September 29, 2024 - 1:00pm
It is a revelation to me that the rigid consensus around the “race” and ethnic origins of Heathcliff, the Byronic protagonist of Emily Bronte’s legendary Yorkshire Gothic tale, Wuthering Heights, was that he was definitely a “person of colour” — meaning someone of non-European descent, most likely black Sub-Saharan African.
Whenever I’ve read the novel, first at school, and multiple times since, my interpretation has been that Heathcliff was something closer to Romani gypsy origin, and thus would’ve looked more like a saturnine Mediterranean than a Sub-Saharan African or a “half-caste”, to use the arcane 19th century term.
The backlash to the casting of Australian actor Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff in Emerald Fennell’s upcoming adaptation from critics on social media demonstrates how firm this consensus is. Volleys of “she obviously hasn’t read the book” and “the story is being whitewashed” have been launched toward Fennell. In the background is clearly the issue of representation of “ethnic minorities” in classical literature. This is why period dramas now are increasingly cast to make the England of the past look like the multiethnic England of present. While understandable, there is a tendency for this to spill over into absolutist claims which ironically become rather racially essentialist — like “Heathcliff is black”.
Despite describing him as having dark skin, dark eyes and dark hair, Bronte leaves Heathcliff’s precise racial and ethnic background rather vague and ambiguous. There is speculation that he might be “a little Lascar, or American or Spanish castaway”. However, it is never stated plainly where he is from, other than that he was a foundling discovered in Liverpool by Mr. Earnshaw, who raised him. Indeed, the enigmatic origins are precisely part of the point of Heathcliff as a character. It enhances his mystique as a wild and exotic Byronic hero, a tortured soul who is “mad, bad and dangerous to know”.
This means, naturally, there is a scope of interpretation for Heathcliff’s “identity”. The theory that he is black or a “person of colour” stems from the fact that throughout the 18th century Liverpool was among the biggest slave trading ports within the British empire. So, Heathcliff might have been the product of an illicit interracial dalliance — possibly involving Mr. Earnshaw himself — and then thrown out onto the streets. Thus, the hostility and exclusion he endures is basically racism.
It’s plausible. But if he was canonically black then I suspect his enemies, given the era, would’ve gleefully stressed his “negro” origins.
It’s not outrageous that Jacob Elordi (who has Basque ancestry on his father’s side) would be cast as Heathcliff. Neither was it wrong for the 2011 adaptation to have a mixed-race Heathcliff, because it leans into the ambiguity and fits in with contemporary understanding of difference — it still exemplified the “otherness” of the character. Shakespeare’s works have been “race blended” like this many times, and few blink an eye because what is important is not the precise race of the actor, but the role they fulfil.
As a “person of colour”, it doesn’t offend me that Emily Bronte probably had in mind someone who looked more like Russell Brand or Colin Farrell than myself when imagining Heathcliff. I don’t feel “excluded”, because I feel connected to these characters irrespective of race or phenotype.
Regrettably, our culture labours under the condescending misapprehension that in order for ethnic minorities to connect with the classics of the English canon, they necessarily have to see themselves represented in the story by people who “look like them”. This treats literature not as a humanist enterprise — where we enter into a universal conversation through characters that are very much not “like us” — but more a form of ancestor worship. It is a regrettable development in modern culture, and one that should be resisted.
Ralph Leonard is a British-Nigerian writer on international politics, religion, culture and humanism.
buffsoldier_96
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI could be wrong, but as this was a triangular trade I assume that slaves did not generally pass through Liverpool.
No, there was a black population in Liverpool in the 18th century.
I have no idea of the size.
They may well have been involved in helping transporting slaves.
Or just general seamen. I have heard that Britain traded by sea throughout the world. I wonder if anyone could verify this for me?
There was a black family of escaped slaves living in the Outer Hebrides in 1760. Yet Braveheart is portrayed as white, not even Pictish. And Rob Roy, always played as white.
Slaves weren’t transported via Liverpool. They went straight from West Africa to the plantations in the Caribbean and the Southern USA. The crops they harvested came to Liverpool. That’s why it’s called the Triangular Trade.
They didn’t. The claim that they did is just a historically ignorant canard very likely recycled from the execrable race-baiter Rene Eddo-Lodge’s “Why I’m No Longer Talking To Crackers About Race”.
Indeed I am looking forward to this adaptation provided it doesn’t go 21st century ( like the recent Persuasion), but sticks to the original Bronte version.
I simply can’t bear the thought of yet another inflicting of Netflix style ” Bridgerton”!
It’s strange how the wheel has turned full circle- both Merle Oberon and Vivien Leigh had to take great pains to hide their Anglo Indian identities.
Vivien Leigh had Indian heritage, apart from being born there?
Yes. On her maternal grandfather’s side
Vivien Leigh and Merle Oberon had Anglo-Indian identity?! I’ll have to check that out. I can’t watch Bridgerton because the casting of people of color as aristocrats just doesn’t seem authentic to me. I’d love to see Heathcliff as a swarthy, dark-skinned man. Shiver my timbers!
Sort of ironic really, For a time blacks, or people of colour, were used in novels and films to portray the dark, primal aspect of man’s nature. Not so longer ago that was derided as racism, it suggested that blacks were primitive and savage, that they lacked the sensitivity of the West. We no longer use them that way in novels and films because it’s racist,
Instead we now use blackness as symbols of “otherness” and that’s okay apparently. They are still backward and lacking in our sensitivity because of their “otherness” and presumably this means all blacks, even if they don’t know it. They could not be equal to us because of this “otherness”. I think i’d be insulted if I was used to portray something not quite whole. In fact I do, I find it insulting to see whiteness used as a tool to portray racism. Do you think these idiots can see who and what they are?
Yes of course no one wanted to change the name of the football team to the ‘Paleskins’ but they sure did argue to keep the ‘Redskins’ name saying it was fine and the natives liked it .
Look what groups commits a disproportionate amount of the murders and violent crimes and you’ll see our ancestors were not wrong.
Whoa!
According to Google’s AI program, at least in its first iteration, the average Roman pontiff is a black lady, as was George Washington.
George Washington who chopped down the red cherry tree of native blood.
Heathcliff is also violent, dangerous and with a large/healthy sexual appetite. Is this why he ‘must be black’?
Great article. I’m not sure how ‘worshipful’ it is though when people steal someone else’s ancestors while pretending their own never existed.
I very much like this author’s classification of the identity obsession as ancestor worship.
If we can have a black Anne Boleyn, I rather think that having a white Heathcliff is pretty small beer
No no no, you see it’s ‘when we do it = good! When you do it = bad!’ Or at least that’s what their behavior would suggest.
Young Jacob Elordi has good strong features and great dark eyes. He looks right for the part. A mixed race actor with similarly strong facial features would have looked good.too but Jacob got the part that’s all. Only a blond haired man with blue eyes could have been considered controversial.
I too saw Heathcliff as Gypsy. There are plenty of Gypsies near where I live (in Bulgaria) and some of them look more Indian than European, which got me thinking that Mr Earnshaw could equally have adopted a child of Indian heritage.
I think it’s great that a White actor has been cast as Heathcliff. Of course the icing on the cake would be if he wore blackface.
The quality of the debate tends towards puerility. Only by racist standards does any of this matter at all. Advocating allocation of roles on the basis of race, or characteristics associated with race, such as skin colour is inherently racist. Why? Because it is treating people differently on the basis of race which is the essence of racism.
Racism or racial suicide. The choices in the real world are quite stark. You either support your own group or get wiped out. The Jews had to learn that lesson the hard way during WWII.