Reflecting on this class this morning, I realized that I have been fooled into learning more than I thought. Very sneaky! The weekly research topics made sure we all read A LOT of periodicals in a short period of time because we all wanted an artifact that captured the American understanding of a topic, or surprised us, or made us laugh. And, the fact that we all ended up "chasing rabbits" and getting off-track in our research means we learned even more-- usually without knowing it. For me, it is difficult to settle on the three most helpful artifacts that I found in the periodicals over the last few weeks because it is difficult to connect them with a common realization or new knowledge. So I have been putting off this blog. I think that my inability to connect three artifacts points to what I did learn in this class-- the early American periodicals were far more varied in opinion and subject than I expected, more people were allowed to print on more subjects than I thought, and for some reason, though periodical's life expectancy was minute and profit was a joke, people still published more and more periodicals. Of my three favorite sources, (and all of my sources, I think) each was printed in a different periodical. Also, each dealt with an external focus-- and not because of the search parameters. Most of the artifacts I discovered, regardless of the search terms, were pointed to England or distant lands rather than focused on the struggles at home. The few I found focusing on the United States discussed liberty and slavery, and many were in Christian or Quaker publications. I discovered what appeared to be a sociological perspective rather than a politically or societal charged atmosphere in publication. For instance, my search for liberty brought up liberty in fashion, Indians brought up a report of Quaker's assistance to Indians and their education, and Hottentot appearance brought up the story of converted Africans visiting a London church and meeting an English born African. Each of the articles I found deal with propriety and use religion and freedom as a shared concept-- as if one naturally relates to the other-- though in different ways. I think each of the artifacts strives to teach tolerance for human life and imperfections or differences and steps outside the boundaries of social expectations. I guess I was surprised at how often the periodical research surprised me-- how often my assumptions about early American opinions were proved wrong.
And one more thing: often the most interesting items I found I didn't even talk about in class. Its amazing the number of things I weeded out as too long and complex to discuss or too odd or too much like other things I found.
I suppose that is all I have for now, but I don't think I am done with American periodicals for long!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Fashion and Lady Liberty
I haven't blogged about my primary research in awhile, and this week's find is too good to pass up! When searching American Periodicals this week using the key words "Lady Liberty," I discovered a letter to a young lady with a very different explanation of liberty. The letter (five pages in two columns) appears as a reprint from the Monthly Magazine in The New York Magazine, or Literary Repository (1790-1797) in the Nov. 1797 edition (very close to the end of the eight year run). This letter entitled "FASHION--A VISION. In a Letter to a young Lady" is, in truth, about liberty, but in significantly different terms than we may expect. The author introduces his dream or vision with the statement:
"Young as you are, my dear Flora, you cannot but have notices the eagerness with which questions, relative to civil liberty, have been discussed in every society. To break the shackles of oppression, and assert the native rights of man, is esteemed by many, among the noblest efforts of heroic virtue; but vain is the possession of political liberty if there exists a tyrant of our own creation; who, without law, or reason, or even external force, exercises over us the most despotic authority; whose jurisdiction is extended over every part of private and domestic life; controuls our pleasures, fashions our garb, cramps our motions, fills our lives with vain cares, and restless anxiety. The worst slavery is that which we impose upon ourselves; and no chains are so cumbrous and galling, as those which we are pleased to wear by way of grace and adornment."
Nice intro, huh? A total prank in which you begin by thinking about liberty and end with a brilliant thesis on fashion. The rest of the letter is equally captivating. The author continues: "-- Musing upon this idea, gave rise to the following dream or vision:" and begins to describe a scene (reminiscent of Gulliver's travels) in which he is in a new world ruled by an evil queen who forces her subjects to change the shape of their bodies, paint their faces and hair, and changes the unwritten laws every hour, punishing those who do not follow the rules by allowing her subjects to ignore and starve the perpetrator. The dream is brilliant, three and a half pages describing fashion rituals and comparing the corseted figure to a wasp, false moles to "some pestilential disorder," and fashionable collars to goiters. The author describes the altered silhouettes made by clothes and causes us to imagine how horrified we would be if our bodies were really shaped that way. The author also describes corseting and hair fashions for adult women as a type of bondage and punishment, but praises the Queen of fashion and her assistants Vanity and Caprice for the commerce and value to the economy which feeds the poor and gives jobs to the needy, but the author does see this as a contradiction at the same time-- perhaps because it is the wealthy who are enslaved? In the end, the author sees his own Flora taken up to the alter of fashion, and just as the corset is brought up, his extreme fear and emotion for her wakens him.
On the surface, the social commentary of this letter on fashion is fascinating by itself. However, the connection to liberty and (fashion as repressing liberty) is even more interesting. Further, the ideas of a queen and an alter of fashion bring up the British monarchy in a negative light and put a twist on the ideas of the church at the same time. The author mentions the British connection "I saw the genius of Commerce doing her homage, and discovered the British cross woven into the insignia of her dignity" when he notices the "industrious poor" working behind the throne and paid by the queen. The author admits this is a complication to his ideas of fashion, but is then distracted by the appearance of Flora at the alter of fashion. Unfortunately for us, he doesn't really explain his meaning here, but it appears to be a positive British description, a complexity to the queen of fashion the author did not expect.
I think the letter relates to national identity building and feminism, which I find interesting, but mostly I was captivated by the message and the way it was presented. I have been present for a few lectures by parents explaining to their daughters that makeup and fashion is just hiding their real beauty, but this is one of the first that has compared it to a monarchy. Still, the tone of a parent guarding his or her daughter comes through and the descriptions of fashion from an outsider's perspective are brilliant. Unlike the satire of Pope and Swift, this one seems directed from individual to individual, but in a relationship the audience could all relate to. The rhetorical device is deeply political, but pointed to what we often consider to be a superfluous area, and the power of the device makes the issue of fashion seem much more significant. Rather than joking that high heels and pantyhose are made by men to change improve women like you may hear in modern circles, this letter makes fashion seem even more devious and controlling.
Okay, I went on and on about that, but seriously, you should read this letter! The descriptions are captivating and so true!
"Young as you are, my dear Flora, you cannot but have notices the eagerness with which questions, relative to civil liberty, have been discussed in every society. To break the shackles of oppression, and assert the native rights of man, is esteemed by many, among the noblest efforts of heroic virtue; but vain is the possession of political liberty if there exists a tyrant of our own creation; who, without law, or reason, or even external force, exercises over us the most despotic authority; whose jurisdiction is extended over every part of private and domestic life; controuls our pleasures, fashions our garb, cramps our motions, fills our lives with vain cares, and restless anxiety. The worst slavery is that which we impose upon ourselves; and no chains are so cumbrous and galling, as those which we are pleased to wear by way of grace and adornment."
Nice intro, huh? A total prank in which you begin by thinking about liberty and end with a brilliant thesis on fashion. The rest of the letter is equally captivating. The author continues: "-- Musing upon this idea, gave rise to the following dream or vision:" and begins to describe a scene (reminiscent of Gulliver's travels) in which he is in a new world ruled by an evil queen who forces her subjects to change the shape of their bodies, paint their faces and hair, and changes the unwritten laws every hour, punishing those who do not follow the rules by allowing her subjects to ignore and starve the perpetrator. The dream is brilliant, three and a half pages describing fashion rituals and comparing the corseted figure to a wasp, false moles to "some pestilential disorder," and fashionable collars to goiters. The author describes the altered silhouettes made by clothes and causes us to imagine how horrified we would be if our bodies were really shaped that way. The author also describes corseting and hair fashions for adult women as a type of bondage and punishment, but praises the Queen of fashion and her assistants Vanity and Caprice for the commerce and value to the economy which feeds the poor and gives jobs to the needy, but the author does see this as a contradiction at the same time-- perhaps because it is the wealthy who are enslaved? In the end, the author sees his own Flora taken up to the alter of fashion, and just as the corset is brought up, his extreme fear and emotion for her wakens him.
On the surface, the social commentary of this letter on fashion is fascinating by itself. However, the connection to liberty and (fashion as repressing liberty) is even more interesting. Further, the ideas of a queen and an alter of fashion bring up the British monarchy in a negative light and put a twist on the ideas of the church at the same time. The author mentions the British connection "I saw the genius of Commerce doing her homage, and discovered the British cross woven into the insignia of her dignity" when he notices the "industrious poor" working behind the throne and paid by the queen. The author admits this is a complication to his ideas of fashion, but is then distracted by the appearance of Flora at the alter of fashion. Unfortunately for us, he doesn't really explain his meaning here, but it appears to be a positive British description, a complexity to the queen of fashion the author did not expect.
I think the letter relates to national identity building and feminism, which I find interesting, but mostly I was captivated by the message and the way it was presented. I have been present for a few lectures by parents explaining to their daughters that makeup and fashion is just hiding their real beauty, but this is one of the first that has compared it to a monarchy. Still, the tone of a parent guarding his or her daughter comes through and the descriptions of fashion from an outsider's perspective are brilliant. Unlike the satire of Pope and Swift, this one seems directed from individual to individual, but in a relationship the audience could all relate to. The rhetorical device is deeply political, but pointed to what we often consider to be a superfluous area, and the power of the device makes the issue of fashion seem much more significant. Rather than joking that high heels and pantyhose are made by men to change improve women like you may hear in modern circles, this letter makes fashion seem even more devious and controlling.
Okay, I went on and on about that, but seriously, you should read this letter! The descriptions are captivating and so true!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
"Wo"Men Writing in the Early Republic?
Woman Writing in the Early Republic
Dobson and Zagarell
After last week's reading, I was looking forward to another article about writers in the early republic. However, this article was not quite as fascinating as last week's (sorry, ladies!). Comparing the two really made it seem like women authors had an easier time as authors or writers and this makes me question the perspectives of the two articles. Did women have an easier time than men, or just an easier time than women before them and in other countries? Or just an easier time than we expected? Or, compared to other difficulties for women, the identity of authorship is simply another struggle (and by now, we are used to them)? Were the identity struggles for the men writing in the early republic so extreme simply because the struggle was new and unexpected?
Hmmm...
I think the statement that struck me and elicited these questions was "The relatively limited number of accomplished indigenous writers was a matter of concern in the new nation, in which a cultural premium on learnedness and the adept use of rhetorics prevailed." The passage goes on to state that "able writing by women...was enthusiastically received" (369). It seems in direct opposition to our discussion of male authors from last week in which learnedness and making money through writing were frowned upon. I suppose I have just struck the heart of the question-- economics as usual. Sarah Wentworth Morton is quoted stating she only writes "amid the leisure and retirement, to which the sultry season is devoted" (369). Perhaps the male authors ought to have only written when the harvest was in to seek approval?
Then again, I am still curious why writing women are not credited with some form of identity crisis similar to male authors of the times. Maybe we just haven't noticed it yet or put it in those terms. The public/domestic transition may be a type of identity crisis...
The discussion of Sedgwick as a woman writer and as an American writer (374)-- two different categories-- seems closely related some of the discussion from last week's reading, and reiterates the point above explaining women's "enthusiastic" reception "The urgent need for the United States to develop a coherent national identity from disparate regional cultures and a national culture distinct from that of Great Britain still took precedence over constructions of gender..." (374) at least for women, it appears. But writing for men seemed to complicate gender construction-- something that does not appear as significant for women (for example, most of the female authors mentioned in the text married at some point, and there doesn't seem to be the same reproductive anxiety we read about in the male authors last week).
I'm glad we read these essays in this order; it definitely gave me something more to consider this week!
Dobson and Zagarell
After last week's reading, I was looking forward to another article about writers in the early republic. However, this article was not quite as fascinating as last week's (sorry, ladies!). Comparing the two really made it seem like women authors had an easier time as authors or writers and this makes me question the perspectives of the two articles. Did women have an easier time than men, or just an easier time than women before them and in other countries? Or just an easier time than we expected? Or, compared to other difficulties for women, the identity of authorship is simply another struggle (and by now, we are used to them)? Were the identity struggles for the men writing in the early republic so extreme simply because the struggle was new and unexpected?
Hmmm...
I think the statement that struck me and elicited these questions was "The relatively limited number of accomplished indigenous writers was a matter of concern in the new nation, in which a cultural premium on learnedness and the adept use of rhetorics prevailed." The passage goes on to state that "able writing by women...was enthusiastically received" (369). It seems in direct opposition to our discussion of male authors from last week in which learnedness and making money through writing were frowned upon. I suppose I have just struck the heart of the question-- economics as usual. Sarah Wentworth Morton is quoted stating she only writes "amid the leisure and retirement, to which the sultry season is devoted" (369). Perhaps the male authors ought to have only written when the harvest was in to seek approval?
Then again, I am still curious why writing women are not credited with some form of identity crisis similar to male authors of the times. Maybe we just haven't noticed it yet or put it in those terms. The public/domestic transition may be a type of identity crisis...
The discussion of Sedgwick as a woman writer and as an American writer (374)-- two different categories-- seems closely related some of the discussion from last week's reading, and reiterates the point above explaining women's "enthusiastic" reception "The urgent need for the United States to develop a coherent national identity from disparate regional cultures and a national culture distinct from that of Great Britain still took precedence over constructions of gender..." (374) at least for women, it appears. But writing for men seemed to complicate gender construction-- something that does not appear as significant for women (for example, most of the female authors mentioned in the text married at some point, and there doesn't seem to be the same reproductive anxiety we read about in the male authors last week).
I'm glad we read these essays in this order; it definitely gave me something more to consider this week!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Plunged into Flux and Ferment
"Men Writing in the Early Republic" by David Leverenz is one of the most interesting articles I have read in awhile. Maybe I should say, "thought provoking"? I tend to think about the perspective of women writers-- out of a habit I have developed in the last few years. The ideas that early American male writers were writing as women, struggling with ideas of masculinity in marriage and fatherhood (and the relationship between fatherhood and authorship) is very different from what I usually consider in literary criticism. Though I have studied the immortality of authorship-- which is like parenthood in a way-- it is usually from the perspective of masculine attempts to create life in the way women can create life, or in relation to "man's" desire for a legacy (related to ego). Thinking of the American male author as creating identity and creating a new meaning of authorship in conjunction with the financial instability of authorship offers a new way to look at early American male psychology. Though I am not sure that Leverenz's analysis of early American male writers is completely convincing (were authors really "plunged . . . into flux and ferment" (356)? Torn between making money and writing? Or tormented by not marrying and procreating?) as an eighteenth century British literature major, the very different American perspective on authorship is fascinating. It seems logical that American writers who had to make their living by writing would struggle with identity considering the very different American perspective with its "aversion to everything that is not practical, operative, and thorough-going" ( Longfellow in Leverenz 359) as well as lingering ideas of aristocracy and who "ought" to write and who needs to write for money.
This essay helped to pull together everything we have been discussing in class with the emerging early American print culture. By looking at American manhood and how it is both an "obstacle and an asset" (360) to authors, the way the American male author-identity developed shows a parallel to the development of American identity. The nation and the male author were both responding to the context of the new Republic, but the response is deeper than rebellion against British traditions, book production, copyright, finances, and social commentary. To be an author in early American print was to "write about manly individualism . . . by incorporating its underlying flux of moods, fears, and resilience" (363).
Though I feel I still do not fully grasp Leverenz's points, I feel he has brought up a subject that bears more thought, and which may be the key to understanding a much more complex view of authorship than I had from our other readings this semester. Perhaps it is my modern fascination with identity formation, but this article points towards a nagging sensation that there is much more involved in American authorship than selling books and social commentary or even social activism. However, I still do not fully understand the significance of this approach or my realizations, so this nagging feeling will have to just keep nagging.
A hint about pirates:
What is a pirate's favorite letter of the alphabet?
RRRRRRR!
This essay helped to pull together everything we have been discussing in class with the emerging early American print culture. By looking at American manhood and how it is both an "obstacle and an asset" (360) to authors, the way the American male author-identity developed shows a parallel to the development of American identity. The nation and the male author were both responding to the context of the new Republic, but the response is deeper than rebellion against British traditions, book production, copyright, finances, and social commentary. To be an author in early American print was to "write about manly individualism . . . by incorporating its underlying flux of moods, fears, and resilience" (363).
Though I feel I still do not fully grasp Leverenz's points, I feel he has brought up a subject that bears more thought, and which may be the key to understanding a much more complex view of authorship than I had from our other readings this semester. Perhaps it is my modern fascination with identity formation, but this article points towards a nagging sensation that there is much more involved in American authorship than selling books and social commentary or even social activism. However, I still do not fully understand the significance of this approach or my realizations, so this nagging feeling will have to just keep nagging.
A hint about pirates:
What is a pirate's favorite letter of the alphabet?
RRRRRRR!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Mary Murderers
I am interested in transportation of felons from Britain to the U.S. in the eighteenth century, so I thought this weeks' topic would really give me room to research alternatives to execution (as transportation was usually seen to be). However, my search terms did not bring up any information on transported thieves or murderers, and I began to notice that the criminals I was finding in the periodicals were often foreign-- French, British, Indian, German-- everything but what I wanted to find.
I have also been reading Dan's book, Pillars of Salt, to get some insight into female execution tales in the U.S., so I began to search for "murderess" and "infanticide" or "child" executions to pair up with some of the women presented in Dan's book. I found a couple of interesting, child killing Marys to discuss, and in both cases, the nature of women in discussed in scientific terms which carry interesting cultural implications.
The first story I came across is "Infanticide-- Mary Mulcahy: [From our Clonmel Correspondent]" in
I have also been reading Dan's book, Pillars of Salt, to get some insight into female execution tales in the U.S., so I began to search for "murderess" and "infanticide" or "child" executions to pair up with some of the women presented in Dan's book. I found a couple of interesting, child killing Marys to discuss, and in both cases, the nature of women in discussed in scientific terms which carry interesting cultural implications.
The first story I came across is "Infanticide-- Mary Mulcahy: [From our Clonmel Correspondent]" in
United States Catholic Miscellany
My second Mary appears in "Pages From the Diary of a Philadelphia Lawyer: The Murderess" printed in
The Gentleman's Magazine,
He then tells us of the trial, how she was found "not guilty" and how he came to know her true story through a letter she left for him to read in the event of her death. It appears she and her husband killed his old relative for an inheritance, she then killed her husband and had an affair with his Italian friend, and killed her child. A year later, the Italian lover killed her, and the lawyer was able to read and publish her letter. While this tale seems too sensational to be true, the lawyer's assertion that women cannot be converted from crime and the depiction of a faulty law system in the U.S. are most interesting-- especially coming from the lawyer who defended her and won the case. He does not discuss his own involvement in the system which freed her, but instead uses this tale as a caution: once women start down the road of villainy, they cannot recover but will be brought to greater crimes. A very strange crime. My next mission is to discover if any other periodicals mention Mary Stewart in attempts to discover if there is any truth to this tale.
Feb 1838 on page 107. In this account, Mary Stewart is accused of killing her child and confesses to a neighbor that she accidentally threw it against the wall while playing with it (you can't make this stuff up...). The author-lawyer introduces the subject by discussing the "principles in the physiology of woman which peculiarly capacitate her for endurance and perseverance under protracted affliction." However, the author argues that women, once tainted or criminal, will not repent or regret their actions and gives the example of Mary Stewart to support his cause.May 30, 1829; 8, 47 pg. 373. In this tale, Mary, a "young and extremely interesting looking female" was tried and convicted of the infanticide of her newborn. Under the threat of execution, it appears Mary was pardoned for several reasons: the help of a gentleman, her appearance and demeanor which proved she could not murder, and the expert opinion of a doctor who claims that after delivery, some women are "seized with a temporary insanity" which allows them to commit actions they would not otherwise do and of which they are conscious. This is an interesting early mention of post-partum depression, and coupled with this explanation and Mary's "extremely interesting" appearance, sorrow, and previous good character, Mary is given respite and expected to be released altogether. Interestingly, the author of this article mentions a lack of evidence, "but her own confession." This seems to be pointing out that her own confession is not enough to convict her-- possibly because of her youth and appearance? There is also some confusion about the father of the child who Mary never names. In fact, the article almost hints that the father is a gentleman with sway over the courts. I am not sure why this tale appears in the Catholic Miscellany, unless it is presenting mercy for non-deliberate murderers.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Oh, the Times, They Aren't a'Changing
While I found Richard D. Brown's Essay "The Revolution's Legacy for the History of the Book" a bit dry, repetitive of other readings, and strangely, confusingly punctuated, I did find the discussion of American print ideology to be interesting in the ways our print ideologies have and have not changed. Is our passion for Internet accessibility not our belief that "only an informed citizenry could properly identify and repel threats to liberty" (58), or to repel any other evils, for that matter? And, don't we feel we have the "divine right to that most dreaded, and envied kind of knowledge...of the characters and conduct of... [our] rulers" (59)? The Clinton scandals seem to shout "Yes we do!" even though other countries were surprised and confused by the American population's interest in and "divine right" to know about private lives of government officials. Further, is our world of print encouraged to be further polysentric than before? Divided by sub-cultures and interests as well as geography?
I also find the libel laws interesting in light of recent Homeland Security laws and slander lawsuits. While we would like to believe in our first amendment rights, they may not be any more protective than in the early republic, still a bit of a grey area, in fact.
The differences I see in each of the examples above came from Brown's statement that early Americans would criticize government, "but they would not suffer criticism of the cause of independence" (63). I think this is one area where we have changed. I took a seminar in Christian ethics course once entitled "Seminar in Christian Ethics and Economic Justice for All" in which we attempted to find a better form of government than the U.S. democracy. All the ones we found that eliminated the problems in the U.S. also eliminated independence. Many of my fellow students felt, in weighing the costs and benefits, it would be worth the loss of independence to have a healthy, well-fed population. In fact, independence was not a concern mentioned at all and socialism and communism were weighed solely based on their economic successes. I think the ideologies of Independence Brown discusses, and the American exceptionalism, patriotism, and "tyranny of the majority" (Tocqueville 64) found in other readings are changing. Once we had no other tyranny to rebel against, a victory afterglow and westward expansion held Americans together. Then patriotism and exceptionalism and the American dream. Now we wonder if there is a better system of government and study and discuss and attempt to bind people together in the common goal of spreading democracy. I would much rather focus on celebrating Independence, but I suppose we have already had that party and the cake has gotten stale.
We still strive to create a "correctly informed citizenry" (68) (whatever that means for whoever is informing whichever group at the time), and we strive to be informed (in a way and on subjects that may be less related to social aspirations on a class level and more to social aspirations on a person to person level). But can we argue the "tyrannous majority" has less control over privileged perspectives presented in publication (mmmm... p's) than in early American print culture? The Internet does not protect us from this-- Google is hierarchical in nature, presenting the popular and paid for first. Though more voices have outlets, do they have audience? And a "correctly informed" audience at that?
So....witches.
I have written a few papers on witch and vampire traditions, so I know quite a lot about historic representations, but I found a couple of new stories:
I ended up looking for vampires instead after finding a piece about the Malay tradition of carrying around a little, witch/ vampire/ devil hybrid which grants beauty to women in exchange for blood. These Polong are worn in a small, finger sized vial around the neck, and fed weekly by cutting a finger and inserting it into the container. If they are not fed weekly, they will emerge and drain all the blood from the wearer. It is a bit like a vampire, but also like a devil's pact in which one sells one's soul for a temporary, earthly price.
The Penangalan is a bit more like our version of a witch and inhabits a female body, but can leave it to fly about and wreak havoc. This one also drinks blood and is in cahoots with the devil.
In another article, "THE TRAVELLER.: THE VAMPIRE SUPERSTITION."American Masonic Register and Literary Companion (1839-1847); Sep 2, 1843; 4, 52, the author describes in detail the superstitions surrounding vampire lore. It is mostly what we already know like stakes through hearts and pale skin, but it talks a bit more about the signs a corpse is a vampire like hair and finger nails continuing to grow. This article actually mentions another source's attempts to give scientific explanation of the "signs" of a vampire like an excess of saltpeter in the body. The author doesn't seem to think these explanations quite satisfy the vampire myth, but then again, neither do I.
I also find the libel laws interesting in light of recent Homeland Security laws and slander lawsuits. While we would like to believe in our first amendment rights, they may not be any more protective than in the early republic, still a bit of a grey area, in fact.
The differences I see in each of the examples above came from Brown's statement that early Americans would criticize government, "but they would not suffer criticism of the cause of independence" (63). I think this is one area where we have changed. I took a seminar in Christian ethics course once entitled "Seminar in Christian Ethics and Economic Justice for All" in which we attempted to find a better form of government than the U.S. democracy. All the ones we found that eliminated the problems in the U.S. also eliminated independence. Many of my fellow students felt, in weighing the costs and benefits, it would be worth the loss of independence to have a healthy, well-fed population. In fact, independence was not a concern mentioned at all and socialism and communism were weighed solely based on their economic successes. I think the ideologies of Independence Brown discusses, and the American exceptionalism, patriotism, and "tyranny of the majority" (Tocqueville 64) found in other readings are changing. Once we had no other tyranny to rebel against, a victory afterglow and westward expansion held Americans together. Then patriotism and exceptionalism and the American dream. Now we wonder if there is a better system of government and study and discuss and attempt to bind people together in the common goal of spreading democracy. I would much rather focus on celebrating Independence, but I suppose we have already had that party and the cake has gotten stale.
We still strive to create a "correctly informed citizenry" (68) (whatever that means for whoever is informing whichever group at the time), and we strive to be informed (in a way and on subjects that may be less related to social aspirations on a class level and more to social aspirations on a person to person level). But can we argue the "tyrannous majority" has less control over privileged perspectives presented in publication (mmmm... p's) than in early American print culture? The Internet does not protect us from this-- Google is hierarchical in nature, presenting the popular and paid for first. Though more voices have outlets, do they have audience? And a "correctly informed" audience at that?
So....witches.
I have written a few papers on witch and vampire traditions, so I know quite a lot about historic representations, but I found a couple of new stories:
I ended up looking for vampires instead after finding a piece about the Malay tradition of carrying around a little, witch/ vampire/ devil hybrid which grants beauty to women in exchange for blood. These Polong are worn in a small, finger sized vial around the neck, and fed weekly by cutting a finger and inserting it into the container. If they are not fed weekly, they will emerge and drain all the blood from the wearer. It is a bit like a vampire, but also like a devil's pact in which one sells one's soul for a temporary, earthly price.
The Penangalan is a bit more like our version of a witch and inhabits a female body, but can leave it to fly about and wreak havoc. This one also drinks blood and is in cahoots with the devil.
The Atheneum; or, Spirit of the English Magazines (1817-1833);
Nov 15, 1820; 8, 4)In another article, "THE TRAVELLER.: THE VAMPIRE SUPERSTITION."American Masonic Register and Literary Companion (1839-1847); Sep 2, 1843; 4, 52, the author describes in detail the superstitions surrounding vampire lore. It is mostly what we already know like stakes through hearts and pale skin, but it talks a bit more about the signs a corpse is a vampire like hair and finger nails continuing to grow. This article actually mentions another source's attempts to give scientific explanation of the "signs" of a vampire like an excess of saltpeter in the body. The author doesn't seem to think these explanations quite satisfy the vampire myth, but then again, neither do I.
(From: MALAY DEMONS AND WITCHES.: THE POLONG.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Exotic Erotic
You can lose yourself in the results of a key word search through early American periodical poetry-- especially when your keyword is "Arabian" and you time period 1820- 1860. I was struck by the focus on romantic and erotic love depicted both in poems attributed to Arab men, and in poems written by American women with a self-proclaimed Arabic theme. For one thing, I was surprised at the men and women who considered themselves expert enough after traveling amongst Arabs, to title their poems "Arab Song." Further, the sexualized characters in the poetry written by women surprised me. Were they simply mimicking other Arabic poems? Or was the title "Arabic Song" a safeguard, allowing them to write in a different character and thus not bound by social expectations? Many of the poems praise women and romantic love, depicting the love interest as a precious jewel, flower, and reason for man's living. The poems seem excessively romantic compared to other poems (even romantic British Victorian poems) and the sexual nature of the woman characters attractions seems less covert than the typical vague garden and fruit references in Victorian poetry. While other poems speak of an imaginary garden existing separate of the woman subject, these poems place the garden image as a part of the woman in a much less subtle way. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into them.
With all that said, I chose to look at a collection of several Arabic poems which appear crammed on a page in the Christian Spectator Apr 1, 1825 edition. Entitled "Specimens of Arabian Poetry" this page collects several incongruous poems including: "On Moderation in Our Pleasures," "On Avarice," "To a Friend on His Birthday," and "On a Cat That Was Killed as She Was Attempting to Rob a Dove House." The first of these poems is attributed to Abou Alcassim Eben Tabataba and has a very different tone than the romantic poems I found at first. In fact, all of these poems seem to be a direct rebuttal of the "othering" of Arabic people which occurs in the erotic and exotic romantic poems. In the first poem, the poet seems rational and fair, focused on monogamy and marriage rather than sexual pleasure in the first poem (an idea supported by Arabic symbols like a allusion to the wedding lamp, which is explained and underscored in an editorial footnote). In the second poem, by Hatem Tai (noted to be a generous Arabic chief) expounds on the temporary state of wealth-- a "you can't take it with you argument" which aligns neatly with Christian notions of charity and greed. The third poem "To a Friend on His Birthday," is short and sweet, depicting a kind of a toast to a friend, but with the caution to live "that at thy parting hour" your friends weep at your loss and you are rewarded or dressed in smiles after death. The final poem is, admittedly, the reason I selected this group. Any poem on the death of a cat is tops in my book. But this one is spoiled a bit by another editorial footnote (the editor really wants us to see the moral implications of these poems, I think. As a side note, the notes' font is larger than that of the poems... take that as you will). This note states: "The occasion of these verses and their real intent are variously related: but the opinion generally received is that they were composed by Abou Beor as an elegy, on the death of a friend who owed his ruin to the rash gratification of a headstrong passion." Really ruins the poem for me with that heady moral attached. In the poem, the narrator has a very jovial, humorous tone, sad about his loss of a cat, but accepting that she had to die because of her behavior. That is really scary, actually. Especially if we imagine the poem is symbolic of other particular life errors or sins. The idea that we just have to accept death as the punishment for falling for temptation seems a bit heavy for poetry. But what does this mean about the religious doctrine of the Christian Spectator?
More questions:
What was the goal of the Christian Spectator in presenting this alternative view of Arabic culture which is so closely aligned with Christian values? Why are they called specimens? Is this a reaction against the erotic nature of other examples? Is the Christian Spectator capitalizing on the fascination with the exotic Arabian in order to present Christain values and refute immoral insinuations of other texts?
With all that said, I chose to look at a collection of several Arabic poems which appear crammed on a page in the Christian Spectator Apr 1, 1825 edition. Entitled "Specimens of Arabian Poetry" this page collects several incongruous poems including: "On Moderation in Our Pleasures," "On Avarice," "To a Friend on His Birthday," and "On a Cat That Was Killed as She Was Attempting to Rob a Dove House." The first of these poems is attributed to Abou Alcassim Eben Tabataba and has a very different tone than the romantic poems I found at first. In fact, all of these poems seem to be a direct rebuttal of the "othering" of Arabic people which occurs in the erotic and exotic romantic poems. In the first poem, the poet seems rational and fair, focused on monogamy and marriage rather than sexual pleasure in the first poem (an idea supported by Arabic symbols like a allusion to the wedding lamp, which is explained and underscored in an editorial footnote). In the second poem, by Hatem Tai (noted to be a generous Arabic chief) expounds on the temporary state of wealth-- a "you can't take it with you argument" which aligns neatly with Christian notions of charity and greed. The third poem "To a Friend on His Birthday," is short and sweet, depicting a kind of a toast to a friend, but with the caution to live "that at thy parting hour" your friends weep at your loss and you are rewarded or dressed in smiles after death. The final poem is, admittedly, the reason I selected this group. Any poem on the death of a cat is tops in my book. But this one is spoiled a bit by another editorial footnote (the editor really wants us to see the moral implications of these poems, I think. As a side note, the notes' font is larger than that of the poems... take that as you will). This note states: "The occasion of these verses and their real intent are variously related: but the opinion generally received is that they were composed by Abou Beor as an elegy, on the death of a friend who owed his ruin to the rash gratification of a headstrong passion." Really ruins the poem for me with that heady moral attached. In the poem, the narrator has a very jovial, humorous tone, sad about his loss of a cat, but accepting that she had to die because of her behavior. That is really scary, actually. Especially if we imagine the poem is symbolic of other particular life errors or sins. The idea that we just have to accept death as the punishment for falling for temptation seems a bit heavy for poetry. But what does this mean about the religious doctrine of the Christian Spectator?
More questions:
What was the goal of the Christian Spectator in presenting this alternative view of Arabic culture which is so closely aligned with Christian values? Why are they called specimens? Is this a reaction against the erotic nature of other examples? Is the Christian Spectator capitalizing on the fascination with the exotic Arabian in order to present Christain values and refute immoral insinuations of other texts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)