1914: Edgar Rice Burroughs - Tarzan of the Apes

Tarzan of the Apes first appeared serialized in a magazine in 1912, and was published in book form in 1914.

Tarzan of the Apes
Finished reading: 11 August 2012



"Do fingerprints show racial characteristics?" he asked. "Could you determine, for example, solely from fingerprints whether the subject was Negro or Caucasian?"

"I think not," replied the officer, although some claim that those of the Negro are less complex."

"Could the finger prints of an ape be detected from those of a man?"

"Probably, because the ape's would be far simpler than those of the higher organism."

Tarzan of the Apes (1912) is a popular work of fiction, available in many cheap and freely downloadable editions. Unfortunately, the source of the text in such editions is not always clear. Although many editions claim to be "complete and unabridged" they may actually be edited or altered. While such editing for political correctness may be an understandable choice for publishers, it is quite unsettling to know and see that the freely downloadable version available from the Project Gutenberg is in fact a censored edition, a fact stated nowhere. Indeed, an overview of the editorial choices strongly suggests that the freely downloadable version of Tarzan of the Apes at the Gutenberg project is in fact not based on an edition in the public domain, but most likely taken from an edition which should still be protected by copyright.

The edition of the Shanghai-based publisher World Publishing does not give any information about the origin of the text. However, this edition must be based on a very early text version, which is either very close to the original text, or possibly based on the original text, with some minor editorial changes by the Chinese publisher. A quick survey, using Jerry L. Schneider’s essay “Tarzan the Censored” as a reference, shows the limited extent of censorship in the Chinese edition. Schneider made a concordance or an early, hardback edition by A.L. Burt, circa 1915 and compared it with a censored edition published by Ballantine (1969) and Grosset & Dunlap (1973). Schneider’s research indicates that editions published between 1915 and 1963, appeared unedited, and apart from typological errors, identical to the original version, which editions published after 1969 were edited for political correctness.

The Chinese English-language edition follows the censored editions by capitalizing the words “Negro” and “Negress”. Likewise, it follows the censor describing the following scene as ... frightened child the huge woman ran to bury her face on her mistress’ shoulder. (Chapter 13, p. 133) rather than the original ... frightened child the huge black ran to bury her face on her mistress’ shoulder.. (Chapter 13, p. 178).

However, the Chinese edition does not follow the censored editions in polishing away the “vernacular” of Esmeralda. Censored editions reproduce Esmeralda’s speech in standard English, as for instance in the following polished and shortened version: ” "Oh, Gaberelle, I want to die! " ... "Let me die, dear Lord, don't let me see that awful face again." (Chapter 18, page 149) versus the longer original ” "O Gaberelle, Ah wants to die! " ... "Lemme die, deah Lawd, but doan lemme see dat awrful face again. Whafer yo' sen de devil 'roun' after po ole Esmeralda? She ain't done nuffin' to nobody, Lawd; hones' she ain't. She's puffickly indecent, Lawd; yas'm, deed she is." (Chapter 18, page 245) and retained in the Chinese edition (Chapter 18, page 186).

Schneider’s essay does not refer to the fingerprint passage (in the Chinese edition in Chapter 26, page 277). In the Chinese edition, the answer of the officer is longer, most likely as in the original edition, namely: "Do fingerprints show racial characteristics?" he asked. "Could you determine, for example, solely from fingerprints whether the subject was Negro or Caucasian?"
"I think not," replied the officer, although some claim that those of the Negro are less complex.", while more recent, censored editions (including the edition on the Gutenberg project), simply reproduce it as follows: "Do fingerprints show racial characteristics?" he asked. "Could you determine, for example, solely from fingerprints whether the subject was Negro or Caucasian?"
"I think not," replied the officer."

Reverberating with colonial sentiment of superiority of the white race, much like in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Tarzan of the Apes is much less focused and constitutes a jumble of ideas, including references to Darwinism, Social Darwinism, and the technique of fingerprinting, which was still relatively new at that time. Besides, the plot is fraught with melodramatic events and features, such as treasure hunt, reminiscent of the adventure novels of Stevenson. Besides the allusions to the supremacy of the white man over the natives in the African forest, the rivalry between Robert Canler and Tarzan over Jane Porter resembles the fight of the great apes over a mate more than anything else.

Tarzan of the Apes is remarkably readable, and quite enjoyable for a light superficial read, the story familiar to most. A reading is still attractive, to purge all cultural constructs built overhead by media and film. Descriptions are very beautiful, and the familiarity with the story makes for a very quick read. Nonetheless, some story elements are still quite surprising, such as Tarzan’s long acquaintance with d’Arnot, and his mastering the French language, before and over English.

Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
" Jane her lithe, young form flattened against the trunk of a great tree, her hands tight pressed against her rising and falling bosom, and her eyes wide with mingles horror, fascination, fear, and admiration - watched the primordial ape battle with the primeval man for possession of a woman - for her.
As the great muscles of the man's back and shoulders knotted beneath the tension of his efforts, and the huge biceps and forearm held at bay those mighty tusks, the veil of centuries of civilization and culture was swept from the blurred vision of the Baltimore girl."

Edgar Rice Burroughs knew how to tell a good story; his prose carries the reader along effortlessly page after page. Pulp fiction it may be, but it is so well written and at times so convincing that he makes his fantastical stories seam real. I used to gobble these books up as a teenager, and re-reading Tarzan today I was soon under it's spell and could hardly put the book down. Burroughs was in love with his male characters especially his hero Tarzan and if his descriptions of that perfect body are going to put you off then perhaps it's not for you:

She watched him from beneath half-closed lids, Tarzan crossed the little circular clearing toward the trees upon the further side. She noted the graceful majesty of his carriage, the perfect symmetry of his magnificent figure and the poise of his well-shaped head upon his broad shoulders. What a perfect creature! There could be naught of cruelty or baseness beneath that godlike exterior. Never, she thought had such a man strode the earth since God created the first man in his own image."

Burroughs Tarzan is a savage creature, but he is also a noble savage and this is the hook that makes him so attractive. Episodes of the Tarzan story first appeared in 1912 and it was published in book form in 1914 and while the story is very much of it's time as regards attitudes to women and black people, I did not find it overtly racist or sexist; a black maid is singled out as a figure of fun, but then so are two English academics. The black natives are savage and cruel, but Burroughs points out that this is the result of even crueller barbarities practiced on them by white officers of Leopold II's of Belgium regime.

Tarzan is still a rip roaring adventure yarn with a super hero who one could almost believe in and one you might want to believe in. If ever I am in a reading slump I shall just pick up one of these stories, hell I might pick one up if I am not in a slump, especially as the Tarzan and Jane story in this first of the series ends in a cliff hanger. Great fun and a four star read.

I did not find it overtly racist or sexist; a black maid is singled out as a figure of fun, but then so are two English academics.

They are English academics, members of the Masters Of The World club; she's a black American servant and a well-worn stereotype at that, the infinitely dumb, superstitious, illiterate and hilarious mammy. As far as characterisation goes, she gets the short shrift compared to Tarzan's apes. (The best drawn character in the book? His ape-mother Kala.)

As for Jane, her job is to be beautiful so the guy can have the hots for her, and to scream and faint conveniently so he can do some terrific saving. I've met soggy cereal with more personality than she's got.

The racism and sexism of this book is up there for all to see, as "overt" as can be. I didn't see it when I burnt through the series at ten or so, but that's being ten for you. It's pretty inescapable rereading it as an adult.

Obviously, whether this affects one's enjoyment or not will depend on the individual.

Thirty years later, this is still a ripping yarn, and surprisingly sexy, considering the target audience and limitations of custom. I didn't read it with anything like the pleasure of reading in childhood, of course. Impossible things are impossible. Would I give it to a kid, though? No. Being offensive to one kind of people ought to be offensive for everyone, if I can't picture myself giving it to a kid of colour, why on earth would I want to give it to a white kid.

The book dates from 1912, its pulp fiction and to judge it as racist or sexist by todays standards is counter productive to the enjoyment you may get from it.

The way you use the word pulp fiction is interesting, Barry, because that word, as such, does not really exist, although we all think we know what it means.

We have come to think the "pulp fiction" says something about the quality of the content, whereas "pulp" merely refers to the medium, the "pulp magazines" that the serialized novels were published in. The medium of the "pulp magazines" as such existed because it made reading materials available to a mass audience at a low price, basically before paperbacks became more widely available. Some other popular fiction, such as Ayesha by H. Rider Haggard appeared in pulp magazine form.

Many stories from the "pulps' and many novels that were published between the 1920 and late-1960s have disappeared from circulation because the were grossly antisemitic or racist.

From the later-1960s, publishers recognized this and started to edit Tarzan of the Apes to reduce the antisemitic impact of the novel (see my review above). While doing research for my review, I noticed that the freely downloadable version from the Project Gutenberg is not the out-of-copyright early edition it claims to be, but is in fact a later edition with post-1960 editing in it. It means that that particular version should still be under copyright.

Tarzan of the Apes has no inherent great literary qualities. The novel is a spin-off from the idea of "the noble savage", but seems to emphasize that that "savage" can only be truly noble when "white". Clearly, in Edgar Rice Burroughs view, the native African savages, as we encounter them in the novel, are not to be seen as "noble savages".

However, the novel does not claim universal white supremacy. Instead, Burroughs shows that within "the white man's tribe" there are degenerate lower-class individuals, who are either intrinsically bad (thieves) or spoilt by civilization. Besides, the novel presents a very traditional role for women, which was already out-dated when it first appeared in 1912.

It is quite dreadful that major publishers such as Penguin Books and The Modern Library have included Tarzan of the Apes in their prestigious series of Classics although theses editions are preceded by -- hopefully critical -- introductions. It just shows that major publishers real principles are determined by what makes a lot of money.

The fact that Western readers think it is all just innocent entertainment shows that inter-cultural awareness is but skin deep, not much deeper than their own 'white' skin.

From the later-1960s, publishers recognized this and started to edit Tarzan of the Apes to reduce the antisemitic impact of the novel (see my review above). While doing research for my review, I noticed that the freely downloadable version from the Project Gutenberg is not the out-of-copyright early edition it claims to be, but is in fact a later edition with post-1960 editing in it. It means that that particular version should still be under copyright.

That's very interesting Edwin. The Tarzan books that I read in the 1960's were probably those that had been edited at the time for new paperback editions. The publishers were "four square books" I think, which became the New English Library.

I notice that the Gutenberg version of Tarzan of the Apes is their Ebook #78, so it was one of their earliest. I imagine they have more controls in place now to avoid copyright violations. Their version is the one that's free on Amazon. It is also the one offered by PG Australia. You can read the original 1914 edition on Google Books, but it is not downloadable.

I've always felt it was pointless and unfair to hold people of the past accountable for not holding the values subscribed to by a later era. People are simply products of their environment. If you reject older literature for not adhering to today's standards of political correctness you wind up throwing out pretty much everything more than 50 years old. And then 100 years from now all of our literature will be thrown out because we are undoubtedly guilty of some prejudice or "ism" that is so ingrained into our culture that we don't even realize it exists. I'm not saying you must read Tarzan of the Apes, Huckleberry Finn, or Merchant of Venice if they offend you, but don't censure those who do read and enjoy them.

Tarzan of the Apes is certainly not great literature by most standards, but Tarzan has become an iconic character like his near contemporaries Dracula, Sherlock Holmes and Peter Pan.

#6

The book dates from 1912, its pulp fiction and to judge it as racist or sexist by todays standards is counter productive to the enjoyment you may get from it.

That's a bizarre perspective. Following that logic, there is no racism or sexism in the past at all!

#7

However, the novel does not claim universal white supremacy.

In the sense you mean, maybe not, but I think the important character to consider here is Tarzan, not the cowardly hoodlums. It's Tarzan kiddies want to be, whose adventures they want to have. And as Tarzan, so hundreds of other literary examples (low or high brow)--white boys and men having adventures, being the chosen one, being superheroes, conquering lands and prizes, travelling in space etc. The cumulative effect is quite staggering, and I think it is fair to say the literature of the period as a whole is white male supremacist. It is a viewpoint of a subject who dominates not just literature, but everything--politics, industry, the arts, society.

Speaking of current editions and how they handle this fare, I was shocked to see that Bram Stoker's viciously racist The lair of the white worm, published by Penguin in their "Red" Classics line (oddly enough, the palette of the cover designs for that imprint is yellow/green/black, no red), came without a word of introduction or explanation.

I suppose one can always claim these books are hardly read by children nowadays, and adults presumably can provide their own criticism. But, as you say:

The fact that Western readers think it is all just innocent entertainment shows that inter-cultural awareness is but skin deep, not much deeper than their own 'white' skin.

#9

I've always felt it was pointless and unfair to hold people of the past accountable for not holding the values subscribed to by a later era. People are simply products of their environment. If you reject older literature for not adhering to today's standards of political correctness you wind up throwing out pretty much everything more than 50 years old.

Who said anything about throwing stuff away? On the contrary, it has to be read, but it also has to be judged.

The past was racist and sexist, even more than the present, or in different forms to the present. This has to be understood, not swept under the carpet.

>> throwing stuff

Oh, No! That would be the last thing. Suppressing the free word would be absolutely counter-productive.

The Delphi Works of Edgar Rice Burroughs has just been released, and as far as I know it is the only electronic edition with the original 1914 Tarzan text, warts and all. Unfortunately they say it isn't available in Europe, and the U.S. edition has only the works published before the Mickey Mouse year, 1923. The complete works are available only in Australia and New Zealand.

In Chapter XIII, Tarzan posts this notice on his cabin for the first white people he has seen:

THIS IS THE HOUSE OF TARZAN, THE KILLER OF BEASTS AND MANY BLACK MEN. DO NOT HARM THE THINGS WHICH ARE TARZAN'S. TARZAN WATCHES.

TARZAN OF THE APES

We know how he taught himself to read and write English, but where did he learn to spell his own name? He has no idea how English sounds; he'd never heard it until that day. So how can he know the phonetic spelling of a word in Ape language like "Tarzan"?

Maybe this is explained later--I'm just halfway through the book--but it looks like Burroughs slipped up.

Where was Tarzan born? Burroughs give us some hints, but unfortunately they are inconsistent.

When the novel opens John Clayton, Tarzan's father, is headed to Africa to investigate claims that a foreign power is inveigling African natives from other colonies to work in conditions tantamount to slavery. Based on a later comment, that foreign power is almost certainly Belgium, so his destination must be a colony somewhere in the vicinity of the Belgian Congo. Presumably he is bound for a British colony, but the only British colonies bordering the Belgian Congo are to the southeast and east and would be approached by way of the Indian Ocean. But we know from numerous other remarks that Tarzan's birthplace is on the Atlantic coast. So this doesn't help us much.

Jane's letter says that the treasure was found on one of the Cape Verde Islands. Three days after leaving the islands (direction and destination not specified), the crew mutinied. They were then on the African coast, so they must have been sailing east, possibly making for the French port of Dakar (in modern Senegal), which would have been a likely place to catch a steamer for Europe. The mutineers then sailed south along the coast until they found an isolated harbor in which to anchor and abandon the Porter party. Being no doubt impatient and not willing to pass any other major ports, they probably didn't sail very far. So this would have Tarzan born in French West Africa or possibly Portuguese Guinea. The city to which Tarzan and D'Arnot journey near the end of the book would probably be Dakar itself.

A problem with the Senegal hypothesis is that Tarzan and D'Arnot walk for weeks before reaching the French port. Had they done so, they would have passed several major ports along the way. West Africa simply wasn't that sparsely settled in 1909, and there is no place they could have been that was more than a few days walk from the nearest European settlement.

When Prof. Porter and Mr. Philander go for their errant walk their first day ashore, Burroughs tells us that they are 1500 miles north of Cape Town. This would put them in Angola. This is close to the Belgian Congo, to be sure, but nowhere near the Cape Verde Islands. Nor is it a coastline where the French navy would have likely been operating. It was at the time a fairly remote coastline, so it is possible for Tarzan and D'Arnot to have walked three weeks to reach a port, but it would have been Portuguese or Belgian, not French.

So either Burroughs was either careless in his geography, didn't care, or is deliberately confusing us to protect Tarzan's privacy.

There is a possible answer, however. My theory is that Jane got her Portuguese islands mixed up, and it wasn't Cape Verde but Sao Tome and Principe. Three days east by sail would have put them off the coast of French Equatorial Africa--the modern nation of Gabon. It was developed much later than French West Africa, and Tarzan's cabin could easily have been three week's walk south from the nearest French port. The distance to Cape Town is about 2200 miles instead of 1500, but at least it's in the same ball park. And it's prime gorilla country, so if ever there had been Great Apes, this is where they would likely have lived.

(After writing this I googled "Tarzan Gabon" and see that other have come to the same conclusion. There may be more specific hints in later Tarzan books that relieve the uncertainty.)

I somehow associate Burroughs with carelessness. Are you planning to read all the Tarzan books to find the information? I am sure that you will not be the first.

According to Wikipedia the range of the Western gorilla is limited to the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and the south of Cameroon.

John Clayton is not necessarily on his way to a British colony. After abolishing British slave trade in 1807, and the entire British empire by 1833, the British leased bases at Port Clarence (modern Malabo) and San Carlos from 1827 to 1843 for their anti-slavery patrols, operated from the island of Bioko, which belongs to Equatorial Guinea. Slave trade in the area, consisted of the Spanish and the Portuguese, shipping slaves to Brazil, etc.

More than location, it seems more important to first establish the time setting of Tarzan of the Apes.

Tarzan's ability to spell his name in English seems to be the least concern. He may have simply provided a transliteration most closely to the pronunciation of his name.

>16 baswood: I would like to re-read more of the Tarzan novels (I got through the first dozen or so in my youth), but a higher priority is revisiting Barsoom and Pellucidar. I'm not making a study of anything; I just thought it would be fun to try to piece together the clues of Tarzan's location.

>17 edwinbcn: The dates are given in the novel itself. It is 1888 when Tarzan's parents are marooned on the African coast. It is 1909 when he meets Jane.

How could Tarzan have done a transliteration when he doesn't know which sounds the symbols in English represent? In the reading primer he sees the symbol "LION" below the picture so he knows that's what it represents, but to him the sound of the word is "Numa." If he had tried to spell out his own name phonetically he probably would have started it with "E" because in the book "ELEPHANT" is the symbol for his friend Tantor, and Tantor and Tarzan start with the same sound. But it is more likely that he just learns written English as ideograms not associated in his mind with the sound of the word since most of the words he learns have no counterpart in Ape language. Knowing that "Tarzan" means "white ape" in the language of his tribe, he would probably have used the corresponding symbols for those meanings and spelled Tarzan as "WHITEAPE."

It seems that the words that Tarzan uses for the other animals tend to be names rather than labels or words. The name "Tarzan" means "white skin" but does not mean "man" (for which there is no word in the animal language.

Jane Goodall was inspired to pursue her lifetime study of chimpanzees by reading the Tarzan novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs:

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2015/08/jane-goodall-sees-tarzan-as-a-potential-gl...