Complexity and Morality in The Known World

William Robbins and John Skiffington in Edward P. Jones' Novel

Oct 11, 2008

Throughout The Known World, Edward P. Jones allows the reader to see both the internal struggles, and the outward actions, of each character.

Jones’ technique increases the complexity of the protagonists and antagonists.

One especially complex, but admirable character, is William Robbins. Robbins’ faithfulness to his beliefs, and love for several key characters, make him a compelling character.

Slave Owner William Robbins Juxtaposed with Sheriff John Skiffington

Though not all of Robbins’ actions are admirable—indeed his ownership of slaves makes him despicable—he, unlike other characters, does not stray from his convictions. Robbins’ response to slavery can be compared to Skiffington’s more duplicitous response. Unlike the sheriff, Robbins admits to owning slaves and his status as slave owner is both known and admired.

While Robbins believes it is both right and natural that he should own slaves, Skiffington admits to his dislike of the system, “ ‘We will not own slaves,’ Skiffington promised God, and he promised each morning he went to his knees to pray” (43). Even so, he and Winifred keep Minerva when she is given to them as a gift. Though they view her as a daughter, they refuse to send her to the north to be free, and she does not have all the rights a free daughter would have.

Robbins, therefore, lives genuinely, while Skiffington perpetuates the institution he claims to hate. And Robbins’ actions stem from his understanding of God. Skiffington, who reads his Bible and believes in God, owns Minerva and contemplates having an affair with her.

The Reverend has an affair with his sister-in-law during the week and preaches the word of God on Sunday. Robbins, however, does not claim belief in God or adherence to Biblical principles and he lives accordingly. His immoral actions—ownership of slaves, affair with Philomena, etc—are much less disturbing than the actions of the Christian characters in the novel.

Robbins’s Faithfulness Evidenced in Treatment of African American Population

Another example of Robbins’s faithfulness to his convictions is, in fact, his status as slave owner. Born into the southern system of slavery, Robbins believes it would be irresponsible for him not to own slaves: “The gods, the changeable gods, hated a man with so much, but they hated more a man who did not appreciate how high they had pulled him up from the dust” (126).

Because Robbins believes in the institution of slavery—however misguided or unethical this belief may be—he upholds it. And because of his adherence to the slave-master system, Robbins shows much respect for freedom.

While his behavior toward slaves is not ideal, his actions toward free African-Americans are admirable. Indeed, “Robbins was one of the few white men who would not suffer from sitting across from a black man” (139).

Unlike those who sell Moses back into slavery—and Travis Harvey who swallows Moses’ free papers—Robbins displays indignation when freedom is not respected. His respect for Fern Elston—and his concern for her safety and freedom to ride alone in Manchester County—is very different than the scorn many whites display toward African Americans in the novel.

William Robbins is complex, disappointing, and admirable. Indeed, Jones does not create any characters that are unequivocally good or bad in The Known World. The beauty of Jones’ novel is the humanity—the mixture of right and wrong—in each character.

The copyright of the article Complexity and Morality in The Known World in African-American Fiction is owned by Allison D. Schisler. Permission to republish Complexity and Morality in The Known World in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.