English Imperialism and the Unacknowledged Crime of The Moonstone - Term Paper Example

Full Submitted England and Its Colonies in Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone The Moonstone (1868) is among Collins’ well-recognised four best-known works together with The Woman in White (1860), No Name (1862), and Armadale (1866). Second to his phenomenal hit The Woman in White, The Moonstone is considered Collins’s best works, earning many positive critical reviews, which critics rarely and almost grudgingly had appropriated to Collins’ works. (Page 5) Until today, The Moonstone is best known of T.S. Eliot’s comment: “The first and greatest of English detective novels... a genre invented by Collins and not by Poe” (310). Rarely has the novel been thematically known exposing British colonial relations with India. John Reed first paid attention to this in his 1973 seminal essay, “English Imperialism and the Unacknowledged Crime of The Moonstone,” where he argued that, what the novel probes is, actually, not the personal but the national guilt, neither is the individual but national values. Meaning, the novel does not simply uncover a personal crime, but rather the social crime of imperial British against its subjected race, India. (qtd. in Sabin 89) On the contrary, Ashish Roy sees the novel essentially defending British imperialism by showing that good Victorians, like Lady Verinder, never condone such violent abuses. (qtd. in Sabin 89) Nayder somewhat supports Roy’s contrary view, saying that, though The Moonstone evidently proves that Victorian detective fiction investigates socio-political issues from imperialism to class and gender relations, its investigation usually ends up blurring the guilt or crime of British imperialists, while putting the colonised race into negative light (184). For example, Blake, Murthwaite, Bruff and Sgt. Cuff, though, had wrongly accused the Brahmans of stealing the moonstone; nevertheless, the Brahmans had been portrayed ruthless killers in the novel. Likewise, Trollope suggests that The Moonstone’s diamond mystery actually shrouded rather than exposed Britain’s real interest in India which is not simply India’s wealth but its land (qtd. in Daly 66). Britain wants to possess India for its territorial expansion, and not to simply loot its wealth. Whether, for or against, the theme of British imperialism is evident in the novel’s texts. Moreover, Spivak noted that, it would be impossible reading the 19th century British literature without taking into account British imperialism, which England made its noble mission to society, because that was the very social context with which authors create their imagination (qtd. in Jolly 381). Thus, understanding Collins’s work from this perspective would not be irrelevant. As Nayder explains, authors of Victorian detective fiction thematically make use of crime and policing to subtly examine broader social issues (178). Looking through The Moonstone’s plot, theme, symbolisms, characterisation, and literary technique, the novel evidently fits this description. The novel is not simply a detective or a romance-detective fiction; imbedded in its intricate plots of crime investigation is the exposition of British imperialism, mainly demonstrated in a master/superior (English) – subject/inferior (Indian) relationship. A. The Novel 1. Backgrounder The Moonstone, which Collins had started by mid-1867 in his mid-forties, was his fourth but also his last best novel. After this, his succeeding works were considered either mediocre or failure; such was attributed to his deteriorating health condition at that time. (Page 20) Significantly so, he wrote The Moonstone at the most pressing time of his life: His most beloved mother got sick and died while he was painfully suffering from his worst attack of rheumatic gout, disenabling him to attend his mother’s funeral. But against all these, he had to keep writing; much has yet to be written for the magazines, All the Year Round (England) and Harper’s Weekly (USA), which had started serialising The Moonstone, not to mention his poor pecuniary situation. With a worsening health, Collins had become addicted to opium that the last part of The Moonstone was actually written dictated to several hired men; after which, the completed novel though definitely fascinating was almost unrecognisable to the author himself as his own work. (qtd. in Robinson 211-214) The Moonstone is a two-part epistolary novel. The first part narrates the mysterious loss of the diamond, causing tragic deaths, ruined relationships, and damaged reputations, yet ending with the crime unresolved. The second part reveals the mystery of the lost diamond, resulting to mended broken relationships, regained reputations, and reclaimed diamond of India. Unlike in The Woman in White where Collins employed the same narrative method as if it were written testimonies in court to prove and bring back the stolen identity of the heroine, Laura Fairlie, in The Moonstone, he exploited the narrative method in multiple ways, animating each narrator in his/her own character to make each narration realistic and credible enough to bear witness to the crime and to help identify the criminal. (Robinson 21) This technique has made the novel truly mystifying. Though generally rated second only to The Woman in White, The Moonstone is definitely a success in terms of commercial value and critical review. In serialised form, people from all walks of life excitedly anticipate its next episode. Just like The Woman in White, it increased the circulation of Dicken’s All the Year Round. And even in volume form, it was a bestseller both in Britain and the US. To critics, added to The Woman in White, it was Collins’s finest work. If The Woman in White made him the creator of sensation novels, The Moonstone made him the originator of English detective fiction (Page 19-20; Robinson 216, 218). In it, he brilliantly combined sensation and detection, showing the possibility of mixing genres in making fiction more interesting. To Robinson The Moonstone is exceptional in two ways: It has indeed aroused varied interests from various disciplines (literary critics, social scientists, psychologists) and has gained different interpretations from its readers and critics (218). Anyway one looks at it, the novel is definitely remarkable. Aptly for its title, it can be likened to a diamond presenting many coloured lenses with each lens reflecting its own hue arousing reader’s interest and leading the reader to search for more meaning. One of these lenses gaining much interest today is the novel’s treatment of Britain’s imperial relations to its colonies, specifically India. 2. Synopsis The story is all about the famous sacred yellow Hindu diamond, which during General Baird’s bloody British invasion of Seringapatam on May 4, 1799, was desecrated and looted from the treasury of the sultan Tippoo by John Herncastle, a merciless British imperial soldier. Having successfully hid his crime, Herncastle took home the cursed diamond to England, causing his estrangement from his family who despised such acts. In reprisal, Herncastle, through Franklin Blake, the son of his cousin to whom he entrusted his wish, bequeathed the diamond to Rachel Verinder, his only niece by his righteous sister, Lady Verinder (formerly Julia Herncastle), in time for Rachel’s debut. Suspicious of the great danger inherent in the diamond, Franklin transported it with much precaution and care from London to Yorkshire. In fact, while on his way to Yorkshire, the Verinder’s house has been already frightened by three suspicious-looking Indian jugglers that suddenly appeared on the Verinder’s yard. Nevertheless, Franklin has fulfilled his mission successfully. On the day of her beloved cousin Rachel’s debut, he gave the moonstone to her. Rachel accepted it with much delight oblivious of the diamond’s horrible history that had somewhat cursed its taker, Col. John Herncastle and the great anxiety it had been causing her mother. Desperate to protect her only child, Lady Verinder tried to take away the diamond from Rachel, convincing her to meantime entrust the diamond to Julia, but to no avail. Rachel, too, mesmerised and absorbed by the exquisiteness of the diamond did not want it separated from her. Then in the morning the house was suddenly in turmoil. The diamond was stolen. But what was more mystifying was the sudden inexplicable change it caused to Rachel that even her own mother until her death was unable to fathom. Police investigation ensued, first with the local police chief of Frizinghall, Supt. Seegrave, handling the case. The over self-assuring yet unscrupulous Superintendent while missing and messing crime evidences (for example the smeared paint on Rachel’s room door) bullied the servants, making them feel violated and humiliated and causing them not to fully cooperate. Worried of Rachel’s worsening inexplicable behaviour and feeling dissatisfied with the manner Supt. Seegrave handles the case, Franklin called for the well-known London investigator, Sgt. Cuff to the rescue. However, despite his strikingly perceptive intelligence and his unmatched experience in crime investigation, just like Seegrave, Cuff failed to solve the case and worst antagonised Lady Verinder for suspecting her only child Rachel, the culprit in connivance with Rosanna Spearmann, a former thief now serving the Verinder’s household. Thus the case was left unsolved causing three tragic ends: (1) the death of Rosanna Spearman (Seegrave’s primary suspect and Cuff’s suspected accessory to Rachel), who committed suicide believing she is protecting her beloved, Franklin; (2) the bitter broke-up of Rachel and Franklin; (3) the sudden desolation of the once happy Verinder estate by Julia and Rachel, who suddenly opted living in London, hoping to better Rachel’s condition, while leaving the property under the care of Lady Verinder’s most trusted house-steward, Gabriel Betteredge with his bible, Robinson Crusoe and his tobacco. Such was the moonstone’s curse. Deeply hurt by Rachel’s sudden hostile attitude to him, Franklin left England for a year, giving Godfrey Ablewhite, his dubious philanthropist cousin, the full influence over his beloved Rachel to whom Godfrey proposed marriage twice, secretly desiring Rachel’s inherited wealth. But thanks to Mr. Bruff, who tipped-off Rachel about Godfrey’s true intention of marrying her, Rachel backed-off from the reluctant marriage. While Franklin, unable to endure the pain of not understanding Rachel’s hostility toward him, went back to London to clarify things over with her only to be shocked Rachel’s revelation that it was him who she saw took the diamond from her room. This explains Rachel’s unbending reserve during the investigation. Just like Rosanna, she, too, has been protecting her beloved, Franklin. To prove his innocence and win back Rachel’s heart, Franklin returned to Yorkshire where Ezra Jennings – Dr. Candy’s intelligent and science-minded yet socially outcast assistant – helped undisclosed the mystery: It was the laudanum that Dr. Candy, whose profession Franklin had unintentionally insulted during Rachel’s debut, assisted by Godfrey, secretly poured into Franklin’s glass of wine that had caused Franklin to unknowingly steal the diamond from Rachel’s room. The white gown smeared with paint, which Rosanna had desperately tried to hide, causing her life, was his! She was all along protecting him! Yet, despite this illumination, the diamond is still nowhere to be found. It was not in Franklin’s possession. Who has it? Thus the mystery continues more pressingly. Franklin, Bruff, Murthwaite, and Sgt. Cuff primarily suspected the Indian jugglers, who were suspiciously reappearing in London and had even attacked Mr. Luker, a well-known money lender. Having Sgt. Cuff’s service, who himself would like to regain his tarnished reputation; they followed the Indian jugglers whereabouts. Their pursuit had led them to the discovery of the identity of the moonstone thief; it was Godfrey, now lying dead (a sailor in disguise) in a cheap inn. The night Franklin (unaware that he was drugged) unconsciously took the diamond from Rachel’s room; he had actually handed it to Godfrey, and deeply worried about Rachel and the diamond, had asked Godfrey to keep it safe in his father’s bank. Godfrey took the diamond but instead pawned it to Luker in London, with the later plan of bringing it to a diamond cutter in Europe to be easily sold at higher price. This explains the Indian jugglers’ sudden appearance in London from Yorkshire. So, on the day Godfrey redeemed the moonstone from Luker, the Brahmans, disguising as Indian jugglers, followed and killed him to avenge and regain the possession of the Hindu diamond. The epilogue wraps up the story with the moonstone once again enshrined in its proper place and with Rachel and Franklin back again in each loving arms. B. British Imperialism in the Novel’s Texts The subtle attack on British imperialism can be seen in the novel from cover to cover, from its title to its end. With a mind adherent to the equality of nations, it would be easy to see that the structure, body and soul of the novel undeniably fictionally testify against British imperialism, intricately interwoven in a romance detective story. 1. Title The title itself has brilliantly laid down the very framework by which Britain is perceived in the novel. The Moonstone, referring to the sacred Hindu diamond representing India’s rich land and great heritage, has been the root of all evils committed in the novel which in the process has revealed the character there is in its English and Indian characters. 2. Plot Underlying the novel’s plot are things and events implying Britain’s subjugation of India. These insinuations are cunningly embedded in the novel’s setting and storyline. a. Prologue The prologue, subtitled: The storming of Seringgapatam (1799) (Collins 5-8) has clearly outlined the novel’s background and pretext on British imperialism, showing the British Imperial army as the aggressor and looter, and Indians the violated victims. b. First Period: Lost of the Diamond (Chapters I-XXIII) (Collins 9-130). This part, which laid down the mystery to be solved in its second part, is singly narrated by Betteredge, the symbol of English’s dominant thinking that English is the superior race and that devious thought is uncharacteristic of it. His loyalty to English tradition is actually what made him trusted by the Verinder’s and perhaps even by Franklin. With Betteredge, the English tradition is safely protected; nothing can tarnish it. Franklin’s choice of Betteredge to singly narrate the first part, which has put readers into a perspective that would in effect mislead them in identifying the real criminal, is in fact due to this character of Betteredge. Expectedly so, this was how Betteredge made each character of the story known to readers. The Englishes are good (Rachel, Franklin), compassionate (Julia, Godfrey) and devoid of evil thoughts; if ever they have flaws, it was because of low education (Penelope) or perhaps because of aging (Dr. Candy) and not because they are naturally devious (Indian jugglers, Jennings, Rosanna). Thus Englishes are much better than others who need compassion to live better (Rosanna). This is why others, though not English blooded prefer to think and act like true English (Murthwaite). c. Second Period: The Discovery of the Truth, 1848-1849 (Narratives I-VII) (Collins 131-279) This longest part of the novel, which was related in several narratives, implies two points that would be key in understanding the relationship of England to India: First, underlying British benevolence, as portrayed by Godfrey’s philanthropy, is England’s vested interest to become even greater through colonisation, as illustrated in Ablewhite’s evil intention to solely profit from the desecrated Hindu moonstone and to exploit Rachel’s wealth; second, the Indians are type casted as ruthless Hindu fanatics acting in sheer religious belief, as portrayed by the three Brahmans disguised as Indian jugglers, and that they are unyielding to any foreign or local subjugation. Thus the novel’s resolution has illustrated the hostile relationship between England and India, with England causing it. Furthermore, Hultgren added that, “the many intertwining narratives of The Moonstone explore multiple ways to tell the story of the events of British imperial history, allowing the novel to function as a source of historiographic meditation” (54). d. Epilogue (Collins 280-286) The novel is wrapped-up giving not only victory to the Indians but also reconciliation between characters, notably between Rachel and Blake who seemed to have found their resolve to recognise not only India’s genuine ownership of the much coveted gem, but also the greatness of its culture. Furthermore, Gan suggests that, the direct contrast of the scene in the epilogue (the peaceful and solemn re-enthronement of the moonstone in its rightful place in India) with the scene in the prologue (the bloody plundering of India by the British army) strongly challenge England’s claim in the 19th century that it simply aims to civilise India and its barbaric people, because the two events show otherwise: (1) Britain’s unprovoked attack against India is actually the uncivilised act; (2) the British imperial army’s bloody looting and desecrating India is what is barbaric; (3) the Brahman’s determination to protect and regain India’s sacred heritage is what is noble; and (4) the spiritual value attributed to the moonstone by the Brahmans is far more greater and nobler than the commercial value attributed to it by Britain. Thus Britain is not superior, neither in the position to civilise a nation. (64) As such Britain’s true interest in India is expansionism. 3. Theme The theme of British imperialism can be understood in the novel in different ways. For one, the novel exploits a domestic crime not only to expose British imperial history against India, but also to justify India’s quest for retribution. As Reed argues: “... imperial depredation is the true crime of The Moonstone” (qtd. in Jolly 381). Also, the moonstone can also be understood as the symbol of political conflict between Britain and India, with Britain the ruthless aggressor and India the victim; it also implies internal conflict within the English society showing both racial and class conflict. 4. Characters British imperial relationship with India is evident in (1) the interrelationships of the wide array of the novel’s characters, showing the attitude of England to India and (2) the internal conflict the characters undergo with what they actually see and with what they are made to believe. These relationships and attitudes range from hostile to compassionate, portraying the British as the provocateurs and in the superior (master) position, while Indians the victims, and in the inferior (subject) position. Most significant to note are the characters’ silence and cynicism on British’s violation of India, for example, Franklin father’s attitude towards Col. Herncastle. Franklin’s father had known Col. Herncastle’s crime at Seringgapatam, yet he chose to keep silent about it, and in part had reluctantly yet faithfully assisted him in keeping it. Next to him is Franklin himself, who despite knowing the horrible history of the gem proceeded to fulfil Col. Herncastle’s suspiciously devious wish. Lady Verinder, herself, has been similarly guilty. Though she had broken ties with Col. Herncastle, her own brother, abhorring his loot of the moonstone, she simply took the obviously political issue as a family matter. The characters’ silence on an English crime against India, though they find it horrible, can be seen as a criticism to English society’s general condoning attitude to British Empire’s crimes. Though not all may have approved Britain’s imperialistic endeavour, they in one way or another allow it because they are enjoying its benefits or they are denying their nation’s abominable character, because they know it will destroy the very foundation of their self-made national identity – England is the superior and benevolent guardian of the uncivilised world. Equally worse is the all too selfish character of the English society as portrayed by Rachel. Truly she has proven herself naive and independent-minded; yet she is oblivious of her social environment. She represents the privilege English class, which only agenda in life is getting what they want, inconsiderate of others. The inferior treatment of English society towards Indians and half-English Indians is also very prominent in the novel. Cases in point are those of Rosanna Spearman and Ezra Jennings: Both half-English Indians, servants and living at the mercy and compassion of their English masters. Not to forget the three Brahmans who were suspected of the crime. Yet, these low-regarded characters in the English society have proven themselves far nobler than their masters: Rosanna giving everything to save her beloved Blake; Jennings, besides patiently staying by Dr. Candy’s deathbed, had been instrumental in unlocking the moonstone crime, which, even the famous Londoner detective Sgt. Cuff from had failed to do; the three Brahmans had proven their zeal in reclaiming their stolen heritage. Three beliefs are being debunked here: (1) English is not superior (Sgt. Cuff) rather insensitive (Franklin); (2) Indians are not inferior, not irrational, much more not criminals; (3) English are dependent on Indians in making their lives comfortable; worst, Indians are the scapegoat of English flaws. The good deeds of Julia, when analysed in a wider social context, would be interpreted more as an act of atonement for the English sin of commission and omission to India. Still, it is self-serving. I become good to you, because I wanted to feel good about myself. Instead of, I will be good to you, because just like me, you, too, are a human being. The low-regard of Indians is best portrayed by Betteredge, who looks at them simply as barbaric, criminals, or people who have to be saved by the all, too, superior English society. Likewise, the novel reveals the cultural subjugation that England imposes on India as portrayed by Marty Murthwaite – For an Indian to be accepted equally in the English society has to be English body and soul. Thus England does not simply rob India of its land; it also denies its nation and its people of their cultural identity – the very soul of any one’s being. 5. Symbolisms Among the most significant symbolisms in the novel illustrative of British imperial relation with India are as follows: a. The moonstone The very source that inspired Collins of the mysterious moonstone is wrapped with imperialist history. As Collins reveals, the gem in the novel is inspired by two precious imperial gems: the ‘Russian Orloff’ and‘Koh-i-Noor’ (Robinson 219). Having taken the identity as the stolen sacred Hindu diamond by the British imperial soldier Herncastle, the moonstone symbolises India – the source of Imperial British crime and external and internal conflict that would haunt her for centuries. b. Robinson Crusoe and Tobacco Daniel Dafoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719), the primary novel of the 18th century, has been regarded the first English work that has been effectively propagating and justifying the ideology of British imperialism for more than two centuries now (Shadle 176). And this has been used in the novel as Betteredge’s bible, guiding him in narrating the story and in dealing with other novel’s characters. Added significance is Betteredge’s smoking while enjoying reading Robinson Crusoe, because tobacco has been one of the products monopolised in British India (Francis 450). This significant combination implies the privilege that makes British imperialism enjoying and acceptable. c. The laudanum/opium The use of laudanum causing Franklin to unknowingly steal the moonstone from Rachel’s room is very symbolical in many aspects. Among which is its insinuation to the attitude of the English society to British imperialism. First, this is a subtle admittance on one of the illegal trade activities of Britain in India: The monopoly of the India-China opium industry by the British East India Company – The Company, which in the guise of commerce and trade, had been key to Britain’s colonisation of India (McCoy 159). Second, it is a criticism on the English society’s posturing of false innocence of British imperialism (Sabin 90). Just like Franklin, the question is why in his unconsciousness did he enter Rachel’s room? Wasn’t it his hidden desire to rob Rachel of her most precious gem (could be understood politically or sexually) So does Britain. Why India? It is politically and economically strategic for Britain. d. The shivering sand The choice of the shivering sand for Rosanna’s death is symbolic. It portrays the danger of conscious silence that has led India’s total submission to Britain and to the English society’s deepened crime against nations in its quest for a greater empire. 6. Literary techniques Various literary techniques were also used to interweave in the novel’s text the subtle attack on the British Empire. a. Allegory The implied sexual violation of Rachel by Franklin Blake (the executor of Col. Herncastle’s wish – alluding to British imperial army) is linked to Britain’s violation of India’s sovereignty (Pionke 92). b. Metaphor The character of Godfrey is obviously used as a metaphor for Britain’s hypocrisy. The amiable, much-loved and admired philanthropist was actually the criminal disguised as a sailor. He has not only stolen the diamond, but all, too, charmingly has manipulated all the characters. He represents Britain, which through its naval superiority has been able to control India, exploiting it politically and economically masked in the name of goodwill. Just like the characters in the novel which were misled of Godfrey’s outer appearance, both the English society and Indian society were also made to believe Britain’s lies. c. Allusive Dating Two important events in the British history had been used in the novel: (1) the 1857 Indian Mutiny, which Felber explains, was perhaps the most destabilizing event of the nineteenth century, as so much of the ideology of the empire was constructed on notions of absolute (intellectual, physical, moral, military) superiority and the presumption that British authority was recognized and accepted by indigenous peoples (that, in fact, empire was not an act of imperialism, a term reserved by the British for the Russians and French). (66) and (2) the Second Anglo-Sikh War in India (1848-1849) which had established Britain’s full control of India, annexing its remaining areas (Walsh 106). But far more significant, is the way Collins made used of the events. As Pionke observes, Collins deliberately dated the second period (1848-1849) to be the re-enthronement of the moonstone in India, reversing then the event against Britain for India. Thus the novel leads its “readers to stop seeing India through the English lens of the Mutiny and to start perceiving it by the Indian light of the Moonstone.” (93) C. Collins on British Imperialism The Moonstone speaks of Collins’s on British imperialism in two ways. First, it reveals Collins’s disapproval of the Imperial British’s practices against India, justifying the latter’s retaliation. Second, it explains Collins attitude/reaction to these abhorrent practices. The novel clearly shows that Collins abhors the British Imperial army’s manner of dealing with British colonies like India, finding such ways barbaric and uncivilised – a mockery to England’s self-proclaimed greatness and superiority. Also, the novel sensitively tackled racial and class inequality, showing Collins’ adherence to social justice and equality – Two political issues that describe Britain’s internal and external conflict in the 19th century. Although in relation to this, he seems to equate mercy and generosity with justice and equality, seemingly expelling the likes of Lady Verinder of any culpability of the Imperial British’s national crime. Furthermore, having been inspired by two significant events in British’s historical aggression of India, deliberately ending the story with the re-enthronement of the moonstone in a Hindu shrine also shows Collins’s justification of the Indian Mutiny 1857. However, Collins did not make any deliberate disbelief on imperialism. What has been prominent is his disgust on the manner by which Imperial Britain has subjugated and has treated India as its subjected race. On the other hand, by showing the deliberate silence of the English conscious class and the Indian victims themselves, rationalising it more generally on the privilege they gain, Collins has not only criticised his own class but even himself. Collins implicitly admitted that the Victorian conscious class has preferred not to decisively deal with Britain’s abhorrent imperial subjugation of India, because it makes them great and their class is among the most benefitted. D. Conclusion The Moonstone is definitely Collins’ subtle revelation of his critical views against Imperial Britain. However, he did not simply exploit a domestic crime in order to attack Imperial Britain and justify India’s retaliation. Instead, he domesticated a national political crime to illustrate the general attitude of the English society, specifically the conscious class, in failing to deal with Britain’s national crime from a wider social perspective, essentially condoning it. Collins may have presented the existence of racial and class inequality, but may have failed to tackle these two important political issues sharply, perhaps because, what he wanted to expose is not simply its existence but its institutionalisation. To decisively dealt with these issues, Collins may have known to require radical change – a view magnified by limping Lucy, to which, Collins have clearly shown in the novel to have been ignored. Thus the novel provides Collins’s readers not only his views on British imperialism against India, but also an assessment on the English society’s general response on the issue, which borders to passive acceptance. Works Cited Collins, Wilkie. The Moonstone (Modern Abridged Edition). New York, NY: Pyramid Books. 1950. Daly, Suzanne. “Plunder as property: Diamonds.” The empire inside: Indian commodities in Victorian domestic novels. US: The University of Michigan Press. 2011. 61-83. Gan, Yan-ping. “The moonstone: A rare anti-imperialist work.” US-China Foreign Language. March 2008: 62-66. Eliot, T.S. “Wilkie Collins and Dickens.” The Victorian novel. Ed. Harold Bloom, New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. 2004. 307-314. Felber, L. Clio's daughters: British women making history, 1790-1899. Danvers, Massachusstes: Rosemont Publishing and Printing. 2007. Francis, W., Nicholson, F., Middlemiss, CS, Barber CA, Thurston, E. and Stuart GH. Gazetteer of South India, Vol. II. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. 1989. Hultgren, Neil Emory. Distance overcome: Melodrama and British imperial fiction, 1857—1902. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest LLC. 2007. Jolly, Roslyn. “Postcolonial Readings.” A Companion to the Victorian Novel. Eds. William Baker and Kenneth Womack. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 2002. 377-390. McCoy, Alfred W. “Requiem for a drug lord: State and commodity in the career of Khun Sa.” States and illegal practices. Ed. Heyman, Josiah McC. New York, NY: Berg Publishers. 1999. Nayder, Lilian. “Victorian Detective Fiction.” A Companion to the Victorian Novel. Eds. William Baker and Kenneth Womack, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. 177-187. Page, Norman. Wilkie Collins: The Critical Heritage. London: Routledge, 1995. Pionke, Albert D. Plots of opportunity: Representing Conspiracy in Victorian England. Ohio: The Ohio State University, 2004. Robinson, Kenneth. Wilkie Collins: A Biography. New York: Macmillan. 1952. Sabin, Margery. “Victorian Oblivion and The Moonstone.” Dissenters and Mavericks: Writings about India in English, 1765-2000. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002. 89-110. Shadle, Robert. “British empire in fiction.” Historical dictionary of the British empire (A-J). Eds. J.S. Olson and R. Shadle Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. 1996. 760-180. Walsh, Judith E. A brief history of India. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing. 2006. Read More