mddm 27: coffee,tea...Ooaphium?

[jbor]

Thanks for these links. You're right, it does appear that the problem and
the illegal British trade dates from much earlier. Pynchon, in _GR_, locates
it in the early 1800s, however (as did my Oxford Encyclopedia).

I still think the "Chinamen's Drugs" reference isn't related to opium in the
way you're thinking, in that opium was a drug which was imported into China
rather than exported from there. But, then again, it could well be, and I
agree with you that it was an awful imperial legacy and that Pynchon treats
it in just this way in _GR_.

Dixon's and Franklin's respective attitudes to opium on 267 are interesting.
Even though he tries to order 100 crates of the stuff - more as a response
to Mason's snootiness at 267.9, and in order to irritate him, than anything
else I think - I get the impression that Dixon actually wishes to acquire
the alcoholised opiate for what he genuinely believes are medicinal reasons,
though he might well be an addict nevertheless. I think that Ben, already
depicted as something of a 60s-style hipster dufus, is the one who probably
knowingly indulges in substance abuse for purposes illicit and nefarious. It
also sounds to my ears that Mr Mispick's sales spiel at 267.20 - and
Franklin's enthusiastic product endorsement straight after - is quite a bit
more like a set-up, a drug dealer and his plant trying to score a big sale
and hook a new junkie, than a reputable pharmacist dispensing medicines and
advice.

Dixon's suave reply at the bottom of the page again seems to show him as one
step ahead of the jig, and actually seems to stump old Ben. (268.1)

best


on 11/1/02 1:27 PM, Bandwraith at aol.com at Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:

>>> Anyone more familiar with The Company's connection
>>> with the introduction of opium into China, at about this time?
> 
> 
>> From: jbor at bigpond.com>
> Pynchon does, though it was about half a century or so later than this I
> think:
> 
> [snip-GR quote]
> 
> The actual "Opium Wars" were, as you say, somewhat later
> on, but after a quick search I've detected some info to
> suggest that the groundwork for that awful imperial legacy
> was being laid much earlier:
> 
> http://www.discovery.com/stories/history/captain/ei_company.html
> 
> But porcelain never amounted to more than a few percent
> of the company's trade with China. Instead of teapots and
> cups, Chinese tea itself became the nation's most
> sought-after commodity. By 1750, the company was
> importing 2.5 million pounds of Chinese tea annually and
> was auctioning it in London for five shillings a pound —
> twice what it paid in Canton. By 1800, the importation of
> Chinese tea would generate more revenue than the
> company's entire trade with India.
> 
> But the tea trade also was a source of tension between
> the English and the Chinese for much of the 1700s. The
> Chinese allowed the British to buy tea and other goods
> only through a Cantonese merchant cartel, the Co-hong,
> which set the price and often tacked on unexpected taxes
> or required substantial bribes — as much as 10 percent of
> a cargo's value — to cinch deals. The British, in turn,
> aroused the ire of the Chinese by peddling opium, even
> after the Chinese emperor banned the addictive narcotic in
> 1729. (The East India Company obstensibly ordered its
> traders to stop selling the drug; the rule was widely
> ignored.) By 1773, the year that the Royal Captain made
> its first — and last — visit to China, relations between
> England and China had grown tense. England sent an
> ambassador, Lord George Macartney, to the court of the
> Chinese emperor, K'ien Lung, with 13,000 English pounds
> worth of gifts and a letter from King George III But
> because of the opium problem, Macartney was so coolly
> received by K'ien Lung that his delegation decided to turn
> around and go home.
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://www.maritimeheritage.org/newtale/opium.html
> 
> and,
> 
> http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wod/hongkong.html
> 
>