Max Liebl

ERH-205WX Meyers Article Summary

3/19/17

Jeffrey Meyers’ article focuses on Moral Authority, or lack thereof, in the novel The Man Who Would Be King. Meyers begins his article by making the claim that Peachey and Dravot fail in kingship because of their lack of moral standards that would be typical of a king such as that of the British Empire. Beginning with their backgrounds which Meyers describes as “soldiers” which is comparable to that of the lowest class of socially acceptable working people in England during that time period. Peachey and Dravot are, “…uneducated and corrupt adventurers,” (Meyers 712), who spend their time committing petty acts of crime such as blackmailing and fraud which makes it clear that their intentions lack integrity and are not genuine. Meyers shows that the vulnerability of the land that which they are conquering also plays a major role in their lack of authenticity since the men have “purely materialistic” ambitions for the land, they seek areas outside of control of the Queen and British governance. Dan and Peachey refer throughout the novel of the comparison of their adventure to that of James Brooke in 1841 who conquered Borneo in much of the same way as the pair conquered Kafiristan. As time goes on, however, Meyers explains that where Brooke took genuine concern to the people of Borneo and acted with compassion and chivalry, Dan and Peachey did not in their case. The pair, “…aspire[d] to Brooke’s power, titles, wealth and fame,” (Meyers 714), but not the level of responsibility and the sense of duty Brooke felt towards his people. Because of the lack of moral values, Meyers shows that is how the men wrongfully assume that their form of government will be better than the primitive institution of power that was in place before. Meyers explains that the pair was able to exploit the gullibility of the people in this manner which is one of the main reasons their rise to power was so swift. Through their use of firepower and technology that was unavailable to the people of Kafiristan at the time, the men never recognize the brutality of their conquest in what Meyers refers to as “unprincipled colonialism”. Meyers shows throughout his article how Dan and Peachey make a mockery out of colonialism and while it may seem as though he is condemning British colonialism, it is rather that he is showing what would happen if morality was suddenly thrown out of the equation.