Haggard's love for the empire ties in with his favourable opinion of romance, which can be seen in She. The unexplored, wild and pristine African landscape is one which he romanticizes as an exotic opportunity for adventure and excitement. The characters and the experiences in this foreign territory offer the civilized man unique wisdom and 'pure' knowledge about human nature. [4] In She, the figure of the 'noble savage,' portrayed by the Amahagger elder, Billali, plays a dominant role in Holly's acquisition of this insight. Thus, empire-building is a real source of adventure, and provides a chance for the civilised man to transcend mundane middle-class existence in an increasingly industrialised and ordered society. This desire was further encouraged by a part of the Victorian imagination that was preoccupied with the archaeological fantasy of lost civilisations, sparked by recent discoveries made in Egypt.
Haggard's realisation of romance through the adventure story was not only a vehicle for the imaginative exploration of human existence, it also reinforced ideas of the other produced by imperialism. Haggard often resorted to crude character types which were more often than not abstractions, rather than individuals. [5] For example, Haggard simplifies the Amahagger to a stereotypical, cannibalistic tribe, with all the attendant 'savageries' as would be expected of primitive societies. This kind of racial stereotyping was a product of the imperial identity which Haggard adhered to. He believed that unity through the Empire could only be achieved through racial unity, because members of the same race would have a common bond of experience, identity, memory, and history. This belief was another reason why Haggard opposed industrialisation - it involved the mass emigration of rural workers into the emerging urban centres and Haggard predicted this would not only lead to agricultural decline, but also racial decline: denizens of the cities came from various locations, and racial mixing would lead to the destruction of a singular and common history and identity; he also foresaw it as the deterioration and contamination of the English race. [6] This concept is explored and interpreted in She, particularly in the scene just before Ayesha steps into the Flame of Life. She calls on Leo and Holly to experience the Flame because it is the originary source and true essence of all life. The Flame provides one with the "virgin strength" [7] of life. This conveys the idea of the purity of one's true origins, as uncontaminated by "...all the fine strainers of a thousand intermediate lives..." [8] In addition, acquiring immortality through the Flame, so that one exists as the same physical entity indefinitely, would be preferable to the cycle of death and rebirth, which Leo Vincey has succumbed to as the incarnation of the dead Kallikrates. Haggard may be commenting indirectly on the existence of empires, and in particular, the British Empire. Ayesha elaborates on the transience of all things, including civilisations - all must come to an end but new civilisations will rise to take their place. In this way, empires also undergo a process of 'reincarnation.' However, in the same way that Leo Vincey is a somewhat altered version of Kallikrates, so too are empires which collapse and are rebuilt. Thus the only way for the British Empire to remain unified and true to its origins or history is for it to survive indefinitely, but Haggard symbolically admits this impossibility through the death of Ayesha - even she who is most powerful, she who has discovered the secrets of nature, must die.
Haggard obviously lamented the decline of the British Empire and was sufficiently aware of the situation to foresee its inevitable downfall. This conflict within Haggard, between an unwelcome yet acknowledged reality and an ardent desire for unification, strength and freedom which he saw as facilitated by and through the empire, led to the unresolved and often contradictory ambivalence in his writing. However, it also inspired him to discover a way in which one could create a new identity or understanding of the self in relation to the other. As a result, Haggard desired to move beyond a colonialist perspective of the self as well as mourned for the self as defined by imperialism and a history of empire-building. The issues for Haggard, as conveyed in his writing, is firstly discovering how one could possibly transcend colonialism in defining the self in relation to, and in tension with, the other; and secondly, by perceiving the necessity of this relationship, he also gave rise to fears of the other as capable of dominance. This can be clearly seen in She, where "English patriarchy and imperialism" duels with the overwhelming "power and importance of the mother," [9] as Barri J. Gold has noted. The anti-colonialist strain in the formation of this transcendental identity can be perceived as embodied in Ayesha, who attempts to defy the resolute course of natural law through her immortality. Her inevitable death reflects the eventual decline of the British Empire, which may be an event for mourning, but it also provides Haggard with a means of finding a new identity, one which surpasses the frailty of racial unity as the foundation of an empire. Ayesha is thus the embodiment of Haggard's conflicted sense of identity. She is ruthless in her imperial ambitions to build an empire that would eventually rule over the entire earth, and Holly believes that while Ayesha's rule would be "glorious and prosperous...it would be at the cost of a terrible sacrifice of life." [10] Haggard is commenting on the process of British Colonialism; it involves great losses in life and killing off those who are in power in order to gain power over the rest of the population. Ayesha's immortality and desire to remain alive arouses Holly's anxieties about her demonic rule over the earth. This is a portrayal of Haggard's concern with British colonialism and his belief that such a destructive power must, and will be killed off. In She, this natural law is first expressed by the fact that every now and then the men in the Amahagger tribe rise up and kill the old women who were once in power, to remind them that they are ultimately more powerful. Haggard implies natural law is aligned with patriarchal rule. Consequently, Ayesha's rule is deemed unnatural and wrongful, as is her very existence as an immortal being. However, Ayesha is also the link between the living and the dead, and Haggard places emphasis on this close and necessary connection. It is the world of the dead and the after-life in "which the colonialist racial hierarchies are held in abeyance," [11] thus allowing for a new kind of unification which doesn't rely on physical and social differences found in the living, which force characters to be
...placed within a bodily hierarchy that relies on animal
identifications... [which are] indicators of their respective
social positions. The 'death' of the body eradicates these
differences. [12]
Ayesha's liminal state between life and death also suggests that the concepts of self and other are so intertwined that it is possible to blur the boundaries between the two, and then perhaps one can reject the "imperial language of othering" in favour of a less well-defined distinction which allows for a more natural understanding of the self. Haggard seems to suggest that an understanding of the self beyond colonial identity politics should incorporate, rather than attempt to exclude, the other. This is portrayed not only through Ayesha, who is immortal and thus conflates the dead with the living, but also through the Amahagger, who are known to frequently cannibalise foreigners ("the poeple who place pots upon the heads of strangers" [13] ), unless under fear of punishment from She-who-must-be-Obeyed, as well as in the scene where Leo meets his perfectly embalmed ancestor, Kallikrates. In this scene, the unshrouding of Kallikrates' body by Ayesha signifies his rebirth as Leo Vincey and this is reinforced by Ayesha's act of dissolving the dead body which has been unnaturally preserved in 'life.' Leo, as Kallikrates' incarnate, demands the erasure of Kallikrates' physical remains. Ayesha marks the finality and inevitability of this ceremony by proclaiming: " ' Dust to dust! - the past to the past! - the dead to the dead! - Kallikrates is dead, and is born again!' " [14] This process is part of the "democracy" of death, which was a belief conceptualised in George Henry Lewes' The Physiology of Common Life in 1860 and revived by Thomas Huxley's Lessons in Elementary Physiology in 1885. Lewes suggested that the "dead never quite die" [15] and for Huxley, death was equivalent to the "transmutation of chemical particles... [it is] a model of democracy fed by this transformed 'life.' " [16] Through death, the physical matter of the body could be redistributed throughout nature, to become part of plants, earth, animals or even return to man. In this way, death transcends all boundaries expressed in life, whether they are racial, national, sexual, or species divisions. [17] Ayesha believes in a similar notion and clearly expresses this in Holly's dream:
'That which is alive hath known death, and that which is
Dead yet can never die, for in the Circle of the Spirit life
Is naught and death is naught. Yea, all things live for ever,
Though at times they sleep and are forgotten.' [18]
Howard's The Hour of the Dragon can be seen as the final result of the Conan series. In this novel, Conan's previous experiences have prepared him for adulthood in a corrupted and power-hungry world, and for making the most well-informed decision of his life - the decision to regain his kingdom, Aquilonia. Howard, in all his descriptions of Conan, refers to him as the ultimate barbarian and warrior, but this does not mean that Conan is without ethics. In fact, Howard stresses the idea that Conan is a man of honour and is prepared to do what is right; he simply refuses to live by the morality of civilised societies, or a set of ethics which are not his own. This is a typical characteristic of the anti-her?o, an increasingly popular figure of the American imagination around the time Howard began writing the Conan stories. For example, other characters like Jack London's Wolf Larsen, Fyodor Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov and Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan all had elements of the anti-hero as well.
Howard was born in Texas in 1906 when the west was still wild and unsettled. Howard himself was of pioneer stock; having kin in virtually every "movement of conquest and colonization" from the War of 1812 onwards. [19] Howard was also a keen follower of history and was particularly fond of barbaric, vanished people from remote ages, and found modern life and civilisation stifling, impersonal, and overly authoritative. He grew up in a milieu that was preoccupied with the oil boom and settling into 'civilised' life. One could say that his stories about Conan are a reaction against the dull routine of early nineteenth century life in England, especially the lives of Bourgeois Victorians, as well as the lives of the settled agrarians or middle-class tradesmen in the United States after the "taming of the wild west" which signified the "collapse of authentic frontier experience." [20]
The settlement of the Wild West not only led to the loss of opportunity for adventure, heroism and ferocity, it also led to the establishment of modern life and economy. Conan appealed to the male reader in the early twentieth century because he is an embodiment of American male values - he has strength and natural superiority, he is desired by desirable women, and he is motivated by self-gratification, whether his goal is wealth, experience or "women and strong drink." [21] Howard himself claimed that Conan's character was a fusion of men he had known throughout his life, such as "prizefighters, gunment, bootleggers, oil field bullies, gamblers and honest workmen." [22] More than anything, modern life meant conformity; this was very clear to Howard, who wrote stories and poetry out of an innate need and desire that was satisfied in spite of the discouraging environment he grew up and lived in as an adult. He had a passion for fantasy and wrote professionally from fifteen but he wouldn't see the fruit of his efforts until several years later when he turned twenty-three. He was also pressured by his father to seek a 'real job.' During those eight years he attempted various odd-jobs; none of which suited his temperament. As a result he became despondent over his writing career and worked in a local drug store out of necessity. He was required to work long hours because of the oil boom and this eventually wore him out both physically and mentally. Howard's conclusion was that an oil boom was one of the quickest ways to make a kid grow up. [23] Consequently, in Conan one can find total freedom and independence, but this is at a cost: he must constantly fight and struggle for basic survival.
In addition, Howard believed civilisation had become 'over-civilised,' [24] the result being the goals of society as a whole were deemed more important than, and should be attained at the expense of, the individual. This knowledge was first acquired by Howard as a boy in school. His inclination towards books was seen as abnormal and made him an obvious target for bullies. He also resented the figures of authority in school who tried to regulate his actions and thoughts. When he found jobs he was known to disagree and have heated arguments with his employers. He also saw the outcome of this principle in society in general. People were becoming increasingly confined to particular roles in society, and to perform the same inane tasks every day for the sake of regulation and a sense of order in their lives. Thus the story of Conan represents the triumph of the "heroic, independent spirit... temporarily violated by slave masters, those who represent "civilised" society and its slave-dependent economy." [25]
Overall, the stability of civilisation is a precarious illusion [26] at best, and Howard believed this sense of stability led to moral indecisiveness and naivety in people. Civilised people are concerned with moral abstractions rather than practical morality, as can be seen in the work of the philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, who set out to establish criteria for a 'just war.' [27] The barbarian, on the other hand, must rely on his experience and intuitions for moral decisions. Often his decisions are made on a life or death basis and must be made swiftly; therefore they have a greater hold on reality than the complex, drawn-out and meticulously argued conclusions of civilised men. This is likely to be one of the main reasons why there is such an emphasis on violence in The Hour of the Dragon. The "vulnerability of flesh and blood" [28] makes moral consequences a matter of survival.
Howard also resented the rule of monarchy in Europe, as did many of his fellow compatriots. The idea of inherited rule seemed unjustified, arbitrary, and the mere result of tradition. In Conan, Howard proposed a new kind of rule - one that was more virtuous, pragmatic and justified - in which victory won through the proof of strength and ability was the measure of a ruler. Conan has no royal blood but made "his claim on the hearts of the people eloquently and effectively in a manner other than through inheritance" [29] to become King of Aquilonia. It is ironic and contradictory that Conan is a barbaric, 'uncivilised' man, yet the ruler of a 'civilised' society. Howard believed that barbarism was the natural state of mankind, and thus it would always triumph in the end. He also believed that domination gained through the use of physical and mental abilities was necessary for the realisation of all other values espoused by civilisation. [30] Howard was influenced by history but also by his own experiences while growing up; it was not until he began a rigorous physical training program that the bullying stopped. One obvious corollary of this was the belief that physical intimidation over others and a readiness to commit violence was what allowed him to read and write poetry without harassment. Thus, strength makes all other values, such as independence, liberty and justice, possible. This concept is portrayed in The Hour of the Dragon when Conan is ultimately victorious and the citizens of the kingdom of Aquilonia are no longer ruled by fear into obedience.
Conan believes in the freedom and independence of the individual and this is reflected in his judgement of the Asura:
"If they are black magicians," he had said, "how will
they suffer you to harry them? If they are not, there is
no evil in them. Crom's devils! Let men worship what
gods they will." [31]
The fact that Conan makes the conscious and wilful decision to regain his kingdom in the novel has significant implications on monarchical rule in Europe - even a barbarian, someone without royal blood, who, being fully aware of all his options, actively decides to become a ruler of a 'civilised' kingdom is worthy of greater moral reverence than an heir who simply grows into maturity and is then given the title of king, based on nothing other than kinship. An heir needs neither to fight for nor choose his crown, which suggests such an heir has not earned the title or the respect of those he governs. On the other hand, Conan is clearly a well-respected and charismatic leader, with many loyal subjects, such as Servius and the followers of Asura, who have reasons for supporting Conan outside of tradition.
However, it is also obvious that Howard perceived the inexorable power of the monarchy over the minds of men, and even though the monarchy implies the reign of civilisation and therefore, that of 'slave masters,' it is viewed as an extremely persuasive force because people fear disorder and as such are willing to sacrifice some of their liberty by letting one power rule over all, even if it is a menacing power. Zelata tells Conan that
You have seen - the people of your capital have forfeited
the freedom you won for them by sweat and blood; they
have sold themselves to the slavers and the butchers. They
have shown that they do not trust their destiny. [32]
Conan recognises the truth in her words and subsequently states that: ' "I have no son. Men can't be governed by a memory." ' [33] This statement reflects Howard's realisation that the age of rule gained through physical prowess and superiority is coming to an end. The Wild West is floating into the territory of myth; the American frontier experience is no longer found actualisation, but conjured by the imagination. The barbarian has no one to take his place; to fulfil the role he will leave behind at the end of his rule. The very notion of 'society' implies some kind of government and order. Men living in a society will need to be governed but they can't be governed by a mere memory of a barbaric past, which is why they will ultimately succumb to the rule of the monarchy.
Despite the indomitable course of civilisation, only barbarism can ultimately triumph over the "enduring power of evil." [34] It is Conan who destroys the power of Xaltotun, and because he embodies traditional American values his victory is the realisation of the ultimate American dream. [35]
Cerasini, Marc A. and Hoffman, Charles E. Robert E. Howard (Mercer Island, Washington: Starmont House, 1987). [19], [21-24], [26-27], [30], [35]
Gold, Barri J. 'Embracing the Corpse: Discursive Recycling in H. Rider Haggard's She,' English Literature in Transition 1880-1920, 38, 3 (1995), 305, as quoted in Andrew Smith, 2003. [9]
Haggard, Henry Rider. She (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). [7-8], [10], [13-14], [18]
Howard, Robert E. The Hour of the Dragon, ENGL 2049 Course Reader, Semester 2, 2005. [31-33]
Katz, Wendy R. Rider Haggard and the Fiction of the Empire: A Critical Study of British Imperial Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). [1-6]
Mathews, Richard. Fantasy: The Liberation of the Imagination (Routledge: New York, 2002). [20], [25], [28-29], [34]
Smith, Andrew. 'Beyond Colonialism: Death and the Body in H. Rider Haggard,' Empire and the Gothic: The Politics of Genre, ed. Andrew Smith and William Hughes (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). [11-12], [15-17]