The Daisy Buchanan within Oedipa Maas

I realize that we’ve already discussed “The Crying of Lot 49” in class, so I hope it’s not too late for me to be submitting this blog. I got into the habit of posting on Thursday nights and it didn’t even occur to me that I might need to get mine in sooner this week. So if this is too late, sorry!!

As I was reading “The Crying of Lot 49” I kept comparing Oedipa to Daisy Buchanan. I kept finding striking similarities between the two. For example, both have a child like quality. I felt like Oedipa wasn’t necessarily hallucinating the plot but rather she was creating a sort of childish fantasy that allowed her to escape from the boredom of the life of a suburban house wife. Daisy was also very child like. She too acts like a child to escape from the pain of her Tom’s, her husband’s, frequent infidelity. Both women are bored with their lives and desperately search for any source of excitement or entertainment. I believe this is why Oedipa is sucked into the mysterious plot behind the horn and why Daisy strings Gatsby along only to choose Tom in the end. Furthermore, both of these female characters lived in a time period that was saturated with partying and substance abuse. The 1920’s were a time of prosperity in America and Americans celebrated this prosperity with parties, alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity, much like the way Americans recuperated from WWII in the 1960’s. Both Daisy and Oedipa live superficial lives in which their relationships have very little meaning. Both women are unfaithful to their husbands and neither appears to feel any guilt regarding their infidelity. Also, both women live lives filled with paranoia. Oedipa is paranoid about this elaborate scheme that she has stumbled upon, constantly worrying herself with the meaning behind the horn symbol to the point that it drives her crazy. Daisy is overcome by her paranoia after she and Gatsby struck and killed Myrtle Wilson with Gatsby’s car, and she allows Gatsby to take the blame for Myrtle’s death even though she was driving the car (further proof that she didn’t take much stock in her relationships). Also, I noticed the connection between Oedipa and Pierce’s relationship and the relationship between Daisy and Jay Gatsby. Both men are past relationships that the women had before they were married. Both relationships bring back strong memories of passion and nostalgia for the women and neither Oedipa nor Daisy is completely over their respective man. Overall, I became more and more intrigued as I continued to find parallels between Oedipa Maas and Daisy Buchanan. It’s interesting how two works of literature can be linked despite the fact that they were written about 4 decades apart.

Significance to the Names of the Characters

After reading the first chapter of “The Crying of Lot 49” I was extremely confused. The stream of consciousness made the introduction to the plot of the novel seem almost like a puzzle with its pieces strewn about randomly left for you to collect and put together. However, after going back through the chapter I realized that the names of the characters served as a helpful tool to putting together the pieces of this “plot puzzle”.

During the first reading the names stood out to me as sort of odd selections such as “Mucho” and “Dr. Hilarius”, but once I went back through I realized that each names tells something about the character. Beginning with Oedipa Maas, I immediately made a connection to Oedipus and Frued’s Oedipal Complex. Although I did not see any references to the Oedipal Complex in the first chapter (not so say that there weren’t any), I think perhaps her name is a foreshadowing of something that has yet to be revealed about Oedipa, such as perhaps a strong dependency on her father or a yearning for someone to fulfill a father figure. I did see that Oedipa, much like Oedipus does seem to be rather paranoid and anxious. She is paranoid about the letter sent to her by a Los Angeles law firm informing her that she had been named executor of the estate of Pierce Inverarity.

Just as his name indicates, Pierce’s spirit so to speak seems to pierce Oedipa. I got the sense that Pierce and Oedipa had a love affair in the past and now his spirit was reappearing in Oedpia’s life and causing a lot of trouble. She is struggling to figure out why she was appointed executor of the estate and it seems as though the reemergence of Pierce’s presence is causing problems between Oedipa and her husband, Mucho.

Mucho is the Spanish word for a lot, and mas is translated in Spanish to mean more, which corresponds with Mucho’s last name Maas. So literally translated into English his name means “a lot more”, which indicates to me that Mucho’s character is desperately searching for more, he isn’t satisfied with his life. He has the car lot and the radio show, but that’s not enough—he needs a lot more.

Funch, Mucho’s boss at the radio station, is not a very pleasant name and definitely not very flattering. Funch and Mucho often but heads at work because Funch feels that Mucho’s image is a bit too provocative. Mucho’s opinion of Funch correlates with Funch’s name. By that I mean, when you think of someone who is conservative with a by-the-books sort of mentality, referring to them as a “funch” seems like a good way to describe them.

Finally, Dr. Hilarius’ character name probably stood out the most. He is Oedipa’s psychotherapist or a “quack as they are sometimes referred to so it seems that Hilarius if a fitting name for a “quack” that is apparently not very trustworthy in his diagnoses and prescriptions for hallucinations.

As I started to study the text more and more I was fascinated by Pynchon’s selection of character names and they way the names revealed certain characteristics about each character. I’m curious to see if these initial speculations remain true throughout the novel.

The Queen

When I first read the title of the story, “There Was a Queen”, I expected the story to be about some sort of royalty or some how tied into the royal family. I was sort of surprised upon finishing the story that the family, the only three remaining Sartoris’ and their three servants, were about as far from royalty as you can get. I wondered how Faulkner derived this title and as I went through the story again I began to see the Queen imagery that surrounds Virginia Du Pre, the elderly, disabled aunt who spends her days in her wheelchair looking out her window.
Elnora is the character who holds “Miss Jenny”, as she calls her, to the status of a queen. The first inclination Faulkner gives to this is the capitalization of the word “Her” and “She” when ever Elnora is talking about Miss Jenny. Elnora is telling her children, Isom and Saddie, the story behind Miss Jenny and every time she refers to Miss Jenny the pronoun is capitalized. “With the Yankees done killed Her paw and Her husband and burned the Cal-lina house over Her and Her mammy’s head, and She come all the way to Missippi by Herself, to the only kin She had left.” These pronouns, which grammatically speaking should not be capitalized, are done so as a means of showing respect. Generally, when speaking of a queen and referring to her as “Her Majesty” the title is capitalized not only as a way to show respect but also as a way to acknowledge her authority. Elnora is doing precisely this. The words are capitalized to show Elnora’s respect for Miss Jenny as well as to acknowledge the authority and superiority Miss Jenny has over her.
Furthermore, Elnora always holds Miss Jenny to such a high caliber. She considers Miss Jenny to be superior to everyone else “because Miss Jenny quality…and that’s something you don’t know nothing about, because you born too late to see any of it except her”, as she explains to her son Isom. Elnora explains that Miss Jenny doesn’t complain about Narcissa because unlike the others, Miss Jenny has class and is above griping. The admiration Elnora has for Miss Jenny is much like that of which a subject would have for his or her queen.
Also, the way Miss Jenny sits at the window in her chair overlooking the yard seems as though she is keeping watch of her kingdom. She keeps a close eye on Narcissa and Bory as they walk out into the woods and then return soaking wet from sitting in the creek. She questions the servants about Narcissa’s reasoning behind her midday adventure with Bory much like a queen would keep check on her subjects. Miss Jenny is a lot like a queen type figure in that she is all-knowing so to speak. She knows exactly where everyone is in the house at all times, such as when she tracked Narcissa through the house after she returned from her afternoon dip in the creek, listening to her footsteps as she moved about the house.
There were several other instances in which I saw Miss Jenny depicted as a queen figure, these are just a few. I thought it was rather interesting that after going back through the story and searching for the meaning of the title it was so clear why the story was titled “There Was a Queen” and I was surprised I didn’t pick up on it the first time.

The Fallen Leaf

I think it’s interesting how the wife in “The Young Housewife” is portrayed as submissive in such a short poem. You immediately get the idea that she is submissive to her husband when the poet describes the house and “her husband’s house”. Even though she lives there and she calls it home just as her husband does, it is considered his house because he is the dominant figure. Since she is a housewife, as indicated by the title, she is not working and making money, therefore she isn’t paying the mortgage or the bills, so the house does not belong to her it belongs to her husband. The poet watches the housewife as she walks outside “to call the ice-man, the fish-man, and stands— shy, uncorseted, tucking in stray ends of hair, and I compare her— to a fallen leaf.” She is described as being shy. I picture a shy housewife as someone who doesn’t stand up to her husband—she acts to please him. Also in that quote, I found it interesting that the poet compared her “to a fallen leaf.” To me, a fallen leaf seems lost. It is lifeless without its support system, the tree. To compare the woman to a fallen leaf is to call her lifeless. And someone who is her husband’s property so to speak and is submissive to him is lifeless because she doesn’t have a voice in the marriage or in the house.

I also found the last stanza to be very interesting. The poet is driving off and as he does “the noiseless wheels of my car— rush with a crackling sound over— dried leaves.” I interpreted this to further signify the male dominance over a female that has already been illustrated in the poem. The male in the car is driving over the dried leaves, which represent the young housewife (aka the fallen leaf). The crackling sound insinuates that his car is crushing the leaves as it rolls over them, which is representative of the fact that the husband is essentially crushing his young housewife into submission. It’s sort of like his dominating role is crushing her spirit because she can not be herself and speak up.

In Rachel Blau Duplessis' critcial essay of "The Young Housewife" she also notes the controlling nature of the men in the poem, most especially the poet. The poet holds control over the woman because "he has the power to resist, yet remark on, the sexual undertext when she, 'uncorseted' and 'in negligee,' 'comes to the curb / to call the ice-man, fish-man . . . .'". The poet also shows his control over the woman as he rolls over the leaves, which symbolize the woman, with his car. Also, Duplessis notes that the "reuful and dismissive" nod the poet gives the woman expimplifies his control over her.

Chesnutt: "The Wife of My Youth"

I am a hopeless romantic so I really enjoyed reading Chesnutt’s “The Wife of My Youth”. But besides the storyline, I found it interesting the way Chesnutt portrayed African Americans in this short stories versus the way they were portrayed in his other short stories that we have read. In the other three stories, African Americans were portrayed as uneducated members of the lowest class of society. Their dialect was that of the stereotypical illiterate slave and served to illustrate their inferiority to white people. However, in “The Wife of My Youth” the African American characters are members of a sophisticated society called the “Blue Vein Society”. The society as Chesnutt describes it, was “more white than black” meaning that its members, the “Blue Veins”, were educated and sophisticated members of society. Most of its members held upstanding jobs. “There were a number of school teachers, several young doctors, three or four lawyers, some professional singers, an editor, a lieutenant in the United States army” to name a few. In the other three short stories we read by Chesnutt the African American characters were all slaves. But, despite their literacy and sophistication and dignified occupations, the “Blue Veins” “would not have attracted even a casual glance because of any marked difference from white people.” I found this interesting because it seemed like Chesnutt was finally giving credit to African Americans and acknowledging that they were no different than white people, but with this statement and Eliza Jane’s character who speaks in the stereotypical slave dialect seen in his other short stories, Chesnutt seems to still insinuate that African Americans are not equal to white men. It seemed sort of like a two steps forward one step back situation. However, Chesnutt continues to build up the credit of the African Americans with the character of Eliza Jane. Eliza is an uneducated ex-slave. She is wearing gray, tattered clothes, clearly not in the same class as Mr. Ryder, but Eliza is portrayed as a better person than Mr. Ryder. She remained devoted to her husband for 25 years after they were separated by slavery, but Mr. Ryder, who ironically turns out to be Sam Taylor her long lost husband, had long forgotten about Eliza. In this sense, Eliza is superior to Mr. Ryder even though she is illiterate and unsophisticated because she remained loyal and kept her promise to her husband even though he quickly gave up on her and moved on to better his own life.

The Hypocrisy of Society

In reading Huckleberry Finn, I found it interesting how Mark Twain brought out the hypocrisy of society throughout the novel. Twain criticizes society for putting up a moral front but not supporting it with moral actions. In chapter 18 on page 171 Huck goes to church with the Grangerfords, and “the men took their guns along, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them hand against the wall. The Shepherdsons done the same. It was pretty ornery preaching—all about brotherly love, and such-like tiresomeness; but everybody said it was a good sermon, and they all talked it over going home, and had such a powerful lot to say about faith, and good works, and free grace, and preforeordestination…” The Grangerfords and Shepherdsons, the infamous feuding and violent archrivals, are going to church listening to a supposedly powerful sermon on brotherly love, not to mention that all the while they are sitting in the pews with rifles in their laps. The immense irony of this scene is meant to depict Twain’s opinion that society is hypocritical in their moral views. People claim to be religious, yet their actions don’t support their assertions. Furthermore, in chapter 23 Jim opens up to Huck, mourning over his children. He tells Huck the story of when he first realized that his daughter was deaf after suffering through a bout of scarlet fever, tears well up in his eyes as he tells the story. Jim asked his daughter Elizabeth to shut the door and when she didn’t respond he became angry and hit her on the side of the head in an attempt to discipline her. When a gust of wind then blew the door shut and the little girl made no response, Jim realized that his daughter was deaf and didn’t respond to him because she couldn’t hear him. The obvious heartache and remorse Jim experiences everything time he thinks of this shows what a kind, loving, and gracious father Jim is, in contrast to Pap, a drunk and abusive father. Twain’s contrast of the black father to the white father shows the hypocrisy of society in that white people believe themselves to be superior to black people, but don’t support their beliefs with superior actions. In this case, Jim is superior to Pap because he is a much better father than Pap. During this time, blacks were treated inhumanely, but ironically in Huckleberry Finn, Pap, the white father, is the inhumane character, and Jim is the humane one. I just found it interesting the way Twain expressed his opinions of society through the irony and hypocrisy of the novel.

Emily Dickinson: Advocate for Revolution

At first, I did not see the connection to the Civil War in “Revolution is the Pod”, but after several readings I began to get the idea that Emily Dickenson wasn’t necessarily describing battle scenes of the war or picking sides based on political issues, but rather she was supporting revolution. Therefore, she was ultimately taking the side of the South but because she believed in revolution, not because she believed in slavery.

In the poem Dickinson claims that “revolution is the pod” and “when the Winds of Will are stirred” or when the spirit of revolution is aroused “excellent is bloom”, meaning revolution is excellent. Dickinson in claiming that revolution is a good thing and should be allowed to bloom to its full excellence. She continues in the poem to say that a pod “left inactive on the stalk” or left “un-bloomed” will eventually die and is blown away by the wind. I equate this to the spirit of revolution. If it is not acted upon the spirit will die just as the inactive bloom dies.

I think that Dickinson is advocating revolution in general in this poem, meaning not only is she supporting the South’s revolution but she probably would have supported the American Revolution as well. She would have been a Patriot rallying behind the spirit of revolution. It seems as if in supporting revolution she is rooting for the underdog. She is rooting for the side that may not be the strongest militarily speaking, but they have the greater spirit. Thus, she’s not making a political statement in this poem by siding with South, I think she just enjoys seeing the little guy triumph and that is why she is siding with South and their revolution.

"Beat! Beat! Drums!" --long post

I think “Beat! Beat! Drums!” does support what Neely is saying because the fact that he wants the drums to be heard insinuates that he wants everyone involved in the fight. In reading this poem I imagine a troop of soldiers marching through a town to the beat of drummer boy and to the blow of a bugle. Whitman wants all citizens to stop what they are doing and pay attention to and join along with soldiers as they march through the town. He wants the sound of the drums and the bugle to reach everyone—in the church, in the schools, on the farms, on the streets, in every home. His desire for everyone to hear these drums implies that he is supporting a war of union because he wants everyone in the town to unite for one cause—he is a nationalist. I think that if Whitman classified Lincoln as a nationalist as well, he was correct. Although Lincoln is focused on winning the war for the North, his ultimate goal after winning the Civil War is to unify the country. He considered the secession of the Confederacy to be illegal and used force to preserve the unity of the country. He took a lot of criticism for the way he treated the South after the war was over. A lot of people felt that Lincoln was favoring the south, but in reality he was trying to make the people of the South feel welcome in the Union and make their rebuilding process as easy as possible. He clearly wanted one unified nation just as “Beat! Beat! Drums!” makes it seem as though Whitman wanted one unified nation.

In comparing “Beat! Beat! Drums!” to the poetry we read by Horton and Timrod, I think Whitman seems to be advocating a war for the union of the North and the South where as Horton and Timrod are taking sides. Horton, although a Southerner, was clearly not a Confederate. He was a slave in North Carolina and sold his poetry to UNC. Throughout his poetry it becomes evident that he is clearly taking sides with the North, for obvious reasons. Also, Horton addresses more of the casualty and the destruction of war, where as you don’t see this addressed in Whitman’s poem. In “The Spectator of the Battle of Belmont”, Horton vividly describes the “blood veil” that covers the battle scene. In the second poem we read for Horton, “Jefferson in a Tight Place”, Horton describes the chase and capture of a fox, and I think in a lot of ways this was meant to parallel the chase and capture of a runaway slave. I’m sure that Horton, being a slave himself, witnessed the capture of several runaway slaves and therefore it would make sense for him to make this subtle comparison. In this respect, Horton seems to be viewing this war as more of a fight against or for slavery, where as Whitman seems to view it as a war for the preservation of the union. In contrast to Horton and Whitman, Timrod’s staunch loyalty to the Confederacy is conveyed through his poem “The Cotton Boll”. Timrod presents the Confederacy in his poem as independent nation, one that will survive, and rebuild. His Confederacy is everlasting, “it shall not end as long as rain shall fall and heaven bend in blue above thee”. Horton also addresses the issue of slavery in his poem, although not in an obvious manner. As he describes himself reclining against a tree, relaxing in the shade, he describes a “dusky fingers” that hand him a cotton boll. These “dusky fingers” belong to a slave, who in Timrod’s mind is not considered a person but merely dirty fingers. Clearly, Timrod shares in Horton’s view that the war is based on the issue of slavery, although he is on the side of the Confederacy. Therefore, it appears that Timrod and Horton do not share in Whitman’s opinion that this war is primarily about union, not about emancipation.

Benito Cereno: Unveiling Our Preconcieved Notions

One of the things I found most intriguing about this novel was the way Melville utilized the novel and its plot to unveil preconceived stereotypes about slavery that the reader may have, including me. When I think of slaves and the transatlantic slave trade, I usually imagine the slaves placed in a subordinate position, chained up, and treated with the utmost disrespect. If they misbehaved, I would assume that the slaves would be harshly reprimanded by their owners/masters. However, in Benito Cereno the slaves are roaming about the slave trade ship, unchained. There are also instances where the slaves are hitting the Spanish soldiers and not being punished for it, such as when Delano witnesses the young sailor hit a Spanish sailor on the head with a knife. So, when the slaves are acting against this stereotype we as readers become suspicious of them, as if they must be up to something because they aren’t fitting with our preconceived notions of how slaves are supposed to behave. The reader automatically assumes something must not be right about this scene, that there must be something dubious going on when the slaves aren’t behaving as they stereotypically should.

Just because slaves are stereotyped as subordinate beings doesn’t necessarily mean this was always the case. It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a slave trade ship in which the slaves were allowed to roam the cabin, so what makes this scene so suspicious? Is it simply the fact that the slaves are defying the stereotypes we have created for them or are their other aspects that add to the mystery of the “San Dominck.” Granted, the behavior of the slaves, regardless of whether they are behaving stereotypically or not, and the behavior of the Spanish sailors is a key element to the mystery of the novel and to the truth about what really happened to the “San Dominick”, but I just found it interesting that one of the reasons the “San Dominick” seemed so odd was the fact that these slaves were not behaving according to the way we would imagine they should be behaving and how in staging it this way, Melville is revealing stereotypes held by the reader regarding slavery.

Faith's Doubleness

Throughout “The Minister’s Black Veil,” I noticed Hawthorne’s double meaning in the word “Faith”. It was used to simultaneously represent Young Goodman Brown’s wife, whose name is Faith, as well as Brown’s Christian faith, which seems to be depleting throughout the story. It becomes evident early on that Brown seems to have a much strong faith in his wife than in his religion. He feels guilty for leaving her to go “on such an errand” as retreating into the woods to sell his soul to the devil, and he vouches to “cling to her skirts and follow her to Heaven” from the moment he returns onward. Clearly, he seems to be much more faithful to his wife than to God. Furthermore, when Goodman Brown meets the ominous man in the woods and he asks why Brown was late, Brown claims that “Faith kept me back awhile.” Faith is used here to mean that his wife kept him back because she was pleading him not to leave, and also his own faith held him back because he has been struggling with whether or not he is fully ready to go through with this “errand”. Further along in the short story, Brown sees Goody Cloyse, a member of the Salem community whom he always considered to be very devout in her faith. Upon seeing her Brown’s mental turmoil over his decision to go into the woods intensifies. He wonders “is that any reason why I should quit my dear Faith, and go after her?” Seeing Goody Cloyse on her way to the induction ceremony leads Brown to question whether he too should continue on towards the ceremony and give up his religious faith, as well as proceed to the ceremony and give up his loving wife, Faith. After his meeting with Goody Cloyse, Brown starts to rationalize that he should turn back towards his home and see the minister immediately the next day. He imagines how calm his sleep would be “in the arms of Faith!”, meaning in the arms of his wife as well as in the comfort of knowing that he remained true to his Christian beliefs.

It is not until Brown catches a glimpse of a pink ribbon (Faith’s choice of hair accessory) floating down from the sky and hears a woman’s scream that he switches over to the dark side of the devil. He grabs the ribbon and shrieks “my Faith is gone” implying that his wife has been taken by these demons of the forest and that his faith in God is not completely gone since his wife is no longer their to be his foundation. Brown arrives at the ceremony and sees familiar faces of the Salem community. His fist question in “where is Faith?” Where is his wife and where is the faith that all these people seemed to have possessed to staunchly. During the induction, the inductees stepped forward towards the altar and “the wretched man held his Faith.” The devil now has both Brown’s faith and his wife under his control.

The next morning after the ceremony in the woods, Goodman Brown sees his wife as he is walking through Salem. He cannot return her excitement to see him. He has now lost all faith that he had in his wife, his marriage, and Christianity. His faithfulness to his wife, which before had been so strong, is now lost, and that night as he awakes in the middle of the night “he shrank from the bosom of Faith.” I found Hawthorne’s parallel between Goodman Brown’s wife Faith and his religious faith to be very interesting. It’s fascinating to see the progression of Brown’s struggle with his faith in both throughout “Young Goodman Brown.”

Mercy Otis Warren: A Female Voice

I had read other pieces of literature written by Mercy Otis Warren, so I was aware of the fact that the author of “The Group” was a woman living during the time of the Revolution. However, had I not known this I probably would have assumed the author was a man, simply because of the time period in which the play was written there weren’t very many female authors. Yet, one particular part in the play stands out as a big indication that a woman was writing this piece, and it’s when Warren begins talking about the wives of the gentlemen. Judge Meagre suggests to Simple Sappling that the group should give aid to their fellow Tories, and Sappling offers to let his house serve as a barracks for the troops. Sylla, surprised by Sappling’s offer, asks “Hast thou no wife who asks thy tender care, to guard her from Belona’s hardy sons? Who when not toiling in the hostile field, are faithful votaries to the Cyprian Queen. Or is her soul of such materials made indelicate, and thoughtless of her fame: so void of either sentiment or sense, as makes her a companion fit fir thee!” (13). In this one quote and the way Warren addresses women in general in the following lines of the play, it becomes quite clear to me that the play was written by a woman. Sylla’s concern with how Sappling’s decision to give up their home to the war will affect Silvia strikes me as a woman’s point of view. Dick, the Publican, claims that he pities Silvia, which provides further indication that the author is a female.

Some of Warren’s other characters slander women, but I think that even the slandering provides clues as to the author's gender. Sappling and Hateall slander their wives in a way that is very stereotypical of men, which indicates to me that a woman probably wrote these lines because women would certainly know these stereotypes the best. Sappling claims “if she [Silvia] complains or murmurs at the plan, let her solicit charity abroad” (13), insinuating that if Silvia didn’t approve of his decision, she could seek pity somewhere else. Hateall states that the only reason he married his wife Kate was “to secure her dowry” (13). The language and the tone of these two stereotypical male comments, indicates to me that the author of the play must be a woman. I found it very interesting that simply by her wording and tone in just a few lines of the play, Warren gives herself away as a female author.

Benjamin Franklin: the Oprah of his time

In many respects, Oprah is like the modern day Benjamin Franklin. When she speaks, people listen. If a product or an idea is associated with her name, it becomes an instant success. Franklin’s overwhelming influence on society, not only during his lifetime but also in the decades following his death, becomes quite clear in Part 3 of his Autobiography. Franklin was probably one of the first people in the colonies to promote the education of women. He realized that women who were uneducated and suddenly widowed were at a strong disadvantage, thus Franklin felt that by educating young women, they would be well prepared “to continue, perhaps, a profitable mercantile house, with establish’d correspondence, till a son is grown up fit to undertake and go on with it” (97-98). Although this is the only time he mentions this suggestion, this idea coming from someone who is so influential among his peers is a huge step in the educating of women. Furthermore, when France joined forces with Spain in a war against Britain, Franklin saw the need for defense in the colonies. So, he wrote a pamphlet entitled “Plain Truth” in an attempt to persuade the Quaker Assembly to pass a militia law in order to build up a defense system in the colonies. The pamphlet was just a simple call for volunteers to form a militia to defend the colonies if the need should arise. To Franklin’s surprise the pamphlet had a huge effect with 1200 people at the first meeting and a total of 10,000 subscribers to the pamphlet. Clearly, Franklin’s word is nothing to be taken lightly. As previously stated, when Franklin spoke, everyone listened. The influence that Franklin held over everyone he came in contact with, I think is very impressive.
Franklin’s influence is further illustrated in part 3 when he mentions the establishment of a hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Thomas Bond was responsible for the idea of the hospital, but when he tried to spread the idea to the people we says he was “often ask'd by those to whom I propose subscribing, Have you consulted Franklin upon this business? And what does he think of it? And when I tell them that I have not (supposing it rather out of your line), they do not subscribe, but say they will consider of it” (121-122). Therefore, Bond had to approach Franklin to get his approval of the idea before it could be set in motion. Once Franklin subscribed to the idea and rallied a few more people to subscribe, the hospital proposal spread like wildfire, which further proves that if something was associated with Benjamin Franklin, it was often a huge success. Reverend Gilbert Tennent also comes to Franklin for his magic touch. Tennent wanted to raise money for a new meeting house, but needed Franklin’s help in procuring a subscription. Franklin shared with Tennet his advice for raising money, which Tennet followed and quickly raised the necessary money to build the meeting house. The examples of Franklin’s influence continue throughout part 3, from his work in paving the roads of Philadelphia and London, to his influential role in the French and Indian War. Franklin’s peers look to him for leadership. In reading Autobiography, I had become very fascinated with Franklin’s innate charisma, confidence, and leadership that allowed him to have such a strong impact on society. He may not have been quite as rich or owned quite as many luxuries as Oprah, but he certainly shares in her ability to make an impact everyone whom she comes in contact with.

Jefferson's Treatment of the Native Americans

In Query 11 (“Aborigines”) of Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” Jefferson discusses the various tribes of Native Americans that were present when the colonists first arrived to America. In this discussion Jefferson comes across as very disrespectful towards the Native Americans, however, it is obvious that he is not intentionally doing so. To Jefferson, the way he is addressing the Native Americans is normal and completely acceptable, but in today’s society his words and actions would not be tolerated.

Jefferson held the same belief of most Englishmen from this time period—that they were superior to the Natives. He mocks the Native Americans for having no government and explains that the only reason they divide themselves into separate tribes is because “they have never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature.” I interpret this statement to mean that not only do the Native Americans lack the civilization of the English, but the only good qualities that have are those that are inherent in every man, thus they are clearly inferior to the Europeans. His beliefs become more evident when he refers to them as “savage Americans” and to the English as “civilized Europeans.” Furthermore, Jefferson goes on to explain that “as imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them” (note that he refers to the Native Americans as a “species of coercion”) due to their lack of government. However, “great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.” I understand this to mean that Jefferson believes that great societies, like England, can not exist without government, thus, the Native Americans must split into smaller societies and will never form a great society. Jefferson’s obvious racism would not be well tolerated in today’s society, however during his lifetime this was the common view of the Native Americans, and therefore I don’t feel that Jefferson means any harm in what he is saying.

The portion of this query that stood out the most in my mind was Jefferson’s description of the Native American burial rituals and the burial ground he came across. He mocks the rituals of the Native Americans stating that there is “no such thing existing as an Indian monument: for would not honor with that name arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half-shapen images.” He then goes into an anecdote of when he “opened and examined it [an Indian burial ground] thoroughly.” Jefferson goes into a detailed account of how he dissected the burial mound, the position in which he found the bones, the types of bones he found, their size, color, and the age of the deceased human. Today, his actions would be shocking in that he would be so disrespectful as to dig up and completely destroy this sacred piece of land. However, Jefferson does not commit this act out of spite or hatred; he is doing so in a very scientific manner. He views the burial ground as a great learning opportunity to understand more about these foreign people. Jefferson is very scientific in his examination of the bones. He compares their sizes to determine the age of the bone, observes the color of the bone to get an idea of how long it has been buried—all of this helps to justify that Jefferson’s actions, although disrespectful by today’s society, were done in the name of science and in his mind completely acceptable.

In Comparison: Jonathan Edwards vs. Cotton Mather

In both the Christian Philosopher and “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Mather and Edwards preach about the spiritual light of God versus natural light. However, where as Mather seems tries to integrate these two ideas, Edwards paints a clear distinction between the two. In Mather’s first essay “Of the Light,” he uses metaphorical speech to transition from a literal discussion of light to a spiritual discussion of light. Mather claims that religion and science compliment one another and go together hand in hand. Throughout his essay he attempts to integrate these two elements. Although he does not fully achieve this he does make the distinction between the two unclear. He does not illustrate a clear-cut, individual description of the two forms of light. Conversely, Jonathan Edwards draws a definite distinction between the spiritual light of God and the natural light by repeatedly emphasizing the supremacy of the divine light. At the beginning of his sermon, Edwards lays out the outline for his doctrine, and the second point of this outline is “How it (divine light) is given immediately by God, not obtained by natural means.” Clearly, Edwards does not share Mather’s opinion that religion and science belong in the same category and he is in no way planning on integrating the two.

In part of his definition of divine light Edwards states “Natural men may have lively impressions on their imaginations; and we cannot determine but the devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light, may cause imaginations of an outward beauty, or visible glory, and of sounds and speeches, and other such things; but these are things of a vastly inferior nature to spiritual light.” In this passage, Edwards expresses the immense inferiority of the impressions and images caused by natural light to those caused by spiritual light. Throughout the sermon Edwards continually reiterates the superiority of the divine light referring to it as “an Excellency that is of a vastly higher kind” and “a glory greatly distinguishing them from all that is earthly and temporal.” Later in his sermon, Edwards makes a statement that I think best distinguishes the two forms of light in a way that Mather may have attempted to do but never fully accomplished. He says: “As the use that we make of our eyes in beholding various objects, when the sun arises, is not the cause of the light that discovers those objects to us.” The natural light of the sun allows us to see various objects, but the sun no match for the light of God that allowed those objects to exist in the first place. Without the light of God, natural light would have no purpose because there would be no natural world for it to illuminate. Clearly, Cotton Mather’s approach to science and religion greatly differs from that of Jonathan Edwards. Where as Mather feels that science and religion relate to one another, Edwards finds a clear distinction between the two.

about me

My name is Lauren and I am from Mocksville, NC. It's a small town that I'm sure no one has ever heard of. I am a freshman Spanish/Pre-Med major. I am planning to go to med school after graduating from UNC to be a neonatologist. I'm definitely a math/science person so English is not one of my strengths.