innate connection to nature. They are a completely independent people when it comes to basic survival skills like fishing and hunting for food. The biggest connection Behn is trying to make between them and Adam and Eve is that they are uncorrupted and kind and immune to self conscious negativity. Well, until the white colonists come into their lives and attempt to corrupt them through the use of slavery with the help of modern technology. The white colonists are the complete opposite of the natives; they are cruel, voracious, dishonorable, and have no respect for the common man. And with their modern technology, the natives basic survival skills are no longer needed to live efficiently and their most sacred activities and rituals become obsolete.
Much like what everyone else has said, of course the native are being compared to Adam and Eve. By doing this, Behn makes the reader consider the natives a pure and innocent people. This story offers an example of human functioning at a very basic level. This is an opportunity to understand the contrast of civilization between an industrialized person and a native. The natives are naive and their actions mirror that of Adam and Eve. However, I would not say that the British people are representations of Satan. They are merely there to show the contrast of peoples.
I think Behn’s comparisons of the Surinam natives to Adam and Eve are significant because they show both the native’s purity and simplicity. This, in turn, shows the natives as completely opposite from the British. Behn describes in detail how the natives would cover themselves only slightly yet would be so modest and careful with their actions. Behn writes that they were “so like our first parents before the fall.” I think that these descriptions are meant to show a contrast between the natives and the British. I don’t think that Behn is using the Adam and Eve parallels to assert that the natives were exactly like them; rather, I think that she uses Adam and Eve to portray a world so unknown to the advanced British society.
I agree that Behn is drawing comparisons between the natives of Surinam and Adam and Eve. This comparison is meant to show the pureness of the Surinam people. I don’t think that Behn is trying to say that the Surinam people are AS pure as Adam and Eve, but rather a simple comparison to show the Surinam people know no evil, or sin. It’s almost as if they have no concept of sin. This comparison is also used to show the difference between the natives and the British; it shows how pure and unattained the land was before the British enter and disrupt the peace.
As stated above I agree that Behn is making comparisons between the people of Surinam and Adam and Eve. However naivety and innocence have long been connected to one another as a way to show someone is pure. Just the eating from the tree of knowledge corrupted Adam and Eve, exposure to the British and all their sins will corrupt the Surinamese people.