Last Thoughts on Phillis Wheatley

I just rememberred to look up Helicon and found out that Helicon is a mountain in Boeotia, Greece, which was believed to be the residence of the nine muses, and later became an emblem for poetical inspiration. Wheatley says, "From Helicon's refulgent heights attend, Ye sacred choir, and my attempts befriend," which is her way of asking the muses to help her write this poem. Wheatley also says,"Ye blooming graces, triumph in my song," which is another mythological refernce as well as a way to ask for inspiration. Even if Wheatley wishes she could be a perfect writer and have a perfect mind that can change the seasons, she realizes that perfectibility is impossible. To prove this point, she purposely makes the last line of the poem not rhyme. Wheatley is showing that she can't perfectly control situations by using her mind, but she will still try and therefore ask for all the inspiration she can get. This theme of striving but realizing that perfectibility is impossible is both a Neoclassic theme as well as a myhtological theme, and mythology in itself is a Neoclassical theme.

In "On being brought from Africa to America," Wheatley argues that blacks can go to heaven too, saying that they can be spiritually equal to whites. She says,"Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain, May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train. Besides, conveying a strong message in these two lines, Wheatley uses a pun. Perhaps I am reading into this poem too much, but by saying "Negroes, black as Cain, May be refin'd, she is using a metaphor by comparing blacks to sugar cane. Cain and cane both sound the same (pun), and "refin'd" automatically makes me think of sugar being refined. She ties together a materialistic example of purification to make suagr cane sweeter and whiter to a spiritualistic example of purification to make the soul sweeter and whiter. Also, the last line uses slang, in words such as "refin'd" and "th'". There is no slang in the poem except the last line, as a way to show that she has become academically educated as well as spiritually educated. Also, this slang line is when she most strongly speaks how blacks can go to heaven just like whites, so it demonstrates that blacks and their dialect and she are equal to whites and "proper" English.

Besides the Neoclassic theme of mythology, Wheatley brings in the Neoclassic emphasis on "Virtue" in "To His Excellency General Washington." She says that Washington is "fam'd for thy valor, for thy virtues more," and tells him to "proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side." Wheatley puts Virtue on the side of Washington for the sake of the purpose of her poem, which is to wish Washington luck and give him confidence. She aslo helps give him confidence by putting God on the American side, calling America, "heaven's revolving light," and "the land of freedom's heaven-defended race!"
--Caroline

Rip Van Winkle: surprise, not a poem!

Irving is unquestionably an Early Romantic writer. Finally, a narrative, rather than a poem to read!

Rip Van Winkle’s 20 year torpor has this supernatural quality that’s not really present in Freneau, Wheatley, etc. Irving does, however, produce the same kind of vivid imagery in his descriptions of Catskill Mountain and the town. This clear description succeeds in providing a dramatic contrast between the rural English colony that Rip knows to the urban political independent country that Rip stumbles into 20 years later.

I’m guessing that that was Irving’s purpose? To compare how different America became after the Revolution? I’m going to say that change is one of the motifs in this piece. Rip’s daughter, once “ragged and wild”, is transformed into a mother, the town changes, Rip himself is physically changed…
However, Rip’s son, remains unchanged, turning out the exact same way everyone predicted he would. Does this represent something, if it represents anything at all?

Overall, I liked this piece. It creatively told us of change and was told with a story-telling voice, which made it more enjoyable.

On a completely unrelated note: Can someone explain how “golden” and “crown” are Biblical references in Wheatley’s “To His Excellency General Washington”? I...still can’t see their relation to the Bible.

The Great Philippe (Doesn't that sound sophisticated?)

Freneau is definitely a recognizable pre-Romantic. Just like Wheatley, however, he insists on destroying all dreams of romanticism in the last stanza.

In The Indian Battle Ground, for example, Freneau describes "The Indian, when from life releas'd/ Again is seated with his friends," in the most poetic language. He can't help but destroy the image at the end by saying, "And reason's self shall bow the knee/ To shadows and delusions here."

Freneau does the same exact thing in The Wild Honey-Suckle. He goes on and on about this pretty little flower. Then he says it dies. "For when you die you are the same." A little depressing, actually.

Those two are pretty clear. Now for the questions. In To The Memory of the Brave Americans, what does "Tis not the beauty of the morn/ That proves the evening shall be clear." I am not sure how that relates to the rest of the poem, but it sounds fairly significant.

I would also love to hear what people think of "The Republican Genius of Europe." I think Freneau is trying to say that Republicanism is overtaking the old monarchies in Europe. Like his contemporaries, Freneau probably felt that Americans were the inheritors of a new empire. They must perfect the republicanism which originated in Europe. I like the image of republican genius- "Round him terrific lightenings play/ With eyes of fire, he looks then through." Kind of scary...

Post, post, post! I promise not to demean your opinions. Or right a ridiculously long post about why you are wrong. I'm not bitter (Matt), I swear.

-Theresa

Term Paper

I just thought this would be helpful in choosing a topic:

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/start_fire_facts.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2700488

Thomas Paine: The American Crisis

I have some last thoughts on Thomas Paine...

Besides demoralizing the Enemies and attracting the Allies by stating how Britain is physically weak through his victorious description of the Americans' retreat, Paine points out that Britain is spiritually inferior. He says, "God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish...neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils...I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, or a house-breaker, has as good pretence as he." This statement clearly puts God on the side of the Americans, compares the British to devils, and makes the king as good as a murderer! That would be rather demoralizing to the Enemies, and add the fuel to the fire in the Nationals.

Paine also demoralizes the Enemies by pointing out that the English were driven back by the French in the fifteenth century, and this calls to the Allies, especially France, by saying that England is able to be defeated. Paine says, "the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc." He then goes a step further by saying, "Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment!" Paine is saying that America may get some great leader just like Joan of Arc, and his description reminds me of the personification of liberty, which is also a woman. He describes liberty by saying, "for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire." This is his way of saying that although America may have hard times, it still has liberty and in the end will be successful.

Besides ameliorating the "flame of liberty" which "may sometimes cease to shine" and the retreat of American troops, Paine also ameliorates panics. He says, "yet panics, in some cases, have heir uses...the mind soon grows through them and acquires a firmer habit than before...and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered...they sift out hidden thoughts of men and hold them up in public to the world." This statement shows that even panics have good effects, and demoralizes the Enemies within the country by saying that their thoughts could be revealed to the public, and perhaps used against them.
--Caroline

Crochet Cervantes/The Lost Adventures of Lew Lazarow and the Case of the Magic Missiles

We were just sitting around doing nothing trying to reach the last crumbs of the potato chips left in the bag, wondering if the Lew Lazarow played Dungeons and Dragons in his college days, d20's rolling pell-mell on the dorm room table, as the latest episode of Star Trek: TNG played, sound muted, in the background, ancient containers of Chinese food, lying dejected on the counter, by now having developed their own ecosystems and Rhombii of Life. It then occured to us, struck as if by Magic Missiles, or as if eveloped suddenly by a gelatinous cube, or perhaps decaptitated viciously with a +5 Vorpel sword of wounding, that we seemed to have left the English post of the day unposted. We had left unattended English blog, unattended. Left the words to be spoken, unspoken. Since Matt's last posts, no one has posted for fear of eviceration by him, Theresa or some other shadowy, mysterous miscreant or assassin with a command of the English language, the likes of which only last seen in the days of Harry Truman's "give 'em hell" speeches. Therefore, to encourage the proliferation of future posts, we, Adiel and Matt, have decided to forward a thesis which may challange your beliefs and make you question your sexuality.

Crochet Cervantes, as we call, for reasons left politely unexamined, but obviously having something to do with fact that we're not French, St. John de Crevecoeur, was, in true, empirical, quantitated fact, in our humblest opinions, which can only be supported by recourse to the divine right of kings or perhaps by turning to a dusty page of good old Thomas Aquinus, or more properly, the famously beared Karl Marx's Das Kapital, was a complete, utter, swarthy, smelly, hippy, pinko, swarthy, red, swarthy, Commie Communist of the Marxist order.

Why, you ask? Well, friends, Cervantes held the opinion that America was a vast agricultural paradise, where farmers, in socialistic glee, joined sickle and hoe, under the Leninist banner. Agriculture, at the time, was the means of production. The vast class of farmers, embodying the dream of a dictatorship of the proletariat, hoe, hoe, hoed away at their landholdings, ignoring any thoughts of class conflict. According to Crevevoeur, there was none. In the year, stardate 2223.17, the filthy bourgeois windmills had all been eradicated in a violent uprising. The colonists, led by George Washington Carver, attired magnificently in a zoot-suit and doo-rag, managed to crochet the wings of the windmills to the ground recalling the famous exploits against the AT-AT walkers in the Rebel skirmith on the planet Hoth. But I digress.

The point was that Cervantes was aware of class confict, he, in fact, noted its existance in Europe and distinctly noted, that, to an extent, it, rather, did not exist, or rather not at all existed, partially, in the United (sort of) States. And as for the calling for immigrants to move to the US? Doesn't that just sound like the favorite catchphrase of those LIBBY, PINKO, COMMIE, SWARTHY, COMMIE, COMMIE, COMMIE, SWARTHY, COMMMIE, COMMIE, PINKO, COMMIE, REDDS; CiTiZeN oF tHe WoRlD? Last I check, that's always used as an excuse to go visit the other side of the Berlin wall while our great leader RONALD REAGAN was in office!!!!!1111!!!one!!1!!!!!

For instance this quote illustrates just what a fetish he had for Whistler's mother, "Let us suppose you and I to be travelling...William Penn himself would...wish...a good farmer...who implictly believes the rules laid down by the synod of Dort... You may be an ambassador to England or France, you might like to gamble, you might like to dance, you might be the heavyweight champion of the world, you might be a socialite with a long string of pearls, but you gonna have to serve somebody (Chorus: serve somebody!), serve some-body, (Chorus: serve somebody!)...Religion seems to have still less influence, and their manners are less improved." COMMIES! And their manners? SHAVE YOUR BEARDS, YOU SWARTHY, COMMIE, PINKO SOVIETS... SWARTHY!

Conclusion.

Lovingly, Adiel and Matt.

aNd sTeP iT uP!!!!!!!





Here's looking at you, Dan.

Last Thoughts Our Good Friend T. Jefferson; or, Why I'm So Right, And You Are All So Wrong

And now, ladies and gentlement, an extended piece which I hope will clarify what, exactly, are my views, as I see them. Please feel free to agree with me.

*grins mischievously*

First off if I was being a little obtuse in my phrasing of my objections, the point I was getting at was the kind of overanalysis which was being commited on this blog is essentially the reason why no one respects English or Literature as a study. Don't they just make up stuff? Hunting down symbolism that seems to just not exist, writing essays on nonsensical topics... I don't think it's all wrong, but it's all best in moderation.

Now, a few points to set us on our merry way: Theresa, I agree with you and you agree with me. My criticism was originally directed more or less at Tina's comment: "It's not COMPLETELY useless, but I can't see anyone being stirred or moved while reading it." Which brought a kind of bemused smile to my face. And I rather got carried away in responding to it. (sensing trends...) As background, I should mention that over the summer I was in Massachussets and saw Shakespeare and Company do a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence with Shakespearean actors for the 4th of July. There was much gasping and applause, especially from the more liberal crowd who found suspcious similarities between the actions of King George and George Bush. (Both Georges? Coincidence? I think not!) And for the record, I would have been counted among the liberals. But in any case, as a dramatic document it works. We basically agree on that point.

Next, trying to seek out every flaw in the time period and in Jefferson's character with endless zeal is both tiring and often unhelpful. It was George Orwell who said something like hypocrisy is necessary in civilized societies, because by lying to ourselves that we are better than beasts, we can become better than beasts in truth. I think that applies to this situation.

As for personal opinions, by all means have your own. For instance, I read Mrs. Wheatley this evening and found her images common and her rhymes clumsy. Oops! But again, having an opinions is far from actually dismissing something because it doesn't immedietly strike your fancy. Which I don't think you, personally, did. I just felt it was worth pointing out.

Let me defend Jefferson's character. Kindly read if you will from the wikipedia article on Jefferson.It will jump to the section on slavery. While we are quoting famous people, I'd like to recall at this critical juncture, that the philosopher Hegel thought (I think) that it is only after an era that one can really analyze it. By that he means, essentially, men are only as good as their times. I don't think that's wholly true: rather than simply products of their times, shaping events that can only be truly understood by philosophers centuries later, people are people in any age. It is the ideas they are exposed to in that age which shape them to an extent, but there is always a capacity to overcome them. Most often the argument for men as products of an age is simply an excuse. Jefferson in the wikipedia article was portrayed as far ahead of his time in trying to abolish slavery, first adding in a condmenation for it in the Declaration, then in Virginia by law, etc, etc. While he did have, supposedly, suspicions that Africans were inferior, I think that can be chalked up to the times, by far balanced by his actual actions. Consider what you would think yourself if you hadn't been educated in the modern fashion. Who knew, really, but the Africans themselves? When could they show their skill and deftness of mind-- they spent all day in the plantations doing menial labor. We regard Phyllis Wheatley as brilliant, before her time, but how many other geniuses were there simply wasting away in the tobacco fields?

I think the idea of being influenced by our times is relevant here too. In this, our own era, cynicsm towards government is widespread (and justified.) It is no great step for you to take to believe in the propogation of lies to support a war. Obviously, politics throughout all time has been an incredibly corrupt game through and through. Pretty much every war President in America has lied to the public. Polk, FDR, Wilson, and more. However, I think Thomas Jefferson, the man, honestly cared. People who care do exist. Jefferson spent sleepless nights as President worrying about whether the purchase of Louisiana was constitutional, for god's sake! His vision of state's rights, a great agrarian republic is well known. This was a man of ideals.

The question then falls down to the validity of the Declaration as propoganda. First off, sure it is. That was the whole point, the war already having been started, the colonists in desperate need of support, something formal to rally behind. I quote from the relevant wikipedia article: "As a proclamation the Declaration was used as a propaganda tool, in which the Americans tried to establish clear reasons for their rebellion that might persuade reluctant colonists to join them and establish their just cause to foreign governments that might lend them aid. The Declaration also served to unite the members of the Continental Congress. Most were aware that they were signing what would be their death warrant in case the Revolution failed, and the Declaration served to make anything short of victory in the Revolution unthinkable..."

But the problem I have with your stance, Theresa, is that you were "disillusioned" about the Declaration. What illusions did you have? You say, ...but the Declaration is not the shining beacon of liberty it is made out to be." When was it made out to be anything other than the formal seperation between Britian and her colonies around which the colonists banded together? Is that wrong? What, in your mind, would be a "shining beacon of liberty? if not that?

Therefore I think the most important and really the most obvious question which we seemed to have overlooked and underlies all our feelings, has been who actually had interest in there being a war. Or alternatively, was it really because of true injustice? I think that you cannot seperate the two. Many reasons were economic. Britain was restricting trade with other countries, taxing the citizens unduly. The Proclamation of 1763 basically said that the colonists couldn't settle on the land they just won with their own blood. Today we could dismiss those crazy colonists for not realizing that the British government was trying to establish a kind of balance of power and was protecting the colonists from the Indians. But put yourself in their shoes. When for more than a century you've enjoyed almost complete freedom in trade and thought (legally, at least) and then all of a sudden you are restricted in all manner of ways, what would you do? Consider today! Why are we so pissed off at say, NSA wiretapping? Because the President overstepped his bounds. He is supposed to represent the executive aspect of the power derived from the people. And the people had no say in this! They weren't even aware of it, let alone given a part in the deliberations. The British system wasn't proportional, it wasn't elected, it wasn't democratic. But it at least paid it lip service. Look at the progression of the attitudes of the colonists. They only become "war-mongerers" after they've been radicalized by the cavalier treatment they'd received from Parliament.

Remember the colonists, if anything, had a vested interest in staying under the protection of the global British Empire. It isn't like today with the whole military-industrial complex. The Revolutionary War was fought with a ragtag bunch of local militias in tattered uniforms! Propoganda can be for a good cause. It is possible! It's manipulative, sure, history is written by the winners, democracy, not elitism, who were these people to think that they knew best? Now we are at the problem's heart.

Democracy is based on the premise of the virtuous, reasoned citizenry, at least enough of them, or more who are at least reasoned enough. Sure, it's rarely the case. The whole idea of a Republic is to guard against the uneducated layperson. In every working Republic, in the famed "democracies" of Ancient Greece, always, always, there were people in charge. The system in Athens, I believe, was set up so that the people directly voted on the agenda of the elected council. In such a system, how were decisions made? Demagoguery! It's a Greek word! Pericles, Demosthenes, orators! You convince people to go along with you in all governments on earth. It is how government works. Never do the people themselves rise up spontaneously and make the appropriate laws. They must be prompted, by the few. In englightened governements, those few are simply active members of the citizenry. But the most important point is that what they do is decide whether or not to believe the propoganda. To decide which side they're on. Danielle brought up the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule about the Revolutionary War. The war was a rare case in almost every way. But that war was a citizen's war. The people themselves invested in it. The white, landed, aristocratic, educated busybodies whom, apparently, we all love to hate, formalized our mythos and ideals. They did good. The people themselves validated it, contributed to it.

This brings us back to the Orwell quote. There's no need to be disillusioned, because there was never any real illusion. History is neither anarchy nor idealistic. It is simply real people interacting in countless ways in a closed system. We have checks and balances in our republic to contain our excesses, to try to judge our own actions, but in the end its only later generations who really judge us because they can see the effects. History is more complex than anything we can ever understand. We can cover huge tracts of thought by saying stuff like Hitler used propganda, propoganda BAD! But what about, say, the folk movement of the 60s in regards to the Civil Rights Movement. I think most of us would agree that they were honest, in the sense that they really belived in what they did and it was justified. But that's propganda too! Most of us would laugh at the notion that, say, Bob Dylan had some vested interest in the destruction of our country by singing about Medgar Evars or Emmitt Till and was doing it for selfish reasons, like greed. He's trying to propogate the word, convince us, and we've been quite convinced. But.. wait... Wait a sec, then... OMFG EVERYTHING'S PROPGANDA! GAHHH, I'M BLINDED WITH DISILLUSIONMENT!!!!!

Please, can we seperate the analysis of WHY and HOW this stuff works, which is what Lazarow is getting at, I think, from the ripping of everything to shreads on the basis of popular cynicism?

Now as we come to the end here, I'd like to revist the beginning of this post: "Please feel free to agree with me." I said, and you all collectively shouted, "Arrogant prick!" at your computer screens involuntarily. But that was a hint. That this very post itself is essentially propganda. It's not as masterfully constructed as anything Ben Franklin would have written, but it shows that trying to effectively persuade people is NOT equivalent to blinding people to the truth and spreading lies and misinformation for one's own benefit.

In most cases.