I likely won’t teach this class for two more years, so the blog will be mostly idle until then, but please keep me posted at dolezalj@central.edu if you find dead links or resources that should be added. I’ll likely rework the Authors page to make it more inviting and will update the General Resources page before teaching the course again in Fall 2012.
Amacher, Richard E. “Benjamin Franklin.” American Colonial Writers, 1606-1734. Ed. Emory Elliott. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 24. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Hornberger, Theodore. “Benjamin Franklin.” American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies. Ed. Leonard Unger. Vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Lemay, J.A. Leo. Benjamin Franklin: A Documentary History. 1997. Web. 12 October 2008.
Thomas Paine
Klemetti, Erik, et al. “Thomas Paine”. Ushistory.org. 5 July 1995. Web. 15 October 2010.
Levernier, James A. “Thomas Paine: Overview.” Reference Guide to American Literature. Ed. Jim Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Web. 16 Oct. 2010.
Kreis, Steven. “Thomas Paine, 1737-1809.” The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. 11 Oct. 2006. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.
J. Hector St. Jean de Crévecoeur
Arch, Stephen Carl. “The ‘Progressive Steps’ of the Narrator in Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer.” Studies in American Fiction 18.2 (Autumn 1990): 145-158. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Edna Hedblad. Vol. 105. Detroit: Gale Group, 2002. Literature Resource Center. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Grabo, Norman S. “Crèvecoeur’s American: Beginning the World Anew.” William and Mary Quarterly 48.2 (Apr. 1991): 159-172. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Edna Hedblad. Vol. 105. Detroit: Gale Group, 2002. Literature Resource Center. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
McElroy, John Harmon. “Michel Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur.” American Writers of the Early Republic. Ed. Emory Elliott. Detroit: Gale Research, 1985. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 37. Literature Resource Center. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Richards, Jeffrey H. “Revolution, Domestic Life, and the End of ‘Common Mercy’ in Crèvecoeur’s ‘Landscapes,’.” William and Mary Quarterly 55.2 (Apr. 1998): 281-296. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Edna Hedblad. Vol. 105. Detroit: Gale Group, 2002. Literature Resource Center. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Phillis Wheatley
Bennett, Paula. “Phillis Wheatley’s Vocation and the Paradox of the ‘Afric Muse.’” PMLA 113.1 (1998): 64-76. JSTOR. Web.
Frederick Douglass
“Frederick Douglass: A Light in Darkness.” Black History Bulletin 69.2 (2006): 4-7. Web. 26 Oct 2010.
McClure, Kevin. “Frederick Douglass’ Use of Comparison in his Fourth of July Oration: A Textual Criticism.” Western Journal of Communication 64.4 (2000): 425-460. Web. 26 Oct 2010.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Moore, Paul Elmer. ”Emerson.” The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes. New York: Putnam, 1907-21. Bartleby.Com. 2000. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.
Kolodny, Annette. “Inventing a Feminist Discourse: Rhetoric and Resistance in Margaret Fuller’s Woman in the Nineteenth Century.” New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 25.2 (Spring 1994): 355-382. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Kathy D. Darrow. Vol. 211. Detroit: Gale, 2009. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Poe, Edgar A. “Sarah Margaret Fuller.” Godey’s Lady’s Book 33.5 (Aug. 1846): 72-75. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Laurie Lanzen Harris and Sheila Fitzgerald. Vol. 5. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Woodlief, Ann. “[Sarah] Margaret Fuller.” American Transcendentalism Web. n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2010.
Henry David Thoreau
Walls, Laura Dassow. “Henry David Thoreau.” The American Renaissance in New England: Second Series. Ed. Wesley T. Mott. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 223. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Washington Irving
Ferguson, Robert A. “Rip Van Winkle and the Generational Divide in American Culture.” Early American Literature 40.3 (2005): 529-44. Print.
Pollard, Finn. “From Beyond the Grave and Across the Ocean: Washington Irving and the Problem of Being a Questioning American, 1809-20.” American Nineteenth Century History 8.1 (2007): 81-101. Print.
Ringe, Donald A. “New York and New England: Irving’s Criticism of American Society.” American Literature 38.4 (1967): 455-67. Print.
Wyman, Sarah. “Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle: A Dangerous Critique of American Society.” ANQ 23.4 (2010): 216-22. Print.
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Becker, John E.: Hawthorne’s Historical Allegory. Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1971.
McKeithan, D. M. “Hawthorne’s ‘Young Goodman Brown’: An Interpretation.” Modern Language Notes 67.2 (1952): 93-96. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Doubleday, Neal Frank. “Hawthorne’s Use of Three Gothic Patterns.” College English. 7.5 (1946): 250-62. JSTOR. Web. 8 December 2010.
Paulits, Walter J. “Ambivalence in ‘Young Goodman Brown’.” American Literature 41.4 (Jan. 1970): 577-584. Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Ed. Anna J. Sheets. Vol. 29. Detroit: Gale Research, 1998. Literature Resources from Gale. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.
Herman Melville
Felheim, Marvin.”Meaning and Structure in Bartleby.” College English. 23.5 (1962): 369-76. Web. JSTOR. 29 Nov 2010.
Mordecai, Marcus. “Melville’s Bartleby as a Psychological Double.” College English. 23.5 (1962): 365-68. Web. JSTOR. 29 Nov 2010.
Walt Whitman
Allen, Gay Wilson. “Introduction.” Leaves Of Grass. 150th Anniversary ed. New York: Signet Classics, 2005. xxvii-lvii. Print.
Pannapacker, William A. “Chronology of Whitman’s Life.” Walt Whitman Archive (1998): Web. 1 Dec 2010.
This poem is a vast territory to explore, so don’t feel that you must capture it all in one reading. It will be useful to watch for echoes of earlier texts, especially in preparation for the final exam, so here are some questions to consider in preparation for class:
What does Whitman’s poem reveal about his understanding of American identity?
How does Whitman’s sense of self compare to the visions of self-reliance articulated by Emerson, Fuller, and Thoreau?
How does Whitman’s view of others compare to Melville’s narrator? How might Whitman respond to Bartleby if he were a character in Melville’s story? What is Whitman suggesting about human relationships in this poem?
One of Emerson’s ideas in “Self-Reliance” is the importance of inhabiting the present as fully as possible. Where do you see Whitman exploring this theme? How is his message distinct from Emerson’s?
The publication date for our text is 1855. Some of the major historical issues we’ve discussed for this period include race relations and women’s rights. How does Whitman address these themes?
What seems most distinctive about Whitman’s view of nature? How would you characterize his view of the natural world in relation to other authors we’ve read?
See my previous post on “Bartleby” as a Christian parable, giving a contemporary context for the injunction in Matthew 25 to show compassion to the “least of these.”
What I want to focus on today is the general sympathy in our class toward the narrator and the feeling of exasperation many seemed to feel toward Bartleby. To be sure, Melville’s narrator is a more compassionate employer than the average boss in today’s corporate workplace. What I find notable about his evaluation of Bartleby (and his estimation of Nippers and Turkey) is his reductive view of them as valuable commodities. Despite Turkey’s recklessness in the afternoon hours, the narrator concludes that he is a “most valuable person,…accomplishing a great deal of work in a style not easy to be matched.” Nippers, likewise, is a “very useful man” to the narrator, since he “[writes] in a neat, swift hand” and is “not deficient in a gentlemanly sort of deportment,” which the narrator appreciates since it “reflect[s] credit on [his] chambers.” In this vein, despite Bartleby’s initial resistance to menial tasks, the narrator tolerates his behavior because he is “useful” and a “valuable acquisition” in whose hands the most important documents are safe. It is only when Bartleby’s behavior becomes a liability, “scandalizing [the narrator's] professional reputation,” that the lawyer decides to “for ever rid [himself] of this intolerable incubus,” as if Bartleby is a demonic presence in his office.
One question Melville poses is how far our responsibilities to fellow humans extend. Surely we cannot expect the narrator to keep Bartleby in employment if he does no work, but does the end of employment mean the end of human interest? Are we, as customers or customer service, as bosses or employees, as teachers or students, so defined by our professional identities that our private lives have no relevance to our daily work? If someone gets cancer or falls into mental illness or suffers brain damage in an injury and is thus made “useless” to the marketplace, does this make him/her useless to humanity?
If we assess one another based on our utility, how useful we are, it would seem that we have lost even the guilt that Melville’s narrator feels about fleeing from Bartleby. Our culture glorifies competition, and so we glorify the superhuman, the overachiever, the self-reliant hero. This Nike ad sums up that sentiment:
I wonder, though, if what some might see as the “inner coward” could actually be the kind of lost purpose that we find in a character like Bartleby. While the paralyzing state that leads to Bartleby’s demise is terrifying, it seems too easy to dismiss it as mere apathy or laziness. There are larger forces at work in his character, a life story that informs his malaise. The narrator concludes: “I might give alms to his body; but his body did not pain him, it was his soul that suffered, and his soul I could not reach.” What can we say to the “forlornest of mankind,” to those whose soul-sickness is so great that they cannot find meaning in our present society?
The conclusion to “Bartleby” does not give us any heartwarming answers, because it suggests that the narrator’s fascination with Bartleby stems, in part, from the dark message that his story suggests for humanity. Could the corporate world, where humans are reduced to commodities, where relationships are judged by their usefulness for business, be another version of the Dead Letter Office? “On errands of life,” Melville concludes, “these letters speed to death.” While we might not conclude, as Bartleby does, that the modern world is so bereft of meaning that extreme withdrawal is necessary, even to the point of death, there is a cautionary image here in Melville’s story, a picture in the mirror of his fiction that is worth considering in an age when, as this 1999 study suggests, “tens of millions of Americans suffer from major depression every year” and roughly 16% of Americans have experienced major depression at some point in their lives. What are the causes of this psychic distress? Melville seems to suggest that part of the answer lies in our commercial workplace.
Hope you’re enjoying some restful moments over break. We’ll pick up with our regular blogging schedule on Monday. It will be helpful in these final weeks to be reading on two levels by thinking about how each literary voice fits within American Romanticism and by zooming out to the big picture of the course for intertextual breadth. Hope you’ll keep making personal connections, too. Like Thoreau, Melville is trying to make sense of the human condition, only this time the setting is not the forest, but the workplace.
Questions for “Bartleby, the Scrivener”:
So far, we’ve considered two branches of American Romanticism: Gothic literature and Transcendentalism. Where does Melville fit in this conversation? What is Romanticism, according to Melville? Where does his style seem most Romantic, in the literary sense?
What do you learn about the narrator from his observations of the other characters? What makes him reliable or unreliable? How does the narrator’s personal philosophy compare with Thoreau’s?
Bartleby is perhaps the most enigmatic character we’ve seen. What do you learn about Bartleby through the contrasts that Melville sets up with Ginger Nut, Turkey, and Nippers? How do you explain Bartleby’s behavior? What transformations do you see in his character throughout the story?
What do you think you would have done if you had been faced with the narrator’s dilemma? What do you think might have been the most ethical response to Bartleby’s situation?
What does Melville add to the larger conversation about American identity in the course readings?
This is easily my favorite of Hawthorne’s stories, as it most fully realizes his idea of romance as an elusive chase between the actual and the imaginary.
Questions to consider:
Whom should we trust in this story? A simpler way of putting this is: Who are the good guys/gals in this story, and who are the villains? Hawthorne, like Irving, begins the story with a fictional allusion to history (a common convention among 19th-century writers). But each of the characters have aspects of unreliability. Which character do you think is most trustworthy, and why?
What does Hawthorne reveal about his attitude toward science in this story? What do you learn from the interactions between Dr. Rappaccini, Giovanni, Beatrice, and Dr. Baglioni about differing views of the relationship between science and humanity?
Keep watching for examples of Dark Romanticism or Gothic imagery, including emphasis on the subconscious, descriptions of death or destruction, gloomy settings, suspense, frightening scenes, or dramatic juxtapositions.
Dr. Rappaccini: Hawthorne’s Parson Hooper has a deathbed message that encapsulates his reasons for wearing the Black Veil. What do you learn in Rappaccini’s final monologue about his reasons for transforming Beatrice’s and Giovanni’s physiology? How does he rationalize this?
Some were suggesting on Friday that Goodman Brown was a hypocrite for judging others while behaving badly himself. How does Parson Hooper compare to Goodman Brown in terms of integrity, likeability, character complexity, and rationality?
We’ve considered how American Romanticism commingles spirituality and rationality, as illustrated in the dance between the real and the imaginary in Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown.” How does the narrator of “The Minister’s Black Veil” weave these two points of view together? How can we distinguish what is real from what is imaginary in this story, and when does Hawthorne seem to deliberately blur the distinctions between the two?
What, in particular, does the black veil symbolize? What other metaphorical dimensions do you see in this story?
Hawthorne’s view of human nature is worth exploring further. We know that Goodman Brown is an unreliable narrator who goes to extremes, but there is enough truth in his vision of universal corruption to provoke thought. What view of human nature do we get from Parson Hooper? Why does he wear the veil, and what might this have to do with his position as a minister?
If you were a creative writing professor and Hawthorne were a student in your class, how might you grade him on his character development, plot complexity, foreshadowing, concrete details, irony, or other literary devices? Perhaps pick three or four aspects of literary style to evaluate.
You’ll be able to track some of Irving’s influence on Hawthorne. I hope you also see Hawthorne breaking some new ground, too.
Questions:
Fact/fancy: Hawthorne seeks to take the reader to an imaginative space that he describes in the prologue to The Scarlet Letter as a moonlit room of the mind, “where the Actual and the Imaginary may meet, and each imbue itself with the nature of the other.” The Romantic writer, he believed, should “dream strange things, and make them look like truth.” How can we distinguish between fact and fancy, or the real and the imaginary, in “Young Goodman Brown”?
Irving’s protagonists are likeable but not characters one would emulate. How does Goodman Brown compare to Rip Van Winkle and Ichabod Crane in this regard?
What examples of symbolism do you seen in “Young Goodman Brown”?
American Identity: Both Irving and Hawthorne illustrate the maturity of American literature, as the nation had finally begun to develop its own mythology or explanation of its origins. It seems significant that Irving would want to create conflict in his stories between rational and superstitious thinkers (perhaps deliberately personifying the Enlightenment and Puritan eras). Hawthorne is more subtle, though he is obviously making some allusions to American history. Why do you think “Young Goodman Brown” is an important American story?
How does Goodman Brown’s view of nature compare to that of other characters?
Hawthorne is a master stylist, as well. What do you admire about the design and artistry of this short story?
Melissa gave us a clip of the Disney version of “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” today. See below for a few other film adaptations. How might you film this story if you were a Hollywood producer? What effects would you want to create, and which scenes might you emphasize?
Questions to consider:
What is Irving saying about gender in “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”?
The myth/history theme will be useful, as well. What is Irving saying about colonial America?
What metaphorical dimensions do you see in this story? If myth is, as we said earlier, a building block of culture or a story to live by, what is Irving telling us about how we ought to live (or how we ought not to live), particularly as Americans?
Let’s keep watching for examples of Romanticism, especially Gothic imagery. Intertextual links with “Thanatopsis” and “Rip Van Winkle” will add depth.
Today we considered the ways in which Irving uses his preface and postscript to help nudge readers toward a metaphorical or symbolic reading. What is he trying to accomplish in the postscript to this story?
Some folks have been blogging about freedom as a unifying theme for the course material. What do we learn from Irving about freedom in this story?
Burton’s film (1999) takes considerable liberties with the text of Irving’s story, but does preserve the spirit of mystery and humor in the narrative:
Schellerup’s film (1980) plays up Brom Bones’s character considerably more than Burton’s. Just for fun, whom do you prefer as Ichabod Crane: Johnny Depp or Jeff Goldblum?
And, of course, there is the Disney version (1958):
Irving’s “Rip Van Winkle,” like Bryant’s “Thanatopsis,” marks a transition from the Age of Reason to American Romanticism. Hope you discover something new in this American classic and enjoy the shift from the more serious Transcendental narratives to Irving’s humorous fiction.
Questions:
What kind of Romanticism do you see in ”Rip Van Winkle”? The criteria that I presented from Abrams may or may not fit Irving exactly. We’ll want to watch for some overlap with eighteenth-century literature while also noting the ways in which Irving is breaking new ground.
How would you characterize Irving’s literary style? Among the writers we’ve studied, who do you think might have been Irving’s influences? And which writers contrast most dramatically with Irving’s style?
We began the course with discussions about myth and history that will help us notice some of the subtle nuances in Irving’s work. Why does Irving include the italicized preface and postscripts? What relevance do those authorial comments have to the story? You find this reflection on Rip Van Winkle and American Mythology useful.
What does Rip Van Winkle tell us about American identity? Which moments in the story seem most symbolic of an emerging American identity? How do Irving’s views compare with those of writers from the Early National Period?
Nature is a theme that could encompass all of the course material. How does Irving portray the natural world in “Rip Van Winkle,” in comparison to other writers? What relationships exist between humans and nature, according to Irving?
What reasons does Thoreau give for leaving Walden Pond? How persuasive are they? What do you think he learned from his experience?
Where do you find Thoreau’s language most creative and powerful in this conclusion? Consider trying your own hand at a transcendental passage describing one of your typical days or perhaps your own personal philosophy.
Link Thoreau’s concluding message in Walden to our ongoing discussion of American identity. If you were compiling a list of classic American texts, why or why not would you include Walden? What relationship do you see between Thoreau’s message about national identity and the views espoused by other authors after midterm?
Use other examples from Thoreau’s conclusion to explain this statement: “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth” (1785). How does Thoreau define truth? How might you define it similarly or differently, and how do other authors we’ve considered after midterm compare?
Thoreau embraces the notion of self-reliance and self-liberation as completely in Walden as any of our authors have. I hope you find some good food for the soul in this narrative. If you’d like a reading companion, consider Ann Woodlief’s fantastic study text of Walden at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Questions to consider:
What reasons does Thoreau give for going to Walden Pond and living in solitude there? Based on these reasons, why or why not do you think he would be attending college if he were one of your peers?
Map out one of your days hour-by-hour and compare it with Thoreau’s description of life at Walden Pond. How deliberately or mindfully are you living, in comparison to Thoreau? Why or why not do you believe his lifestyle is admirable? Why or why not do you believe it would be possible to live now as Thoreau did in the nineteenth century? Compare your own personal philosophy with Thoreau’s.
Thoreau has many lyrical passages that might resonate with Emerson’s vision of the American Scholar and the self-reliant person. Where do you find his language most creative and powerful? Consider trying your own hand at a transcendental passage describing one of your typical days or perhaps your own personal philosophy.
In terms of American identity, it might be useful to orient Thoreau in relation to other Romantic writers. How does Thoreau seem to define Transcendentalism, and what does his perspective contribute to the evolution of American identity in our readings? This could be an interesting article to compare to Walden: “Voters Want It All – Now.”
We considered today that Fuller’s message about self-reliance for women has a transcendental purpose, which is not to pit one gender against the other, but to unify them, reconciling Man and Woman to “the central soul” (1712) and calling for “one creative energy, one incessant revelation” (1711). Fuller extends Emerson’s message about the collective benefit of self-reliance, as she translates Alessandro Manzoni: “All made in the likeness of the One, / All children of one ransom, / …We are brothers; we must be bound by one compact” (lines 1, 2, 5). Like Frederick Douglass, who argues that slavery degrades not only the slave, but also the slave owner, Fuller suggests that men deprive themselves of happiness and full self-realization by forgetting that “Woman [is] half himself, that her interests [are] identical with his, and that, by the law of their common being, he [can] never reach his true proportions while she remain[s] in any wise shorn of hers” (1715). This echoes the classic abolitionist refrain that none of us are free if one of us is chained. The goal is not the triumph of the “Queen” over the “King,” but the transcendental “palace home of King and Queen” (1719).
Chris and Michele raised an interesting question today by suggesting that total equality would lead to a general mediocrity or boring uniformity. There is a difference between conformity and equality. I think this is best understood by returning to Fuller’s emphasis on transcendentalism, on the elevation of the individual from “the poverty of being” (1712) to the “dignified sense of self-dependence” (1706) that allows liberated women and men to love from a position of strength rather than desperation. Fuller doesn’t want everyone to look alike or talk alike, but she does want everyone to enjoy a common self-respect, the way Emerson admonishes the scholar to trust his own thoughts rather than merely parroting the wisdom of the past. In fact, Fuller would argue that inequality produces greater conformity, since assuming that “Woman was made for man” (1705) or to “cook something good” (1708) leads to constraining stereotypes. Thus, Fuller juxtaposes “American ladies” with prostitutes, suggesting that even wealthy women are given to “restlessly courting attention,” inviting an “open sneer…from men whose expression marked their own low position in the moral and intellectual world” (1709). Wealthy or not, women who are encouraged to cultivate “hearts of jealousy” or “gratified vanity” (1709) have neither enriched themselves nor enriched the men who scornfully court them.
Equal opportunity for intellectual and moral expansion yields greater diversity, in fact, since the liberated self is defined from within rather than from without and thus has a broader range of expression. The paradox here is how to cultivate this baseline equality with Fuller’s larger idea of unity in mind while still encouraging diversity. As we considered earlier, extreme self-reliance could cause one to act in opposition to others, not in league with them.
If we begin with Fuller’s assumption that “[m]ale and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism” and that “[t]here is no wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman” (1710), then we have the foundational sense of equality that undergirds our national Constitution, namely, that all are created equal. It makes sense that this baseline equality would translate into freedom of expression in the form of self-reliance that both Emerson and Fuller promote. And the goal of a unified society, of a transcendental synthesis of Man and Woman into the “central soul,” seems laudable. Yet this unity seems difficult to achieve even in our relatively emancipated age.
Given what we know about human nature now, specifically our difficulty with sustaining long-term altruism, the notion that we might achieve a “ravishing harmony of the spheres” as a result of social reform seems overstated. Fuller is most persuasive in her suggestion that love is enriched by equality, that co-equality is far preferable to dependency or subservience. Healthy relationships are mutual, not one-sided, hence the “palace home of King AND Queen.” It is the expansion of this idea to American society that remains problematic, because we have so many competing definitions of “liberty” and even competing definitions of “equality.” We have done much to perfect our national union through social reform, and yet we are as divided in spirit as we have ever been. Even though I’m not certain how the unity that Emerson and Fuller envision might be achieved in our present time, I’m grateful to them for articulating that moral goal, for giving us language that makes us yearn for at least a little more of that divine rapture than we might now know.
As Emerson is often hailed as the father of American literature, so Margaret Fuller is frequently celebrated as the mother of American feminism, though my hope is that you’ll recognize Woman in the Nineteenth Century as the mature form of Hutchinson’s earlier feminism and the fully liberated form of Bradstreet’s more tentative bids for social authority. Here is where white America finally gets its Wohpe.
Questions for discussion and blogs:
Consider doing a close reading of emancipation in Fuller’s text. Paine, Douglass, Wheatley, and Emerson could be good intertextual companions for Fuller with regard to the theme of freedom or liberation. What does Fuller add to this conversation about liberty, in addition to her emphasis on gender?
How might you describe Fuller’s literary style? How does it compare to Emerson’s more improvisational and organic approach? How might she compare to or contrast with other women writers?
Fuller constructs an argument in this essay, and in some ways her method shows the influence of the Age of Reason. What is her thesis? What evidence do you find most powerful in illustrating her thesis? What gaps does she leave in her argument, if any?
Despite echoes of the Enlightenment in Fuller’s message and method, we should understand her primarily as a Transcendentalist. What is Romanticism, according to Fuller’s text? Where do you see her essay as most transcendental? See Ann Woodlief’s compilation of definitions of Transcendentalism.
As we considered yesterday, “self-reliance” taken in the extreme would lead to narcissism, anarchy, and isolationism. Since we understand that Emerson has nobler aims than these, it’s imperative to consider that he is not advocating for a callow selfishness, but a self-reliance that enriches all involved. In essence, what he means by self-reliance is originality and freedom of thought.
Nevertheless, Emerson leaves us with some ironies. Here are a few questions I’m still puzzling over:
Emerson holds up the rose (and by association any growing thing) as a model to emulate, as roses “make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God to-day” (1630). Given what we know about the human brain, specifically the way we learn language by imitation and depend on memory for sustaining our identities, it would seem impossible to achieve the single-minded purpose of a growing rose, as this would amount to denying our natures. What Emerson is driving at, I believe, is the need for embracing the present: not “postpon[ing] life,” as he says elsewhere, or depending entirely on the past to inform one’s thoughts, or trusting the “prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere,” but striving to “[live] with nature in the present, above time.”
This is a tall order. We can’t achieve it always. But we can benefit from the effort, the way we benefit from the concentration a yoga workout requires or the way we benefit from a hike to a mountaintop or a walk through the tallgrass prairie. These excursions or exercises, which take us out of our normal lives, can’t be our whole lives, or else we would be hermits. But transcendant exercises or experiences can preserve our “aboriginal selves” and allow us, even in crowds, to keep “with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” Emerson wants us to keep that inner child alive, to make some effort to resist thoughtless conformity. If he exaggerates his thesis at times to make his points, it is to get our attention, to illustrate how hard it is to break with the norm.
The benefit of this is collective – “the resolution of all into the ever blessed ONE.” By liberating ourselves, Emerson suggests, we might liberate others. Thus, the goal is not to win converts to one’s own position (Emerson writes that this makes one “weaker by every recruit to his banner”), but to inspire honesty and originality in others, to not allow one’s own success or failure to prescribe one’s future. Thus, by taking personal responsibility for our thoughts and actions, we can “[chain] the wheel of Chance, and …sit hereafter out of fear from her rotations.”
These points take on greater weight in “The American Scholar,” with Emerson’s insistence that we adopt, as Americans, an ethos of originality and independence, so that our quest for liberty from England becomes a touchstone for freedom of thought and innovation in all we do. We’ll talk more next time about what he means by “the Divine Soul which also inspires all men.”
“Self-Reliance” is nearly as classic a reference in American Literature as Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity.” It’s fascinating that two iconic texts, which have shaped American thinking into the 21st century occupy such opposite philosophical poles, Winthrop stressing the submission of the individual to the social/spiritual body and Emerson emphasizing the preeminence of the individual in contradistinction to social convention.
Romanticism and Transcendentalism both have religious associations, though these tend to vary from author to author. What do you see as Emerson’s view of religion, based on “Self-Reliance”? What does he mean by “the ever blessed ONE” and “the Supreme Cause”?
Compare Farmer James, Frederick Douglass, or any of the characters in Franklin’s satirical sketches to Emerson’s principles of self-reliance. How is Emerson’s view of personal liberty and self-sufficiency similar to or different from the views espoused by the other writers we’ve covered after midterm? How does your own view of liberty and independence compare to Emerson’s?
What does “Self-Reliance” reveal about Emerson’s view of American identity?
What does Emerson mean when he writes that “Shakspeare [sic] will never be made by the study of Shakspeare” (1635). Explain this passage by connecting it to at least three other assertions or passages in “Self-Reliance.”
Our discussion at the end of class was especially intriguing, as we were beginning to grapple with the question of how to adjust our understanding of American identity in light of Douglass’ narrative. Taylor’s point that this tale reminds us not only that we’ve made mistakes in our national past, but also that we have the potential to remedy those mistakes, is an uplifting view. Democracy ought to be self-correcting, hence Obama’s allusion to the preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is an interesting twist on our discussion of utopian thinking in American culture. The Constitution – and Douglass’ narrative – help nudge us away from the idea of perfection as an immediate or obvious reality, suggesting instead that democracy is a state of imperfection that allows for perpetual self-correction. If we live by the Constitution, we are ever in search of improvement, never satisfied with the way things are, continually asking ourselves, “Who among us is still chained? Who among us has not drunk as deeply of liberty as the rest?”
There are many competing views of America, but it always strikes me as ironic that the views claiming to be the most patriotic are often the most hostile to self-examination. If we take the preamble to the Constitution as our guide, it seems we ought to approach our national identity with some humility. National pride need not be arrogant if it is mindful of past and present flaws and earnest about setting them right. Benjamin Franklin’s quest for self-improvement by measuring his daily behavior against his list of virtues seems an apt analogy.
We are living in a time when the beacons of hope that sustained former generations and fueled utopian thinking about American destiny seem dimmer. There is no New World beckoning to us, no literal frontier to be settled, no promise of infinite economic expansion. Our frontiers are metaphorical (technology, science, environment), and many of them are transnational. If our national identity depends on holding up America as the solitary exemplar of virtue and goodness in the world, then we are setting ourselves up for disappointment, because our flaws will seem to undermine our claims to greatness. If we understand our past and present with humility, facing the future with a desire for improvement rather than a stubborn defensiveness, we will be better positioned to collaborate within and without our borders to meet the challenges of our day.
Douglass’s conclusion to his Narrative is driven both by a sense of purpose and a feeling of humility. In part, this was driven by the social pressures of his time, as he sought (like Wheatley and Bradstreet) to transform the social power structure from within, rather than seeking to overthrow it. We hear in his parody of the hymn “Heavenly Union” a sharper tone than he allows himself in much of the narrative, which might remind us of the great restraint he shows in many of the earlier scenes. We ought not mistake his restraint for indifference; it is a strategy for achieving maximum impact, for maintaining a tone that invites the reader to listen and, in listening, to think both rationally and emotionally about the injustice of slavery.
These are Douglass’ closing words:
“Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds – faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts – and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause, – I subscribe myself, FREDERICK DOUGLASS” (1945).
When I think of Americans whom I most admire - exemplars of those personal characteristics toward which I aspire – Douglass stands among them as a self-made man who took control of his own future against incredible pressures. What most inspires me is his ability to speak both passionately and rationally. Garrison’s and Phillips’ prefatory letters, while designed to spark abolitionist fervor, seem less effective in this regard, as they simplify and vilify others without admitting any uncertainty, the way Paine’s “American Crisis” works the reader into a patriotic lather. Douglass avoids this pedantic approach by giving us scenes of true life, speaking from his own experience and often letting the reader draw her own conclusions. The result is an American narrative that reminds us of problems and promise, encouraging us to emulate its narrator in our quest of self-improvement and our search for a more perfect union.
We’ll finish Douglass’ Narrative for Friday. President Obama’s speech on race, “A More Perfect Union,” may be a useful comparison to Douglass’ narrative (see link below).
Questions to consider:
Compare Douglass’s view of God to the views Franklin, Paine, Crevecoeur, or Wheatley espouse. Which passages reveal Douglass’s thinking about religion most clearly? See, also, his comments in the Appendix and his closing poem.
Connect this statement by Garrison to examples from Chapters IX to the end: “There is in him that union of head and heart which is indispensable to an enlightenment of the heads and a winning of the hearts of others” (1884). Where do you see Douglass appealing to reason and where do you see him appealing to feeling in this section of the reading?
We just had time for a few examples today of how Douglass, Garrison, and Phillips link this narrative to American mythologies, specifically the Puritan story of spiritual destiny and the Revolutionary story of independence. What other connections or contrasts do you see in these later chapters between the different definitions of American identity that we’ve seen in the reading thus far?
We considered today how Franklin’s Poor Richard might have interpreted the first section of the reading. How would Poor Richard view these later chapters?
We’ve discussed how Farmer James moves from elation to despair in Letters from an American Farmer. What changes in Douglass as a narrator do you see in these later chapters (if any)? How do these changes compare to those that Farmer James undergoes?
Douglass’s Narrative helped fuel the abolitionist cause that Crevecoeur alludes to and Wheatley, more subtly, affirms in her poetry. We’re fast forwarding about sixty years to Douglass, but since his narrative follows the conventions of Franklin’s Autobiography and Crevecoeur’s Letters, Douglass will help us transition to Romanticism.
Pick a few passages in the reading for Wednesday that either remind you of experiences in your own life or cause you to reflect on the differences between your experience and Douglass’s. Which of the other writers after midterm addresses similar issues to those in the passages you’ve chosen? Compare/contrast with Douglass.
Who is Douglass’s audience, and how does he seek to reach this audience? How do his literary strategies in this first installment compare to Wheatley’s and Crevecoeur’s literary techniques? What does he add to the conversation about race relations in America?
Compare Douglass’s view of God to the views Franklin, Paine, Crevecoeur, or Wheatley espouse. Which passages reveal Douglass’s thinking about religion most clearly?
How does Douglass characterize himself as a narrator? Compare/contrast his characteristics with Farmer James in Letters from an American Farmer. What do you most admire about Douglass and Crevecoeur’s narrator, Farmer James?
Why does Douglass’s narrative come with a preface (and why is the author of the preface significant)? How is this preface similar to or different from the preface that framed Rowlandson’s narrative? How does it compare to Crevecoeur’s introduction to Letters from an American Farmer? Discuss two or three key passages in the reading for Wednesday that you feel the preface foreshadows especially clearly.
Jot down a few questions that the reading raised for you and try to answer them using textual examples from the reading, information from the links for Douglass on the course website, and connections to one of the texts after midterm.
Hope you enjoy Wheatley’s poems. As always, the biographical sketch in the anthology is a helpful introduction. Wheatley’s poetry is astounding given the fact that she was kidnapped at an estimated seven years of age (with no knowledge of English) and began writing poems just four years afterward. Even more astonishing is her publication of her first poems in 1767 at approximately age thirteen or fourteen.
Questions to consider:
“On Being Brought from Africa to America” is Wheatley’s most controversial poem. It is also frequently cited as an example of her double voice. To whom might Wheatley be speaking in this poem? How does she code her more subversive message, and what might that coded message be? How does her message in this poem compare to Letter IX of Letters from an American Farmer?
What intertextual echoes or contrasts do you hear between “A Farewell to America” and the final section of Crevecoeur’s narrative? How do you make sense of the different attitudes this poem expresses toward “Britannia” and “New-England”? How do you interpret Wheatley’s reference to Temptation in the final two stanzas?
“Thoughts on the Works of Providence” is the most challenging poem of the three. You’ll notice some comparisons between Bradstreet’s “The Flesh and the Spirit,” particularly in Wheatley’s personification of Wisdom, Chaos, Reason, Love, and others. What does this poem tell us about Wheatley’s theology, in comparison to other writers we’ve read recently, such as Edwards, Paine, and Crevecoeur? How might she define “God”? How does her view of nature relate to her theology?
Close reading of the personified characters (see the capitalized and italicized names) will also help us get at the heart of this text. See this link for more on Phoebus. What is Wheatley trying to accomplish by dramatizing these characters? See, especially, the conversation between Reason and Love.
Wheatley relies heavily on nuance in this poem, creating imagery that requires interpretation. What nuances seem most significant to you? More specifically, why does she emphasize light so strongly?
