Final thoughts

Perhaps I should have called this late thoughts!

Musing on 18th century literature I have such a wide variety of thoughts that I've had difficulty formulating a topic for this final blog.  So pardon my Ramblering (sorry Mr. Johnson).

Feminism seems to be one of the hot topics for discussion, the changing of gender roles in particular so here goes....

The tiny circle in English society that was made up of writers seems to have somewhat provided a glimpse of changes that were to take place in general but not for quite a long time afterward.  Prior to the 18th century, it seems that the number of women found in thus circle of writers was extremely small.  Those women had to endure a kind of criticism that would be hard to imagine today.  I think that the scene from "Orlando" with Pope, Swift and Johnson discussing women is amusing to us now because of just how foolish these great men, renown for their ideas and liberalism, were made to appear when it came to expressing their opinions about women.  Naturally this is a Hollywood rendering of these men, but the words rang true.  These words, in various forms, appeared in many writings by these and other male authors of at the turn of the 17th century and into the 18th.  Alexander Pope in particular, was quite outspoken concerning the foibles and follies of women both within and outside of the circle of writers. Of course the members of our own small circle, the 2012 ENGL 470 class, have been reading and discussing this quite a bit this semester, so I don't need to elaborate too much, but I do recommend that over the break you all take a look at the Dunciad it reveals just how deeply men of the early 18th century were will to delve to criticize their female peers and women in general.

Now that I've finished that pre-ramble, I want to summarize some thoughts about the rise of feminism and the rise of the woman novelist versus the strong resistance that was put up by men such as Pope.

It's been observed that the rise of the novel appears to correlate closely to the rise of the women writer.  Since novel writing was the undiscovered country and women writers were forced to create texts mostly outside of the boundaries set down by men it was natural for women to write novels. The early expectations of novelized literature was small, in fact so small that the genre was considered suitable only for trivial writings, such as women's little stories.  Needless to say this proved to be completely wrong.  But this attitude did create an opening for women writers that would not have otherwise existed.  For them the novel was the great opportunity.  It was a vast unclaimed territory on the fringes of the patriarchal empire, few men were yet brave enough to risk the scorn of their peers and write novels.  So into the breach, pen in hand, marched a growing number of bold women writers.  With them came ideas that had been hidden to the eyes and minds of the public.  Ideas that other women shared in private if they dared, but never would talk about to men. Though to us in the early 21st century these ideas seem very mild and not at all challenging to our modern notion of gender roles, in the 18th century they were shocking, at least to most men.

At this point I would be remiss if didn't include a nod to the few male novelists, whom, at least for the male critic validated novel as a literary form suitable for high thought. So thank-you Mr. Defoe, Mr. Fielding, and Mr. Richardson.  Without you men may have taken another 100 years or more before they bought into novels.  This is isn't to say that the writings of the growing number of women who were adding to the rapid growth of novelized literature were inferior to those men who dared to cross the frontier, my point is to show how few men dared to boldly go where no man had gone before, and endure the initial scorn of their peers in order to bring novels into the eyes of the male readership.  It's a testimony to the strength of the fortifications that centuries of unchallenged patriarchy had built around the arts that it was so difficult for men to see beyond the narrow confines of the walls and observe the colorful flowers being grown in the literary gardens tended by women.

Back to my original digression. Through the art of novels, women were the for the first time allowed the opportunity to take hold of some small facet of the arts in relatively large numbers . Because female authors seized this opportunity with zeal the genre grew as well.  It was a mutual relationship.  The hand of the woman writer was set free to create in the pages of novels, and the novels grew and flourished like flowers in a garden when properly nurtured by a loving hand. More importantly, women's issues were being written about.  The frustrations and sense of hopelessness that women felt became more and more exposed AND, thanks to the opening in the wall created by Defoe, Richardson and Fielding, more and more husbands and fathers were being shown how unfair the system was.

Before anyone jumps ahead and things that I'm suggesting that there was a revolution in the making thanks to the rise of women writers and their novels let me reassure you that this was (sadly) not the case. In fact it seems to have had an opposite effect.  Men redoubled the fortifications, added cannons and archers, and chained their women to the walls lest they get "ideas" that they could have agency.  Laws that had been only lightly enforced previously suddenly were given teeth and women lost freedom as a whole throughout much of the 18th century.  Backlash?  Perhaps, but regardless there was no feminist revolution, yet.

Interestingly, the more the patriarchy put women into trammels the more they forced them to seek subtle ways to find freedom and agency, i.e. by writing.  Women could earn their own, often secret, money by writing. It was something that men had a hard time stopping.  Moreover, the books often showed women how they could get more education on their own than men would ever normally allow, by reading more.  So the entire system fed off itself, reaching a sort of critical mass.  The more women read the more books sold the more publishers wanted women writers, and so there were more and more books and more and more ideas about how women could gain power through the written word.  This was bound to explode, and though this explosive event is outside of the scope of our class, I think it's interesting to note that the explosion took place in France in 1787.  Women, enlightened and inflamed with a passion for radical reform led the charge on the Bastille, and on the Palace at Versailles.  The rise of the novel, the rise of women writers, the French Revolution, all are inextricably related.  Woman's Sufferage became mainstream in the 19th century, but it took the spark of feminism brought to the public eye in the 18th century to force this to happen. Had men not scorned the novel, had the realized that it was a crack in the foundation of the patriarchal fortress, perhaps history would have been much different, think about it!

Have a great Christmas everyone, and thanks for an awesome semester!

Dystopian thoughts on a Utopian Novel

As we continue to read Millennium Hall I keep noticing two things, the first of which is the fact that dystopian situations inextricably lead the women in the story to crave utopia. Miss Melvyn /Mrs. Morgan's situation becomes utterly dystopian from the moment that she is obliged by her age to return to the residence of her father and step-mother.  Lady Melvyn is so totally the stereotypical wicked that it is no surprise when she digs deeper and deeper into her seemingly endless store of malicious plots in order to make life miserable for her step-daughter.  From the moment that Miss Melvyn's step-mother sets out to remove any competition for her father's attention, the situation rapidly grows darker, until the young woman finds herself in lost in what can only be called a dystopian setting.  The home where her unloved and unwanted husband, Mr. Morgan, resides is described by the author as being old and filled with old furnishings.  It was dreary, and even the roads and the very soil were bad.  The house and its environs are like a scene from a bad dream, nothing good grows there, nothing is pretty, nothing pleases the eye, it is a dystopian environment.  When the author then goes on to describe the character of the sister-in-law, whose nature is petty and mean spirited, and then concludes the portrayal of Mrs. Morgan's husband with his selfishness and greed, truly there is no doubt that this is dystopia.

Miss Mancel's situation had a much smaller share of turmoil, yet the younger woman certainly endured her own bleak period of emotional dystopia when her love for Sir Edward became first an impossible situation in spite of his sharing her feelings, to the tragedy of his death at the moment when it looked as if they were going to be able to be wed after all.

Even though we haven't yet read the story of Lady Mary Jones, because of the way that Mrs. Morgan, and to a lesser extent Miss Mancel have been portrayed, it seems quite likely that Lady Mary's story will likewise contain some dystopian elements and situations. This brings me to my second point.

Although the stories of the first two ladies are circumstantially different in a great many ways, the fact that they, along with what appears to be the greater part of the Millennium Hall population, are refugees from tragic situations that all have some degree of dystopian themes makes the plot of the novel feel rather predictable to this point. Apparently thus far, Scott's formula is to put a young woman into a situation where she is bound to suffer some extremely emotional and perhaps even physical distress that she seemingly cannot avoid.  Then leave her there for a length of time that taxes her to near destruction.  Finally, just as she is on the verge of utter ruin grant the young woman freedom through the death of the person who holds them captive in some way.  Of course then the woman, being thankful for her salvation at the hands of 'providence' decides to join or create a utopian community to spend the rest of her life doing good deeds in order to thank her savior for his intervention.  If this turns out to be the formula for the remainder of the novel it will be quite disappointing.  Because if the back stories of the principal members of this utopia are so predictable then the best part of the novel, according to critics, is certainly less interesting than reviews suggested it to be, and we are left with a cliché set of rags to riches fairy tales where the happy ending fairyland is an idyllic, but rather boring place where women learn to become saints. 

I hope there is more to this novel than it has contained thus far.  Utopian novels may be notorious for their shallow plots (if they have one at all), but this story has the potential to be more than it is so far, I hope to see it turn the corner so to speak and give us something to really think about in the end!

The Brief but Important Role of the Countess in "The Female Quixote"

One of the more frequently discussed characters presented by Charlotte Lennox in her novel The Female Quixote is the benevolent Countess who appears only in chapters V - VII of book VIII.  The brevity of the Countess' appearance in the text is certainly a primary reason for the critical debate surrounding her character.  But, surely Lennox has a rationale in how she used this mysterious figure?  The fun is in figuring out just what that rationale is.

Our first clue in determining Lennox's intentions concerning the Countess is the description of the character herself. We are told that the Countess is without peer in her sex when it comes to matters of wit, elegance and "Ease" as well as having great sweetness, modesty and benevolence (322-3).  In fact, the attributes of the Countess as described in Chapter V, are very similar to those credited to Arabella throughout the text.  What makes this connection even stronger, is that the Countess "when she was very young, had been deep read in Romances; and but for an early Acquaintance with the World, and being directed to other Studies, was likely to have been as much a Heroine as Lady Bella" (323).  The congruity between Arabella's character and that of the Countess is important. Lennox tells us why when she states that if it were not for the Countess having been made acquainted with the world early, the Lady would have been just like Arabella.  This is one of the key ideas of the novel, that fact that Arabella's lack of contact with 'normal' reality during her formative years combined with the dubious matter in which she was so deeply read was the cause of her ridiculous notions and behavior.  By showing us that a woman, who in her youth was so much like Arabella, was able to grow past the pollution of her mind caused by the French Romances, Lennox injects hope into the story just prior to the climax, hope that Arabella can be redeemed, and if so she can be a Lady equally as great as the Countess. 

Aside from providing a model for hope, the Countess serves another important purpose.  Arabella's mental derangement could never be cured without some other foundation to supplant the false ideas provided by the Romances.  The Countess sows the seeds for this new foundation.  She uses the same sort of logic that Lady Bella does in her arguments supporting the truth in what she has read in the Romances to reveal to the younger woman that reality in the present day is much different than that of ancient times.  Although the Countess is not allowed to remain with Arabella for very long, it is quite likely that her words would have still remained in her mind considering how much Bella was impressed by the Countess.  But, then why was the Countess not allowed by the author to complete the transformation?

The most plausible answer to why Lennox did not keep the Countess in the story long enough to effect Arabella's cure is  twofold. 

First, The Female Quixote was so named because of the author's intent, at least in part, is to provide a feminine parallel to Cervantes' well known tale, Don Quixote.  At the conclusion of the first book of Cervantes' classic story, Don is cured of his delusions by the logical arguments of a monk. Clearly, Lennox felt that in order to properly parallel Don Quixote her heroine must be cured of her mental follies in a similar fashion.  Thus, the Divine had to fulfill the roll of healer, instead of the Countess, even though having the woman cure a younger version of herself seems more poetic, and certainly would make the story a more feminist text.  As it is, the cure being accomplished by a man rather than a woman likely makes the novel more palpable to male readers.

The other half of the answer of why the Divine was chosen to act as redeemer is quite possibly tied to religion.  Even during The Enlightenment, British society was very religious, which is apparent from such texts as Hudibras and others. So it is quite plausible that Lennox was giving a nod to the healing power attributed to Christ and his disciples in the form of the Christian clergy.  In this light, the Divine represents not only a learned man of reason, he represents the redemptive and healing power of God that was still widely believed in.  If the author had written the story such that the Countess helped Arabella to a cure, then all of the traditional religious dogma that was still very prevalent her time would have been overturned.  Certainly if Lennox had gone against tradition in this way it would have provided a strong feminist statement, but the time for such challenging of the Patriarchal hegemony had not yet come, though it was on the horizon.

If written today, the story of The Female Quixote would likely be much different.  The Countess would almost certainly have reappeared and saved Arabella in the end, and as likely as not the Divine would have first faltered in his attempts and perhaps even been exposed as a fraud just prior to the Countess reappearing.  This is the sort of scenario which plays out frequently in modern novels, valorizing women while at the same time undermining patriarchal tradition and intuitions.  However, in 18th century society women had to tread lightly on the toes of the patriarchy if they hoped to have a future in writing.  Thus, though the Countess plays an important, albeit short lived, role in the story, she could not be the final savior if the book was to be successful.  Which leads me to wonder if this was not in fact some thing that her male mentors pointed out while Lennox was working out the details of the novel with them.  If you know or find an answer to this, let us know!

No Mistakes in Nature - What Might J.J. Rousseau Say About Autism?

Let me preface this blog post by saying that I am the father of four sons, two which have been diagnosed as being "severely autistic" and are currently age 17 and 9.  I make this point to establish that I have quite a lot of knowledge concerning the behavior of certain types of autistic children and that in my discussion below I feel I have some qualifications that justify my making certain observations concerning such children and the philosophical rhetoric of Mr. Locke and Mr. Rousseau.

In Julie, J.J. Rousseau discusses ideas concerning child rearing.  One of the characters asserts that "all the faults which we impute to innate disposition are the effect of bad training" (29).  This character goes on to argue that "Every man has his special place in the ideal order of the universe; it is a question of finding out his place, not of changing the universe."  This is a wonderful myth to believe in, but it is a myth, sadly. Such Utopian idea's may well fit for a rhetorical debate involving a select group of children who have a functional range of "natural giftings" but what about the growing number of children who suffer from the wide variety of learning and social disabilities loosely labelled as Autism?

Severely autistic children are very dysfunctional in areas such as speech, behavior and social skills. Rational thinking in terms that Rousseau discusses are not part of such children's make-up. For the parents of a severely autistic child, simply getting them to use the toilet normally is often a huge victory. If the child does 'get it,' it is because of a 'breakthrough,' if not they may never understand it and no amount of reasoning with such a child, in my experience, will ever make them use the toilet correctly. Clearly, "innate disposition" has everything to do with how a severely autistic child behaves.

Later in the same text, the discussion revolves around the argument that given the proper training anyone can be molded into a model human, "we should check their passion, perfect their reason, correct their nature..." (30). Once again this is not a realistic tenant to apply to severely autistic children, unless the expectations are set appropriately. At 17 years of age, the severity of my son's autism is such that he has no comprehension that his vocalization, which consists of growls, wailing and grunts, is much too loud 90% of the time.  He has no control over his passions because he doesn't even understand what it means to have passions.  His mind doesn't seem to process the sensory foundations he laid down in ways that work to enable reason and rational thought.  Changing the nature of such an individual using standard methods of education is like trying to scale a glacier without climbing equipment. The tools in the box don't work, we need to adapt a broader selection of tools.

The other side of the argument Rousseau presents to the idea of a universal model is one where training is individual, based on the nature of the child. Here we see some hope. This is how best to approach severely autistic children, but again one must also set the goals appropriately.  As I've mentioned, I have two severely autistic sons, the younger is slowly learning to use speech, which is a miracle and involves a great breakthrough for him which occurred about 2 years ago.  Naturally, the hope is for a fully functional vocalization skill set in the future. But, sitting talking to him in an adult, rational way is not the path.  The training must be adapted to his nature and the pace at which he learns.  Focus must be on the right connections, and how he makes them.  A standard model, such as the one gentleman in the Rousseau text advocates, will never work.  The old models have to adapt, and the old expectations need to be changed to reflect the true realities of all children.

Any discussion concerning Nature versus Nurture, or as Rousseau phrases it, innate disposition versus education, must take into consideration that there are people born with a nature that is so far out of the "norm" that it is ridiculous to even discuss them in terms of a standard model for education. In Rousseau's day individuals such as severely autistic children were generally "put away," that is in an asylum. Their solution to the problem was to brush it aside. Fortunately, in our society this no longer happens. But it's still as important as ever to realize that not everyone born can benefit from the perfect model of education, nor can we hold up equal standards for everyone. Rousseau argues that we should not change the universe but find the ideal place for everyone within the parameters of the one we have established already. I argue, that this is simply not possible in the case of severely autistic individuals.  Does that mean these individuals should be given no chance to be part of society in any fashion? No! It means that we must push aside the limited and outdated philosophies to which we still cling and change the universe by broadening it. Because, only with the broadest possible horizon can we see the faint glimmer that shines in each and every individual no matter what their innate disposition.

Charlotte Lennox's Arabella & John Locke's Theories

In Charlotte Lennox's The Female Quixote her protagonist, Lady Arabella, has strange ideas about people's behavior and circumstances of life. This story is famous for being a feminine variant of Cervantes well known Don Quixote. The stories share the common problem that both Don and Arabella have filled their minds with books of fantastic stories believing them to be true.  Whereas in Don's story though, his mental derangement may have stemmed not only from the stories but some physical brain discorder, Arabella seems to suffer from no such problems, but rather is in the bloom of youth and very intelligent.  So why is she so deranged in her ideas about society?  Certainly there is more to the explanation than just a secluded childhood and a stack of outlandish French written romances, not necessarily according to the behavioral theories of 17th century philosopher John Locke.

In his book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke spends a great deal of time explaining how he believes human memory and reasoning work. Many of Locke's theories about human learning and reasoning are drawn from philosophies dating back to Aristotle. Persian philosophers likened the state of a newborn's brain to that of an empty vessel with pure potential. It was from these and the writings of other influential thinkers that John Locke formulated the theories which he shared in his text. Like those before him, Locke asserts in his writings that the human brain begins life in a Tabula Rasa state, that is a blank sheet.  He further reasons that the only sources for human thought, memories and reasoning are accumulated through the senses, first building up a foundation of basic building blocks then gradually putting these blocks to more and more sophisticated uses. Only those things which the developing human being are exposed to via their senses can be drawn upon for more complex ideas and reasoning.  This is the critical premise, according to Locke, for comprehending human understanding. It is this key premise which appears to form the basis from which Lennox develops the behavior of Arabella in The Female Quixote.

If we apply what Locke says about memory and reasoning to Arabella's character, her eccentric behavior is quite easily justified.  Arabella, at the age of four, was removed from the care of the women who had been attending her in infancy and early childhood (Lennox 6).  Her father provided for her grammar school  education, ensuring she learned the basics.  He then provided her with higher education, in language and social skills, in order to give young Arabella the mental tools to be an intelligent, thinking woman. However, once the foundation was laid, the father seems to have stepped back and left her to her own devices.  He allowed the girl to continue her education via reading books from his amply supplied library.  It is easy to picture the type of books that the old Marquis valued.  Books of ancient learning, dry histories, writings of great thinkers, and tomes related to the running of a manorial property.  To a young girl such literature would be...BORING!  Then Arabella chanced to find a different sort of book, one which her dead mother had procured in order to more pleasantly pass the hours of the seclusion into which she had married.  Here at last the girl found grand tales of adventure and romance, reading in which her imagination could find pleasure and excitement.  Certainly other young women read similar tales, but the difference for Arabella is that the only input she had was these French Romances from which "she drew all Notions and Expectations" (7).  Upon the fertile mental foundations her father had ensured were laid down, the seeds of higher reasoning were laid, but the sources of these seeds were dubious indeed.  Having no real-life experiences, Lady Bella takes the romances as her mirror on society, they would become the basis upon which all of her more complex ideas would form.

Locke suggests that there are three actions possible through combination of mental materials, i.e. putting together ideas.  First are complex idea, second are the combining and comparing of two or more ideas, third is creation of general ideas though abstracting basic patterns from the person's pool of mental material. Given what Arabella had filled her mind with, it is no wonder that her complex ideas always lead her to suspect convoluted plots and sub-plots being played out by totally innocent, normal people.  Moreover, that she always believes the behavior of others must be in some way related to romantic love, either suffering by a spurned lover or valiant, heroic action by a lover proving themselves, since this is the only reference points to "real-life" that the girl has.  According Locke's theories, the only conclusions Arabella can possibly draw are those which she does, because those are the only mental building blocks she has available.  Is a person like Arabella trapped by their upbringing? Locke appears to suggest that they are.

Through her portrayal of Arabella in The Female Quixote, what does Lennox suggest about the importance of a balanced and varied social life to accompany a well guided education?  Does she agree with Locke? Do you agree with either or both of them?  Think about how kids are raised today on a steady diet of video games and TV?  How different is this from Arabella's upbringing.  If Locke's theories are really viable, then is not modern society creating its own Quixote's?

For a more detailed discussion of John Locke and the philosophy of his theories see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ from which much of the information here has been drawn.

Woman like spirits - Pope's Ideas in "The Rape of the Lock"

"For when the Fair [women] in all their pride expire / To their first Elements the Souls retire...." (Pope 1:57-8).

In this quote from "The Rape of the Lock" Alexander Pope suggests, that when women die they experience an afterlife in which they are transformed in to one of four types of spirits.  The spirit they transform into is determined by the personality of the woman in life.

The fiery ones "in Flame / Mount up, and take a Salamander's name" (59-60).

The women of "Soft yielding minds to Water glide away" (61).  These become Nymphs.

The women who are graver, as he calls them, "prudes", sink down "to a Gnome" (63).

And the "light Coquettes" become Sylphs who fly and play in the air (65-66).

What is Pope implying with these connections between women's dispositions and these four spirit types?  What will help in understanding this is an understanding of what each type of spirit mentioned in the poem represents in mythological terms.

Salamanders were believed to be creatures resistant to fire.  According to Bulfinch Mythology a salamander's skin was fire resistant. In fact traders from China once sold "salamander wool" clothing, which as it turns out was made using asbestos fibers. So whereas Pope seems to refer to Salamanders as creatures that were of fire, the Greek mythology seems to suggest that they were merely resistant to this element. But in later stories it seems that these animals are attributed with the ability to breathe fire, and sometimes were very similar to what we might call dragons. This fits more with what little Pope tells us about those spirits. Salamanders are also mentioned by 16th century alchemist Paracelsus who attributes them to the Roman fire god, Vulcan. One can imagine the fiery Thalestris, who brings the battle to the men so readily in Canto V, becoming a salamander when her life is through.

(for more see http://www.greekmythology.com/Books/Bulfinch/B_Chapter_36/b_chapter_36.html )

Nymphs were used to describe many sorts of spirits in ancient Greek mythology. These semi-divine beings had various stories. In the Trojan Cycle (of which the Iliad is a part) Paris was said to have first loved a mountain nymph and Achilles mother, Thetis, was a sea nymph, or Nereid who is described in the Iliad as being fairly powerful, even to the point of having saved Zeus' life at one time.

The way Pope describes nymphs in  "The Rape of the Lock" appears to be the a sea or river nymph (Naiads). Pope's nymphs appear to be easy going types who (no pun intended) "go with the flow." Yet, in mythology these spirits could have a wide variety of personalities, some were loving, some capricious, some pranksters, some even antagonistic to mankind entirely.  So it's difficult to see from where he derives his rather narrow connection with "soft yielding minds," water, and nymphs except that Paracelsus mentions them in his writing referring to them as "undines" which are a form of water spirit in oriental cultures as well.  Moreover, Pope calls Belinda a nymph through much of the poem, though she is attended by sylphs.  So what is going on here? Is he implying that Belinda is a woman of soft mind? Or is there a difference between the spirit nymphs and human woman nymph?

Gnomes are not mentioned in Greek mythology, at least not as such. They appear to be of a more modern origin, probably Celtic or Germanic. Gnomes are little people who live underground, often they appear to guard mines, and gold. In some ways they are like Leprechauns and perhaps stem from that origin as well. The Enyclopaedia Britannica online also discusses a 16th century connection between gnomes and alchemy (thanks once again to Paracelsus--starting to see a connection here?) which seems to be where Pope draws their personality from. They mix magical potions and use reagents which also can be tied to alchemy.  We can envision Clarissa as being the type of personality Pope would say was destined to be come a gnome.

(see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236317/gnome)

Sylphs are air spirits according to Pope, and are the spirit he spends the most time depicting.  In Greek mythology sylphs were also flying/air spirits and the muses may well have been considered sylphs.   The alchemist Paracelsus (see the information concerning Gnomes for more about him) said that sylphs were air-people.  They have most often been associated with angels, and are often said to be invisible. So here again Pope draws upon the famous (infamous) alchemist for his mythological backdrop. Paracelsus' spiritual creatures fit Pope's sylphs, though in most myths they are always portrayed as female, unlike the male Ariel in "The Rape of the Lock" which might be Pope's nod to Shakespeare.

Pope mysteriously ties sylphs to feminine innocence and chastity, though where he draws this from is not clear, aside from a vague connection between the heaven's and "goodness" (versus the underground and Hell/bad stuff).

By now the true probable source of Pope's four elemental spirits is apparent.  Pope must have read Paracelsus essays at one time, and decided to draw upon his ideas about elemental spirits for "The Rape of the Lock." Does this diminish the poem's "heroic epic" ties? Certainly it connects the poem with a broader base of history, that of the pseudo-science of alchemy which was widely practiced in England for a time. So while it does seem to make the poem less anchored in the classical heroic epic tradition, knowing that his spirits are drawn not from those myths but from a more contemporary source (Paracelsus having written about these spirits about 150 years before Pope appropriates them for his poem), Pope might have been making a more important statement.  Alchemy was doomed to decline and virtual extinction by The Enlightenment and the introduction of the modern scientific method.  Alchemy was steeped in magical trappings and in a sense mixed scientific notions with magical superstition.  The realism and practicality of Enlightenment thinking left no room for such nonsense as alchemy.  The fact that all of the underlying protection, rejection and mischief that occurs in "The Rape of the Lock" is attributed to these elemental spirits whose creation was primarily in the mind of a practitioner of magical-science (the very term is contradictory, the two words cancel each other out, leaving nothing) suggests what Pope is up to is very subtle indeed.  By drawing as he does upon these dubious spirits, Pope cleverly critiques British High
Society and the women of that society.  He suggests that all of their "airs," beauty and charms are merely concoctions. That what protects their vanity and innocence is falsely based, just like the precepts of alchemy.

Does this reading indicate that Pope's poem deserves the scorn and criticism that feminist readers give it? I'll leave that for you to decide. As a side note, Paracelsus, who professed to be Catholic, was forced to recant of many of his ideas or face severe punishment. His ideas about spirits ("demons" the Church called them) were not acceptable to the Church leadership.  Perhaps this is another reason for Pope to draw upon his ideas, another subtle jab at the upper class society and women, what do you think?

For a little more about Paracelsus check out this link:
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paracelsus'_natural_spirits.html

Has political satire fallen into decline?

As we continue our discussion in class about Jonathan Swift and his peers, Pope and Dryden, etc.  It has occurred to me that we don't see much of their style of wit, that humorous and at times biting political satire, except in dark dusty corners and in editorial comics.  Why has political satire faded into semi-obscurity, relegated to black and white lines and droll text on the bone grey pages of starving newspapers? Perhaps as a culture we have become too concerned with political correctness to enjoy a good satirical verse.  Of course poetry itself is a neglected shadow of it's former robust self.  So maybe the two are entwined?  Satire and poetry strolling hand-in-hand down into the dark mire of obscurity, with it's mistress, reading, limping along behind them.

Certainly there are satirists in our age who perhaps can match wits with those of old. Most are content with commentary on politics from a safe distance however.  Avoiding the ire of the politician shepherds and their flocks of adoring sheep.  Perhaps this is because the sheep turn into ravening beasts when their favorites are brought under scrutiny.  The were-sheep prowl the fields of political satire, ensuring that no wolves can vex the politician shepherd. So the satirical wolves must content themselves with letting fly their sharp arrows of wit from behind the walls of obscurity. Hoping that the were-sheep followers don't sniff them out, clamor over the wall and devour them in their ravening lust to protect the almighty shepherd and his crook of political correctness.

Perhaps we will see a return to the days when a Swift, a Pope, a Wollstonecraft and their progeny can once again provide our culture with a wider view of our failings, perhaps make us laugh at ourselves once in a while, and nod our heads in agreement that change can be accomplished.  I hope to live to see that time, perhaps be part of it in a meaningful way, for true change comes from those who are willing to admit that we are not perfect, and see the truth behind the lines of a satirical verse.

Jonathan Swift was many things, a great writer, a man of great satirical wit and a master of irony, but lest we forget he was also a critic.  His scathing denunciations of great writers such as Daniel Defoe and Eliza Haywood had sometimes profound effect on the careers of many of his peers.  Yet, the "Dean," as he was sometimes known, was not immune to the effects of criticism. Quite the contrary. Many of Swifts most well known works were, at the time of their publishing, basted with ample quantities of critical scorn.  Swift was certainly in good company however since writers have always been subject to the scornful slaughter of their critical peers as well as more recently professional critics.  In this sense, the critics play the role of the Fates of ancient Greek mythology.

Critics had (and often still have) the power of life and death over literary works.  Once the Critic-Fates passed their decree the Muse inspired author could only accept the inevitable and hope for an afterlife for his or her doomed literary work.  In many cases, the fate which the critics ordained passed an irrevocable death sentence on the the author's career, and though that author may continue to write, nothing they produce is likely to raise their reputation from the murky depths of Hades until years after they and (more significantly) the critics have truly gone to rest within the abode of the god of the underworld for eternity.  For unlike the Fates of Greek mythology, the judgments handed down by the Fates of Literature sometimes are rescinded by the next generation of critics.  So in this sense, the Literary Fates are more powerful than those three mythological goddesses of Greek legend.

Take for example Daniel Defoe, who during his life saw his legacy tarnished by the scathing criticism of the mighty Alexander Pope and the deity of divine satire, Swift.  With the passing of a few generations Defoe's fate was reversed, in a twist of irony which Swift would have envied,  he was elevated to the pantheon of immortals and became one of the gods of Literature along with those who had passed judgment upon him only 60 or 70 years earlier. Ah how fickle the divine literary of fates can be! To bring an end; the moral of this story is this simple--writers, write well, and don't fear the frightful pen of Literary Fates, the critics, who may damn you for a a year, a decade, or even a century, but if you write well, the Fates may one day come to exonerate you, nay perhaps even venerate you.

18th c. Criminal Justice - The Price of Petty Crime

Criminal justice for petty crime in 18th century England was hard, and swift. The Old Bailey Online site has countless instances of convictions from documented cases from various court records of the time. I've included below, excerpts from a selection of interesting petty theft cases with the verdict and punishment.

SOME SAMPLE CASES OF THOSE RESEARCHED

28th August 1700 - "Rebecca Maud , of the Parish of Stepny , was Indicted for Felony and Burglary, for breaking the House of Thomas Mead , on the 24th of day of August last, about two in the Night, and taking thence a pair of Worsted Stockings, and 5 blew Aprons, 2 Plates, a Copper Sauce Pan, and other Goods."  Rebecca Maud pleaded her belly, but was found to be without child and transported for a 7 year term.

In this case the woman was considered an "old criminal" her pleading her "belly" resulted in what probably was a stay of her sentence until they could determine the truth of her plea, then as noted she was found to be lying and was transported as an indentured servant for 7 years.

12th July 1721 - "Samuel Dexter was indicted for a Misdemeanour, in breaking and entring a Cobler's Stall adjoyning to the Dwelling-House of Samuel Trowel , with an intent to Steal. The Prisoner in his Defence said that he was drunk, and the Stall being open he went in to Sleep, intending to go home to his Master in the Morning Francis Nicholas deposed that the Prisoner was his Servant ; that he ran away from him a Week before Easter; and is a dangerous Person. The Jury found him Guilty . Fined Ten Marks ."

Dexter was found guilty, based on the word of his former master and his apparent intent to break into a stall and steal, though he stole nothing.  Since this was a misdemeanor crime he was only fined. Note: that 10 marks was equivalent to just over 6 £ sterling, which would have been a pretty large sum of money for a run away apprentice.

11th September, 1734 - William Howard , was indicted for breaking and entering the House of Thomas Taylor , and stealing a Coat, Waistcoat, and Breeches, 3 pair of Shoes, 3 Shirts, 2 Smocks, a pair of Boots, 2 Hats, 3 Wigs, 2 Tea-Spoons, 5 Dishes, 11 Plates, 3 Spoons, and 2 Brass-candlesticks, the Goods of Thomas Taylor ; and other Things, the Properties of divers Persons, May 5 . in the Night time. The Jury found him Guilty . Death .

In Howard's case above, he stole quite a lot of small items from one home, and other unknown items from other victims in what amounted to a one night crime spree. The website entry shows various testimonies as they were transcribed at the time, the man apparently boasted of his crimes to others.  Though the document does not give the value of the items taken, they seem even with the large number listed to be fairly petty items, yet the man was sentenced to death (probably by public hanging).

11th July 1750 - Mary Kelley , late of Fulham , was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of Henry Holland , and stealing from thence five copper sauce-pans, value 12 s. one brass saucepan and one brass kettle, value 12 d. the goods of the said Henry. Sentenced to be transported for a term of 7 years.

Mary Kelley's theft indictment was for a fairly small amount and value of items compared to many of the entries I read (not all of those are listed here).  Since she was only convicted of the felony which probably was her attempt to sell stolen property, she was sentenced to be transported.  Had she been convicted of the theft as well she may very well have been sentenced to death, though that would also have depended upon what her criminal record was prior to this.

THOUGHTS CONCERNING 18TH CENTURY CRIMINAL JUSTICE

I found a few interesting things in my research: 

First, there were a surprising number of women indicted, particularly in the early part of the century when it seems there was a great deal of "petty" crime committed by women.  As the century progressed the names of women appear less frequently.  Whether this is due to some sort of cultural trend, that is women quit resorting to theft, or some other unknown factors is beyond the scope of this post.

Second, in our reading of Moll Flanders there is the impression that death was frequently the verdict in most cases of theft, even petty theft.  Yet, in the cases I show above and the many others I reviewed, the most common sentence appears to be transportation, it seems that the English were more interested in removing the problem from British soil than in actually hanging a thief.

In general, the crimes were pretty minor by our standards today, but punishment was seemingly quite harsh.  Though a person probably would have been grateful for a verdict of transport, it still meant indentured servitude for a number of years (usually 7) with no way of knowing what sort of master they would have once they were taken to the New World.  It was just as likely that the master would be a man of good morals or of bad, and that in the case of the bad ones, whipping, beatings and perhaps worse would be a common thing.  Moreover, the more disreputable masters may not give up their free labor at the end of the term, finding some excuse or another to keep the person in bondage.

18th CENTURY COMPARED TO TODAY'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

It seems clear that today's system is much more lenient in its handling of pretty criminals.  Frequently first and even second offenders, if convicted, are let off with a fine and probation.  Partly this leniency is due to prison overcrowding in many states.  Those who are incarcerated are treated fairly, in relatively clean conditions, which falls in line with our much more liberal ideas concerning criminal reform.  Criminals of the 18th could expect no "breaks" even for petty crimes the judiciary felt that strict and severe punishment was the best course of action in deterring crime.  Naturally, transported convicts were, for the most part, not going to cause further problems in England for at least 7 years (unless they escaped and returned to England, in which case if they caught again they were probably swiftly executed).  The question is, did the more harsh treatment really inhibit crime? Does punishing a criminal ever really change the crime rate? This is the question which we still ask today, and for which there seems to be no easy answer.  What do you think?

Paradoxes in Satire - Hudibras v. Ralpho

In the first Canto of Hudibras, Samuel Butler depicts two colorful yet apparently completely contrary persona's in the form of Hudibras and his "squire" Ralph (or Ralpho).  Hudibras is a court knight, a man who Butler describes as "A wight.., whose very sight woul'd / Entitle him Mirror of Knight" (15-16).  He is described as a knight whose sword is ancient and rusty, spending so much time sheathed that the scabbard was worn through at the bottom.  He is portrayed as booked learned, but apparently with little depth of wit, since he shared it only sparing lest he "wear it out" (47).

His squire, Ralph was another sort, whereas Hudibras gained his intellectual storehouse from study, Ralph or Ralpho as he is sometimes referred to, found his wit in another far different source.  As Butler wrote, "His wit was sent him for a token, / But in the carriage cracked' and broken (485-86).  Moreover, "He cou'd deep mysteries unriddle / as easily as thread a needle" (499-500).  Butler goes on to describe Ralph's wit as coming from "A light that falls down from on high" (507) but he suggests that it's from spirits, that bewitch and that it might be of a source not entirely condoned by Christian beliefs.

So, apparently in Hudibras, Samuel Butler's dynamic duo are a pair of ill-matched bookends.  The author claims, in spite of what appears to be a powerful body of evidence to the contrary, that "Their arms and equipage did fit / As well virtues, part and wit" (626-7).  But what we see here is how Butler uses paradoxical characterization to increase the level of satire in the poem. As the reader is shown in the first Canto, even a fairly common place event, such as bear-baiting, provides a barrier to the duo, that they cannot surmount without delving into overly philosophical debate and misadventure that simply adds a powerful element of farce to the high satire of the piece. Butler uses Hudibras and Ralpho as comic figures who represent the all that is wrong with both sides of the warring between the Parliament and the Crown of 18th Century England. Each debate between the two serves to expose more and more the paradoxical and farcical nature of the strife between the two factions vying for control of Britain.