Semester reflection

When reflecting on the semester, I realized that a prominent theme in our studies dealt with the downtrodden, rejected members of society. I began to wonder if this was coincidence that the most important literary pieces from the time period of the enlightenment came from many who were outcasts in one sense or the other. In some cases, the author represented the misfortunate character: Mary Wollstonecraft battled men's view of superiority over women, and Equiano personally was enslaved for most of his life. In other cases, however, the author simply took fascination with characters neglected by society, as in the case of Voltaire's Candide. Though the deists writing in this period were not necessarily neglected, they still represent a sense of the "other" from the norm during this period; Alexander Pope, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson and the other drafters of the Declaration of Independence all fit into this category.
Why is it that revolutionary and remembered pieces from an era come from those with such a different perspective than the rest of society? Could this trend signify the emphasis on equal rights and freedom of religion that now dominates our lawmaking in the 21st Century? I believe so, not only in the sense that these texts influenced their own time period, but in that they can still be referenced today, and can still inspire ideas in those seeking change within modern society.

The Journey of Equianos and Candide

Since we talked yesterday in class about possible essay questions for the upcoming exam, I thought it might be useful to expand on my specific essay topic: What comparisons can be made between the personal journeys of Candide and Equianos?

First of all, both Equianos and Candide were removed from their comfortable homes in a drastic manner. Candide gets kicked out for going too far with Cunegonde, while Equianos is kidnapped from his home village. They share the same feeling of uncertainty about their future, and the same sense of being lost. Both Equianos and Candide embark on epic adventures all over the world, and although they have different aims, they both search for happiness. Candide's happiness is represented in his reunion with Cunegonde, while Equianos works toward his freedom. Although both men eventually find what they are looking for, it is a long, strange trip for both, and the end never quite turns out the way it is supposed to. Candide finds Cunegonde and retires to a life of farmwork; however, Cunegonde is old and ugly, and his work is physically demanding. Similarly, Equianos buys his freedom and begins a life of public speaking, with his wife in England. But, Equiano's ultimate goal of the abolition of slavery is never accomplished. Although both men find what they are looking for in a sense, the journey that takes them there distorts their perfect ending.

Slave narrative

While reading the slave narrative by Olaudah Equiano, and in light of the packet we received in class on Thursday, I can't help but keep wondering WHY the Africans, of all people, took the brunt of this imposed slavery system. I know we mentioned the colonies of the English there, but could there be another reason?
I found this article basically outlining minority work in the US. After browsing through it, I realized that Africans were NOT the only ones forced into slave labor, although often they are the only ones considered when the topic of 'slavery' is brought up. However, can the flow of underpaid Asian immigrants into the US during the gold rush, or even the underpaid Hispanic population in the United States currently, really be considered fair working exchange? In a way, we haven't evolved completely away from the basic principles of slavery: unfair compensation for work, and poor working environments.

It's just American history

Before studying the Declaration of Independence this Tuesday, and hearing Professor Svelmo's (sp?) speech on the history of our founding fathers, I often approached American history with more than a little apprehension. European history is exotic, exciting...while American history seems mundane simply because the same subjects are stressed over and over again throughout an American's education.

However...I may give it another chance. The background of Thomas Jefferson's famous document holds SO much-his true background as a slave owner, his slightly arrogant attitude, his help from John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. All of these facts were overlooked in my previous studies of the matter, but I really think they make the document more personable, if that even makes sense. Jefferson wasn't some ideological figure; he was extremely intelligent, yes, but he struggled the same battle between his ideals and his ability to follow them completely, just the same as present Americans. In the same way, Adams seemed to struggle with his own shortcomings in the HBO series. While these personal traits may seem inconsequential to some, I think they make our American history, and forefathers, something we can share, and even relate to 200 some years later.

Candide: hero or humor?

Candide is one of the most interesting, and therefore questionable, characters we have encountered this fall. His struggle seems sympathetic; he is kicked unceremoniously from his home, forced to travel without means or money while believing those dear to him have died, and all the while keeps hope of returning to a state of happiness. To me, it seems like Voltaire is making fun of Candide, and in penning the Character, representing the whole human race of his world. Hope is for fools; however, Candide holds on, placing his trust in a divine purpose that he believes will guide him to success:

"Come on then", said Candide, "and let us put our trust in Providence." (p.43)

Is Candide's hope something to admire or look down upon? In today's world, optimism is compared to naivity; someone with Candide's outlook would be considered someone without world experience, and knowledge of life's trials. However, Candide's twist is that he DOES have knowledge of these trials, yet persistently hopes for the best. To me, this kind of 'optimism' is something Voltaire would encourage...while doubting that anyone could accomplish it.

Alexander Pope

First, I loved this reading! It seemed to pick up right where we left up, after reading Milton. Pope, to me, seems like he is rationalizing the way that God has set up the world for men to live in...much like Milton explained how Adam and Eve were responsible for the fall of man, and subsequent necessary salvation by Jesus. One line that really matched up:

"Weak, foolish man! will heaven reward us there
With the same trash mad mortals wish for here?
The boy and man an individual makes,
Yet sighest thou now for apples and for cakes?
Go, like the Indian, in another life
Expect thy dog, thy bottle, and thy wife:
As well as dream such trifles are assigned,
As toys and empires, for a God-like mind."

Pope is basically saying that man has no way of knowing what God has planned-crying over man's current state on Earth is pointless because Earth was never meant to be man's reward. Pope's subject matter was a popular one during the Enlightenment period; I found an article discussing Voltaire and Pope's relation, and often similar ideas, on the state of man during this time.

Innocence of Adam and Eve

After reading the unfortunate fall of Adam and Eve, I thought that the language shift that Milton uses to signify a change in circumstance was unique and actually really telling of the new situation. Before Eve eats the forbidden fruit, the words Milton uses in every sense portray the satiety that Adam and Eve feel in every aspect of their living.

Eve says, "And what is faith, love, virtue, unassayed,
Alone, without exterior help sustained?
Let us not then suspect our happy state
Left so imperfect by the maker wise
As not secure to single or combined.
Frail is our happiness if this be so,
And Eden were no Eden thus exposed." (p. 274)

To me, it seems here that Eve is saying to Adam that they already are happy (pre-fall), and that nothing can disturb that happiness because, in the end, God is sustaining and guiding them. However, after Eve partakes of the fruit, her words reveal her feelings of being lost, and of wanting more. On 287 the serpent alludes to this want, asking her why she shouldn't want a happier life. Later, Eve starts referring to the guidance of god as a prohibition that "binds" her and Adam (289). It's almost as if she truly has come to believe that God is her enemy, and not the serpent, in justifying her actions.